I disagree, for three reasons. The first is effectively “inaction in the face of an oppressive status quo is complicity”, and that’s the weakest of the three, I’ll be the first to admit. The second is that any nation has a right to defend itself when attacked. And that is very much what’s going on here.
The third, for me, is the main reason, and it’s an analogy. Imagine a situation with three people, a child rapist, a wife beater, and a child. The rapist is on the verge of raping the child, and the wife beater asks you to give him your gun to stop it (just imagine you’re unable to fire it yourself for some reason). In this scenario, I would give the gun to the wife beater. I would be supporting a bad guy (he beats his wife), but I would do it 11 times out of 10.
For clarity, Israel is the child rapist, Iran the wife beater. And yes, the relative magnitude of immorality here corresponds with that between Israel and Iran.
I think the more morally sound position is to not support either of them (Zionists and Islamists).
I disagree, for three reasons. The first is effectively “inaction in the face of an oppressive status quo is complicity”, and that’s the weakest of the three, I’ll be the first to admit. The second is that any nation has a right to defend itself when attacked. And that is very much what’s going on here.
The third, for me, is the main reason, and it’s an analogy. Imagine a situation with three people, a child rapist, a wife beater, and a child. The rapist is on the verge of raping the child, and the wife beater asks you to give him your gun to stop it (just imagine you’re unable to fire it yourself for some reason). In this scenario, I would give the gun to the wife beater. I would be supporting a bad guy (he beats his wife), but I would do it 11 times out of 10.
For clarity, Israel is the child rapist, Iran the wife beater. And yes, the relative magnitude of immorality here corresponds with that between Israel and Iran.