Island Nucklehead wrote:It's like your neighbours kid launching rocks from a sling-shot at your house and your response is to pull out the Remington, whack his father, take half his yard as a "slingshot buffer zone", shoot anyone that ventures into your "slingshot buffer zone" and then brag about how measured your response was.
Wouldn't a better analogy be that your neighbour has declared publicly that he will not rest until you are your dead, your family is dead, and that your house be burned down so he can piss on the ashes. He's constantly seen down at the gunship buying, begging, borrowing, and steeling every kind of gun and weapon he can get his hands on. You've seen him over at his other neighbours practicing with pipe bombs and pyro. And his best buddy has been saving up for a bulldozer....
His kid is taking potshots at your windows with his slingshot and you keep having to buy a new cat for your daughter...
The cops are undecided if its really a threat...
And the courts are clogged up years in advance...
What would You do?
Not really. Because you have the biggest and baddest bombs your buddies can buy and can inflict 10x the damage and 100x the casualties. You also have a counter-slingshot system that shoots down almost anything coming near your cats/kids. You already have a few bulldozers that you use to clear out pockets of your neighbours yard for your new sheds that you don't have zoning or building permits for, but your buddy is the mayor and has veto powers on all matters before council. It's actually a pretty swanky scenario. The only thing your really worried about is your neighbours neighbour who has a lot more kids with actual BB guns instead of sling shots, and might be inclined to back the rock launchers.
ukcanuck wrote:I think it would be treasonous for any Israeli leader to agree to a two state solution, an internationally recognized Palestinian sovereign state would then have a legitimate foreign policy and have the right to legally wage war.
The alternatives are just more of the same. And realistically, the Arab spring has changed the regional dynamics. American influence isn't what it used to be. Egypt is playing nice for now, but the plight of the Palestinians is a sore spot for most, and with more countries recognizing Hamas, it's going to be a lot harder to ignore them.
It would change Israel's ability to defend itself as it would have to break international law to meddle in and destabilize its enemy and would basically have to declare war whenever a rocket was launched and targeted at her.
Not really. If a Palestinian state decided to attack Israel, they would be more than justified (a real self defence scenario under Article 51 of the UN charter) in crushing it using extreme force. There are also numerous groups operating in Gaza, many more extreme than Hamas, and the thought of a Palestinian state (with security services of its own) might be easier to a) police itself and b) target in the event they do act in a hostile manner.
And more importantly a sovereign Palestinian state would be one step closer to the annihilation of the state of Israel.
I would guess that any two-state solution would include the Palestinians recognizing Israels right to exist, and have agreed upon borders, otherwise Israel wouldn't sign. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Yemen and Lebanon don't recognize Israel as a state, and yet Israel still exists. I don't think the Palestinians are going to change that (state or not). In fact, having a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could push other nations to recognize (or at least warm up to the idea of recognizing) Israel, as well as relieve a lot of the hate for Washington in the region.
Except that the Muslims out number the Jews by a margin and I don't know if your familiar with Sharia law, but to put it mildly, you have to be Muslim to even contemplate living under those conditions and wherever Islam is the prevailing religion, sharia law is the rule.
Turkey says hi.