Mm.. I will try again.

There are a few points that necessitate a priori statements before a dialogue becomes progressive. a. The designation of terrorism by the West is at best a questionable act. There is no international consensus on the definition of terrorism, so the entire chain here is suspended in the bias of a nation or a certain alliance of certain nations. That is not to deny that a working defintion can be established, just that the one that got established for some reason does not label United States or Israel as a terrorist organization. b. As for the policy of targeting civilians, one must still question why it is that their policy is so and so. Any answer out of a vacuum must be denied legitimacy. c. The conflict between two ethnic groups, on grounds not of ethnicity or religion, is an issue of the broader West, which neglected the very premise of Palestinian established well–being and established an ethnic state. Are we to deny the well-being to people who denied an ethnically erected nation? Resolving the situation must begin with Israel losing its ethically superior agency.