Except that they're building houses on the land; not just barracks and bunkers... Your "defense" argument implies that they aren't using the land for any other purpose. Would you move your family onto land you're using strictly for military posturing? They're taking the land because they want it. There's nothing wrong with that; my only problem is the weak claims being made to justify that fact.
It would not mater if they were building a Disney world. The goal is to remove Palestinian controlled structures that can be used for cover, and replace them with Israeli controlled structures, fences, or open areas. No one builds barracks directly on military borders since the Romans did in Gaul and Britain. The goal is to deprived cover for snipers and kidnappings and that is what has been accomplished. The most well known example is the West Bank. Israel respected the west bank's neutrality in the 1948 mandate. However Jordan (as usual for Israel's neighbors) did not and took over the west bank in defiance of legal UN mandates. The area was used to stage not just sniping and kidnapping but actual military attacks. The neutral city of Jerusalem was taken over and used as a Muslim base and staging area. Israel finally had enough and took over the region in the 6-day war. The geography of the area meant that the west bank is the only cover for quite a way in the area. If Israel could control it they would be far less vulnerable to cowardly attacks. Same with the canal at one point, or the Sinai at another, Golan heights, and villages along trails where supplies came in from the coast prior to the 60's.
No, I haven't chosen sides at all. I don't acknowledge Israel's "right" to exist, just as I don't acknowledge Palestine's. I'm not denying the existence of Israel. That in no way means I find either side to be in the right. I need no justification for my view.
You do in the fact that you deny them the right to bomb those weapons used to try and destroy them, take over land used to launch invasions against them, or to deprive structures used to attack them from their enemies.
Again with the baseless assumptions... I don't insist people respect anything. My property and life are anybody's for the taking if they're brave enough to try and strong/smart enough to succeed, as are yours. My property is only mine because I say it is and nobody has taken it from me, and the same goes for my life. The right to property and life is an illusion.
I agree rights if God does not exist are subjective illusions but you will never convince me you do not value protection under the law. Almost no one is actually a true anarchist.
The existence of objective morality can hardly be called a "fact", let alone an obvious one. The fact that you believe in something doesn't make it true.
Virtually everyone on Earth believes objective morality is true even if they deny they do. I can follow all but the most self destructive psychopath around for a few hours and point out many judgments they made based on assuming objective values exist. However my complain was not that our moral systems are inconsistent but that you inconsistently claim killing civilians is wrong no matter the intent and then in the next paragraph insist nothing is wrong. In one sentence Palestine has the right to fight for land, in the next Israel should not even deny them the places they stole and used to assassinate civilians. However this is not what I was speaking about in my claim. It was that with such a person as you no common ground may be found to settle any issue. Everything to you is a moving target and nothing but uncertainty is certain.
Whether someone is charged with murder or manslaughter, the fact remains that they killed someone. Unintentional loss of life is still loss of life. That's the only argument I made; the rest is your twisted interpretation of my simple statements.
Yes two things many times have commonalities and dissimilarities. You pointed out the commonality but deny the distinction. That is not the argument you have made. The issue in this context is the despicable targeting intentionally of children and the unavoidable killing of children when cowards use them as human shields.
I don't see how intentionally launching a barrage of missiles (whether it is done in justifiable retaliation or not) can be likened to accidentally dropping a plastic bag.
I never said they were. I was trying to use the most extreme example I could think of to point out what the relevant issues are to a person who apparently will not get more subtle points.
You make it seem as if the Israelis have never fired a shot in anger.
Quote anything I have said in this entire forum that suggests this.
Defense would be shooting the rockets down before they hit their targets.
Now that that technology exists Israel has spent the billions to do just that.
Launching missiles back is retaliation, and is far from accidental.
My goodness!!! I never said the response was accidental. Where do you get this stuff? I said the collateral damage was not intentional. You say you take no side and then use paragraph after paragraph to do just that. Israel started off with nothing yet their enemies had billions. Their enemies are still firing primitive weapons at civilians on purpose and Israel built the greatest nation in the area and has developed passive methods of response to despicable acts and it is they who you condemn. What planet is this?
Though they might not have targeted civilians specifically, the fact remains that they intentionally launched missiles and civilians died.
Says the guy who defends the right to fight. I guess only Palestine's offensives are right and Israel has no right to even defend their civilians.
The Israelis are just as responsible for every Palestinian life taken as the Palestinians are for every Israeli life taken.
However they are morally justified and Palestine is not.
It has nothing to do with right or wrong. If I'm playing Russian roulette and end up shooting myself in the head, am I less responsible for my death even though I intentionally pulled the trigger?
Nothing has to do with right or wrong in your view. They do not exist. In fact if God does not they can't. Like I said in a conversation with someone that thinks like that no common ground is possible and that is probably the convenient intention. You can't fix what the other won't admit is broken.
I never said that. I said human life has equal value when you equated killing Palestinians to running a dog over. Not once did I say it's wrong to kill people, nor that I think children are more important than anyone else.
Prove that human life has any value without God. Every society distinguishes between justified killing and intentional murder, and between acts in defense of life and acts intended to take innocent life. Find a statement I have made anywhere that equates taking of human life to taking a dog's life. Just because you hold no firm moral convictions you can't draw mine for me.
I didn't make any moral claims. I said you can't kill something that isn't alive yet. As much as you would love it to be otherwise, a fetus isn't alive until around the 24th week of pregnancy, at which point it is illegal to get an abortion, except in emergency cases where the mother's life is threatened.
In what way is any stage of a fetus not alive. I do not care what some adulterous politician declares legal it makes nothing moral and it sure does not make it non-life.
No I don't. I said their actions aren't any more right or wrong than the Palestinians' are. And again, they're not stopping the rockets; they're killing the people shooting them and everyone around them.
In what universe is shooting the person aiming rockets at your children unjustified.
I never said the Israelis shouldn't fight; I said they shouldn't act as if they're superior or fighting for a better reason.
They are and so should say so. As I have stated and you have not even attempted to contend they hold the right in every category by which the ownership of that land is determined. Your argumentation is just plain weird and extremely inconsistent.
Of course you do... Because you're the moral authority and everyone that disagrees with you is evil.