Naughty child, naughty parent?

Submitted by Tony C (United Kingdom), Sep 23, 2013 at 10:49

I disagree that this is an appropriate response. To me it seems that the Islraeli government is using the shooting of the Israeli soldier in two ways. One, to further their own agenda of building more settlements. And two, to de-incentivise the Palastinians from these sorts of attacks / murders.

To me, the response not doesn't just fail to address the root cause of the attack but it can also provoke further attacks as well as causing confusion in the eyes of many people and nations as to weather this is an appropriate response or a biased, convenient response to further the pre-existing objective of building settlements wrapped up and presented as an non-aggressive response.

A bit like a hungry, sweet-toothed father who says to his child at a dinner party full of guests "Right, now because you've mis-behaved I'm going to take away your sweets and eat them some of them myself". This may suit the father down to the ground but by the father choosing a punishment that satisfies his craving, this might cause doubt in the childs mind as whether the father chose that punishment because it fits the crime or weather he's metering out this munishment because he's hungry.

Wouldn't it be better to listen to the mother and simply lock the sweets away, rather than the father eating the sweets himself? The other dinner party guests might also prefer the option that still punishes but has less risk of provoking the child even more.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".