Without a brutal attack like 10/7, there would have been no six months of war. That is a pretty safe bet.
Perhaps English is not your language if you really think Israel was forced into battle.
Maybe English is not yours if you don't understand what happened on October 7, 2023.
Israel did not attack any "diplomatic mission". They attacked a building adjacent to the embassy which housed military personnel involved in attacking Israel from Lebanese territory. The strike killed two IRGC generals and several other IRGC and Hezbollah officers.
I think he should. He clearly told Iran "don't" and will look weak if he doesn't respond. I think IRGC sites should be bombed.
I disagree. Nobody is proposing military occupation of Iran. But strikes against the IRGC and other organs of the illegitimate regime in Tehran should be fair game.
And we can take out their navy.
It was a mistake for Biden to give an inch to the Israel-haters on the rabid left. Now they are chanting "Death to America" in Dearborn and the likes of Rashida Tlaib are refusing to condemn it.
So what is your solution? Do nothing while the new Axis of Evil grabs more and more territory. Iran is attacking Israel. Russia is attacking Ukraine. China is looking hungrily in the direction of Taiwan. Do you think that's good for world peace?
Best case scenario would certainly be for the Iranian people to rise up against the dictator. But for that the stranglehold the dictatorship has on the country has to weaken. If US were to conduct attacks against IRGC assets, I do not think the people would galvanize against us. But it would weaken the regime.
And the Iranians highjacked a ship, because it was "associated" with Israel.
Stop shifting the goalposts. You wrote "..because Hamas lead Gazans forced Israel into battle" (bold-faced and italics are added). Israel was not forced into anything. Israel choose how a course of action from numerous possible courses.
In the same sense that US was not forced into WWII after Pearl Harbor and had "numerous possible courses" of action. Technically true, but not true in any meaningful sense. Again, you employ your trademark deflection and hair splitting. Are you perchance a lawyer?
Israel chose to defend themselves from an existential threat. That's forced in my book.
Your analogy is the result of sloppy thinking. The Japanese declared war on the US and had the means to continue attacking. That is not the case with Hamas.
It would be in anyone's book. However, a terror attack on a small part of the country is not an existential threat. And, of course, there were many avenues of defense.
No, it was chosen by Hamas.
Still having the problem with the English language.
Hamas has repeatedly declared they want to destroy Israel and they have had means to keep attacking.
Hamas is from Gaza. It's been in charge for almost 20 years. Gazans have not expressed any problems with them I know about.
That reflects on your level of knowledge, not the term clarity or reality.
Gazans are people who come from Gaza. Hamas is a terrorist organization whose membership are Gazans. This isn't hard to do.
Wanting to destroy and having the means are completely different concepts. As are defending from immediate attack and acting from fear of an attack.
You are misinformed. Japan declared war on the US and Great Britain after they attacked Pearl Harbor - Japan declares war against US in 1941
Yes they did.
They murdered over a 1000 Israelis and kidnapped hundreds. Moreover, Israel is a small country, and any attack is existential threat.
Two hours after the surprise attack. The war between Japan and US started with that attack, not with the belated declaration.
Israel is a small country. Gaza is less than 50 miles from Jerusalem for example.
What other reasonable avenues of defense did US have?
Nonsense.
It is true they did not gave to. And Israel had many different options on when, where and how to go after Hamas. It is ridiculous to claim they had to respond like they did.Derec said:
I don’t understand the point of that question.Derec said:
Are you a 10/7 denialist now too?
What other reasonable options did Israel have?
You insinuated in post #4069 that attack on Pearl Harbor was somehow more of a threat to US than the Hamas attack on 10/7 was a threat to Israel.
I’d expect such a stupid straw man from a sloppy thinker. So what is your excuse?
What other reasonable options did Israel have?[/quote] “Reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder. Within Israel there was debate over a number of options and over the scope and purpose of any invasion.
That does not explain the point of your question.Derec said:
