I am not justifying them as inevitable. I am justifying them as beneficial for us, even if the means they employ are morally questionable at times (even if they happen to be that way for the lack of choices).
I support Israel because it is a no-brainer who to support between them and so-called "Palestine" (which in practice means Hamas), and there is no practical way to be neutral because Hamas will never accept existence of Israel and thorough genocide of Israelis is only acceptable option for them.
> even if the means they employ are morally questionable at times
> [...]
> thorough genocide of Israelis is only acceptable option for them
What a sickening double-standard. I hope you understand why the majority of Americans disagree with this perspective, and have no interest in dying for Israel's expansionist escalation policy. Hamas is not a threat to America, Israel is.
It's possible you haven't visited America recently and experienced this firsthand, so I'll excuse you for thinking you have a populist stance. Even the Christian Zionists are getting sick and tired of dealing with the Liability in the Levant right now, I think you'll be shocked how fast the GOP abandons Likud when the ceasefire inevitably snaps.
If it is to recover what Israel occupied illegally, good. If Palestine did what Israel is doing, that would be bad. What happened in October the 7th was also horrible and condemned. We really need to deescalate the whole situation and stop the violence. Every one of these violent actions (in which Israel is the main perpetrator by far), not only create suffering and deaths in the short term, but makes a possible solution harder and harder.
But in land of Israel/Palestine itself, there's no significant violence going on right? Hamas is isolated, there is an ample security zone, it's cut off from border and unable to militarily recover - problem is solved. West Bank is split into many enclaves, surrounded by walls and buffer zones, incapable of doing much harm and seems to be unwilling to try it in any case - any such outbursts will be contained if they happen.
For now, problem looks like it's solved - Palestinians on either side are incapable of harming Israel much, and Israel doesn't need or want to harm them either simply because endgame is unclear - ideally they are pushed out but no country will accept them so it's futile.
What is the exact problem we are discussing here? Actions in Lebanon are simply about creating a buffer zone there to make remnants of Hezbolla to threaten Israeli northern towns. Once zone south Litani river is secured, things will calm down.
I am not justifying them as inevitable. I am justifying them as beneficial for us, even if the means they employ are morally questionable at times (even if they happen to be that way for the lack of choices).
I support Israel because it is a no-brainer who to support between them and so-called "Palestine" (which in practice means Hamas), and there is no practical way to be neutral because Hamas will never accept existence of Israel and thorough genocide of Israelis is only acceptable option for them.
> even if the means they employ are morally questionable at times
> [...]
> thorough genocide of Israelis is only acceptable option for them
What a sickening double-standard. I hope you understand why the majority of Americans disagree with this perspective, and have no interest in dying for Israel's expansionist escalation policy. Hamas is not a threat to America, Israel is.
It's possible you haven't visited America recently and experienced this firsthand, so I'll excuse you for thinking you have a populist stance. Even the Christian Zionists are getting sick and tired of dealing with the Liability in the Levant right now, I think you'll be shocked how fast the GOP abandons Likud when the ceasefire inevitably snaps.
I mean, other way around is if "Palestine" advances on Israel.
If it is to recover what Israel occupied illegally, good. If Palestine did what Israel is doing, that would be bad. What happened in October the 7th was also horrible and condemned. We really need to deescalate the whole situation and stop the violence. Every one of these violent actions (in which Israel is the main perpetrator by far), not only create suffering and deaths in the short term, but makes a possible solution harder and harder.
But in land of Israel/Palestine itself, there's no significant violence going on right? Hamas is isolated, there is an ample security zone, it's cut off from border and unable to militarily recover - problem is solved. West Bank is split into many enclaves, surrounded by walls and buffer zones, incapable of doing much harm and seems to be unwilling to try it in any case - any such outbursts will be contained if they happen.
For now, problem looks like it's solved - Palestinians on either side are incapable of harming Israel much, and Israel doesn't need or want to harm them either simply because endgame is unclear - ideally they are pushed out but no country will accept them so it's futile.
What is the exact problem we are discussing here? Actions in Lebanon are simply about creating a buffer zone there to make remnants of Hezbolla to threaten Israeli northern towns. Once zone south Litani river is secured, things will calm down.
8 replies →
> We really need to deescalate the whole situation and stop the violence.
Yes. Also, I would like a poney.
2 replies →