Goat wrotetrapt wroteIf some civilians die because of that, it's not the Palestinians' fault. It's not the oppressed's fault that they are oppressed and react to their situation.
I just don't get why being oppressed means it's morally ok to murder people who have nothing to do with your oppression other than living in the same country as the oppressors. Valuing freedom more than life is one thing, valuing your own freedom more than someone else's life is quite another. A impinging on B's freedom does not give B any moral right to kill C.
The argument is that oppression provides an insight into knowledge. That knowledge then translates into moral ground. Oppressors have a reason to avoid the truth. Oppression is heinous and perpetrating it isn't something that you really could live with. Hence you mask facts, you lie to yourself. The oppressed insofar as they are more concerned with trying to simply live have a perceptual clarity on social relations. They have no reason to paint someone as evil or less than human; they simply see the cold facts that they are being oppressed and who that oppressor is.
I see what you did there with the variables, but that isn't exactly the case. Israel's blockade and the ensuing starvation of Palestinian civilians is maintained through policies that essentially make it strategically acceptable to let them die. These policies are predicated on seeing Palestinians as subhumans. Given the aforementioned article's survey a large proportion of Israeli Jews feel that Palestinians are in fact subhuman. They are not such a clear cut C, distinct from B as you would like to make them. The military bombing by A ends, and C still elects and supports candidates that maintain the oppression of B.
The argument could be made that C is simply being duped by A, as A has duped itself. In that case, they would be siding with the oppressors and in this schema of violence that I buy into (Fanon's to be exact), the world quickly becomes good and evil, with us or against us. You might not like it, but that's the political theory account. There are some things worth dying for, and the flip side to that is that there are some things worth fighting back for, which may result in deaths. The conundrum is what is acceptable and what isn't. Stalinist genocide, not acceptable. Algerian resistance to French, acceptable. Palestinian rockets killing Israelis, I don't know if it's acceptable. I'm not in their shoes to know, I find it highly questionable that they are targeting Israeli civilians. In fact, some rockets are actually killing Palestinians insofar as the rockets are really shitty weapons. But they have to do something in order to capture the humanity that has been deprived of them. It is sad that Israeli civilians are being hit, but no more so than any life lost ever. The civilians condone their military's behavior when they don't resist it alongside the Palestinians. Some Jews do challenge it, though.
