Not sure why Israelis, citizens of an internationally-recognized country in its 7th decade, should have less right to protect themselves than colonial Americans. But yes, violence alone doesn't make one a terrorist: that would be violence deliberately targeting civilians to create fear and influence policy. In this case, it's hard to believe the rocket attacks are done but for any reason besides provoking retaliatory attacks that kill Palestinians and create political pressure on Israel. In short, in the past, Hamas's political tool was dead Israelis. In the current conflict, it's dead Palestinians: self-terrorism with help from Israel.
It's not that I agree with TNF on Hamas but, in which book is written that "the right to protect themselves" justify state terrorism? Because a democratic and "internationally-recognized" state is supposed to fight terrorism by 'legal' and 'proportionate' means, instead of bombing hospitals or killing kids while they play football on a beach. Such retaliations are not only criminal and obscene, they do nothing to protect the citizens of Israel from Hamas rockets. Talking of 'human shields' in this context is nothing but a macabre joke. It's possible that you are right in saying that Hamas provokes retaliatory attacks in its own benefit, but it's hard to believe that the same retaliation is nothing but another 'political tool'. I don't understand how some people can call on others to condemn Hamas when, on the other hand, justify the Israeli government in the name of the right to 'self-defense'.
Violence is only justified if the person you are fighting against will not respond dialogue/non-violent action. I believe the Israelis would respond to dialogue/non-violent action. There's no way to know though because the Palestinians have never tried it.
Are you joking? It was tried in the 90's and worked until those extremists settlers assassinated Rabin.
It sounds like a joke, indeed.
Poll
