[Wingy]

At the end of WWII, as our victory was all but assured, the debate was what terms of surrender would be acceptable. As I understand it, Unconditional Surrender was the only way for the Japanese to stop the bombing. The Japanese rejected this and two atomic bombs were dropped to cement this point. Truman wanted this thing settled once and for all. It seems that Israel is up against the same fence post that Truman was. Either come to some ceasefire agreement, that simply lets Hamas recruit,rearm, and restart hostilities. Or embark of a bombing campaign (non-nuclear) that settles this hash, once and for all.

Bad choices all around, but the easy ways have been tried before without notable success.

Hamas has said again and again that their goal is NOT a Palestinian state, or any other bargaining chip the West comes up with, but only the complete destruction of the Jewish people.

In my view, anything that prolongs this situation is foolish and wrong. Tell me how I'm wrong.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Not wrong in the least.

[lavaroise]

I suppose Truman did not want them to work on the bomb and knew they were. Man have Democrats changed since then. Why do they love nuclear proliferation in hands of terrorists? Overpopulation control and turning guns on ourselves much?

[rawcatslyentist]

The only negotiations possible with genocidal savages are how many of us are you going to murder today.

[Leaning Right]

In my view, anything that prolongs this situation is foolish and wrong. Tell me how I'm wrong.

In theory, you're right. But in reality, unfortunately you're not so right.

Israel is a client state of the US. Israel depends on the goodwill of the American people and the American government. Israel cannot afford to alienate either one.

But if Israel carpet-bombed Gaza, America would be outraged. Europe would be outraged. The UN would be outraged. Israel would be an outcast nation.

Truman never had that problem.