4 ms·
A 'hail of scuds' would be temporary and mild in comparison to a 'real' nuclear threat from Iran. Of course - nobody has any intention of actually dropping nuk
by jariel 5y ago
A 'hail of scuds' would be temporary and mild in comparison to a 'real' nuclear threat from Iran.
Of course - nobody has any intention of actually dropping nukes on anyone.
It's about power and leverage, and Iran's ability to project their dominance towards destabilizing and overthrowing House of Saud, and maybe disrupting/overthrowing Israel some day as well.
Since House of Saud actually has nukes (they paid for Pakistani program so that 'in a time of need' nukes will magically appear in their arsenal) all of this is bad for everyone.
In the 'balance of power' it actually makes a tiny bit of sense that 'small actor surrounded by 10 enemies', Israel, has 'secret nukes' because from a strategic perspective, it would be suicidal for them to use in anything other than an existential scenario of defence. If they were not building homes in Occupied Territories, I think more people would probably more readily acknowledge their defensive requirements. Also of course the fact that most people alive today don't have living memory of the many times Israel was invaded/fought wars with direct neighbours, many times bigger than it, and the outcomes were never going to be clear.
It would be better for everyone if Iran just gave up it's nuclear ambitions - there is zero chance anyone is going to invade them, they could join the rest of the world and start using their Oil dollars to buy plastic junk from China and software from the US, and physical gear from Germany - just like the rest of us - their people can be much wealthier, and we could all get along.
- whimsicalism 5y agoI think granting a "right of return" based on what ethnic group you happen to be a part of is bullshit and out of step with the modern world. Definitely would improve their international stature if they stopped occupying, but they are still a state organized around an ethnic group.
- CivBase 5y agoEDIT: Ignore this post. I misunderstood OP. The rest of this is just here to preserve what I originally wrote. --- Serious question: at what point is it no longer rational to return land wrongfully taken? To displace millions of people and remove their right to self-govern? Practically every nation in existence came to be by taking land from someone at some point. I agree that the "right of return" thing was BS. But it happened. I think the best course of action now is figure out how to move forward without wronging even more people.
- whimsicalism 5y agoOkay, but Israel still has a right of return. Should that right not be granted to displaced Palestinians? Laws making it more difficult for people of Arab descent to get citizenship were passed in 2003. This is not about long-ago occurences, this is about active steps Israel is taking now to maintain their status as an ethnostate.
- CivBase 5y agoSorry, I misunderstood what you were referencing.