Pretexts, pretexts.

To suggest that the current government of Israel by its actions is not helping the progress towards peace with its neighbors, especially Palestine, might be characterised from another perspective as not "bashing" Israel at all. While Israel enjoys US support, it cannot be a blind kind, nor should it encourage actions that are not in the best interest of the US (and of Israel itself, for that matter).

Because Hamas was unaware of all of the **** Israel has been pulling recently until Obama said something about it :/

I think that you are seriously over estimating how important having Obama's consent is to Hamas.

Hamas doesn't need Obama to declare intifada's against Israel. It was gonna happen anyways. Seeing as how they hate America for supporting Israel and whatnot I don't think I'd be crazy to say I don't think Hamas gives two shits about whether we approve of what they do or not.

Of course they don't. But that's not the point. Obviously they prefer to attack when Israel's relations with the United States are under great strain, as they are now, and as Obama made sure to publicize. The question is whether Obama understands the consequences of his action. It is that which is dubious.

No, but Obama's hostility against Israel gave Hamas a free pass to do what it wanted to do anyway. That is what a pretext is.

There is a pattern here.

I am beginning to think, oh, here it is...

You aren't too fond of Obama!

It is the easiest thing in the world to be too fond of Obama.

Now there is a good reason to leave all Negro people unelected, and I admit it is a subtle difference from the rest of us, but their hostility is clearly clear now that you mention it, and no one could ever accuse a child of Israel of that... I say: Elect the Jews, and select the Negroes for low paying meaningless jobs, but give them rent money to pay for drugs or to their dear landlords, who may all be, for all I know, members of one tribe or another...

Now there is a good reason to leave all Negro people unelected, and I admit it is a subtle difference from the rest of us, but their hostility is clearly clear now that you mention it, and no one could ever accuse a child of Israel of that... I say: Elect the Jews, and select the Negroes for low paying meaningless jobs, but give them rent money to pay for drugs or to their dear landlords, who may all be, for all I know, members of one tribe or another...

Users are expected to refrain from statements that are bigoted or stereotypical. Examples of this may take many forms but is primarily concerned with unwarranted whole-group judgments of people in an insulting, derisive or negative fashion. It is based on the principle that people (each with their own individuality) make up such groups. For example the statement, "Conservatives are angry, bitter people" ignores the fact that each 'Conservative' decides his or her own behavior and may or may not be "bitter". To judge them en-mass is simply unethical. Regardless of how true someone thinks such proclamations are, posting them hamstrings the communicative process and nearly always ends in senseless bickering (which has no place in the philosophical realm).
Debate and explore controversial ideas, by all means! But do so in a fashion that:

1. Is polite.
   
2. Respects the individual differences between people -and-
   
3. Refrains from condemning based upon arbitrary categorization.
   

The rules about bigotry and stereotyping still apply. In case anyone may have forgot (or more likely never read the rules), feel free to vist the "rules" link located at the bottom of this post. Fido, to give you the benefit of the doubt, you would have to clarify this post.

And for those who may not have read the bigotry and stereotyping clause of the forum rules, please read.

It is paradoxical that the very one who accuses others of racism are, themselves, the stereotypers, and the bigots, as evidenced by their accusations.