We cannot continue to make descisions based on whether or not somebody is going to get violent about it. That means violence controls the conversation and dictates policy.
The Arabs are not going to get un-violent any time soon and I am personally tired of dancing around the motherfuckers.
The bigotry of low expectations should not dictate policy, terrorists and terror states win everytime in that scenario.
So violence still controls the conversation. It’s just who is being violent that changes.
And can we, as Americans, really criticize others for their violence? We have the greatest military on Earth and it’s not like we have been shy about using it.
Let’s not even get into the violence here at home, that is, American on American violence.
It’s an office building. Not that big of a deal what happens.
That said, I suspect the Tel Aviv facility will become the consulate and continue to do mostly what it already does.
Yeah, I’m pretty unaware of the USA military intentionally attacking school children in rocket attacks.
Or government officials sending a mildly-deranged guy on August 19, 2003 to blow himself up on the No.2 bus in Jerusalem filled with children and one exceptionally lovely lady who was 8 months pregnant, with a boy.
So, yes, America can criticize others for their violence.
Your moral equivalence is disgusting.
2 Likes
You try way too hard. Whether you like it or not. Whether you accept it or not. There is more than one side and perspective. You don’t have to agree with their opinion or interpretation of the facts but that doesn’t mean their opinion is irrelevant.
I also think you need to ask yourself what does intentional mean. Killing anyone you didn’t intend to doesn’t make the dead feel any better about being dead. Simply saying, “my bad,” doesn’t quite make it acceptable.
I’m not making any moral equivalency; I’m actually saying that morality has nothing to do with it. You however are taking a stance of moral superiority and that is one of the first steps towards totalitarianism. A libertarian such as yourself should know better.
Great discussion.
Thanks, guys! (Especially @Jewbacca and @loppar…)
I realize that the PA and all those that wish the destruction of Israel have never really taken their focus off their Goals…but it just seems that Trump’s move certainly didn’t help matters (in addition to there being little “upside”).
Am I still missing something?
(As an aside, @Jewbacca…did I read somewhere that the “Fundamentalist” Jews look at Tel Aviv as a “decadent” city? (however one wishes to view that, I guess!)
Thats not the point. We cannot let the instability of people in the middle east, who presumably are grown up, bully us or Israel about internal politics.
It’s called the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’. It means that we do or do not do things based on the fact that a certain demographic does not have enough self-control not to act out violently.
It’s like having someone on trial and the evidence shows he’s innocent, but the crowd outside threatens violence if the man is found not guilty. So rather than basing the decision on the evidence they give in to the crowd to keep the peace.
It’s not incumbent on the U.S. to make sure the Arab states act right. They need to act right regardless what we do when it has literally nothing to do with them. This is a decision between the U.S. and Israel and requires nothing of the mid-east states save for changing where they send their mail… or mail bombs.
Ah, this is one lesson in life I learned hard and painful. Sometimes there is only one side to the story, or one side that matters.
That’s usually not the case, but it’s not correct to assume there are 2 valid sides to a story, sometimes there is actually only one side.
I am not say this is the case here. But when you look at the history, I do not see how one can support the Palestinian effort when their mission statement is to run the streets red with rivers of Jewish blood. Only antisemites can hold or support this point of view, even only if by proxy.
Meanwhile in Russia…Same old, same old…
1 Like
Who defines right?
It’s not about right or wrong by our definitions of right and wrong (which are inconstant anyway) but what’s in our best interests. Agitating the Arab world to look tough and get a few yokels in MAGA hats to high five one another is not in our best interests.
The facts are always the facts but interpretations can be many. An interpretation’s validity depends on the power behind it, i.e., the “side that matters.” Trying to morally justify any position on this issue is a waste of time and is part of the problem anyway.
Ah, but there is the rub. Why would what Israel does interally, agitate the Arab world. Especially when by all rights Jerusalem is in fact Israel’s capital? It shouldn’t and that’s the point.
“All rights” is a meaningless phrase.
Is a meaningless phrase, literally.
It literally isn’t, and you just demonstrated that.