-
Yes, I can see that I explained myself poorly, so let me have one more go before I delete my account and never visit this website again (which would be a shame because, you know, buying and selling bits of bikes etc...)
I think another way of looking at what I was trying to say is this:
When people react to something like war in the Middle East by saying "oh but it's all so complicated isn't it?" and part of what they mean is "you're not going to get me to condemn Israel, and here's a good rhetorical shield to help me with that", they strictly meant to say "it's all so complex", i.e. It's completely impossible to untangle so (hand-wave) we can't apportion blame or reliably say that one side has the advantage of a huge asymmetry of political and military power and thus also a higher burden of responsibility for the ultimate volume of blood shed. So the situation is complicated, but that word just doesn't mean what they think it means, or justify what they think it justifies.gets coat
leaves forum
E11_FTW-
Yeah I just don't know if I agree. I don't think you can as easily apportion blame (to be clear, I think there is plenty of blame, I just don't find it as easy to say "well Israel has more firepower therefore always gets the blame").
I think it's possible to simultaneously think that (1) Israel is entitled to be a state and to defend itself, and it isn't a misreading of history to feel that Jews as a people have been historically persecuted and therefore are at risk; (2) the way it has done so has, at least some of the time, been unacceptably brutal; but (3) they are correct to feel threatened as there are those out there who don't accept their right to a state and wish them harm.
Maybe that means I'm one of those people you refer to above. I'm happy to condemn Israel for the things it has done wrong, but I don't think that means (as many on this thread appear to) that this is unequivocally a case of "Israel bad and that's all that matters"
andyfallsoff
I guess I just think the examples you give are terrible! Can you really say that Israelis or Palestinians know the impact of their policy? Israel doesn't know whether using more force on Palestine will prevent attacks from Hamas or provoke them; similarly it doesn't know if giving more freedom would lead to peaceful coexistence or mean they are more susceptible to attacks from some of those who don't think the Israeli state should exist.
Hamas don't know what the reaction will be to an attack - they can guess it will provoke a violent reaction, but how far, and what will the international reaction be?
The idea this is complicated but somehow all utterly predictable and capable of being modelled as it has direct consequences just seems wrong