I understand your logic. You demonstrate a problem of being uninformed by your descriptor (but Islam as a whole destroys israel). Islam as a whole does not exist until or unless there is a Caliphate government that all Muslims agree to support. If that descriptor was valid, I might agree with you. If the Pope were to direct an attack on the USA, I'd say, OK, bomb the Vatican. If Mecca directs an attack on the USA, I'd say, OK, bomb Mecca. But if you read my description of Mecca, which is valid, you can see the flaw in that idea.
Your descriptor quite frankly describes something that doesn't exist. Some nation like Iran or Siria or Palestine, or a combination might try to destroy Israel but they would not be supported by other Muslim nations. You should be able to recognize that as a geopolitical act of war, a nation (or allies of nations) commits. We can find religious people to say it is supported by the religion just as we can find some who condemn it. It isn't a prophesy of Islam and there is no consistant interpretation of Islam that supports that idea.
I seriously doubt the head rabbis in Israel would support your proposal because it would be unjust to the targets, escallates the conflict to a World War in which we have committed the greatest immoral act of history, and resolves nothing.
If Iran or its representatives like Hezbollah bomb Israel, bomb Iran. If Meccans bomb Isreal, ok, bomb Mecca. Otherwise, I couldn't support it for reasons given, repeatedly. |
