March 16, 2026
1 Comment
A Gathering Space
A quiet, meaningful space where readers, educators, historians, and families connect through shared reflection, remembrance, and hope.
Given the long history of persecution described in Faith, Hope and Resilience, do modern threats against Israel such as those from Iran justify strong military action for self-defense, or should diplomacy always be the first path?
Jack Saroyan
10 Responses
History teaches us that when Jews ignored threats, the consequences were devastating. If a nation openly threatens Israel’s destruction, strong defense is justified.
I understand the fear, but endless war only creates more suffering. Diplomacy should always come first before military action.
Diplomacy has been attempted for years regarding Iran’s nuclear program. At some point, self-defense becomes necessary.
The book shows how vulnerable Jews were when they had no state or army. Israel exists precisely so Jews can defend themselves.
True, but moral responsibility also matters. A nation must defend itself while still prioritizing humanitarian outcomes.
To all,
You have brought interesting arguments to the discussion. Based on my own background I am definitely against war. It brings such senseless killings on both sides. That being said, sometimes it takes extraordinary measures to protect yourself and armed conflict becomes inevitable.
Diplomacy only works when both sides are willing to compromise. Chamberlain’s diplomacy before WW2 ended up in the largest loss of life in a conflict including over 6 million Jews. The diplomacy then did nothing to satiate Hitler’s hunger for world domination. It gave him everything he wanted for a meaningless promise that he broke as soon as he stepped away from the table. This was not diplomacy, it was appeasement. Diplomacy is based on the idea that both sides are sane, reasoning people. It does not work when one side has insane hatred for the other side.
In today’s world, the attacks on Iran, a sworn enemy of the Jews, and who had orchestrated countless acts of terror against them, seem justified. It may not defeat them or change their stance against the Jews, but it will remind them of the cost and destruction that will befall them if they continue in their chosen paths. This will not bring peace forever, but it will give the people of Israel some years of comfort and reduced fear of attacks
War may sometimes seem necessary, but using the failure of appeasement before World War II with Adolf Hitler to justify modern conflicts is a weak comparison. Not every adversary or situation is the same. Military strikes might create short-term deterrence, but they often deepen hostility, harm civilians, and increase the risk of wider escalation especially between countries like Israel and Iran. Long-term security usually comes from diplomacy, accountability, and international cooperation, not just force.
You raise a thoughtful point. History, including the failure of appeasement before World War II with Adolf Hitler, does show that diplomacy alone doesn’t always stop aggressive actors. While war is tragic and should always be a last resort, countries sometimes feel they must take strong measures to protect their people. In a tense situation involving nations like Israel and Iran, the challenge is balancing security with the hope that diplomacy can eventually create a more lasting peace.
WE NEED PEACE TO LIVE IN THIS WORLD GUYS!!!
I understand the point you’re making. History, especially the failure of appeasement before World War II with Adolf Hitler, does show that diplomacy doesn’t always work when one side is unwilling to compromise. While I’m still uncomfortable with war because of the suffering it causes, I can see why some people believe strong action may sometimes be necessary for security, particularly in tense situations involving countries like Israel and Iran. It’s a difficult balance between avoiding conflict and protecting people.