There's two distinctions I'd like to make first--there's history and then there's morality. The historical record, I'll be the first to admit, is complicated. Who did what when? as a response to what? Was it justified? etc, But on the other hand, the morality I think is very simple. Just look at the current situation of Israelis and Palestinians--who's killing, who's dying, who's dominant, who's relegated to an inferior status. At this point it is very, very clear--most Israelis live comfortably and most Palestinians don't. Look at the casualty rates for each side--it's like 7 to 1, and you know which side the 7's on and which side the 1, Then look at the level of poverty, etc--and there really is no comparison. The Palestinians have really suffered and Israelis can't equivocate. It is clear that the moral issue here is Palestinian suffering, and that is the focus for people who take a side in the conflict out of morality rather than national or ethnic chauvinism, or whathaveyou.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Belgian PM: Threat remains serious, but not as imminent as previously feared (Reuters)
from the article: How to tell when a Mideast Expert is lying
The Theory of General Relativity: a guide for the perplexed
Why did Einstein develop the theory? What is its actual significance? And what does all this have to do with black holes? Profs. Zohar Komargodski and Ofer Aharony explain Einstein’s theory.19:24 26.11.15 | 0 comments