Often following a terrorist attack, one is urged to condemn, clearly and unequivocally, the violent injustice of such an attack.  No ifs, no buts!  To condmenn without any doubt as to the illegality of a terrorist attack is of course without question, but when we are not allowed to address the issues surrounding it, it smacks of hipocrisy, especially coming from a government which routinely sanctions the intentional shooting of children, as is well-documented by many journalists in the Western media - and yet always demands that we see the bigger picture of 'the threat of Palestinian terrorists'!

Yet if we go down that road, it becomes a 'chicken-and-egg' scenario.  Who started it?  Palestinians claim this was retaliation for attacks on their cities, Israelis claim they were retaliating strikes on settlers (don't you mean 'illegal occupiers')?

So where do we start?

It's no disputed fact that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory; the new Kadima government has clearly stated that they intend to incorporate parts of this permanently under the Israeli state.  Since the 'democratic' state of Israel has already established that Israel remains a Jewish land that gives priority to their own, with nothing in the way of real opposition from the international community, would it be politically incorrect for me to mention that people under such oppression forego consideration of innocent lives?

You can reason with Palestinians that live far from oppression.  You can talk about diplomacy and pressure from the international community till the cows come home.

But if you think you can easily dissuade a suicide bomber from carrying out irrational acts when he or she can't see past the oppression of his family, and the persistent attacks from the so-called Israeli 'Defence' Force, you've obviously been watching too much TV.

---