You understand that the settlements are built on land promised to the Palestinians.
Actually, I don't understand that. Promised by whom, under what conditions? And even if such a promise were at some point made, there is certainly an argument to be made that the perpetuation of violence and the clear involvement of the Arafat government, to which presumably such a promise would have been made, would change the situation. If you promise land for peace, and get only violence, not peace, then the promise seems voided.
It seems you are siding with King George as opposed to the American colonists.
I'm siding with the rights of women and children not to be blown up indiscriminately. If the settlers were invading the Palestinian camps with suicide bombs I would condemn that. But they aren't.
I don't recall that the American colonists had a policy of sending young men and women off to blow up places where the families of British gathered. If they had, I would certainly have been on the side of any authority which tried to stop such bombings.
I'm disappointed that you apparently believe that these acts are somehow equatable with the acts of our colonists in tossing tea in the ocean, and the acts of an army fighting against paid soldiers in a declared war. I, frankly, do not see them as even remotely the same thing. |
