How does a democratically elected govt allow another govt to attack it’s citizens and not respond?
I’ll admit my bias, I’m pro Israeli, though that has been slipping over the years. However this latest war hasn’t really hurt my already lowered opinion.
Hamas didn’t have to attack Israel, it just refuses to negotiate in good faith for what it wants, opening of borders and sea access. So if you are an Israeli politician who has to run for re-election, do you wait till the rockets kill a few more people, or do you shoot back? If you shoot back, how hard?
I find that all the anti-Israel pushers out there are strangely silent on all of the other horrible conflicts in the world, but this one gets them going. Congo, South Sudan, Syria. Soft bigotry of low expectations, or just letting the availability of grisly images delivered effortlessly to your tv tug at your heart strings?
Can anyone here propose a solution, maybe a difficult one, where Israel doesn’t cease to exist as a Jewish state and a democracy in a few generations? Because if you can’t you are either anti the existence of Israel or you should be ok with the bloody status quo.
Until an actual two state solution is possible this is as good as it seems to get. The Israelis took land in war, none of which they started.
No state in the middle east has voluntarily offered to give up land it conquered, not the Syrians, not the Jordanians, not the Egyptians. Several of these states by the way took land that was to be the Arab part of Palestine. Why if the Israeli’s are so blood thirsty are they willing to, if they can be guaranteed peace. The problem is none of the Arabs seems to actually want peace. They just want to use Israel for their own domestic deflections.
As I said, the Israelis are and have been losing the moral high ground for a generation. They’ve done some stupid and nasty things. However they are still a democracy and there is no comparison for how nasty they are compared to the Arabs they are squaring off against.
Josh
