One *could*, of course, argue somewhat immaturely that "they started it". The terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and the terrorists who are engaged in suicide attacks in Israel began by blowing up innocents whose crime was nothing more than to be citizens or residents of the country that they have decided is the "enemy". Of the 3,500 or so people who died in the WTC, it's unlikely that any one of them had anything directly to do with conditions in the Middle East. Likewise with the innocent people who have died in Israel over the past couple of weeks.
Of course, the ancient adage the "two wrongs do not make a right" applies just as much here as it ever has. I would personally much rather see the "civilized" nations of the world decide to take the moral high road and proclaim that just because the terrorists have killed or injured hundred or even thousands of innocent people, we are better than they are and can refrain from doing the same thing. But going back to the "eye for an eye" argument, if the terrorists felt justified in killing people who were only vaguely associated with the conditions of the Palestinians, then perhaps we can feel justified in killing people who were only vaguely associated with the terrorists. Is it just? No. Is it rational? Probably, but only barely. To me, the most rational and just course of action would be to focus more time, energy, and other resources on eliminating the conditions that give rise to terrorist tendencies in the first place. (On another note, I believe that Usama bin Laden is an awful waste of intelligence and charisma; imagine that kind of driven personality and capability to guide other people focused on rebuilding the infrastructure and forging peace throughout the Middle East instead of on a suicidal campaign against the most powerful military forces in the world.) If we really want to live by "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", then, as Tevya noted, "Soon the entire world will be blind and toothless." At 08:37 AM 12/17/2001, you wrote: >I agree with that. However, the issue is not whether or not killing a >person is worse than destroying people's homes. The issue is about >punishing innocent people for the crimes of their relatives. > >When Israeli's get killed by a Palestinian, the Israeli army destroys the >homes of that Palestinian's relatives, even if they have not committed an >act of terrorism themselves. Ilana seems to think there is nothing wrong >with that, but at the same time seems to believe that it would not be >justified if the Palestinian Authority would do exactly the same thing: >destroy the homes of an Israeli soldier's relatives when that soldier has >killed a Palestinian. > >That is the symmetry I was talking about, not any symmetry between killing >people and destroying people's homes. > > >Jeroen Sliante, Richard S. Crawford http://www.mossroot.com AIM: Buffalo2K ICQ: 11646404 Y!: rscrawford MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It is only with the heart that we see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." --Antoine de Saint Exup�ry "Push the button, Max!"
