pull down to refresh
The 'Greater Israel' project proposes that military aggression is justified to achieve the allegedly God given boundaries of the state of Israel.
'Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has suggested that Israel is destined to expand to include Jordan, and even beyond, to parts of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and even Iraq.
In a documentary film by Arte in 2024, Smotrich said “it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus.
This view has support in some parts of Israeli society. Israel’s incursions into Jordan and Syria has intensified international concerns that some actors in Israel are pursuing expansion into other countries...
In August 2025, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with Israeli TV channel i24News that he was on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.'
On that day GOD made a covenant with Abram: “To your offspring I assign this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates—
Genesis.15.18
Regardless, the twelvers and their mullahs want nothing less than the destruction of any Jew who aspires to political self determination in the Land of Israel. This has nothing to do with any statement by smotrich. Strawman
Yes, I know about that. But how can someone consider it a good thing? I can't understand it
If they believe God has given them a right to that land then they believe they are entitled to it and that those people now living on and governing that land are inherently bad and standing in the way of Gods will.
Religion can make people crazy is the only way it makes sense to me.
When the purpose is for the greater good, to avoid a more serious conflict later, and if civillian casualties are kept to an absolute minimum. All wars are not equal.
many atrocities have been commited for the "greater good". I disagree, peace and dialogue must prevail always, when it's not the case military defense(but never offense) must be used.
Iran had been careful to not use weapons but as a defense, they could be attacking the US in their territory but they haven't.
"but they will in the future"
So imagine a very serious and globally devastating conflict, let's just call it WW3. Would you not justify a limited conflict now if it reduces the likelihood of WW3? Or put another way, if you don't act now the death and destruction could be far greater in coming years. It's not pleasant, nobody wants war, but these are very real choices.
You're suggesting to act based on fear, making an agression on fear to create a supposed peace. It's nonsense. "What if this" "what if that"
You make it sound like there's only one person calling the shots when the reality is there's intelligence, military strategy, state departments who spend years monitoring potential threats and calculating risk. Their knowledge is far greater than yours, or mine, or any one president.
No intelligence and resources are above the truth or any principles. Then your advocating in favour of utilitarism not on priciples and what is the right thing to do.
You're not wrong but geopolitics can't usually be simplified down to just what's right and wrong. There's an incredible amount of nuance and gray areas. If the 'right' thing to do is, say, not act now, you could be putting your whole economy at risk and countless lives on the line. Should that come to pass in the years to come it would probably be deemed that you made the 'wrong' choice those years ago, and your 'no war' philosophy was ruthlessly taken advantage of by your adversaries who don't share those quandaries.
ok, so let's talk about the current war. What are you defending/justifying about it?
How can any war be a good thing?