Simply put, assassination is, by far, the most moral tool in conducting military conflicts between nations
First off, let’s dispense with sugarcoating and linguistic chicanery: the point and purpose of war is to kill people and break things. That destruction may be in the service of any number of strategic goals, but the point of going to war is to bring martial force to bear. For offensive, or defensive reasons, nations unleash martial force when there are people they wish to kill, and/or things they wish to destroy. The fundamental nature of war cannot be avoided.
“Since the truce began, militants have launched some 40 rockets and mortars into southern Israel. Though the makeshift Qassam rockets are seldom lethal, and have caused few injuries, they enrage the Israelis. But Israel has so far refrained from firing back, so the truce is more or less holding.” http://www.economist.com/node/12010165
In a conflict like the one between Israel and Palestine, there are no easy answers, and monocausal narratives casting one side as villains and the others as saints, are beyond merely counterproductive. I’ve argued before, and I’d argue again, that the US should demand a hard freeze on Israeli settlement growth, measured in square nanometers of geographic expansion. The penalty for refusal would be the immediate cessation of any and all aid, and immediately calling in any and all outstanding loans. I’ve argued that Israel should use a ‘carrot and stick’ approach and help to make the West Bank prosperous and attractive in order to show those people ruled over by Hamas that peace is possible… if they slit a few Hamas throats along the way. Because in the end, the solution must come from both the Israeli and the Palestinian people.
In this situation, the history lesson is essential for the debate, and is indeed part of it. Being ignorant of the fundamental history and current events is a bit like seeing a man with a gun standing over another man cowering on the ground, and without finding out whether or not he’d just disarmed the guy on the ground or if he was mugging the guy on the ground, you throw him in prison.
The point of the history lesson, if you will, is to add essential information to the debate about how an effective peace plan can be reached.
I support a negotiated peace settlement with equitable agricultural, water, fishing, airspace, and territorial rights.
Please keep that in mind through the following.
There’s a bit of semantic chicanery that always annoys me. Not, mind you, because it’s some sort of devastating logical counter, but because it’s the equivalent of the I’m-not-touching-you game. It’s the puerile belief that they’re somehow getting one over on you by the transcendent alchemy of rebranding.
So I’ve coined the Murder One fallacy. It’s an informal rhetorical fallacy that goes a bit like this: “Sure I thought about killing him for weeks, planned it out, and I not only hated that bastard, I was glad he was dead after I ambushed him….but it’s absurd and dishonest of you to claim I just admitted to first degree murder!”
Truly, your clever ruse has me beaten and bereft, worthy opponent.