• SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So if hamas manages to get more powerful weapons, it’s justifiable for them to hit back israel?

    This is essentially Israel’s Cassus Belli for obliterating Hamas. Whether you agree with Israel here or not, Hamas as it stands will cease to exist. They have no chance of holding ground and Israel has made no bones about their willingness to engage in tunnel-fighting.

    It’s a mistake to think this isn’t a 9/11 style realignment. Everyone’s concerns here should be on the treatment of Gazans in a post-Hamas world.

    From a pure realpolitik sort of reasoning, Israel’s lack of simultaneous humanitarian commitment hurts them here. I disagree with some of their choices on moral lines, but even Kissinger would disagree with their moves (though for different reasons).

    No one is above criticism, but reality is going to happen. At this point, only the future really matters.

    It’s easy to paint me as callous here but I think taking the easy road out in this conversation ignores the reality of the situation, and valid discussions that could be had, over insipid political slogans.

    • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Remeber how isis and alqueda were destroyed after the us bombed the shit out of them? Neither do I.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        These are extremely different situations, but also to suggest that ISIS is at all a major player right now is silly.