4 ms·
Well, there would be generally less tensions with many other countries acting in an expansionist manner than with Israel doing so. Given the history short (mod
by jqm 11y ago
Well, there would be generally less tensions with many other countries acting in an expansionist manner than with Israel doing so.
Given the history short (modern) history of Israel and the religious animosity of the neighbors etc. it would be certain to inflame more hostility internationally than Rawanda taking a piece of Burndi for instance. But I'm sure you are already aware of all this. I went back and read your previous posts. It seems you may be looking for an anti-Semite under every rock. Well... next rock. I'm just pointing out practical reality. I don't have an axe to grind with Israel existing.
- 13thLetter 11y agoI won't deny that I'm fairly sensitive on the matter, given that anti-Semitism is not just acceptable but a major electoral winner these days -- as long as one applies a coat of "anti-Zionist" paint on top, one is good to go with the vilest conspiracy theories and blood libels, as we've seen right here in this comments section. What made me raise an eyebrow was the bit about how if things changed, it might be in Israel's interests to be expansionist. That's obviously true, one could say that about any country, of course, but... well, in the end that's probably on me being oversensitive, and it was uncalled for to go after it.
- jqm 11y agoNo worries. I actually think it might be better for the locals if (a more enlightened and less hard-line) Israel governed a bit more of the Mideast but this is a political impossibility right now and certainly better left unsaid. I should have left that bit off... it didn't have anywhere to go but towards irritating somebody. I'll take blame on that.