Killing Israel's Assailants Poses No "Moral Dilemna"
https://www.city-data.com/forum/great-debates/3321870-should-civilized-nations-engage-targeted-killings.html#post62411672
The inspiration for this topic is a book I am in the midst of reading Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman.
Ronen Bergman, the author, appears to have questions about the need of enlightened, civilized countries to kill terrorists outside the theater of combat. I see nothing wrong with that. There is no moral grace in allowing "asymetical warfare" or terror to continue. If countries and peoples want peace, the default mode of modern, civilized countries is willfully grant it, sometimes even bending over backwards to do so. Witness the Abrahamic Accords between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, the SALT I treaty, the "Iran Deal", known as the JCPOA and the Paris Peace Accords involving the Vietnam War in 1973. The West generally wants peace. It is the rare case that the West is goaded into devastating responses, such as outlined in the book above, Sherman's Civil War March to the Sea, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and similar responses.
Do you agree or disagree with whether a nation should curtail terrorism or shorten the length of prolonged, declared warfare in these ways?
----------------------------------------
https://www.city-data.com/forum/juda...l#post62409793
Note: Rachel, I am "reporting" my own post in place it belongs, say, in Great Debates rather than here. Please advise.
I am in the midst of reading Rise and Kill First: The Secret Histor of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman. When I finish the book, a version of this post will make it over to What book are you reading? On a side note, on that subforum I am going to check out a new thread, Books on the formation of modern Israel ? I assume that's a good place to which to head.
Ronen Bergman is obviously pro-Israel. Every few pages, he appears to be in moral pain if not agony over Israel's need to kill terrorists outside the theater of combat. I see nothing wrong with that. First of all G-d commanded that we kill all Amalkites. To this day I believe we suffer through the failure to follow that command. We did eliminate Haman and other apparent descendants. Personally, however, I believe we can draw a straight line from Amalek to Black September and Al Qaeda. There is no moral grace in allowing the madness to continue. If Arab countries and peoples want peace, Israel will always willfully grant it. Witness the Abrahamic Accords with the UAE and Bahrain, as well as various states of concord with Egypt, Morocco and even the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. While I am not a particularly religious person, I believe that the Tanach and Talmud give appropriate guidance; "In the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, Portion 72, Verse 1, it says that if someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first." (link to source).
Do others see the same moral duty?
The inspiration for this topic is a book I am in the midst of reading Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman.
Ronen Bergman, the author, appears to have questions about the need of enlightened, civilized countries to kill terrorists outside the theater of combat. I see nothing wrong with that. There is no moral grace in allowing "asymetical warfare" or terror to continue. If countries and peoples want peace, the default mode of modern, civilized countries is willfully grant it, sometimes even bending over backwards to do so. Witness the Abrahamic Accords between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, the SALT I treaty, the "Iran Deal", known as the JCPOA and the Paris Peace Accords involving the Vietnam War in 1973. The West generally wants peace. It is the rare case that the West is goaded into devastating responses, such as outlined in the book above, Sherman's Civil War March to the Sea, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and similar responses.
Do you agree or disagree with whether a nation should curtail terrorism or shorten the length of prolonged, declared warfare in these ways?
----------------------------------------
https://www.city-data.com/forum/juda...l#post62409793
Note: Rachel, I am "reporting" my own post in place it belongs, say, in Great Debates rather than here. Please advise.
I am in the midst of reading Rise and Kill First: The Secret Histor of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman. When I finish the book, a version of this post will make it over to What book are you reading? On a side note, on that subforum I am going to check out a new thread, Books on the formation of modern Israel ? I assume that's a good place to which to head.
Ronen Bergman is obviously pro-Israel. Every few pages, he appears to be in moral pain if not agony over Israel's need to kill terrorists outside the theater of combat. I see nothing wrong with that. First of all G-d commanded that we kill all Amalkites. To this day I believe we suffer through the failure to follow that command. We did eliminate Haman and other apparent descendants. Personally, however, I believe we can draw a straight line from Amalek to Black September and Al Qaeda. There is no moral grace in allowing the madness to continue. If Arab countries and peoples want peace, Israel will always willfully grant it. Witness the Abrahamic Accords with the UAE and Bahrain, as well as various states of concord with Egypt, Morocco and even the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. While I am not a particularly religious person, I believe that the Tanach and Talmud give appropriate guidance; "In the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, Portion 72, Verse 1, it says that if someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first." (link to source).
Do others see the same moral duty?
Total Comments 0
