Quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
You say specifically that if Palestinians carry out attacks (as in anyone who happens to be a Palestinian, whether or not they have state authority) then Isreal would have the right to respond militarily. Maybe this is just poor wording, but this paragraph seems to be at odds with what you actually meant according to your last post. Please clarify...
|
Well, obviously I was unclear. I did say:
Quote:
|
the Palestinians would be faced with having to curtail the terrorism or face a fate similar to Afghanistan's when it harbors terrorists
|
In this case I was speaking of our hypothetical Palestinian state when I said "Palestinians" and "it." Of course you cannot ascribe every individual's action to his or her government. However, if the government harbors, supports, or (quite possibly) is simply complicit to terrorists in its borders, Israel might be justified in viewing an attack as an act of war or at least going after the terrorists within the country's borders. That's what the US did with Afghanistan, and the world supported the action.
I put the "quite possibly" caveat in because I don't know how far down the line of culpability one would be able to go and still be able to justify linking the government to the actions of its nationals and terrorists in its borders. If our hypothetical Palestinian state were led by Yassir Arafat, would his level of complicity be enough to tie him to any terrorist acts? I don't know, but I think the view is generally held that he has a lot of ties to terrorist groups and doesn't try to reign them in very much at all.
Anyway, sorry for being unclear.