Breaking News: American Military kills 3 year old girl who was crossing the Mexican Border with her Family. They had an opportunity to just stop them, but instead decided to shoot at sight because they could have been terrorists.
Actually durvasa's analogy was more accurate. Yours is off on several points, at least when talking about putting someone in danger but responsibility for the attack still belongs on the attacker.
What can Israel do when the attackers continue to hide behind innocent civilians? It's a cycle that refuses to end.
It's insane and far fetched because Texas is not occupied, D.C. is no where as significant as Jerusalem, and Virginia is not being illegally blockaded. inb4 our resident Nazi construes my statement and says I support this tragedy.
How about not dropping one ton bombs indiscriminately...? How about not targeting terrorists when excessive civilian damage (life and property) is probable...? How about behaving like a civilized nation and actually adhering to the laws of war when engaging in armed conflict...? How many civilians die for every terrorist Israel kills...? 3? 5? 10? That's been the case for decades now. At the rate Israel takes out Hamas, I wonder how many Gazans will be left.
Maybe if the Palestinians would stop resorting to terror tactics, the peace process could have a legitimate chance. Instead, they only prop up those who support settlements. Stop being so one-sided.
The fact that you started your sentence off with "Maybe if the Palestinians" shows how one sided you are...
The confusion here is that we're talking about two different types of responsibility. (1) Responsibility via knowingly putting the victim in a vulnerable position (2) Responsibility via committing an offense that justified the attack as reprisal. If I was asserting responsibility of the latter kind, that would indeed take away responsibility from the attacker, perhaps completely. That's not what I'm talking about. I am saying, quite explicitly, that the terrorist attack is not justified. Others you're arguing with in this thread, I'm sure, would say the same. Ask them if you're in doubt. Asserting that there is responsibility of type (1) is absolutely fair, and it does not in any way absolve the attacker of his crime.
Israel can stop the illegal settlements. They can stop making laws that aren't for security but only to keep people of one ethnicity unequal, and agree to the 1967 borders and recognize a Palestinian state. Laws have recently changed regarding water rights but at one point the water allotment for Palestinians was different than for Israelis. Israeli settlers had water for pools, baths etc. and were allowed to drill new water wells. Palestinians weren't. Those laws aren't for security, but are problem. There's a military edict to destroy any business that can compete economically with Israeli businesses. If the Palestinians aren't allowed to prosper economically they are being kept poor, and poor people who are oppressed like that don't make the best neighbors. I could list more and more oppressive things Israel does that has nothing to do with Israel's security. Israel could stop using human shields, killing civilians(Israel has killed many more civilians the Palestinians have), and they've torn down homes and kept Palestinians in apartheid like conditions. The problem is the Palestinians have leadership and groups that use terrorism as a means to try and reach their end. That puts a lot of the injustices done to the Palestinian people on the back burner. Though it's hard when they were promised land for peace gave peace for over a year, and still had more land taken from them and were giving nothing.
You are not, but a large percentage of the Palestinians (e.g. those who are not opposed to suicide bombings) are. They say that the attack is justified because Israel built the settlements, blocked Gaza (etc.). You are not saying that the attack is justified because Israel built the settlements, blocked Gaza (etc.), but you are saying that it is the cause for the attack. Very similar arguments - dangerously similar. No, it is not fair. Again, by your logic, one should give in to demands in order to not put people in a dangerous position, otherwise one is the cause for what happens to them. That logic opens the door for blackmailing with the threat of terror.
This is a good post. I'm with you on a lot of it. My point at the beginning of all this is that uprising through violent means only hurts the Palestinians and prop up extremists on both sides. We're talking about a landmass the size of Rhode Island and then throwing two huge populations that genuinely hate one another into it and attempting to force them to get along. There are certain countries that have a vested interest in this armed conflict and they must be stopped before things can get better.
Or read where other posters have said things like nothing excuses terrorism or that it's never justified. Instead ATW sees people talking about solutions and he doesn't feel enough time and effort has been spent saying terrorists are bad.
In the quote above, you will find all you need to know about ATW. He can't separate terrorists from Muslims. Arabs from Palestinians. Palestinians from Hamas/Fatah. Israelis from the Israeli government. Settlers from regular Israelis. In this thread, if you are bothering to discuss anything with him, don't forget this gigantic cloud that comes with the conversation, in summary: ATW believes the Israeli government is the victim in this crime.
There is a stark difference between saying the attack is justified and saying in no uncertain terms it is unjustified. That said, it is undoubtedly a cause -- one would have to shut off part of their brain and ignore clear-cut facts to say otherwise. It does not follow that if A (in part) causes B, B is now (in part) morally justified. If a particular action has the likely consequence of encouraging more threats of terror (hence making the people less secure), then it should be reconsidered. But you already acknowledged that settlement building has a negative impact on Israel's security, so this to me seems a moot point. Do you believe that Israel is somehow reducing terrorist attacks/threats by continuing to build settlements? If so, please explain.
Once again, in your twisted view of the world, you are making up lies about what I supposedly believe. The reality is that the Palestinians who murdered innocent civilians once again are the ones who cannot separate the Israeli government from Israeli civilians. Their hate extends to Israeli civilians - to such an extent that they murder them. And you try to pin the blame for it on Israel.
You ROCK for digging yourself a hole. 1) Did you or did you not say that I am placing the blame on the victim? Yes you did. 2) Who is the victim? Israeli civilians. This means one of two possibilities can exist. 1) Either I have said somewhere in this thread that I blame the civilian victims of this terrorist attack for being attacked (which I didnt); or 2) .. the only place I have assigned blame is to the Israeli government's recent politics. Therefore, the only possibility is that you have equated the target of my criticism with the victims of this terrorist attack = Israeli government is the victim. You choose out of the next 3 logical possibilities: A) You are a liar. B) You consider the Israeli government to be victims. C) You will foolishly deny the blatant truth, compounded by the fact that you have made different accusations towards me than you have towards others with the exact same opinion in this thread. Thanks for playing.
I already answered this question. Now you answer this question please: Do you see that the only difference between the argument you are making and the argument Hamas is making is that you say Israel's actions are the cause (but not the justification) for the terror against their civilians, whereas they also say it is the justification? Do you realize how dangerously close both arguments are?
