EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 422
| 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. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4723 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
784 Posts
On June 13 2025 22:27 Uldridge wrote: Let's all collectively agree to disregard anything this clown of a US president had to say. If we all decide to ignore him, he can't really do anything, right? I'm pretty sure that would make him push the big red button very fastly and determinedly. Yeah, I mean the warning could have been 28 days ago and not 60. Not trusting him, just it indicates knowledge and approval. | ||
KwarK
United States42468 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
784 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24877 Posts
But let’s assume instead of the reality we got, that the Northern Irish Troubles consisted of an Ireland that was militarily somewhat in the ballpark of the UK. And directly supported groups like the IRA with hardware. And the IRA were consistently attacking all sorts in Northern Ireland, and the British mainland. They’re funding and supplying, IDK, Scottish separatists terror groups, or a bunch of angry Manx folks. Now, the best thru acceptable solutions here are de-escalatory in some form, it would be my advocacy in this alternative timeline. However if the will isn’t there between the two, and you really need both parties on board to de-escalate, it wouldn’t be outrageous if the British government started assassinating people in Irish territory. Unless you hold the worldview that all people are humans and states shouldn’t matter at all, which I don’t idealistically disagree with, then I don’t know what possible threshold one has that some kind of action here isn’t somewhat justifiable. But if your position is couched outside of formal states, then why do Palestinians need one? I am pro a Palestinian state, because I don’t think we’ve yet moved beyond the need for states just yet. But with that comes the rationale for states existing in the first place, as well as their right to preserve themselves to some degree. One may think it a bad course of action, but if your position is that Israel effectively can’t do anything to preserve itself as a state, then you’re arguing that either Israel is uniquely locked out of exercising these rights (I’d question one’s selectivity), or you’re more universally arguing that states can’t do x y and z. If states have such a limited right to preserve themselves, why have em at all? You’ll just get crushed by the first power meaty enough to crush you. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12097 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21593 Posts
On June 13 2025 22:41 Billyboy wrote: Lets be absolutely real, the bill that forces weapon shipments to Israel to resume after Trump stops them as a means of leverage will be the fastest bill to ever pass through Congress and land on the Presidents desk with a veto proof majority.He has lots of leverage, from the bunker busting missiles Israel needs to destroy the nuclear facilities to the missiles that they need for their air defense. But he has no idea how to use leverage and Netanyahu is way smarter than him and he is super easy to manipulate. So this is basically difference without distinction. In theory Trump has leverage, in practice he absolutely does not. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24877 Posts
On June 13 2025 22:41 Billyboy wrote: He has lots of leverage, from the bunker busting missiles Israel needs to destroy the nuclear facilities to the missiles that they need for their air defense. But he has no idea how to use leverage and Netanyahu is way smarter than him and he is super easy to manipulate. So this is basically difference without distinction. Trump doesn’t really have that leverage either, and it wasn’t even something Netanyahu had to really work at. Trump went all-in on being Israel’s best buddy even from his first term. I guess it’s Trump and some of his base will forgive almost any U-turn, but how does he make any kinda flip now without annoying a decent chunk of them? He’s remarkably bad at making deals, he really is awful at it. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17957 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. Russia is clearly "justified" in a casus belli kind of way in escalating their war with Ukraine to everyone who supplies them with logistic and military support. It's absolutely fully justifiable. But Russia isn't going to do that, because they don't want anybody in NATO having any realistic justification for triggering article 5. The odd bomb will overshoot and fall in Poland, some jet fighters will fly into Finnish, Swedish, Turkish or even UK airspace. Some anchors will dredge up and destroy some fiberoptic cables, and some Russian defectors will die from polonium. But Russia doesn't currently dare escalate much more than that. It isn't a lack of justification, it's that they know they are already stretched thin. Clearly Israel feels they have extra capacity, or they gamble that Iran can't do much. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15540 Posts
I guess Israel is about 7% done with their strikes | ||
|
Legan
Finland388 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15540 Posts
On June 14 2025 01:17 Legan wrote: Weirdly, people are worried that China will increase its global influence when it is hard to say where Western countries are using their influence. How is influence making the world any better currently? Both Gaza and this situation seem obvious cases for using influence. You can, of course, make the case that the missiles and air defence systems are the influence. I would argue this situation right now is a huge boost to Western influence. When Iran is no longer a threat to anyone, it will pretty much wrap up the middle east as a western-aligned region. Who is left after Iran? Israel has no other actual enemies after Iran is gone and the pragmatic and deeply corrupt rules of the various ME nations will just hop on board the western train more fully. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12097 Posts
Entirely depends on who Israel chooses to attack, it'll be that one that is left. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia497 Posts
Iran has many times the population and enough resources to peruse asymmetrical, if not conventional warfare against Israel, these kind of attacks only ensure that they have the political support behind them to do these kind of things. The last change in government in Iran brought less aggressive rhetoric and resuming of negotiations to wind down Iranian nuclear program, these kind of unprovoked strikes are sure to make sure that the sentiment in the country stays as anti-Israel as possible, but no one really cares, as far as commentators here are concerned. This is what bothers me, the rhetoric here is very reminiscent of the rhetoric people who are against arming Ukraine to resist Russians have, it completely disregards any agency or Iranian people, it only allows agency to Israel while treating Iran, just like Gazans or Palestinians in general as a hateful blob that can only be reasoned by violence. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9580 Posts
On June 14 2025 02:15 Jankisa wrote: I guess I would love to know, just like in the case of Gaza, why does anyone think that these strikes taking out generals and scientists, including taking down residential buildings in Teheran will lead to Iranians thinking it might be a good idea to get on a different, more peaceful footing with Israel. Iran has many times the population and enough resources to peruse asymmetrical, if not conventional warfare against Israel, these kind of attacks only ensure that they have the political support behind them to do these kind of things. The last change in government in Iran brought less aggressive rhetoric and resuming of negotiations to wind down Iranian nuclear program, these kind of unprovoked strikes are sure to make sure that the sentiment in the country stays as anti-Israel as possible, but no one really cares, as far as commentators here are concerned. This is what bothers me, the rhetoric here is very reminiscent of the rhetoric people who are against arming Ukraine to resist Russians have, it completely disregards any capacity for change in Iran, it only allows agency to Israel while treating Iran, just like Gazans or Palestinians in general as a hateful blob that can only be reasoned by violence. The great thing for Netenyahu is he's surrounded by many, many enemies taking up a huge amount of space so he can keep Israel in active conflict forever. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42468 Posts
On June 14 2025 02:15 Jankisa wrote: I guess I would love to know, just like in the case of Gaza, why does anyone think that these strikes taking out generals and scientists, including taking down residential buildings in Teheran will lead to Iranians thinking it might be a good idea to get on a different, more peaceful footing with Israel. Iran has many times the population and enough resources to peruse asymmetrical, if not conventional warfare against Israel, these kind of attacks only ensure that they have the political support behind them to do these kind of things. The last change in government in Iran brought less aggressive rhetoric and resuming of negotiations to wind down Iranian nuclear program, these kind of unprovoked strikes are sure to make sure that the sentiment in the country stays as anti-Israel as possible, but no one really cares, as far as commentators here are concerned. This is what bothers me, the rhetoric here is very reminiscent of the rhetoric people who are against arming Ukraine to resist Russians have, it completely disregards any agency or Iranian people, it only allows agency to Israel while treating Iran, just like Gazans or Palestinians in general as a hateful blob that can only be reasoned by violence. Not sure that anyone here thinks escalation is a good policy choice for deescalation. | ||
|
pmp10
3292 Posts
On June 14 2025 02:15 Jankisa wrote: Iran has many times the population and enough resources to peruse asymmetrical, if not conventional warfare against Israel, these kind of attacks only ensure that they have the political support behind them to do these kind of things. In theory it can, but the costs would be enormous. Even if mullah power somehow survives (far from given considering all the recent protests and riots), the country would be bombed to the stone age. Of course, if they see themselves backed into a corner they might go that way anyway. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42468 Posts
On June 13 2025 23:32 Acrofales wrote: Russia is clearly "justified" in a casus belli kind of way in escalating their war with Ukraine to everyone who supplies them with logistic and military support. It's absolutely fully justifiable. But Russia isn't going to do that, because they don't want anybody in NATO having any realistic justification for triggering article 5. The odd bomb will overshoot and fall in Poland, some jet fighters will fly into Finnish, Swedish, Turkish or even UK airspace. Some anchors will dredge up and destroy some fiberoptic cables, and some Russian defectors will die from polonium. But Russia doesn't currently dare escalate much more than that. It isn't a lack of justification, it's that they know they are already stretched thin. Clearly Israel feels they have extra capacity, or they gamble that Iran can't do much. I agree with your ultimate conclusion but I think you've been far too generous with humouring what was a profoundly stupid question by him. The gulf between the Houthis and Ukraine is vast and the comparison attempted by Jankisa simply doesn't work. Let's say a missile hits one of your airfields. It's not an act of god, it is a clear military strike against your military assets, you're now in some kind of war, either declared or undeclared. Who are you at war with? The best candidate is the people who fired the missile. If they're a sovereign state with a recognized government, borders, their own military and so forth then that's that. They had the capacity for independent action and they acted independently. You ask them if they attacked you and they go "fuck yeah we did". Job done. That's the case for Ukrainian attacks on Russia. Ukraine is the state launching the attack because Ukraine literally is the state launching the attack. Britain could give them a bunch of storm shadows with the GPS coordinates of Russian assets preloaded in and it wouldn't make a difference, Ukraine still exercised the final act, they pulled the trigger. But what if there isn't a recognized sovereign state on the other end. What if the internationally recognized government has lost control over large parts of the country to a foreign sponsored militia and when you ask Yemen if they attacked you they say "no". Then it gets more difficult. The missile was manufactured by a state and the coordinates were entered by a state but no state is formally taking responsibility. But then you bomb the launch site and among the dead turns up a major in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who is there in an official candidate as the guy who pulls the trigger on the missile attacks. Great, now it's easy, we're at war with Iran. The difference between the Houthis and Ukraine is all of the extremely obvious differences that literally anyone can see. It's a dumb fucking question. But I like the core of your answer. If Russia ultimately wanted to insist that Ukraine is no more than a western proxy then all of the actual facts of the situation like how westerners aren't involved in the command chain and how Ukraine has an internationally recognized sovereign government (including recognition by Russia itself) wouldn't change anything. They could insist that it was really an attack by Britain and act accordingly against Britain directly. They won't because, as you say, they're afraid. They'd only act through constant hybrid warfare, which is, incidentally, exactly what they've been doing for years. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42468 Posts
On June 14 2025 01:51 Nebuchad wrote: Entirely depends on who Israel chooses to attack, it'll be that one that is left. This is a weird framing where Israel is just choosing to attack places and that any country could be chosen, regardless of their relations with Israel. If I'm understanding you correctly you'd think it could easily be Jordan, for example, if Israel choose Jordan next. I don't think they're just choosing places at random. If we look at the wars Israel has been fighting all of the other sides have had something in common, they were all already at war with Israel. We've got Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran, and in none of those cases did Israel just choose them. Given that all of the other parties all have something in common, they were all preexisting parties in the war, I would propose a rival theory, Israel is only pursuing war with the groups it is at war with. They're not choosing these groups. I don't see many enemies left for them. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq have all basically normalized relations with Israel. There isn't any ongoing war there. It'd be weird if Israel decided to start one. I don't want to put words in your mouth so please expand upon your theory. Who does Israel attack after Iran and why? I feel like they're out of enemies after Iran (or more likely that there is no after Iran, Iran works as a permawar). Essentially my argument is that the risk of finding yourself at war with Israel is dramatically increased by declaring war on Israel. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12097 Posts
On June 14 2025 03:09 KwarK wrote: This is a weird framing where Israel is just choosing to attack places and that any country could be chosen, regardless of their relations with Israel. If I'm understanding you correctly you'd think it could easily be Jordan, for example, if Israel choose Jordan next. I don't think they're just choosing places at random. If we look at the wars Israel has been fighting all of the other sides have had something in common, they were all already at war with Israel. We've got Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran, and in none of those cases did Israel just choose them. Given that all of the other parties all have something in common, they were all preexisting parties in the war, I would propose a rival theory, Israel is only pursuing war with the groups it is at war with. They're not choosing these groups. I don't see many enemies left for them. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq have all basically normalized relations with Israel. There isn't any ongoing war there. It'd be weird if Israel decided to start one. I don't want to put words in your mouth so please expand upon your theory. Who does Israel attack after Iran and why? I feel like they're out of enemies after Iran (or more likely that there is no after Iran, Iran works as a permawar). Essentially my argument is that the risk of finding yourself at war with Israel is dramatically increased by declaring war on Israel. Most likely Lebanon or Syria. The reason will be self-defense, there's going to be some reason why Israel must protect itself from its evil neighbor. | ||
| ||
