hypochondriac

Indeed and thanks for the reply but I was asking egg.

Do you think that 9/11 would have happened and that Islamist extremism would exist without the actions of Israel?

What action should they have taken to make them safer than they are now?

Hold on so not only are Israel partially responsible for 9/11, they're also responsible for Islamist extremism! Who knew! If only those Jews weren't so awful eh? Islam is a religion of peace after all, it's just the evil Jews forcing them to get all murdery and rapey. October 7th is really their own fault when you think about it. They brought it on themselves.

Probably quite difficult to target them all when they're happy to effectively use Gazans as human shields. Also asking 7,000 to return isn't the same as all 7000 being alive and getting the message.

You mean the Jews aren't responsible for 9/11?

He invoked the 1982 Beirut siege as one grievance among many in a long list that included US troops in Saudi Arabia, sanctions on Iraq, and support for Israel. Al-Qaeda grew from the Afghan war and the 1990s US presence in the Gulf, not from a single Israeli siege.

Islamists want Israel removed from the face of the earth. They wanted that prior to October the 7th and they still want that. The only difference eis that now Qatar and Iran are thinking twice about what they can do and Hamas have been degraded significantly so they are less able to attack. Israel's action may result in an increased risk some time in the future-although the risk was already significant as proven by October 7th- but Hamas and its allies' capacity to do anything about it in the short to medium term is undeniably reduced. If Israel were smart they'd employ a buffer zone as I said to prevent any future attacks like October 7th.

They weren't safer prior to October 7th. The war has weakened their enemies considerably and will mean they should be a lot safer in the short to medium term. Arguably the capability of future generations of mad Hamas terrorists will be degraded as well without rogue nations funding them to the same extent although it's difficult to predict things so far away.

Yeah no chance of violence from Hamas. None whatsoever.

This sounds like a good idea. Bloody Israel preventing peace: Hamas has reportedly recalled around 7,000 members of its security forces from southern and central Gaza back into areas recently vacated by Israeli troops in Gaza City and the north. The order, sent via phone and text, called for a “general mobilisation” to “cleanse Gaza of outlaws and collaborators with Israel.” Armed units, some in uniform, others disguised as civilians, have redeployed across northern districts, setting up checkpoints and patrols. Hamas has also appointed 5 new governors, all former brigade commanders, to oversee the transition. This raises fears of renewed internal violence just as Trump’s ceasefire plan enters its next phase, which calls for Hamas to disarm

It will win them a load of attention and votes and make them completely unelectable. Arguably they weren't looking to get elected anyway, simply to act as a pressure group so from that perspective they are successful.

" https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/huh-gop-congressman-tells-fox-152323768.html Talk about massaging someone's fragile ego. Yeah that's quite sad and pathetic.

It's all speculation of course but had Hamas given up their weapons and released the hostages I don't believe the war would have continued. At the very least it would have been over a long time ago. We were likely having this conversation on about page 20

Had they released the prisoners and Hamas agreed to disarm there would have been overwhelming pressure on Israel to end it.

I absolutely think that seriously degrading Hamas and then creating a wider buffer zone around Israel will make Israel safer. It won't prevent all attacks or make them completely safe but that was never possible. Soggy used that same argument when the US were destroying IS. He might have had a point if they hadn't been decimated and destroyed.

There have always been two objectives-get back the hostages and make Hamas and their other enemies less of a threat to Israel. Getting the hostages back but leaving Hamas in power and next to Israel is just asking for another similar attack in the near future.

I don't agree. Without the hostages back in that scenario not a chance would they just retreat and stop trying to retrieve them. Not a chance would they not put up a resistance to Hamas massing on their border and threatening them.

You think if the US stopped supporting Israel tomorrow that they would just roll over and allow Hamas and their surrounding enemies to do what they liked? Do you think Israel would believe they had any choice but to fight?

In both cases, you’ve got a state engaged in war, civilians tragically being killed and Western governments materially supporting one side. If your argument is that the moral thing to do is to stop funding and arms supplies to reduce civilian casualties, that principle should logically apply to all conflicts, not just the one where you happen to find the state’s actions more objectionable. The situations are, of course, different in their causes and politics, but the underlying moral question — “does continued support prolong the killing?” — is the same. If you think it’s justified to continue backing Ukraine despite the inevitable civilian toll, then surely you can see why others think that the consequences of cutting Israel off overnight would be far more complicated than it sounds. Maybe I'm being too charitable. You did after all believe I was talking about a literal nuke.

They would if they had no means to defend themselves and would be forced to. Similarly, are you imagining that Israel would have stopped attempting to retrieve the hostages if their support was cut ?

Why are not using the same logic to cut off all support for Ukraine? It should quickly lead to a Ukrainian surrender and less dead children than would otherwise be the case.

You must know I wasn't literally calling for the US to use a tactical nuke right? When I compared any president being able to stop a war (or cut support), I used the Ukraine / nuke example as a provocative illustration of “in theory, war can be ended quickly.” The fact you seriously thought I was equating nuclear warfare with withdrawing military or material support is mindboggling. That was a rhetorical exaggeration, not a literal claim.

Right so if ending the war by cutting all support for Israel doesn't cause any sort of larger war who gives a fuck about any consequences beyond that as long as we aren't directly affected? At least you're honest.

Yep. That war could be over very quickly and anyone could end it.