Ah.
Now that I’m back from dinner, & listened to a certain clown jabber in his Gibbon-like fashion about me, I’d like to make a suggestion.
Remove everybody along a 10 mile border with Israel.
A neutral zone.
Empty of everybody.
This would allow for cooling off.
It’s regrettable, but if the bad guy determinedly hides among his children and neighbors, would you just let him go?
Besides, “misses” is misleading. Rather, if a bad guy kills one of your children, do you shoot back even if it leads to the death of ten of his? I’d be thrilled to hear your preferred solution.
Dio, that’s a bad analogy and you know it. Hamas is intentionally targeting Israeli civilians, Israel is targeting Hamas and unfortunately killing civilians in the process.
Ageed; but neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can do anything about that, and it’s largely irrelevant to their conflict.
Yep. I’m not a fucking psychopath. I’m not killing innocent people, period.
Nope. I don’t shoot back and kill innocent people because I’m not a fucking psychopath.
No, of course not.
That makes Dio’s analogy perfectly apt.
What a steaming pile of shit. If they know that their attacks will kill innocent people, then they’re targeting innocent people. There isn’t a shred of moral difference.
That’s a good point too.
I assume you mean on the Israeli side of the border, otherwise your knowledge of geography is a little … shaky (unless the Palestinians are all really good swimmers).
Treat it as a conventional war between two independent states; Israel usually wins those, and could do so in that case without seeking to reclaim any territory. IOW, just kick ass hard until they surrender on terms, make clear any further attacks will be dealt with the same way.
But, independent Palestine’s economic future would depend on free intercourse with Israel. If they have their independence, and they still have not the strength to destroy Israel, why start a war at all?
Let me ask a question. Let’s say that a really bad terrorist is on the loose in your hometown. Let’s say it’s Osama himself. Let’s say that he breaks into your house and is holding your whole family hostage. You are on the outside. Let’s say you have a choice between letting Osama go free or blowing up your house and killing your whole family, as well as possibly killing or injuring your neighbors. What would you choose. Please don’t fight the hypothesis. I know it can be picked apart. My question really boils down to this: Would you be willing to kill your own children in order to get Osama bin Laden? Yes or no?
Maybe, if he hides behind them and keeps shooting and blowing up MY family and neighbors…
And remove everybody from the Heights.
Everybody.
No soldiers, no civilians, no Arabs, no Jews, nobody.
All that pocket is, is a ripe boil.
Fuel for the fire.
Then you’re the same as he is.
If “everything they want” is Israel’s destruction, I think they’ve known a long time it’s not going to happen. If “everything they want” is everything between the Green Line (not the Wall) and the Jordan River and an open border with Jordan, that is exactly what you should give them. East Jerusalem would remain Israeli and a sticking-point but I think they’d learn to live with that eventually. (It’s never a good idea to politically divide a city anyway.)
You must have a lot of children if you’re so unattached to them individually that responding to one being killed is a psychopathic act.
Responding by killing more innocent people is a psychopathic act.
Would you kill your own children to get Osama bin Laden? yes or no?
Sure, it is. There, there.
Bin Laden doesn’t pose an ongoing threat to my children, or at least not a threat more significant than drunk drivers and such.
Why is that? As a libertarian, I fully support the idea of self defense. I hope Israel sends them to their grave.
Terms are acceptable. Israel may now proceed.