Zack Morris wrote:We had to give Bush's "democracy" a chance first.
That doesn't explain Democrat inaction. You probably don't know this of course but obama
undertook an aggressive Israel/Pali "peace" process early in the 1st term and gave up because it was in obama'
s words "hard".
But there are more than two sides in Iraq/Syria. Why do you know so little?
Sorry, when speaking of Arabs it goes without saying that more than two sides are involved. Just a figure of speech. Point being people shooting at each other isn't complex, especially in terms of how you win or lose.
Completely dead on the money. A lack of hostility now has no bearing on a a lack of hostility in the future. Dead on the money.
Yeah, when it was the new kid on the block. Not anymore. This isn't the 1960's. Pan-Arabism is dead. The US had a history of warfare with Britain, and then suddenly it didn't anymore. Likewise, virtually any European nature can cite a history of warfare with many of its neighbors. It's irrelevant because nobody is mobilizing to fight a war with Israel.
That Arabs have been humiliated over and over by a handful of jews in a very small space, true, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that Arabs and Persians supply Pali terrorist with whatever they want and most do not recognize Israel as a nation, and one nation explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel while it seeks nuclear weapons. Odds are if a successful campaign began against Israel most or all the Muslim nations would join in.
The detente Israel has earned was hard fought and fragile, and any show of weakness or lack of resolve puts that security in jeopardy. If you get to bomb children over the risk
of Isis, you have to let the Israelis bomb children according to their risk assessment.
These are basic realities of the region. Your ignorance of them disqualifies you from the conversation. If you get to bomb brown children you have to let other people bomb brown children.
Hamas and Hezbollah are not existential threats to Israel. The idea that Iran is actually intent on destroying Israel (or ever going to war with it) is as credible as suggesting the neighborhood kids who egg your house are plotting to burn it down.
Americans and their comic book reality. So naive. So childish.
The comic book children in this instance are those who think this is about Hamas or Hezbollah. They are merely puppets for other Muslim powers.
The Arabs are infinitely more an existential threat to Israel than Isis is to America. If America gets to kill children over Isis then you have to let the Israelis do it. Children understand this concept. It's basic comic book level morality. You have to let other people do what you get to do. Otherwise you are morally and intellectually a bankrupt hypocrite.
Just a hypothetical: why should we trouble ourselves with Israel? Why align with the Jews over the Arabs? What is your basis for picking one side over the other?
A topic for another time. The topic at hand is why you get to kill brown children over an infinitely smaller threat than the threat Israel faces.
Israel is not under any existential threat. It's possible to imagine a scenario that they could end up facing an existential threat if ISIS achieved what it claims it wants to: an Islamic State stretching from the Levant to Saudi Arabia. But ISIS does not factor into the calculus of Palestine.
You have no qualification to determine existential threats to Israel. What we can be sure of is if you get to kill brown children over theoretical risks you have to let other people kill brown children over theoretical risks.
They support a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Nobody knows what that means. I've seen polling and statements from Arabs/Muslims that they want jews driven into the sea (slaughtered). I guess when they finish that they can say it is peace afterward. After all the slaughter and mass death.
There is every reason to believe that.
They routinely say one thing and do another. Politics and diplomacy. The PA has definitely been amenable to taking steps toward a two step solution. When talks break down, it's often Israel that demands unconditional agreement to all of its unilateral demands without sensitivity for the political realities faced by the Palestinians. That's no way to conduct a negotiation with an honor and revenge-minded culture and the Israelis know it (they aren't that culturally dissimilar after all).
The PA has agreed to such a thing. The PLO was amenable to the idea decades ago. And the Arab League is willing to accept it, too. It's more convenient for Zionists to keep pretending that Hamas speaks for all Arabs so they can continue their land grabs, reducing the potential scope of such a state. False
. But the very thought has Jews tearing their curls out
I'll try to do all the above in one deal, but since you are brand new to ME politics, you should be aware that Arab leaders, although almost all do not recognize Israel's right to exist and fund terrorism against Israel, say all kinds of things in English
but they all say the same thing in Arabic
, which is death to the jews. Some people call this taqiya or jizya, but either way the immovable goalpost is nothing they say in English
matters unless they also say it in Arabic
. When the Arabs start advocating 2 states in Arabic
then we can move forward. I stress move forward
, because Israel would still need really strong guarantees for her security. (If you want I can provide you some youtubes of things they say in Arabic, to raise your information level.)
But not until then.
These are fixed and immovable goal posts.
We're leaving Afghanistan.
You occupied it as long as you wanted to. Well beyond Bush timelines. And nobody really knows if and when we are leaving, as obama
rarely follows through on anything he says.
If you get to occupy a country as long as you want you have to let other people do it to. Comic book, child level morality.
Dead on the money. Notice nobody coming to your side.
Israel's enemies are orders of magnitude more capable of damaging Israel than ISIS is of damaging us. If you get to kill brown children you have to let other people do it to, particularly if they face far higher dangers than we do.
ISIS has fired zero rockets into the United States.