|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Jihad: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
There are policies, like settlements, water policies, seizing civilian private property (i.e. homes), enforcing harsh second-class-citizen status, and a number of economic policies which have direct and severe effects on civilians--and I would argue, encourage the Palestinian suicide bombers. Many of these existed before the conflict re-erupted, so they are not part of a policy against Palestinian militants today. This is a kind of violence that does in fact target the civilian population. Perhaps the issue is a difference of belief between you and I in what constitutes "violence." The gestalt (can I use that word?) effect is grinding down the civilians. Stopping ambulances seems to be a device of terror. Missiles, which are not implements of surgery, operate similarly. This tone was set up very early on in the renewed conflict by Israel. I am measuring Israel by its effect on civilians. Your position (I think) measures Israel primarily by its public intention, and is one interpretation of several operations of the military. I would submit that you really can't trust Israel's announced intention. They have a lot of reasons to put on a face. Look at the history of Israel's leader. Why do you have such (dare I say it) "faith" in the pure intentions of Israel with regard to Palestinian civilians? Because of a few military operations? Furthermore, if as you say, the line between noncombatant and combatant is blurred, then clearly, Israel is targeting civilians since distinguishing between the two is impractical (whatever their intention otherwise). Nor do I think it is fair to support Israel and write off the majority of Palestinians for the acts of relatively few individuals. Supporting Israel ignores the vast majority of people who are innocent here. —"The Hag"
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
