Ok, so explain this one to me. Palestinian terrorists are applauded and made martyrs for suicide bombings which kill Israeli civilians. Their deaths are celebrated as great, joyous events. The Israeli government responds to the persistent acts of Palestinian terrorism by killing a leader of the Hamas (and apparently a number of Palestinian civilians; Israel should apologize for those innocent deaths and Israel should face some punishment if it is established that the military didn't do everything in its power to avoid civilian casualties). Members of Hamas vow vengeance upon Israel. They vow to seek revenge for the deaths by those caught in the Israeli bombings. They say that Israel's attack on Palestinians is unjustified. But notice that the Palestinians vow revenge against Israel because a terrorist was killed and innocent civilians were killed. But what about those innocent (Israeli) civilians (whose deaths they cheer!!) and the dead suicidal terrorists who died acting out of hatred and ignorance? In other words, once you lower the standard for civilized behavior, i.e. declare that it is morally ok to kill innocent people, that the "ends justify the means," then how can you declare outrage when some innocent people of your own kind get killed? I mean, this is logically inconsistent. Either life is valuable or it is not. Either an innocent person's death is merely a footnote to the moral crusade for a Palestinian state, or it is to be condemned. Sharon should apologize for the innocent Palestinians' deaths. These deaths are the tragic result of a war that has lasted too long. I would be a hypocrite to condemn Palestinian suicide terrorists while condoning Israeli attacks against civilians. The evidence suggests that the Israeli military was targeting a dangerous center of Hamas' activity, and the innocent casualties were a by-product of this goal. But suppose that the Israelis actually aimed straight for women, children, and the elderly. If it's morally ok for the Palestinians to intentionally target civilians, then the Israelis should be equally justified in targeting civilians. Of course, I do not condone terrorism under any circumstances, nor do I condone evil acts against civilians. Which is why both acts are wrong. But the Palestinians frankly have no moral grounds with which to argue that what the Israelis did was "wrong". In fact, shouldn't the Palestinians be applauding the Israelis for the great target abilities? Hell, the Israeli military got a few civilians--too bad they couldn't get a few more! My point should be obvious. Once a group of people decide that the most uncivilized, barbaric behavior is morally acceptable--nay, encouraged--then that group of people loses the moral battle. Once one side decides that "anything goes"--that their goals outweigh any cost to humanity--then that side of the battle has lost all integrity, all moral justification. Hitler rejected the laws of civilization in exchange for a path of destruction. It appears that the Palestinians have done so also. I believe that this tactic will be their ultimate downfall, for they will have destroyed themselves (not to mention their credibility and integrity) by rejecting Civilization. The Palestinians claim that they want their independence; they want a nation of their own. And yet those in charge are utterly unwilling to play by the rules of civilized men. Until they decide that they will join the rest of mankind by embracing civilization, they can hardly expect to be treated as though they did.