British and Israeli approaches to combating their terrorist enemies

The difference between the British and Israeli approach to combating those working for their destruction and the murder of their citizens:

The Israelis focus on eliminating the danger they pose, by assassination, if necessary; while the British are more concerned with defending their human rights and will go as far as giving them political asylum and supporting them and their families on social welfare.

The reason, I suggest, lies in Britain's ruling elites being systemically and personally more concerned with their claim to a spurious "moral high ground", along with the political, social and economic advantages that go with it, and following a centuries-old tradition of the clergy, than with the welfare of the "British people", which are not a genuine PEOPLE anyway, but as a human environment and resource, which has to be maintained (served), of course, but primarily to facilitate its (self)-exploitation, to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege (which includes our ruling elites in politics, the media and academia). Thus their indifference to Britain's ethnic composition, which, perversely, they have made a virtue and moral imperative of.

Israel's ruling elites, in contrast, are genuinely concerned - in part, at least - with the Jewish people and nation, and in preserving their identity as such.

The rapidly increasing probability of a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran

LINK to Guardian article, Obama's nuclear spring, by Benny Morris on the rapidly increasing probability of a pre-emptive Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

A chillingly realistic article.

twiglette: "There is no evidence that if Iran were to obtain a deliverable nuclear warhead that it would use it."

Sure. Like there was no evidence (1933-38) that Nazi Germany, if continually appeased, would still unleash WW2 by attacking Poland and then the Soviet Union . . .