Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech at the UN General Assembly in New York

Were responses to Pearl Harbor and 911 proportional?

Or were they intended, instead, to beat a dedicated and evil foe who struck first, to RESPOND to an atrocity and to STOP that atrocity from ever happening again? I wish nobody would fund such attacks. Perhaps that will happen, eventually. Recent events are making that more likely as a practical matter, I think.

How many Pearl Harbors or 911s must a society absorb before deciding to ACTUALLY stop a repetition of it. Well, guess what: since Israel is a tiny country with a much smaller population than the U.S., October 7 was proportionally MUCH worse, in terms of human loss, than either Pearl Harbor or 911. Don't believe me -- if you understand mathematical proportionality, do the math to check what I write.

Name calling, of any sort, is not the same thing as responding with real counterargument to an actual point.

After the Holocaust, many thoughtful Jews worldwide seem to have become sensitive and attentive to the notion of "Never Again." And, frankly, can anybody really doubt that they should be?

I think October 7 was wildly counterproductive and made a "Two State Solution" MUCH less likely. Indeed, I think that by now this is quite obvious. But I'll consider any real counterargument that doesn't just name call.

I hope Palestinians enjoy a decent life under a peaceful government that wishes to live in peace with all neighbors. There are already many countries where one can live in the Middle East and that seem now to value peaceful and productive coexistence and can serve as examples of ever-growing wisdom and practicality.

Leaders all over the world,
throughout time,
have started wars.

That is insane.

I repeat, and try to concentrate:
starting wars are insane.

Defending is fine.

And me calling leaders insane is not name calling

I have read a lot of history and
psychology and I am fully
convinced that our leaders
throughout history
were insane.

And they still are.

Do nobody else realize this?

People must realize that
following the same kind
of leaders we always
have will lead to more wars.

So people should "realize" that FDR was a bad or "crazy" leader, because he responded to Pearl Harbor and to the rise of Nazism? I certainly hope that's not what's being implied.

Because FDR very definitely took America into war.

Moral equivalency is, I think, often a seductive mistake.

I try never to confuse a bully with the bullied, even if both end up punching.

I have said multiple times:

Defending is fine.

I'm glad we agree that defending can be distinguished.

That is precisely my point.

And let's notice that when FDR defended, he didn't do it just within the boundaries of the U.S. He had to cast power abroad, as well. And he had to cast it as overwhelmingly as he could. And it was ALMOST not enough, on several occasions.

Netanyahu fears to lose elections, as he then also loses his immunity from prosecution in Israel.
Several lawsuits are pending against him.
As for the October 7 attack, Haaretz wrote that Netanyahu knew of it in advance.

The same sort of thing was said about the U.S., too.

People have claimed that the U.S. "knew" about Pearl Harbor and "knew" about 911, too. Indeed, it's become a stereotypical distraction.

But let's use common sense. Knowing that an attack somewhere and somehow may be likely is not remotely the same thing as knowing exactly when or exactly how, which would enable an effective advanced defense, while still not furnishing a justification for the attack.

There was a German build up on the border with Poland before the cruel invasion of September, 1939, too. But so what? Does that mean that Europe should not have responded to the invasion?

I prefer what is certain to vague distractions that can furnish nothing more than a last word.

And I'm certain that the invasion of Poland and the Rape of Nanking and 911 and October 7 were all counterproductive atrocities. Let's not distract from the obvious with conjecture or with attacks on the leaders who had the unenviable duty to respond.

Some things really can't be justified. Let's not distract away from that realization. Even if such distraction has become oh so common in the world lately.

America didn't attack itself. Israel did not attack itself. A bully's victim is not responsible for the bully, even if the victim knew that the bully might act in a bullying fashion.

@tpr said ^

Netanyahu fears to lose elections, as he then also loses his immunity from prosecution in Israel.
Several lawsuits are pending against him.
As for the October 7 attack, Haaretz wrote that Netanyahu knew of it in advance.

Guess what, because there are elections in Israel, because Israel is a democracy.

Other than all the remaining states in the middle east, including Palestine if it governed itself

@tpr said ^

Netanyahu fears to lose elections, as he then also loses his immunity from prosecution in Israel.
Several lawsuits are pending against him.
As for the October 7 attack, Haaretz wrote that Netanyahu knew of it in advance.

Yeah I heard that too. That he needs to keep the war going to avoid trials and likelihood of him going to jail.