444

which has absolutely nothing to do with emboldening hamas.

445

If you say so

446

Not true.

447

You are implying there is a moral equivalency where none exists.

So in response to my question, it looks like you are choosing option 1.

telling Israel to suck it up, sit back and accept Hamas terrorizing their citizens for fear that Palestinian citizens might be harmed were Israel to respond.

448

Perhaps not the first sentence, but everything after it is.

449

Your condescension leads me to believe that you think your opinion is superior to mine and that I have yet to learn that lesson. What can I say? :roll_eyes:

450

My “opinion”—by which I mean this particular one—is superior to yours.

451

That isn’t the case at all. We are both forum members with differing points of view. Yours is no more superior to mine than mine is to yours. Them are the cold hard facts. :wink:

3 Likes
452

That could get real ugly. You know Israel already has nukes right?

453

Doesn’t seem very peaceful over there to me.

454

No it isn’t. If they are killing my people from behind human shields, they die.

If the bomb is targeting my people, they die.

A government’s responsibility is to its citizens.

5 Likes
455

Israel has had nukes for 50+ years. Unfortunately, geography works against them. They are a tiny country and a couple of well place nuclear weapons from the likes of Hamas could severely impact Israel’s ability to respond in any meaningful way. Even if they could, they would be left vulnerable to conventional attack from their Arab neighbors. IMHO

456

Okay, liberal. Go ahead and embrace the same attitude that produced “anti-Western” moral relativism.

457

I’ve yet to comprehend why LIBs fail to see something so simple.

458

By what standard?

459

I doubt anyone could nuke Israel and their enemies come out unscathed.

They would retaliate. That’s why i said it could/would get ugly in that case.

460

Allowing your family to die because your enemy is fighting from behind children is not moral relativism, it’s insanity.

6 Likes
461

while not much better, sans hamas and iranian influence, they can be dealt with. they agreed to peace once, and then backed out due to internal politics. those internal politics had a lot to do with hamas and hezbollah influence.

hence the solution

extreme pressure on and isolation of iran which accompishes three things

  1. weakens iran limiting their possibilities for engagement through proxies
  2. builds trust with arab states
  3. less need for sunni islamist terrorists to counter shiite extremist terrorists (this is huge, the sunni ones are much less controllable)

use that trust to create bridges between arab states and israel, further isolating the palestinians

this accomplishes two major things (in time)

  1. Palestinians will realize iran can’t help them and arab states won’t help them until…
  2. They recognize Israel’s right to exist and negotiate borders based on realities, not asperations.

the longer we exacerbate the problem basing peace on palestinian asperations, the worse the reality will be for them and the worse the deal they can get will be.

2 Likes
462

So we are responsible for the Muslim world wanting to destroy western civilization? We brought this on ourselves? I strongly disagree, but that doesn’t make my opinion superior to yours and it certainly doesn’t make your opinion superior to mine.

463

There would be retaliation no doubt. But I believe Israel would get the short end of it because they are so tiny geographically. One or two nukes would effectively wipe them out. While Iran could be neutralized in retaliation, there are many more hostile players that could have their way with a severely weakened Israel.

That is why under no circumstance can Iran be allowed to get nukes.

1 Like