Dr Clam said:
You're still trapped in that "moral equivalence" "cycle of terror" mindset. It does not map well to reality. There is a basic asymmetry between what the average Israeli wants and what the average Palestinian wants, as I said before. Only when you accept that as a fact can you hope to make progress, whether you are the Secretary General of the UN or a harmless blogger...
Well, that's where you're wrong. I don't think there is *any* moral equivalence between the two "sides" of this war. I think Israel not only has a right to make military strikes against suspected terrorists as it does, but has an inherent duty to its citizens to do it. What I am saying is that it actually takes Israel further away from what its citizens would consider a win. Conversely, the palestinians only get mileage from a terrorist strike if there is severe enough retribution returned (or if it scuttles any peaceful initiative in advance of the possibility). Even you would agree that the military value of killing dozens of citizens is very small in a traditional military war.
1 comment:
I am very glad to be wrong in this instance! Do you notice that you have implicitly assumed my definition of what an Israeli win would constitute, since striking against suspected terrorists anyplace, anytime, is certainly acting towards the "denying the Palestinians what they want" war aim? :)
Post a Comment