non sequitur

Submitted by rw (United States), Feb 3, 2018 at 06:59

I think it's the Pipes doctrine which has the non sequitur. From the analysis as presented it looks as though the gentleman Kedar is advocating for Israel taking a strong stance as a matter of necessary policy, not with a view to 'acceptance', which he would seem to see as not a possible outcome - as one might suppose, correctly. It will take an absolutely catastrophic defeat and the dissolution of islam as a viable belief before there is 'acceptance'.

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".