I'm generally sympathetic to what he's saying here.
I know not everyone likes him but he's the only person I know saying this and it makes a lot of sense to me...
Come on Freepers I know this will spark a debate. What do you think?
The problem is Israel has never been allowed to win any of the wars it’s fought for the last 75 years. The scenario that’s played out every time is: Israel is attacked, Israel responds, Israel gains the upper hand and is moving toward victory. The West, the UN, and the Muslims all start clamoring for Israel to show restraint, show mercy, consider all “the innocents”, etc. Note there is not much said about restraint, mercy, or protect the innocent until Israel starts gaining the upper hand. To my knowledge Israel has never started any of these wars, but has beaten back the attackers until forced to stop winning. Gaza has brought this on themselves. Israel would like to live in peace, their enemies wish to exterminate them. Total victory is the only solution.
He is such a moron it actually hurts
Uh, newsflash, muslims are ALWAYS upset. It's what happens when you're an inbred member of a death cult which has accomplished exactly nothing but mayhem and murder for 1400 years.
He's an attention seeking moron who is consistently wrong on just about any subject he speaks on.
He's talking cowardly BS here, and to be sympathetic to that nonsense is ridiculous on its face.
No, don't kill the assholes who waged war against you and has been telling you they're going to annihilate all of you from the river to the sea for decades. What a crock of nonsense.
This BS only makes sense to cowards who are too afraid to face reality.
If the freaking muslims want to have a religious war, then so be it. Quit running away from reality and stand up to the evil that is facing you.
Just because you are too cowardly to fight back, does not mean the Muslims will let you live. They are at war with you even if you want to hide under your covers and deny that reality.
Israel simply cannot live with Hamas remaining in control of Gaza after the scale of the attacks and atrocities it committed.
As far as any military alliance against Israel, this is very unlikely. The Muslim states nearest to Israel are severely divided: neither Iran nor the Saudis nor Egypt, etc., want Erdogan reestablishing a new Ottoman sultanate.
Neither Turkey, nor KSA nor Jordan, etc., want greater Iranian influence (and Iran has to be concerned it will be nuked by Israel).
There's a lot of grousing, but I suspect nothing will happen.
If Obama had succeeded in placing the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt, then there probably would have been a much larger war.
Really sick that there are Freepers are so desperate to forget the mass murder, rape and torture of Jews on 10-07-2023
How is it the only dead people that seem to bother certain pearl clutchers around here are Arabs?
Mcgregor and his ilk are accessories after the fact to mass murder, rape and torture after the fact
Israel will never been able to live in peace as long as the Hamas is in power and until Gaza is de-militarized.
This is exactly Biden’s position.
He’s a nut.
Let’s change dates. “Not a good idea to puss off a lot of Nazis, just let them conquer Poland and kill Jews”.
What a moron.
There’s a rattlesnake nest in a corner of your back yard. Do you tell your children to just avoid that section or do you eradicate it? Forget moving it to the neighbors’, the Jordans don’t want it back.
This is the part that bothers me, but not in the way that you might think.
I think that we (the United States) have put too much emphasis on 1) proportion response, and 2) what the "Arab Street" thinks.
Regarding #1, the United States, in some way, is probably still suffering a guilt at being the only nation (still) to use a nuclear weapon against an enemy in a time of war. There is no proportional response to that, other than that the nukes are stronger now and more plentiful now.
The admonition against Israel to be proportional in their retaliation for crimes against humanity towards them is really the USA promising itself that it won't use nuclear weapons again. However, the USA has pulled so far back from that red line that they won't even fight conventional wars with overwhelming conventional force anymore. The concept of decisive battles and decisive wins is now foreign to us, and therefore, to anyone else who has the strength to do the same against their own enemies.
It's a stigma that we have to finally rid ourselves of. We, as a nation through our leaders, have to say that we've proven ourselves since 1945 that we prefer peace, but our strength means nothing if we're afraid to use it decisively to pursue peaceful ends. Anything short of decisive use of our overwhelming strength only emboldens our enemies to keep provoking, to keep winning incremental gain after incremental gain until they achieve their victories despite us.
This brings me to #2. The "Arab Street" is a bogeyman that the left created since the Iran hostage crisis to paralyze the United States into inaction in the Middle East. Our leaders keep convincing themselves to do nothing decisive because it will "inflame the Arab Street," or now that it will "coalesce the region into a real Military alliance against Israel." Is this really true, or is this just another bogeyman to talk us out of acting decisively? In 1979, we were told that whatever we did would become "recruitment posters" for the Islamic Jihadists, and so we did nothing.
I think the true "Arab Street" is tired of the constant fighting, and they're equally tired of being told that they only say that privately but that publicly they have to support their Arab neighbors. The Trump "Abraham Accords" was a very public peace plan between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain that belies the notion that Israel's neighbors don't want peace.
Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in 1979 as the Camp David Accords, and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by the Egyptian Islamic Jihad because of it three years later. The radical Islamists didn't want peace.
In 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty, followed in 1995 with the Oslo Accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization, and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated because of it by a radical Israeli law student. The Israeli student was angered by giving away the Gaza Strip to the PLO.
And now, the October 7 attack by Hamas in Israel is said to have been done to stop the Abraham Accords from going forward.
The only real "Arab Street" uprising that occurred was the so-called "Arab Spring" uprisings that began in 2011, led to the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and ended with the assassination of Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi. This was an entirely Arab uprising that had nothing to do with Israel or the United States (except for political tampering by the Obama administration).
So I think the idea that "the front against Israel in the region will coalesce into a real Military alliance against Israel" is likely to be more political inertia than reality, 20th century thinking, and not the reality of today. It's the radical terrorist groups that are inciting the violence, and Israel's modernized neighbors don't want those influences inside their own countries or they'd have taken in the Palestinians decades ago. It's only the throwback countries like Iran and their proxy states like Yemen and Lebanon that are pushing regional conflicts to destabalize peace with Israel.
I think that places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and other wealthy neighboring states want to see the radical Islamists stopped and would be happy to see Israel do it once and for all. THIS is something they may have to say privately so that the religious fanatical Jihadists don't turn on them, but I don't think the bogeyman of the "Arab Street" coalescing against Israel is a real threat.
-PJ