|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 24 2024 02:11 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2024 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact is that Iran does not have a good enough reason to keep this up. They are not liberating anyone. They are not pushing anyone back. They are not achieving objectives. Even in purely selfish or evil terms, Iran has no real path to achieving anything they want to achieve. Sure they do. Israel is very close to launching a ground war that might very well turn into a quagmire. IDF being stuck for the next 20 years fighting in Lebanon is very much in Iranian interests. The only question being if Hezbollah can last the next few months.
Right now it looks like Israel doesn't need to commit to some big ground invasion at all. They just keep sniping Hezbollah leadership and infrastructure over and over until they run out. Even if Nasrallah is in Iran, he isn't safe.
Israel is highly incentivized to avoid a big war and their current strategy is working better than anyone would have predicted. It seems like Hezbollah intelligence basically got checkmated.
|
On September 24 2024 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2024 02:11 pmp10 wrote:On September 24 2024 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact is that Iran does not have a good enough reason to keep this up. They are not liberating anyone. They are not pushing anyone back. They are not achieving objectives. Even in purely selfish or evil terms, Iran has no real path to achieving anything they want to achieve. Sure they do. Israel is very close to launching a ground war that might very well turn into a quagmire. IDF being stuck for the next 20 years fighting in Lebanon is very much in Iranian interests. The only question being if Hezbollah can last the next few months. Right now it looks like Israel doesn't need to commit to some big ground invasion at all. They just keep sniping Hezbollah leadership and infrastructure over and over until they run out.
Might be, but that's not a given.
Despite serious bombing campaigns Houthis are still striking ships and Hamas still rules gaza.
If in a few months Hezbollah is still able to make north of Israel unlivable, then IDF will have to invade.
Bibi has made securing the north into a war objective and will have no other choice to save face.
|
On September 24 2024 02:11 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2024 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact is that Iran does not have a good enough reason to keep this up. They are not liberating anyone. They are not pushing anyone back. They are not achieving objectives. Even in purely selfish or evil terms, Iran has no real path to achieving anything they want to achieve. Sure they do. Israel is very close to launching a ground war that might very well turn into a quagmire. IDF being stuck for the next 20 years fighting in Lebanon is very much in Iranian interests. The only question being if Hezbollah can last the next few months.
That's longer than their previous occupation in Lebanon. I doubt that will happen. There's zero appetite for that in Israel and their war aims are limited. Something similar to the 2006 war seems more likely.
|
On September 24 2024 03:25 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2024 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:On September 24 2024 02:11 pmp10 wrote:On September 24 2024 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact is that Iran does not have a good enough reason to keep this up. They are not liberating anyone. They are not pushing anyone back. They are not achieving objectives. Even in purely selfish or evil terms, Iran has no real path to achieving anything they want to achieve. Sure they do. Israel is very close to launching a ground war that might very well turn into a quagmire. IDF being stuck for the next 20 years fighting in Lebanon is very much in Iranian interests. The only question being if Hezbollah can last the next few months. Right now it looks like Israel doesn't need to commit to some big ground invasion at all. They just keep sniping Hezbollah leadership and infrastructure over and over until they run out. Might be, but that's not a given. Despite serious bombing campaigns Houthis are still striking ships and Hamas still rules gaza. If in a few months Hezbollah is still able to make north of Israel unlivable, then IDF will have to invade. Bibi has made securing the north into a war objective and will have no other choice to save face.
Iran won't throw away the enormous amount of soft-power the Hezbollah charade provides them. Even though Iran appears to be leaning into a sunk cost fallacy right now, I think the situation getting worse and worse will give the more risk-averse members of the IRGC inner-circle more influence.
It all comes down to the "pros" and "cons" of this war with Israel. It was easy for Iran to justify this whole "Death to Israel" shtick when it was mostly free if not profitable for them in a world-military-politics perspective. But Iran is risking losing a ton of tangible power with no real payoff right now. They truly hate Israel, but I am not convinced the theocracy aspect of Iran is so strong that they will actually just Jihad themselves out of relevance on the world stage.
|
|
|
On September 24 2024 03:45 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2024 02:11 pmp10 wrote:On September 24 2024 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact is that Iran does not have a good enough reason to keep this up. They are not liberating anyone. They are not pushing anyone back. They are not achieving objectives. Even in purely selfish or evil terms, Iran has no real path to achieving anything they want to achieve. Sure they do. Israel is very close to launching a ground war that might very well turn into a quagmire. IDF being stuck for the next 20 years fighting in Lebanon is very much in Iranian interests. The only question being if Hezbollah can last the next few months. That's longer than their previous occupation in Lebanon. I doubt that will happen. There's zero appetite for that in Israel and their war aims are limited. Something similar to the 2006 war seems more likely. If these strikes can't make the north of Israel safe for people who fled the rocket attacks since Oct then I can certainly see Israel invading and I imagine there will be appetite enough for that. Because then it becomes about securing Israel, not subjugating Lebanon.
|
On September 24 2024 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2024 03:45 RvB wrote:On September 24 2024 02:11 pmp10 wrote:On September 24 2024 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact is that Iran does not have a good enough reason to keep this up. They are not liberating anyone. They are not pushing anyone back. They are not achieving objectives. Even in purely selfish or evil terms, Iran has no real path to achieving anything they want to achieve. Sure they do. Israel is very close to launching a ground war that might very well turn into a quagmire. IDF being stuck for the next 20 years fighting in Lebanon is very much in Iranian interests. The only question being if Hezbollah can last the next few months. That's longer than their previous occupation in Lebanon. I doubt that will happen. There's zero appetite for that in Israel and their war aims are limited. Something similar to the 2006 war seems more likely. If these strikes can't make the north of Israel safe for people who fled the rocket attacks since Oct then I can certainly see Israel invading and I imagine there will be appetite enough for that. Because then it becomes about securing Israel, not subjugating Lebanon.
Not sure why this didn't occur to me until now, but when you and others say "allowing evacuated people to return home", you're referring to Israel's ability to control the land. If Israel let this "evacuation" go on too long, Israel would be admitting they can't defend/control that land. Israel correctly labels that precedent as an existential threat.
Behind the scenes, the US is likely coordinating with the other political factions in Lebanon to seal the deal once Hezbollah appears critically weakened. If the US can convince other factions the Hezbollah ship is sinking and the rats need to hurry and hop off before they all drown, this could be the end of Hezbollah.
I have seen unverified reports (grain of salt) that 50% of Hezbollah's entire stockpile have already been destroyed. In order for that to happen, Hezbollah must have been extremely weakened and/or infiltrated. Losing 50% so quickly strongly implies the other 50% will need to be formally defended by Iran or else it won't be long before other factions in Lebanon make a big play to fill the power vacuum they see developing.
Iran has been very clear they would defend Hezbollah directly. If they plan to protect Hezbollah, they better act soon. I hope they don't and they see the writing on the wall. Backdoor channels between US and Iran are probably clear about what will happen if Iran pulls the mask off and "directly" intervenes. Wild time right now.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you find harmful? That seems like a pretty clear description of Netanyahu's plan.
|
On September 24 2024 21:35 Elroi wrote:
What do you find harmful? That seems like a pretty clear description of Netanyahu's plan.
It's very obvious what would happen to Palestinian civilians who are unable or unwilling to leave. The Likud guy that he quotes even says it himself: "And after they will evacuate, the IDF will assume that only the terrorists will remain. When the civilians population has left, you can find and kill all the terrorists without harming the civilians."
And he found it within himself to question how this would help releasing the hostages but he buried that deep in his article, the lede is accepting the framing. He is participating in Israel using the hostages as human shields but he wrote a little post-scriptum that many won't read to add that this didn't really make any sense.
Edit: yeah it's my mistake I should have clarified what I meant.
|
I see. I didn't read the article, only your quote.
|
On September 24 2024 21:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2024 21:35 Elroi wrote:
What do you find harmful? That seems like a pretty clear description of Netanyahu's plan. It's very obvious what would happen to Palestinian civilians who are unable or unwilling to leave. The Likud guy that he quotes even says it himself: "And after they will evacuate, the IDF will assume that only the terrorists will remain. When the civilians population has left, you can find and kill all the terrorists without harming the civilians." And he found it within himself to question how this would help releasing the hostages but he buried that deep in his article, the lede is accepting the framing. He is participating in Israel using the hostages as human shields but he wrote a little post-scriptum that many won't read to add that this didn't really make any sense. Edit: yeah it's my mistake I should have clarified what I meant.
I think you're being intentionally thick when reading that if you interpret it that way.
The article clearly states that quote. You may assume the journalist isn't an idiot, so which of the two interpretations is more likely?
1. The journalist thinks the Likud guy is missing a critical part of the plan, and thinks it's worth mentioning that the plan is incomplete?
2. The journalist understands that if the plan calls for everybody to leave, and then killing everybody left, that any civilian who hasn't left is getting killed, but is being facetious and questioning the wisdom of the plan in not considering those who haven't left or how it frees the hostages.
I think it's fairly obviously (2) due to the inclusion of the question about the hostages. Which makes it some excellent journalism imho.
|
On September 24 2024 23:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2024 21:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 24 2024 21:35 Elroi wrote:
What do you find harmful? That seems like a pretty clear description of Netanyahu's plan. It's very obvious what would happen to Palestinian civilians who are unable or unwilling to leave. The Likud guy that he quotes even says it himself: "And after they will evacuate, the IDF will assume that only the terrorists will remain. When the civilians population has left, you can find and kill all the terrorists without harming the civilians." And he found it within himself to question how this would help releasing the hostages but he buried that deep in his article, the lede is accepting the framing. He is participating in Israel using the hostages as human shields but he wrote a little post-scriptum that many won't read to add that this didn't really make any sense. Edit: yeah it's my mistake I should have clarified what I meant. I think you're being intentionally thick when reading that if you interpret it that way. The article clearly states that quote. You may assume the journalist isn't an idiot, so which of the two interpretations is more likely? 1. The journalist thinks the Likud guy is missing a critical part of the plan, and thinks it's worth mentioning that the plan is incomplete? 2. The journalist understands that if the plan calls for everybody to leave, and then killing everybody left, that any civilian who hasn't left is getting killed, but is being facetious and questioning the wisdom of the plan in not considering those who haven't left or how it frees the hostages. I think it's fairly obviously (2) due to the inclusion of the question about the hostages. Which makes it some excellent journalism imho.
It's obvious to everyone that it's 2, you misunderstand the issue. Why write a one-liner about how the justifications for the plan don't make any sense in the middle of your article where you treat the justifications for the plan seriously? Either you think the justifications are real and you report that, or you think they are bs and you report that they are bs.
|
On September 24 2024 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2024 03:45 RvB wrote:On September 24 2024 02:11 pmp10 wrote:On September 24 2024 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact is that Iran does not have a good enough reason to keep this up. They are not liberating anyone. They are not pushing anyone back. They are not achieving objectives. Even in purely selfish or evil terms, Iran has no real path to achieving anything they want to achieve. Sure they do. Israel is very close to launching a ground war that might very well turn into a quagmire. IDF being stuck for the next 20 years fighting in Lebanon is very much in Iranian interests. The only question being if Hezbollah can last the next few months. That's longer than their previous occupation in Lebanon. I doubt that will happen. There's zero appetite for that in Israel and their war aims are limited. Something similar to the 2006 war seems more likely. If these strikes can't make the north of Israel safe for people who fled the rocket attacks since Oct then I can certainly see Israel invading and I imagine there will be appetite enough for that. Because then it becomes about securing Israel, not subjugating Lebanon.
There's already enough political support for a ground invasion. Gantz left the war cabinet partly because Netanyahu delayed changing focus to Hezbollah for a long time. I just don't think it'll become a long term occupation. Israel wants Hezbollah to retreat to the Litani River in accordance with unsc 1701. That's probably acceptable for Hezbollah in the short to medium term. It's not like Gaza where the goal is destroying Hamas with Hamas fighting for survival.
|
On September 25 2024 00:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2024 23:43 Acrofales wrote:On September 24 2024 21:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 24 2024 21:35 Elroi wrote:
What do you find harmful? That seems like a pretty clear description of Netanyahu's plan. It's very obvious what would happen to Palestinian civilians who are unable or unwilling to leave. The Likud guy that he quotes even says it himself: "And after they will evacuate, the IDF will assume that only the terrorists will remain. When the civilians population has left, you can find and kill all the terrorists without harming the civilians." And he found it within himself to question how this would help releasing the hostages but he buried that deep in his article, the lede is accepting the framing. He is participating in Israel using the hostages as human shields but he wrote a little post-scriptum that many won't read to add that this didn't really make any sense. Edit: yeah it's my mistake I should have clarified what I meant. I think you're being intentionally thick when reading that if you interpret it that way. The article clearly states that quote. You may assume the journalist isn't an idiot, so which of the two interpretations is more likely? 1. The journalist thinks the Likud guy is missing a critical part of the plan, and thinks it's worth mentioning that the plan is incomplete? 2. The journalist understands that if the plan calls for everybody to leave, and then killing everybody left, that any civilian who hasn't left is getting killed, but is being facetious and questioning the wisdom of the plan in not considering those who haven't left or how it frees the hostages. I think it's fairly obviously (2) due to the inclusion of the question about the hostages. Which makes it some excellent journalism imho. It's obvious to everyone that it's 2, you misunderstand the issue. Why write a one-liner about how the justifications for the plan don't make any sense in the middle of your article where you treat the justifications for the plan seriously? Either you think the justifications are real and you report that, or you think they are bs and you report that they are bs.
Because it's a news article, not an opinion piece? If you want their columnists' opinions, you should go to their opinion section, not their news section. Here, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/24/netanyahu-bombs-lebanon-gaza-israel
|
On September 25 2024 02:19 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2024 00:00 Nebuchad wrote:On September 24 2024 23:43 Acrofales wrote:On September 24 2024 21:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 24 2024 21:35 Elroi wrote:
What do you find harmful? That seems like a pretty clear description of Netanyahu's plan. It's very obvious what would happen to Palestinian civilians who are unable or unwilling to leave. The Likud guy that he quotes even says it himself: "And after they will evacuate, the IDF will assume that only the terrorists will remain. When the civilians population has left, you can find and kill all the terrorists without harming the civilians." And he found it within himself to question how this would help releasing the hostages but he buried that deep in his article, the lede is accepting the framing. He is participating in Israel using the hostages as human shields but he wrote a little post-scriptum that many won't read to add that this didn't really make any sense. Edit: yeah it's my mistake I should have clarified what I meant. I think you're being intentionally thick when reading that if you interpret it that way. The article clearly states that quote. You may assume the journalist isn't an idiot, so which of the two interpretations is more likely? 1. The journalist thinks the Likud guy is missing a critical part of the plan, and thinks it's worth mentioning that the plan is incomplete? 2. The journalist understands that if the plan calls for everybody to leave, and then killing everybody left, that any civilian who hasn't left is getting killed, but is being facetious and questioning the wisdom of the plan in not considering those who haven't left or how it frees the hostages. I think it's fairly obviously (2) due to the inclusion of the question about the hostages. Which makes it some excellent journalism imho. It's obvious to everyone that it's 2, you misunderstand the issue. Why write a one-liner about how the justifications for the plan don't make any sense in the middle of your article where you treat the justifications for the plan seriously? Either you think the justifications are real and you report that, or you think they are bs and you report that they are bs. Because it's a news article, not an opinion piece? If you want their columnists' opinions, you should go to their opinion section, not their news section. Here, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/24/netanyahu-bombs-lebanon-gaza-israel
You don't have to make it an opinion piece, you can quote some palestinian guy who is scared about what's going to happen if the plan is enacted, and then some expert that tells you that Netanyahu doesn't care about the hostages. There is not a separation between letting Likud talk about its plans in the way it wants to and questioning the plan as a narrative where one is news and the other is not news, in both cases you've made some narrative choices.
|
United States42832 Posts
|
It feels like you are saying this sarcastically but you do understand that they are right? It is the operating of every one of Iran's terrorist armies that have infiltrated other countries. If you need more specific evidence you can look at the first strikes that have been confirmed from the Iran side, where high up commanders were killed and it happened in schools and residential buildings. Is that much of a stretch to believe that they like their sister group also use health facilities and ambulances?
This does not answer the question if Israel has committed (new) war crimes, but of course Hezbollah has, it is damn near 100% of the way they operate.
How can you follow this so closely and be completely unaware of well known facts?
|
The accusation of the use of human shields is a common theme in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) [1] has used civilians as human shields multiple times to discourage Palestinian combattants from attacking; accusations against Palestinian militant groups[2] including Hamas[3] that they use Palestinian civilians as shields are commonly made by Israel and pro-Israel countries but have been contested by independent investigations,[4] though use of Israeli civilians as shields on the October 7 attack has been supported by witnesses and victims.
Neve Gordon, professor of international law and human rights and co-author of the 2020 book Human Shields: A History of People in the Line of Fire,[98] has stated that Israeli military and government claims of Hamas using Palestinian civilians as human shields "should be understood as a pre-emptive legal defence against accusations that Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza."[99] He also accuses state actors such as Israel of using human shielding allegations to hypocritically justify their own war crimes against civilians, adding: "This justification, however, functions only in one direction. When state actors kill civilians, it’s become standard to describe them as human shields. But when non-state actors attack military targets in urban settings, the civilians they kill are still recognised as civilians."[99]
On a more basic level we can also check for the definition of human shield. "A human shield is a non-combatant (or a group of non-combatants) who either volunteers or is forced to shield a legitimate military target in order to deter the enemy from attacking it." We have observed over the recent lifetimes that Israel is not deterred in any way to attack the enemy when the enemy is surrounded by civilians, so if they're using human shields, it's a poor strategy. See the aim of a human shield is not to make your soldiers feel bad because they kill innocents on top of enemy combatants, it's to make your soldiers not shoot. When the civilians die, Hamas benefits because it makes other civilians more angry and more likely to want retaliation against Israel, so they might join Hamas, and the IDF benefits because some non-Israeli Arabs living in Palestine are dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
