Isn't not responding an option?

I'm sure that the situations are more complicated than I could ever understand in my small, safe, sheltered, secure little world, but why does one offensive or violent gesture have to be answered by another? Why is it that when Israelis kill Palestinians the only possible answer seems to be for Palestinians to kill Israelis? Yes, the cartoons depicting the Prophet are offensive, but do they really necessitate killing people? And it wasn't even the cartoonists who were killed or the editor of the newspaper that printed them. Nevermind the irony that the cartoons depict the Prophet--and by association, his followers--as violent, and the reaction by (some) Muslims to the cartoons was, well, extremely violent.

The surest way to get someone to hit you is to hit him first, but if someone doesn't hit back, isn't the fight over? Doesn't the aggressor become the bad guy to be appropriately villified and reviled by all who believe in the cause of righteousness?

Isn't that more or less how the Cold War ended? The Soviet leadership pretty much said, "I refuse to be the enemy anymore." Again, it's more complicated. If nothing else, they ran out of money to continue the insanity of the arms race. But someone opted to admit to having less testosterone and got up and walked away from the table.

And while I am on this rant, I might as well include a short tirade on the United States' apparant maxim of "do as I say, not as I do." A country cannot have nuclear weapons unless we say it's okay?!? Who gave us permission to have nuclear weapons? And why doesn't anyone suggest that we give up our nuclear weapons? Probably because any country that suggests such a course of action would probably get blown off the map by the one country with a history for actually using massive nuclear weapons.

On that happy note, I think I shall return to the hermitage and bolt the door.