EPT
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 421
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5599 Posts
| ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1352 Posts
On June 13 2025 16:44 KwarK wrote: I don't approve of the strikes. My position was laid out less than a day ago, that the Iranian regime's biggest threat is internal and that giving them a real enemy in Israel will help consolidate support for the government. My comment was in response to the suggestion that this is just more of the same offensive Israeli attacks on defenseless civilians. It is not. A state of undeclared but hot war has existed between Israel and Iran for some time now. They are both organized, armed, recognized peer states. This is nothing like Gaza. Throwing missiles at each other is entirely in line with their existing hostilities. They're at war with each other, this is fully within the reasonable bounds of that. And for once Israel is dropping bombs on people in uniform and actual Iranians are getting hit rather than their Palestinian proxies. Not good, but better than the alternative. Not sure where you're getting the "restarting hostilities with Iran", Iranian missiles have been launched at Israel by the Houthis on a daily basis for months. Without getting into the who did what first Iran Israel history we ought still be able to agree that today was very much not the start of it. Edit: this shit is a big part of why Israel rightly complains that it is held to an impossible standard and simply cannot win with many of its critics. Whether or not you think it is prudent or strategically sound this one is absolutely defensible. This is the one where there is an identifiable state actor as the enemy, direct conventional military attacks have been launched by that state actor against Israel, they are at war. If you think this one isn’t allowed then there’s something fundamentally broken with your expectations for Israel. In my view it’s unsound, but it’s definitely allowed. My preference is a negotiated peace but in the absence of a peace it is the undeniable prerogative of two sovereign warring nations to fight. Almost by definition. If this "impossible standard" you are mentioning was applied to Russia / Ukraine war then it would be OK for Russians to hit all the countries that are supplying Ukraine with weapons. I wonder if you would have this approach if Putin hit Polish air bases, German missile depots and residential buildings in Hampshire where scientists working on Storm Shadow missiles were sleeping? Would that be OK because Germany, Poland and UK provide Ukraine with weapons that they use to strike Russia, well, did strike Russia 7 months ago. Houtis are not Iran, they might get most of their weapons from them but attacks by Houtis can't be attacks by Iran any more then attacks by Ukraine are attacks by Poland or USA and not even Israel used them as an justification for this, but you did. This is another incredibly warmongering and aggressive move by Israel and it's not defensible to anyone who has interests in having peace instead of escalation. The list of people who want escalation is basically Israel, Russia because it's a nice distraction and extremely entrenched Israel supporters like you. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States547 Posts
On June 13 2025 19:51 Jankisa wrote: If this "impossible standard" you are mentioning was applied to Russia / Ukraine war then it would be OK for Russians to hit all the countries that are supplying Ukraine with weapons. I wonder if you would have this approach if Putin hit Polish air bases and German missile depots and it would be OK because Germany and Poland provide Ukraine with weapons that they use to strike Russia, well, did strike Russia 7 months ago. Houtis are not Iran, they might get most of their weapons from them but attacks by Houtis can't be attacks by Iran any more then attacks by Ukraine are attacks by Poland or USA and not even Israel used them as an justification for this, but you did. This is another incredibly warmongering and aggressive move by Israel and it's not defensible to anyone who has interests in having peace instead of escalation. The list of people who want escalation is basically Israel, Russia because it's a nice distraction and extremely entrenched Israel supporters like you. KwarK is not an extremely entrenched Israel supporter lol. And for your analogy to make any sense, Ukraine would have to be Hezbollah / Hamas / Houthis launching regular strikes targeting civilians into Russia prior to Russia’s invasion. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On June 13 2025 17:58 Silvanel wrote: I wonder if americans are aware how much this little escapade will cost them. Last time intereception costs was estimated to be 4-4,5 bilion dollar shared between US, UK, Isreal, Jordan and Iraq. But most of it came out of US budget. This time will be probably smiliar... What if this becomes daily thing... The next attack from Iran will be much bigger, imo. The previous one was more a statement of "Yes, we can perform a saturation attack that will overwhelm your defenses, even with you getting days notice." | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9830 Posts
On June 13 2025 16:44 KwarK wrote: I don't approve of the strikes. My position was laid out less than a day ago, that the Iranian regime's biggest threat is internal and that giving them a real enemy in Israel will help consolidate support for the government. My comment was in response to the suggestion that this is just more of the same offensive Israeli attacks on defenseless civilians. It is not. A state of undeclared but hot war has existed between Israel and Iran for some time now. They are both organized, armed, recognized peer states. This is nothing like Gaza. Throwing missiles at each other is entirely in line with their existing hostilities. They're at war with each other, this is fully within the reasonable bounds of that. And for once Israel is dropping bombs on people in uniform and actual Iranians are getting hit rather than their Palestinian proxies. Not good, but better than the alternative. Not sure where you're getting the "restarting hostilities with Iran", Iranian missiles have been launched at Israel by the Houthis on a daily basis for months. Without getting into the who did what first Iran Israel history we ought still be able to agree that today was very much not the start of it. Edit: this shit is a big part of why Israel rightly complains that it is held to an impossible standard and simply cannot win with many of its critics. Whether or not you think it is prudent or strategically sound this one is absolutely defensible. This is the one where there is an identifiable state actor as the enemy, direct conventional military attacks have been launched by that state actor against Israel, they are at war. If you think this one isn’t allowed then there’s something fundamentally broken with your expectations for Israel. In my view it’s unsound, but it’s definitely allowed. My preference is a negotiated peace but in the absence of a peace it is the undeniable prerogative of two sovereign warring nations to fight. Almost by definition. Oh my God its so unfair. Its like there's literally no circumstances where Israel can blow shit up and kill loads of innocents that people WON'T complain! Antisemites everywhere. BTW this has absolutely nothing to do with 'existing hostilities' or a state of hot war between Israel and Iran. Netenyahu had to call in sick to avoid a court appearance a couple of days ago. He needs the war. Every single person who is dying right now is dying because Netenyahu doesn't want to go to jail. There are no other reasons, no other motivations at play, and to pretend there is shows a massive misunderstanding of Netenyahu's domestic situation. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1352 Posts
On June 13 2025 20:10 Ryzel wrote: KwarK is not an extremely entrenched Israel supporter lol. And for your analogy to make any sense, Ukraine would have to be Hezbollah / Hamas / Houthis launching regular strikes targeting civilians into Russia prior to Russia’s invasion. Why would that be the standard? Russia is calling Ukraine a terrorist state. There are multiple occurrences of civilians in Russia dying from Ukrainian strikes, these things happen, it's war, it is not an excuse to strike at people supplying weapons. There have been 0 things Israel has done so far that Kwark hasn't had an excuse and explanation for, so, to me, who finds these things Israel is doing extremely unjustifiable and escalatory he's an extremely entrenched Israel supporter. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12447 Posts
On June 13 2025 14:40 Sent. wrote: I'm not sure if anyone outside of Israel and the US is going to consider this a "preemptive strike" or "active self-defence". I share that analysis, hopefully our governments act in consequence but I have some doubts. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26616 Posts
On June 13 2025 20:35 Jankisa wrote: Why would that be the standard? Russia is calling Ukraine a terrorist state. There are multiple occurrences of civilians in Russia dying from Ukrainian strikes, these things happen, it's war, it is not an excuse to strike at people supplying weapons. There have been 0 things Israel has done so far that Kwark hasn't had an excuse and explanation for, so, to me, who finds these things Israel is doing extremely unjustifiable and escalatory he's an extremely entrenched Israel supporter. I wouldn’t agree with you here necessarily. What Israel should do, and what Israel has some right to do aren’t necessarily going to align. I mean I don’t personally feel this is a good idea, for a variety of reasons. But I would say it is also a legitimate course of action. If Israel can’t hit the funder of various anti-Israel actors, that’s nearby, that doesn’t recognise the legitimacy of the state, and is trying to get nukes, who can anyone hit? There’s also a third category which is the ‘even if illegitimate who’s gonna stop it?’. If pressed, I think Kwark would concede that I have the right to call him a cunt. That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s an entrenched supporter of me calling him a cunt, and would really love it. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12447 Posts
| ||
|
Ryzel
United States547 Posts
On June 13 2025 20:35 Jankisa wrote: Why would that be the standard? Russia is calling Ukraine a terrorist state. There are multiple occurrences of civilians in Russia dying from Ukrainian strikes, these things happen, it's war, it is not an excuse to strike at people supplying weapons. There have been 0 things Israel has done so far that Kwark hasn't had an excuse and explanation for, so, to me, who finds these things Israel is doing extremely unjustifiable and escalatory he's an extremely entrenched Israel supporter. Ah I see, thanks for clarifying. I may have gotten confused with your intent. Like WombaT mentioned, I thought you were making an analogy to illustrate similarities between the morality of the action, but now I see you’re illustrating similarities between the “rights” of warring state actors. In that case, yes I agree that Russia has the “right” to target Ukraine’s suppliers, even if they’re in the wrong for starting the whole mess in the first place. And re: KwarK, I’m only saying he’s not because I’ve seen him argue with actual entrenched supporters of Israel from pages 1-350 in this thread, which as you’re new you wouldn’t have known unless you read the last 400 pages of this thread (which I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy lol), so it’s more just giving you information for your benefit. | ||
KwarK
United States43905 Posts
On June 13 2025 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote: Oh my God its so unfair. Its like there's literally no circumstances where Israel can blow shit up and kill loads of innocents that people WON'T complain! Antisemites everywhere. BTW this has absolutely nothing to do with 'existing hostilities' or a state of hot war between Israel and Iran. Netenyahu had to call in sick to avoid a court appearance a couple of days ago. He needs the war. Every single person who is dying right now is dying because Netenyahu doesn't want to go to jail. There are no other reasons, no other motivations at play, and to pretend there is shows a massive misunderstanding of Netenyahu's domestic situation. Ok and? Netanyahu is a piece of shit, we know that. I’ll extremely readily believe that his own political needs influenced policy here. But that changes nothing in terms of whether it is reasonable and acceptable for Israel to attack Iran within the broader context of being at war with Iran. A big part of the issue with many of Israel’s wars is that they are not conventional wars. If Israeli strikes kill Lebanese people then these are not casualties of a hostile state because Lebanon is not a hostile state. Lebanon is in part occupied by a practically sovereign but not legally sovereign proxy militia that Israel can’t practically wage a conventional war against. That puts us in murky ethical territory. Lebanon can’t surrender yet it’s still catching strays. Iran is a conventional sovereign state actor that actively pursued a state of war with Israel and has the capability of making peace. Of the great many places Israel has bombed this one is not like the others. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12447 Posts
On June 13 2025 21:39 Ryzel wrote: unless you read the last 400 pages of this thread (which I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy lol) I suspect I have less diplomatic outlooks on some of the recent developments here because I'm the only person who actually read most of it :'/ | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9830 Posts
On June 13 2025 21:39 KwarK wrote: Ok and? Netanyahu is a piece of shit, we know that. I’ll extremely readily believe that his own political needs influenced policy here. But that changes nothing in terms of whether it is reasonable and acceptable for Israel to attack Iran within the broader context of being at war with Iran. I guess it depends what the question originally was. Personally I'm not looking for casus belli that can be used as an excuse, I'm just judging the situation right or wrong as I see it. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43905 Posts
On June 13 2025 21:44 Jockmcplop wrote: I guess it depends what the question originally was. Personally I'm not looking for casus belli that can be used as an excuse, I'm just judging the situation right or wrong as I see it. It’s unsound from a broader strategic perspective and likely motivated by his own political needs. They shouldn’t have done it because it’s likely to lead to worse outcomes for Israel. They probably did it because Netanyahu thought it’d lead to better outcomes for himself. But of the many wars this is the one they’re definitely allowed to pursue. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States547 Posts
On June 13 2025 21:43 Nebuchad wrote: I suspect I have less diplomatic outlooks on some of the recent developments here because I'm the only person who actually read most of it :'/ Actually yeah fair enough, I was thinking about that after I said it and it’s not fair to the overall quality of discussion that’s been taking place here. That line was mainly in reference to slogging through so much text, but there’s certainly worse and less meaningful texts to slog through then this thread =) | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12447 Posts
On June 13 2025 21:58 Ryzel wrote: Actually yeah fair enough, I was thinking about that after I said it and it’s not fair to the overall quality of discussion that’s been taking place here. That line was mainly in reference to slogging through so much text, but there’s certainly worse and less meaningful texts to slog through then this thread =) Oh no I was 100% agreeing with you, it was incredibly frustrating to read, wouldn't wish it on anyone. | ||
|
Billyboy
1667 Posts
@ elroi Trump knew 100%, he has even said he gave them 60 days and it is day 61. @Jock All Netanyahu decisions are about him, so you are probably right Unpopular takes @Kwark Basically agree Iran is a horrible regime to its people, this is just fact. Iran is exporting violence across the region. If you look at the countries doing the wost, they all have a Iranian proxy army in them. Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen. I suspect lots of the other countries in the ME knew what was coming and are not going to admit it publicly but are OK with it. They want to move on to a time period where it is not all about war and destroying each other. This is like the pager attack in Lebanon, still awful because people will die. But way less awful then Gaza because most/many of the people who died are the actual decision makers of all sorts of evil shit. You guys want fascists dying, this is what it looks like. When Iran strikes back I hope they go for the decision makers as well. Way to optimistic outlook With the leadership taken out a new regime takes over that actually cares about its own people. Yemen, Lebanon and Syria get actually sovereignty to make their own decisions that benefit themselves and not Iran goals of ME domination. Iran strikes back and takes out higherups not civilians. Israelis are sick constantly being in fear of attacks, rockets and missiles, are done with Netanyahu and moderate government takes over. What I actually think will happen A bunch of strikes on Iran, it calms down while Iran reloads. Rinse and repeat what has been going on for decades. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5599 Posts
| ||
|
pmp10
3396 Posts
Why would Israel respect any US deal (especially after Gaza ceasefire) is not entirely clear. | ||
|
Billyboy
1667 Posts
On June 13 2025 22:15 Elroi wrote: Reasonable takes, but I don't agree with the last point: this isn't just "rinse and repeat". This is the strongest blow ever to the Iranian regime. They have to respond but what can they realistically do? When Israel previously struck the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs they never recovered. It wouldn't surprise me if it's the same this time. This is unique for sure, I didn't word it well. I meant that there is no major regime change or change of attitudes in the middle east and sometime in the next 3-30 years we are back to Iran sending proxy attacks on Israel, Israel assassinating scientists and military brass, Iran getting close to a nuke again and so on. I'm not sure what Iran's options are but I'm guessing at least a shit ton of drones and missiles. I also think they won't much care about precision and will aim for mass casualties. War is always bad, but it is much better if it is soldiers killing mostly soldiers instead of soldiers killing mostly civilians. | ||
| ||
