There was a time when violence demanded explanation from those committing it. Today, the greater burden seems to fall upon those defending themselves against it.

Whenever Hamas commits atrocities, Hezbollah launches rockets into Israeli towns, or Iran’s regime threatens Israel with destruction, a remarkable phenomenon occurs. For a brief period, the world condemns the attack. Then comes the inevitable pivot. The discussion shifts away from what the terrorists did and toward what Israel supposedly did to make them do it.

Before the victims are buried, the commentators are already at work, assuring us that the true story is not the massacre itself but the complex web of historical, political, and sociological factors that somehow matter more than the people who carried it out.

This reflex has become so predictable. Hamas commits atrocities. Hezbollah fires rockets. Iran funds another proxy army. And immediately comes the familiar chorus: You cannot defeat an idea. Military force does not work. Israel must address the root causes.

Root causes. The two favorite words of the modern foreign-policy establishment.

According to this worldview, every act of terrorism is merely a symptom. Violence is never really about the people committing it. It is about history, grievances, oppression, colonialism, occupation, economic conditions, psychological trauma, climate change, or whatever fashionable explanation happens to be circulating this week.

The terrorists themselves become strangely absent from the discussion.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with studying causes. Understanding history matters. Understanding ideology matters. Understanding why conflicts emerge matters. But there is a profound difference between understanding a cause and excusing a crime. More importantly, there is a profound difference between understanding a problem and deciding how to respond to it.

When a nation is attacked, its first obligation is not to solve every historical........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)