Even if what you're saying is true (theocracy, subhuman etc etc), the reality is we have almost 60 years of experience saying Israel isn't irresponsible with nukes. We can't say that about any of the other countries in the region like Iran, Turkey, Syria, Yemen etc etc. It would be one giant experiment to have everyone armed with nukes.
> We can't say that about any of the other countries in the region like Iran, Turkey, Syria, Yemen etc etc.
Can we for a second, step back and acknowledge who CAUSED the instability in those countries? Iran, off the top of my head, had a secular democratic government until the CIA orchestrated a coup.
Meanwhile, I certainly don't trust a country with nukes that has single handedly spearheaded a genocide that has resulted in the death of over 20 thousand children. Its literally a magnitude order more deaths per year than any other armed conflict. If you want to argue that religious zelots should not be trusted with nukes, I fully agree with you. but lets apply that logic to all countries. not just the ones that "ally" with us.
You seem to be confused about the definition of the word theocracy if you unironically consider Israel one. No, you don't seem to be - you unquestionably are considering how you argued the point.
theocracy
/θɪˈɒkrəsi/
noun
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
you're absolutely correct. it would be more accurate to call Israel an ethnosupremacist state. For all intents and purposes, I consider the alternative terminology a reasonable substitute when looking at outcomes.
Even if what you're saying is true (theocracy, subhuman etc etc), the reality is we have almost 60 years of experience saying Israel isn't irresponsible with nukes. We can't say that about any of the other countries in the region like Iran, Turkey, Syria, Yemen etc etc. It would be one giant experiment to have everyone armed with nukes.
> We can't say that about any of the other countries in the region like Iran, Turkey, Syria, Yemen etc etc.
Can we for a second, step back and acknowledge who CAUSED the instability in those countries? Iran, off the top of my head, had a secular democratic government until the CIA orchestrated a coup.
Meanwhile, I certainly don't trust a country with nukes that has single handedly spearheaded a genocide that has resulted in the death of over 20 thousand children. Its literally a magnitude order more deaths per year than any other armed conflict. If you want to argue that religious zelots should not be trusted with nukes, I fully agree with you. but lets apply that logic to all countries. not just the ones that "ally" with us.
You seem to be confused about the definition of the word theocracy if you unironically consider Israel one. No, you don't seem to be - you unquestionably are considering how you argued the point.
theocracy /θɪˈɒkrəsi/ noun
you're absolutely correct. it would be more accurate to call Israel an ethnosupremacist state. For all intents and purposes, I consider the alternative terminology a reasonable substitute when looking at outcomes.