A basic principle is being ignored in all the attempts to justify the ongoing crimes against western industrial civilization being committed in the Middle East. A great deal of effort is being expended trying to establish the illusion of moral equivalence between the opposing sides. But in their tortured perversions of logic, these attempts ignore the basic functions and requirements of civilization, and make ending the violence impossible.
The media is saturated with attempts to frame the conflict within the western concepts of human and civil rights, and in so doing runs roughshod over the actual issues being contested. Human and civil rights are solely and exclusively the products and functions of western industrial civilization. These rights can only exist in the minds of enlightened individuals capable of understanding the profound benefits that are only possible through the intentional creation of an artificial civilization based on the concepts of human and civil rights. These concepts don't exist in the natural world. The concept that an antelope might possess civil rights is meaningless to a hungry lion. They are artificial principles that exist only among civilized peoples who mutually cooperate to give them existence.
The key to understanding the seeming intractable violence in the middle east is to first understand that the fundamental concepts of human and civil rights can only exist within the civilization that gives them meaning. They don't exist in our world today outside of western industrial civilization, or in the absence of western industrial civilization. Other civilizations may have attempted to create similar concepts, but none have even come close to the level of enlightenment and implementation in the real world that western industrial civilization has achieved. As such, these profound concepts, which arguably represent the historic "high-water mark" of human enlightenment, can only be meaningful within the context of the active contributing participants of what remains of western industrial civilization.
One of the most offensive tactics currently being used to attack western industrial civilization is the attempt to arbitrarily extend the rights and benefits of contributing participants to those seeking their destruction. A particularly offensive ploy has been the attempt to claim there is some kind of "moral equivalence" between the tragic premeditated murders of Israeli children who are loved and cherished by their parents, and the intentional deaths of the disposable human bomb triggers that are routinely used to commit those premeditated murders.
The Israelis clearly love and cherish their children. They invest a great deal of effort into protecting them from harm, and preparing them to become contributing adult members of western industrial civilization. Israeli children have become a prime target for Islamic terrorists specifically because the civilized Israelis place such a high value on their children.
The degenerate Islamic death-cult places no value on life - only on death in the service of malignant evil. Palestinian children are clearly considered by their own parents to be little more than disposable human bomb triggers to be sold for profit to the malignant evil seeking to destroy western industrial civilization. They make no effort to love and cherish their disposable human bomb triggers, protect them from harm, or to prepare them to be contributing adult members of civilization. They raise their disposable human bomb triggers on a steady diet of irrational hate-driven perversions of reality, and put all of their "parenting" efforts into making sure their offspring are totally incompatible with the civilized world. The only marketable skill they teach their disposable human bomb triggers is how to die in ways that cause the maximum grief and hardship to the contributing participants in civilization.
How can there be any "moral equivalence" between the treasured victims of racist hate-driven premeditated murders, and the disposable human bomb triggers used to commit those murders? There can only appear to be equivalence when the rights and benefits of participating in western industrial civilization are inappropriately extended to those seeking to destroy the very source of those rights and benefits.
The primary motivation for enlightened individuals to surrender some of their trivial freedoms in order to make it possible to live and work together in complex societies, is the desire to enjoy those profound freedoms and benefits that can only be created through voluntary cooperation in a social contract.
Western civilization requires a higher concept of property ownership than simply the temporary occupation of space under force of arms. Seizing the property of others by force is a crime - regardless of whether the perpetrator is an individual or an army. Wrongly occupying property by force is often little more than an opportunity to spend far more time and effort controlling the stolen property than such conditions of ownership allow the property to be worth to the occupier. Force of arms only establishes the "right" to attempt to defend your possession until a greater force of arms takes it away from you.
Our free market regulated western civilization is based on a much more reliable concept of property ownership, with a much more supportable operating overhead than simple force - "legal" ownership based on contract law and supported by an at least partially functional civil legal system. The western concept of property ownership can only function within a social contract based on mutual respect for property rights.
However, in order for the principle of mutual respect of rights to be valid, its reciprocal must also be valid. The reciprocal is the enforcement clause - the motivation for accepting the primary. The reciprocal is what gives the primary meaning. Just as it is the function of the social contract to protect the rights of those who respect the rights of others, it is the obligation of the participants in the social contract to deny rights to those who fail to respect the rights of others. This is the most basic principle of justice - those who violate the rights of others forfeit their own rights. Those who fail to respect the property rights of others forfeit by their actions any right to own property themselves.
Islamic death-cultists have repeatedly attempted to impose their primitive concept of ownership by force on Israel, with appropriately humiliating results. Having failed to physically destroy the only sliver of prosperous and tolerant western civilization daring to pollute the pain-filled purity of self-imposed misery Islamic death-cultists have inflicted on the rest of the Middle East, these malignant agents of depravity now seek to claim ownership of their self-declared enemy through a perverse corruption of the western concept of "property rights". However, the very act of making their claim to western property rights voids any claim of rights the Islamic death-cultists make.
For the Islamic death-cultists to now claim property rights under the western concept of property ownership, they must also, by making such a claim, implicitly accept the principles on which those property rights are based. The concept of civil ownership of property is meaningless in the absence of a supporting social contract between all those who might desire to claim ownership of that property. The title to a plot of land can only represent ownership of that plot to those willing to accept it as representing ownership.
The Islamic death-cultists can only claim western civil ownership rights to land if they are participants in a social contract that respects land titles and the civil legal system necessary to implement them. By repeatedly attempting to steal the property of others through the criminal use of violence, and conducting a decades long campaign of willful murder, robbery, and terrorism against legitimate participants in the western social contract, the Islamic death-cultists long ago declared their contempt for the rights and principles of western civilization.
Maintaining a civilization imposes a cost on its contributing participants. Every effort to arbitrarily extend the rights and benefits of civilization to non-participants undermines the value of that civilization to its productive contributing members. Those contributing participants will only continue to willingly pay that cost as long as the value they receive exceeds the cost they are paying. The typical last stage in the collapse of civilization occurs when the remaining contributors realize that the corrupted system they are supporting no longer serves their individual needs.
By attempting to arbitrarily extend the rights and benefits of civilization to the belligerently uncivilized, self proclaimed "humanitarians" undermine the purpose and function of civilization itself. While claiming to be advocating "social justice", they make a mockery of the western concept of voluntary participation in a limited social contract that is essential to the only form of civilization that has ever allowed humanity to rise above primitive barbarity.