[appreciatorBus]

Not at all. My argument is not that tit for tat is good, but that if we are to be serious about condemning violence, we must be willing to criticize all those who are violent, even if we may align with them politically in some fashion.

Instead there is a distinct slant on this conflict in both reporting & commenting.

When one side is violent, we are told that this is honorable resistance and that we must expand our view of the conflict further back in history, (but not too far back), to understand their actions as a response to the other side's actions (aka tit for tat, but it's good when we do it)

When the other is violent, we are told to focus solely on recent history, and to understand that there is simply no reason whatsoever for the violence except pure bloodlust.