111–120 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You presume wrong. I mean the killing of Iranian civilians such as Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. The US arms Israel who conducts such extrajudicial assassinations. By your logic, this makes all American military personnel and proxy civilians fair targets for Iran
So, you mean like the Iranian attempt to assassinate John Bolton? (I mean, they didn't succeed, but does that make a real moral difference?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the US funds Israel who has extrajudicially assassinated Iranian civilians in Iran in the past few years. So can Iran then blow up an American embassy with justification?
The US itself has assassinated Iranian generals. > So can Iran then blow up an American embassy with justification? Well, that's a tough question. If you're asking legally or something, idk, I have no real knowledge of this. If you're asking practically, yes, the US is powerful and is able to do things that other countries can't. If you're asking morally - there's no question in my mind that the US should do whatever…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was definitely Israel who violated Iranian sovereignty first here, no? With the killing of IRGC commanders in a Syrian consulate. Neither country has attacked Israel recently. Iran funds Hamas, which attacked Israel on October 7th (and has attacked it many other times). It funds Hezbollah, which has been attacking Israel since October 7th, partially from Syria.
And the US funds Israel who has extrajudicially assassinated Iranian civilians in Iran in the past few years. So can Iran then blow up an American embassy with justification?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
It was the turning point in US Iran relations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The world's public might be "getting sick of" the war, but most Israelis are united around wanting to see the end of Hamas. They'd like things done faster, obviously, but aren't "sick of the war". The Israeli public is getting sick of the war, mass protests against Netanyahu and against prolonging the war and not bringing back hostages are growing from 0 right after the attack to quite populated right now in front…
> The Israeli public is getting sick of the war, mass protests against Netanyahu and against prolonging the war and not bringing back hostages are growing from 0 right after the attack to quite populated right now in front of our eyes. Eh. There's definitely less "enthusiasm" than in the beginning, but for the most part, even those who want a hostage deal don't see it as instead of the war, or at least not instead of…
1) most people want a quagmire war that will never end trying to defeat a populist force fighting for their homeland. The US has lost every single war of this kind in the last 60 years. Why would Israel win one?
2) Iran can be militarily stopped from getting nukes, or that it matters. I think our best shot was the JCPOA, and the fact that we haven't tried anything close to that since tells me that the US has given up trying to deter Iran's nuclear program. Even if Iran gets nukes, what will change? There is still MAD (there already was MAD between Israel's allies and Iran's allies). The whole world has largely moved past this issue, it seems, but you think it's very relevant.
3) Hamas can be eliminated even though the Taliban weren't. These are really similar forces fighting really similar blockades, embargoes, and invasions, with very similar popular support. Why is this the albatross of the past 60 years of losing offensive wars against populist guerilla fighters?
4) Hamas doesn't want freedom or had some kind of opportunity to better a completely embargoed, blockaded, and dietary restricted Gaza. This is a pretty surprising take honestly. What incentive does anyone have to run a business or improve any lot in life when your mortal enemy controls every import and export into your territory and even how much food you can have? What is the point of money or progress in such a world? You can't bring more stuff in from the outside until you destroy the blockade around you... I'd think anyone on any side here could see that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the US funds Israel who has extrajudicially assassinated Iranian civilians in Iran in the past few years. So can Iran then blow up an American embassy with justification?
The US itself has assassinated Iranian generals. > So can Iran then blow up an American embassy with justification? Well, that's a tough question. If you're asking legally or something, idk, I have no real knowledge of this. If you're asking practically, yes, the US is powerful and is able to do things that other countries can't. If you're asking morally - there's no question in my mind that the US should do whatever…
>If you're asking morally - there's no question in my mind that the US should do whatever is possible to weaken the Iranian regime
My original point was that Iran has not invaded Israel or even prematurely attacked or postured against it, the way Russia and China have done to the territories they wish to invade. It's quite the opposite. You even agree here that the US should essentially have carte blanche to destroy Iran because... it's a religious dictatorship (seriously that's all)??? Some of the closest US allies are religious dictatorships who have the exact same religious rules as Iran??? In fact, the US and Israel heavily court religious dictatorships who force their populations to live by the exact same religious laws!
A very outlandish take, to be honest, but it serves my point well. Iran's actions against Israel are defensive ones against a bloodthirsty enemy who seems to have a very poor reason to want to destroy it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the US funds Israel who has extrajudicially assassinated Iranian civilians in Iran in the past few years. So can Iran then blow up an American embassy with justification?
They already kind of did once: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis It was the turning point in US Iran relations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You presume wrong. I mean the killing of Iranian civilians such as Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. The US arms Israel who conducts such extrajudicial assassinations. By your logic, this makes all American military personnel and proxy civilians fair targets for Iran
So, you mean like the Iranian attempt to assassinate John Bolton? (I mean, they didn't succeed, but does that make a real moral difference?)
Also, I am keeping military leaders aside. I think most would agree that they sign up for a level of targeting civilians should be exempt from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US itself has assassinated Iranian generals. > So can Iran then blow up an American embassy with justification? Well, that's a tough question. If you're asking legally or something, idk, I have no real knowledge of this. If you're asking practically, yes, the US is powerful and is able to do things that other countries can't. If you're asking morally - there's no question in my mind that the US should do whatever…
I'm not talking about generals, I'm talking about civilians. Israel famously assassinated an Iranian civilian in Iran with a machine gun deployed remotely. >If you're asking morally - there's no question in my mind that the US should do whatever is possible to weaken the Iranian regime My original point was that Iran has not invaded Israel or even prematurely attacked or postured against it, the way Russia and China…
> My original point was that Iran has not invaded Israel or even prematurely attacked or postured against it, the way Russia and China have done to the territories they wish to invade.
Umm.. that's just false. Even leaving aside the current "round", Iran has been funding terrorists and militias to attack Israel for 50 years. Iran funded Hamas, and to some extent directs Hamas, which invaded Israel and killed a thousand citizens while shooting rockets at Israel. And that's just in the last 6 months. Hamas has been shooting rockets at Israel since 2007.
Hezbollah is a powerful armed group that has semi-taken-over Lebanon, and is parked on Israel's border (illegally against UN ceasefire resolutions, btw) and has shot rockets at Israel and had wars with Israel multiple times.
And this goes way back. Iran famously bombed the Israeli embassy and a Jewish center in Argentina way back in the 90s [1].
As for "not posturing" against Israel - let me just pull a few quotes from the Wikipedia article called "calls for the destruction of Israel" [2] (as if the fact that such an article exists about a country makes any kind of sense in this world):
"Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, stated in 2000 that “the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region”, and in 2001 that “the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region"
"In 2013 he labeled Israel a country "doomed to failure and annihilation," deeming it an "illegitimate regime" led by "untouchable rabid dogs" who "cannot be called human beings." He later outlined a nine-point plan for Israel's elimination in 2014.[22]"
""Our dear Imam (Khomeini) ordered that this Jerusalem occupying regime must be erased from the page of time," and that Iran would “wipe Israel off the map” [...] In 2006, he said: "Israel heading towards annihilation”, and in another statement, "The Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated”."
Are you really sticking by your assertion that Iran is somehow not a threat to Israel, hasn't "invaded or postured against Israel", and that it's the opposite?
> You even agree here that the US should essentially have carte blanche to destroy Iran because... it's a religious dictatorship (seriously that's all)???
Let's be clear, I'm talking about the Iranian regime here, not the people of Iran. But no, I don't think morally the US or Israel has carte blanche just because they're a religious regime. I think they have carte blanche because to take out the regime because that regime has explicitly, multiple times, claimed that it will wipe Israel off the map.
> Iran's actions against Israel are defensive ones against a bloodthirsty enemy who seems to have a very poor reason to want to destroy it.
If you think Israel is bloodthirsty with regards to Iran, and not just worried about itself, then you're just ignoring all available evidence to the contrary. Even with all of the above evidence aside, when Israel was founded, all the Arab states were its enemies and attacked it multiple times. The so-called "bloodthirsty" Israel now has peace agreements with many of them and is well on its way to have peace with many others, including recent announcements of a possible opening of diplomatic relations with the most populous Muslim country in the world.
And all of these old enemies of Israel are united in fearing Iran and in making defensive pacts against Iran.
Are they all just bloodthirsy countries who have somehow misunderstood that Iran is only interested in defending against Israel? Is Israel somehow only bloodthirsty when it comes to Iran, because... why exactly? (Note that relations between Iran and Israel went from peaceful to this after the regime change of the 1970s, not before.)
Lastly, if you're somehow not convinced by actual history, or the behavior of all other countries in the region, including ones that used to be historic enemies of Israel... if all of that is somehow not convincing about the current regime, why not just listen to the Iranian people? They've been railing against the regime for years and will back up the terrible burden the regime has placed on their daily lives, and also the fact that it's trying to drag Iran into war with Israel that none of the Iranian people even want (nor do Israelis!).
[1]
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/world/middleeast/argentin... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calls_for_the_destruction_of_I....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You think that Israel would even consider an immediate deadly response to open a fourth front in a war they can't afford, a war the public is getting sick of, and a war that the very disliked leader of the nation is cynically prolonging to maintain his waning grip on power? It's worth keeping in mind a few things. The world's public might be "getting sick of" the war, but most Israelis are united around wanting to…
Israel needs the support of the US to continue operating as it does. The US support of Israel was already on a demographic timer, the unwavering support of boomer evangelicals is dying out with them and even the new evangelicals have an net unfavorable view of Israel. The Gaza conflict has simply sped up this already seemingly inevitable decline. Losing popular support causes a cascade loss of other support; politica…
That said, US and Israeli interests are incredibly aligned. They have basically the same enemies (Iran, to some extent Russia and China, and Islamic fundamentalists in general), and the same outlook on the world. This isn't necessarily recognized by all citizens, but it's actually true about the world. I think the truth eventually overrides momentary episodes of changing public support.
> There has already been unprecedented pushback against Israel from Joe Biden who is clearly worried about his own reelection chances. I.e. the loss of public support is already causing a loss of political support.
I'm a fairly liberal Israeli on these issues, but I think it's worth mentioning that the "unprecedented" pushback also comes after the unprecedented support Biden gave Israel. And the pushback is in essence, mostly correct.
> Acquiring nukes keeps getting easier, improvement in material science, electronics, etc. Even North Korea has them now, in my view the only thing keeping Iran from getting nukes is the ability to use them as a bargaining chip. Unless it's Israelis plan to completely destroy Iran then taking away that bargaining chip would just end up with Iran getting nukes.
Yeah. That's a problem. I have no idea. I'm hoping Israel and the US have actual plans to stop Iran getting nukes, but what do I know?
I will mention that the fact that getting dangerous weapons in general is getting so much easier, is making me very scared for humanity as a whole. (See e.g. the issue I think most of humanity should be worried about, which is reducing existential risk, with the most obvious current problem being AI safety.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Israeli public is getting sick of the war, mass protests against Netanyahu and against prolonging the war and not bringing back hostages are growing from 0 right after the attack to quite populated right now in front of our eyes. Eh. There's definitely less "enthusiasm" than in the beginning, but for the most part, even those who want a hostage deal don't see it as instead of the war, or at least not instead of…
Again, it's really interesting to get these viewpoints. Thanks for sharing them with me. I really have to say they don't seem to resemble the facts on the ground I have noticed. Just a few things I noticed that I can't imagine anyone I know saying: 1) most people want a quagmire war that will never end trying to defeat a populist force fighting for their homeland. The US has lost every single war of this kind in the…
Thanks, that's why I comment - I want people to get an Israeli perspective on things. Though I am a very liberal Israeli compared to the majority of the population, which is why I sometimes try to represent the consensus viewpoint as I understand it and not just my own. (I call that out when I do that.)
> 1) most people want a quagmire war that will never end trying to defeat a populist force fighting for their homeland. The US has lost every single war of this kind in the last 60 years. Why would Israel win one?
This depends on what you mean. If by "fighting for their homeland", you mean what Hamas means, which is to rule all of Israel, then... the US can afford to lose these wars. Israel can't. Physically can't. If Hamas gets what it wants, there is no more Israel, and probably no more Israeli Jews.
So it's an entirely different situation.
> 2) Iran can be militarily stopped from getting nukes, or that it matters.
First, I have no idea if it can or can't be stopped. Israel and the US is acting like it can, so hopefully they're right
> Even if Iran gets nukes, what will change? There is still MAD (there already was MAD between Israel's allies and Iran's allies). The whole world has largely moved past this issue, it seems, but you think it's very relevant.
If Iran has a nuke, even leaving aside the apocalyptic scenario of it just arming a terrorist group to attack Israel with it (which is possible), there's still a huge issue: Israel will then be able to act much like Russia does, which is invade and conquer neighboring countries, with the world being very afraid of direct confrontation because they're (rightly!) worried about nuclear war.
I find it interesting that you think the "whole world" has moved past this point - you're ignoring the actions of all of Iran's neighbors, who are signing historic agreements to help each other because they're all terrified of Iran. So no, I don't think anyone who has any skin in this particular game would agree with your assessment (and this includes most US security/etc experts. Don't forget that Iran doesn't just chant "death to Israel", they chant "death to Israel, death to America"!).
> 3) Hamas can be eliminated even though the Taliban weren't. These are really similar forces fighting really similar blockades, embargoes, and invasions, with very similar popular support. Why is this the albatross of the past 60 years of losing offensive wars against populist guerilla fighters?
I answered this earlier, but Israel doesn't really have an alternative, and comparing to the US is a huge misread of the situation. The US is basically not threatened by any of these armed groups in a "direct" manner. It can't be invaded.
Hamas is a group that has quite literally invaded Israel 6 months ago and killed 1000 citizens, grabbed 240 hostages, shot rockets at Israel (and these are being shot from minutes away, mind you, at most). It has pledged to do this again and again.
Or let me put it another way - there are still around 100k I think Israelis who are internally displaced. They can't go home, because their homes are right on the border with either Hamas or Hezbollah. Do you think if Mexico decided to attack the US, killed thousands of its citizens, and 100k Texans had to relocate for fear or Mexico... that the US would "lose" a war against Mexico like it did against the Taliban?
> 4) Hamas doesn't want freedom or had some kind of opportunity to better a completely embargoed, blockaded, and dietary restricted Gaza. This is a pretty surprising take honestly. What incentive does anyone have to run a business or improve any lot in life when your mortal enemy controls every import and export into your territory and even how much food you can have? What is the point of money or progress in such a world? You can't bring more stuff in from the outside until you destroy the blockade around you... I'd think anyone on any side here could see that.
I think you're extremely underselling the degree of freedom and opportuniy that they had.
Yes, there was a necessary blockade since Hamas promised to keep attacking Israel. A promise it almost immediately kept by firing rockets at Israel. So for one thing, it could've just... not done that, promised to stop attacking Israel, and tried to get an actual diplomatic peace with Israel. That's exactly the opposite of the purpose of Hamas, but a group that actually wants to improve its lot in life could've done that.
Secondly, Gaza received tremendous amounts of aid, and despite the blockade, did receive imports and had a not-terrible quality of life. This despite the fact that Hamas spent probably billions of dollars of its resources not to help Gazans, but to wage war (and to fatten the pockets of its leaders, who are literal billionaires).
Just look at the videos Hamas proudly put up of it taking water pipes, sent to Gaza to help get water to the people, and converting them to rockets to fire at Israel. They are literally taking aid that is supposed to help improve Gaza and using it to wage war.
Gazans incentives to improve Gaza is because they live there. They could choose a path of improving Gaza, making its economic conditions better, making their daily lives better, stop attacking Israel, and a few years of peace later, negotiate with Israel and Egypt to get some restrictions lifted. They actually did that to some extent, but all the while planning the massive October 7th attack, which has reset all expectations of them acting in a peaceful or rational manner.
Hamas has made it clear that they only care about attacking and destroying Israel. In that sense, I agree with you - if that is your only goal, then you don't have any incentive to improve Gazan's actual lives. I just think that that goal is fundamentally evil and stupid, and everyone's lives would be better if Hamas didn't pursue it.