<The last time I checked, the settlements were expanding, not contracting, so I find your argument on the mass killing of Jews very unconvincing. There are more Jews killed in Israel from car accidents or cigarette smoking than from suicide bombers.
With your hypothesis on the moral fibers of the Jews and the Samson option, it is anyone's guess. But from what I have read of history, it is quite apparent that when it comes to self-preservation in war: there are no ethics. >
War is about conquest. It always has been. That means when one gang wins, they build settlements on land they won. The Arabs lost, the Israelis won. The Israelis build the settlements. Simple really and that's what has happened all over the world. Having lost, the Arabs want to fight again, using genocide as their means - they don't just want conquest, they want ethnic purity or conversion to Islam. I suspect they'd prefer the fun of a genocide judging from their enthusiasm for head-hacking and bloodied hand-waving.
There is no international law [other than toughest gang makes the rules], so we still live in the age of genocide and tough apes, more's the pity, but that's what everyone here likes too [or, if they don't, they are unable to imagine something different].
True, when push comes to shove and things get too unpleasant and desperate, Israel would pull the nuclear trigger. But I think they'll have to lose a lot more ground and lives before they are willing to adopt the Final Solution against Moslems and Arabs surrounding them.
Not all people have equal ethics. My opinion is that Jewish ethical standards are much, much higher than Moslem. Some people have no ethics. Saddam doesn't have ethics for example, he has power.
Mqurice |
