Actually, you don't appear to have standards.So you are fine with blowing up the wife and kids.See 'Basic Moral Question' in the opening post.
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: There is no such thing as a Universal Moral Standard. What is acceptable is determined differently in each area, demographic or another rendering. The official power to make legal decisions and judgments varies among jurisdictions and sovereignties.
Moral Codes generally drive Judgments, but laws must be enforceable. Even in the most radical Islamic Religious enforcement systems, the enforcement of criminal law and moral (religious) law are separated.
(COMMENT)Can you morally justify bombing family homes wiping out entire families?
In the case of "terrorism" and the countermeasures applied against terrorism are set by defined standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is acceptable within that venue or jurisdiction.
In the case of a State that faces an adversary that has little regard for human life, and deliberately attacking civilians are committing acts of terror. As a general rule, the law of armed conflict prohibits the intentional targeting and attacks on civilians. This would be committing criminal acts intended to provoke fear and terror in the general the civilian population (considered protected) political purposes. This would include such act supporting National Liberation Movements (NLMs). Such acts are unjustifiable. It does not matter whatever what invoked the action.
Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism said:United Nations solemnly reaffirm their unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomever committed, including those which jeopardize the friendly relations among States and peoples and threaten the territorial integrity and security of States;SOURCE: A/RES/49/60
There is no equivocation here. If you cross that line, there is no coming back morally under the current climate. The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) cannot claim (with their track record and intentional violations of Customary and International Humanitarian Law) that Israel is immoral because they conduct operations against necessary targets that kill civilians incidental to the operation → yet the HoAP have conducted intentional targeting of protected civilians for more than half a century.
◈ The HoAP cannot throw a flag on the play and cry foul when they intentionally locate military objectives within or near densely populated areas.◈ The HoAP cannot throw a flag on the play and cry foul when they intentionally introduce civilians under its control in the vicinity of military objectives.
The question becomes an issue of equality. Should the Israelis treat the Arab Palestinian population in the same fashion and with the same blatant disregard for human life as they treat Israeli civilians?
The answer (of course) is no! Israel cannot act with the same callous disregard for human life that the HoAP show.
Most Respectfully,
R
I think we have different standards of morality.