Aggression? Retaliation? Anticipatory Defense?

Submitted by GWK (United States), Sep 25, 2008 at 07:14

Whoa!

Clearly there is a need for some proportionality in response to threats. And the prospect of 600 million hostile civilians using many of their lifelong talents to push Israel off the map is a strong counterweight threatening Israel's survival. So is the propaganda and jingoistic rallying of Iran's extremists and of Hamas, Hezbollah and other anti-Israel groups.

And the West needs to recognize that most people of the Middle East aren't just anti-Israel, they are anti-West and anti-anything that isn't exactly what they are. (I.e., If you are certain sect of Shiite, you are against those not in your sect, etc.) But the real threats are to non-Muslims. Just ask Egypt's Coptic Christians, Iraq's Jewish minority, Persia's Zoroastrianss, Lebabon's Maronite Christians, Jews in the Arabian Peninsula.

So, if we want to win hearts and minds, bombing or invading Iran will not make 600 million easily angered Muslims rejoice or respect the attackers. That ticking bomb has to be defused in other ways.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".