Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP (splitters!) and parts of Fatah view all Israel as "occupied territory".
You think it is justified to target civilians, even children, if they are located in a territory that is disputed.
Palestinians have been engaging in terrorism for decades. They do not have much to show for it, except the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which begat more terrorism resulting in three military campaigns (2008, 2012 and 2014, are we due for another one?) and an ongoing success. Time to rethink that strategy I think.
It's not just that some Palestinians killed children, it's that these Palestinian terrorists are being glorified by the supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority. Did you read the article?
There is a difference between deliberate targeting of civilians and children and inadvertent casualties. Also, you have to be careful when looking at the numbers. If you define a child as anybody under 18, you will include a lot of combatants in the count.
The civilized world has come up with rules that govern conduct in armed conflicts. Why should Palestinians get a pass when they behave in uncivilized way?
It's not just that some Palestinians killed children, it's that these Palestinian terrorists are being glorified by the supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority. Did you read the article?
Abbas says one thing to the West, and the opposite to the Palestinians. Arafat in his day did the same.
There is a difference between deliberate targeting of civilians and children and inadvertent casualties. Also, you have to be careful when looking at the numbers. If you define a child as anybody under 18, you will include a lot of combatants in the count.
The civilized world has come up with rules that govern conduct in armed conflicts. Why should Palestinians get a pass when they behave in uncivilized way?
In these discussions there are two standards - one for Palestinians, and a much stricter one for Israel. You can see from this rush to excuse both murdering (murder implies a deliberate act) of children and the subsequent glorification of that atrocity by those who pretend to be "partners for peace".
I'm not member of any of those groups and I see no reason to subscribe to their delusions.
Children who are brought there by their parents as part of an illegal land theft, against Geneva Convention, are being used as human shields. The real target is their parents, and ultimately the occupier in general, but if the only way to get to them is to threaten or harm their children, that can't be helped. Besides, you feel the same way about Palestinian human shields killed by Israeli air strikes in Gaza, so get off your high horse.
Where I draw my morality on this matter is Kant's categorical imperative. And the "dicks, pussies and assholes" speech from Team America. Sometimes you have to solve situations with violence, but the rules when that is permissible should be such that it minimizes the overall violence and unfairness, most of the time. Some forms of violent resistance are legitimate, because if people aren't allowed to resist oppression, it rewards the oppressors and in general makes the world a shittier place for everybody.
Why does Israel? The civilized code of conduct regarding occupied territory is to do only what is necessary to keep the peace, and in particular not unilaterlly annex parts of the territory without valid military reason or a peace treaty. Another rule is that the occupier can't fuck up the demographics of the occupied territory by mass transfer of civilians. Any actions that might force Israel to comply with these rules and act like the rest of the civilized world are ok in my book
What rush? I condemned the Ma'lot massacre immediately. And there is no double standard, on the contrary my position comes from applying the same rules to both sides and following the same reasoning that allows Israel to defend itself to its logical conclusion.
It's no more evil than condoning Israeli air strikes against targets who are hiding behind human shields. Of course it is not a good thing when innocents end up being killed, but the main responsibility lies with whoever is using those children as shields, not the person pulling the trigger.
Laws and morality are two separate matters. Most international law is more of a suggestion and is unenforceable. That doesn't mean that we can't ponder what would be hypothetically a good way to handle various moral dilemmas. A guy charges at you with a knife, are you allowed to shoot him? Laws and courts in one country or state might say no, in another they might say yes, but we can always ask ourselves the hypothetical what should be allowed.
