- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,418
- Reaction score
- 1,903
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yeah, cause clearly the decisions Israel has made over the last half century have prevented Palestinian attacks.
It has certainly worked better than the alternative of giving them a better platform to murder people in their war to destroy Israel.
Incidentally, let's unpack this a bit. You presumably don't know, but the vulnerability of Israeli civilians to attacks and being murdered went up SUBSTANTIALLY following the Oslo accords and giving Arafat a platform in the WB and Gaza to pursue his objective of destroying Israel. Things were much better when the PLO were kept further afield and Israel maintained control over the WB and Gaza.
So if you are looking at "over the last 50 years", understanding that the goal of the Palestinians has ALWAYS been to destroy Israel (recall that the PLO was formed in 1964 with that explicit purpose and renounced all claims to the WB and Gaza, targeting only Israel with an intent to drive the Jews into the sea), look at the series of events the Israelis had to put up with in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, compare that to the period between the 67 war and Oslo and then look at things since, and actually the best position Israel was in for that entire period was during the period when they tied their enemies' hands and limited their ability to undertake attacks in pursuit of their objectives which have never changed.
So what does that tell us about "preventing attacks"?
In any event, if you are suggesting the best way to prevent attacks is to do nothing and let them happen, or to give them better tools to attack you further in the future, then we have bigger issues.