69 million page views

Adopting Rhetorical Attitude in Determining Deference to Elimination Versus Neutralization

Reader comment on item: A Century of the Muslim Brotherhood
in response to reader comment: First step toward neutralizing Israel's enemy

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Sep 6, 2022 at 14:00

Knowing that it is the adopted parlance that the enemies of Israel are complicit in schemes of eliminating Israel as is proffered by following the edicts of adherents of Islam such as that heard from the Iranian Islamic Regime.
This is echoed in the edicts also proclaimed by the Muslim Brotherhood in their own self-styled intentions of hatred towards Israel. Reader Prashant indicates a pragmatic approach in that calling the actions of both of these enemies of Israel as cause for taking steps to protect Israel should be a priority of the International Communities defending all nation's rights, and yet Israel is vilified instead. Neutralizing that appears to be nullified by contravening ideologies. There is the alternative that everyone has a hard tme acknowedging instead; that if attacked, Israel has a fallback that no one is willing to see or is prepared to accept.
Thus, any perception of how the Islamic threat can be dealt with is, for all practical purposes, rhetorical. The reality is that if, or when, the signal is given that their patience is exceeded, that they will be hard to stop.
The reality is that Israel is the entity that can answer this question with any certainty (if they would only follow that which is written); and no one outside of that frame of reference can be expected to anticipate that outcome. Yet, it is that outcome which is seen here; and it will not be that which any will have thought was possible except those who follow what has been written in Israel's destiny.

Submitting....

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".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Adopting Rhetorical Attitude in Determining Deference to Elimination Versus Neutralization by M Tovey

Email me if someone replies to my comment

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".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2022 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)