"If such a war does happen, it would not be a long war, and it would benefit the entire Islamic umma"

Khamenei’s dreaming if he thinks it would be that easy. No way Israel is going to let them get that close to a rapid victory scenario… or any likely victory scenario.

Both sides dreaming of short conflict with light casualties

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9478044/Isr…

A strike on Iran’s nuclear sites would spark a 30-day war with missile attacks on Israel’s cities and as many as 500 dead, according to the Israeli minister responsible for preparing home defences.

This is a bit off-topic, even though related - I think of the Western USA when I hear people suggest that Israel should just give land back to make certain countries “happy.” Really?

So when you look at a map of the United States, you have to remember that much of the land in the West is the result of land won in the Mexican American War and/or a result of Texas winning it’s independence from Mexico and then deciding it wanted into the Union. Can you imagine someone suggesting 20 or 30 years later, “Well Mexico is really mad at us for winning those wars and acquiring that land….so….let’s give it back“……..or even “such-in-such tribe over here in AZ is upset at the Federal Government, let’s give half of the state back to them without any connection to the Federal Gov’t.”

I know it’s not exactly an apple to apple comparison - but the analogy is similar enough to make the point.

So Iran, or any other Arab country is separated from reality if they think that Israel will be caught unaware like she (sort of) was in the 73 “Yom Kippur.” No sir. Israel is ready like she was in 67’. Jim is right, in any case and any scenario, it will be bloody.

I know there are at least four or five different views of what this means and the eschatological implications therewith - but I think we all can agree that in our hearts, we indeed pray for the peace of Jerusalem!

Straight Ahead,

jt

The analogy is interesting.

Gets complicated if you go back further though. The “Palestinians” had the turf then Western powers basically gave it back to Israel. So in a way it could be like the rest of the world giving the Carolinas back to the Cherokee… Then later, Americans who live there are saying “Give us land back and we’ll stop blowing ourselves up in your shopping malls.”

So the Cherokee could validly argue: It was ours first. The Americans could argue “But it’s been ours for generations now.”

So in a way it all depends what point you drop into the history of the territory. Israel took the turf from the Canaanites with Divine authority. So, for all practical purposes it was theirs “first.” But for a good while, they weren’t there anymore and others moved in. How long was that the status quo before British colonialism and then the Balfour Declaration, etc.?

But now we have multiple generations of Israelis who have lived there.

So who’s “cause” do we support. Certainly not anybody’s who wants to wipe Israel off the map. Personally, I don’t support giving land back to the Palestinians either—not so much because “it isn’t their land,” but because it won’t work. There is too much radical-Islam-inspired idealism in the mix.

So three factors tip me toward siding w/the modern Jewish state: (a) It was theirs first and (b) It was(is) theirs most recently as well and (c) the radical Islamic agenda must either be defeated or victorious. It cannot be appeased.

I’ve heard tell of a war here within our own borders that was expected to last a few months…