Are Non-Jews...

[libre]

Also, this report, if true, is infuriating to me as an Israeli:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...ion-against-israel-turkish-source-2024-04-14/
Again, if true, that means that the US favored an enemy and a threat over a long-time ally, and was willing to spend (essentially waste) millions if not billions of dollars to shoot down the drones and rockets. Israel and other countries who also shot down the armaments also wasted a lot of money.

I lean towards suspecting this report is accurate or at least has some truth in it, but I don't see it as siding with Iran.
The United States warning that they will take action if the assault goes beyond certain limits is not the same as giving a blessing to attacks within those limits. They are restraining the Iranian assault, not endorsing it.

The way things played out gives leaders in the United States and Iran a diplomatic 'out'.

The United States gets to avoid military action that would expand the scope of the current war while demonstrating it's commitment to defending Israel in repelling the attack.

The Iranian regime gets to beat their chest and pacify their military and supporter's bloodthirst after the killing of the Iranian government and diplomats. They can also frame themselves as friends of the Palestinians without actually having to get more involved, which helps them with their domestic problems with fanatics.

Israeli leaders are now in a position where they get to gauge how they will navigate the situation.
They can follow the advice of the international community and avoid direct retaliation, framing this as a victory over Iran and as a triumph of the dome as the Americans have. Or they can retaliate and risk escalating it into a war with a military response.

It seems to me the price for peace in the future is much lower if they follow the American's lead.

 

[The Hammer]

equally in the eyes of the law.

So are black and brown people in the US but we see how that works in practice.

 

[Harel13]

I lean towards suspecting this report is accurate or at least has some truth in it, but I don't see it as siding with Iran.
The United States warning that they will take action if the assault goes beyond certain limits is not the same as giving a blessing to attacks within those limits. They are restraining the Iranian assault, not endorsing it.

This reality reflects the US's lack of deterrence. Iran wouldn't have even considered the idea of attacking a close US ally if it knew the US, a global military powerhouse, was likely to hit back with full or even half force. That the US okayed a medium-scale attack and then demanded Israel not respond with its own offensive explains why Iran felt comfortable arranging an attack with the US in the first place. The US is showcasing weakness on the world stage.

The way things played out gives leaders in the United States and Iran a diplomatic 'out'.

The United States gets to avoid military action that would expand the scope of the current war while demonstrating it's commitment to defending Israel in repelling the attack

Once again, if the US had presented more of a backbone in foreign policy the last 15 years or so, it's likely that either there wouldn't have been a war right now, or it would have been much smaller in scale. Smaller powers are raising their heads now because they see an opening. They know the US's reaction will be minimal to none.

A strong offensive reaction from the US, or at the very least, not blocking Israel from such a reaction, would make Iran think twice about messing with Israel next time.

The Iranian regime gets to beat their chest and pacify their military and supporter's bloodthirst after the killing of the Iranian government and diplomats. They can also frame themselves as friends of the Palestinians without actually having to get more involved, which helps them with their domestic problems with fanatics.

This is a megalomaniacle extremist dictatorship that's getting close to having nuclear capabilities we're talking about. And it's one in the Middle East, where power rules, not chatting over tea and sandwiches.
What is the logic in handing them a consolation prize on a platter? And who are you taking about in the last sentence? Iran? Iran are the ones who have been funding and training Hamas for years now! They are deeply, deeply involved in all of this. You know that general who Israel killed? He was part of the Quds Force that oversees Iran-supported terrorist organization operations in Lebanon, Syria, the PA and Gaza. He helped plan the October 7 massacre! And let's not forgot the hundreds if not thousands of other terrorists attacks over the years.

So, why is the US playing nice with Iran?

Israeli leaders are now in a position where they get to gauge how they will navigate the situation.
They can follow the advice of the international community and avoid direct retaliation, framing this as a victory over Iran and as a triumph of the dome as the Americans have. Or they can retaliate and risk escalating it into a war with a military response.

Believe me, no one in Israel thinks that not responding to Iran shows strength. This isn't like being a kid in school and not reacting when someone calls you a bad name. If inaction is your route, then you're weak. And if you're weak, then the Middle East can feel free to stomp on you until you die.

 

[libre]

This is a megalomaniacle extremist dictatorship that's getting close to having nuclear capabilities we're talking about.

Yes, we have no disagreement here.

What is the logic in handing them a consolation prize on a platter?

Israel killed Iranian leaders. Iran made a big show in an assault that outright failed.
It should be understood to be a net win from Israel.

And who are you taking about in the last sentence? Iran? Iran are the ones who have been funding and training Hamas for years now! They are deeply, deeply involved in all of this. You know that general who Israel killed? He was part of the Quds Force that oversees Iran-supported terrorist organization operations in Lebanon, Syria, the PA and Gaza. He helped plan the October 7 massacre!

Yes, I am not saying they are not involved. Nor am I crying hues for anyone in the IRGC.

If inaction is your route, then you're weak. And if you're weak, then the Middle East can feel free to stomp on you until you die.

It seems you understand then why Iranians launched this assault. Do you see war between Israel/US and Iran as an inevitability or desirable at the current time? or are you interested in trying to deescalate?

If Israel attacks Iran, do you really think that Iran will take the approach that inaction is the best route? If Israel attacks Iran it will most certainly have casualties.
I am thinking from the perspective of avoiding a direct war between Israel/Iran.
Have you accepted war with Iran as desirable or an inevitability?

 

[Harel13]

It seems you understand then why Iranians launched this assault. Do you see war between Israel/US and Iran as an inevitability or desirable at the current time? or are you interested in trying to deescalate?

If Israel attacks Iran, do you really think that Iran will take the approach that inaction is the best route? If Israel attacks Iran it will most certainly have casualties.
I am thinking from the perspective of avoiding a direct war between Israel/Iran.
Have you accepted war with Iran as desirable or an inevitability?

My position is the opposite: trying to make nice with an openly hostile country like Iran and throwing them a bone is what makes open war with them inevitable. It was 300+ drones and missiles this time. Nothing bad has happened to Iran yet. So next time it'll be 1500+ drones and missiles. And as long as the world lets them keep on doing that, they'll keep on doing it. They'll keep on testing the waters uland biding their time until they'll be able to go all out. Perhaps you are unaware of just how deeply Iran wants to erase Israel, and after that, erase the West.

What strong countries should do is shut them up ASAP. Make sure they understand that not even one drone or missile is in their best interest.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is a megalomaniacle extremist dictatorship that's getting close to having nuclear capabilities we're talking about. And it's one in the Middle East, where power rules, not chatting over tea and sandwiches.

So what could be better than escalation? Perhaps "taking the win."

Today's Haaretz has a piece with the headline

Analysis | Arab States That Allied With Israel and U.S. for Iran Attack Now Face Consequences​

It notes:

The interception of Iran's missile and drone attack over the weekend showed the effectiveness of the IDF's aerial defenses and the strength of the international coalition against the Iranian threat.​

​

Israel can regard these as an impressive success that shows its technological and military superiority and its diplomatic resilience in the face of the Iranian threat. When put to the test, the countries in the region that Israel labels "moderate" chose a side: The American-Israeli alliance.​

Let Israel's response to Iran be the message:

Rather than an escalation that threatens the lives of untold numbers of noncombatants, we choose instead to call on world leaders to mount an uncompromising campaign to free the hostages and punish their captors, while we, our friends in the international community, and the peoples of Israel and Palestine take concrete steps towards an equitable 2-State community.​

 

[Shaul]

The State of Israel treats all individuals as equals. Those that consider people only as members of identity groups are treating people unequally.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The State of Israel treats all individuals as equals.

I'm reminded of ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@libre :
@Harel13 :

Just a few moments ago (and after writing post #26) I came across the following in The Times of Israel ...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-top...ign=daily-edition-2024-04-17&utm_medium=email​

A top ex-general's radical strategy for tackling Iran, saving the hostages, calming the north​

You and others may find it interesting.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So what could be better than escalation? Perhaps "taking the win."

Today's Haaretz has a piece with the headline

Analysis | Arab States That Allied With Israel and U.S. for Iran Attack Now Face Consequences​

It notes:

The interception of Iran's missile and drone attack over the weekend showed the effectiveness of the IDF's aerial defenses and the strength of the international coalition against the Iranian threat.​

​

Israel can regard these as an impressive success that shows its technological and military superiority and its diplomatic resilience in the face of the Iranian threat. When put to the test, the countries in the region that Israel labels "moderate" chose a side: The American-Israeli alliance.​

Let Israel's response to Iran be the message:

Rather than an escalation that threatens the lives of untold numbers of noncombatants, we choose instead to call on world leaders to mount an uncompromising campaign to free the hostages and punish their captors, while we, our friends in the international community, and the peoples of Israel and Palestine take concrete steps towards an equitable 2-State community.​

I'm hoping that international pressure for deescalation prevents a regional war, and I'm thankful that the US' position on the global stage is a shell of its former self from the early '90s to the early 2000s, when its geopolitical dominance culminated in its invasion of Iraq and started a downward trajectory leading to its presently reduced ability to wage war in the Middle East (especially since it also needs to be careful not to lose too much economic and geopolitical ground to China).

As for Israel's response to Iran, there are two things I think are worth highlighting (I know you are well aware of them, so this is just to detail my thoughts):

• We are talking about Netanyahu, the man who brazenly displayed a map at the UN where Gaza and the West Bank were annexed by Israel:

Netanyahu brandishes map of Israel that includes West Bank and Gaza at UN speech

* * *

www.timesofisrael.com

I would be shocked if his response were anywhere near the message of coexistence you quoted above. I suspect you would be as well.

• I find it lamentable when some media outlets seem to talk about the official stances of certain Arab states as if they were representative of popular sentiments among Arabs. The leaders of Jordan and Saudi Arabia as well as those of the UAE, Morocco, and Bahrain—the trio of the so-called "Abraham Accords"—are all dictators who can't be assumed to accurately represent their respective people, nor were they elected by them. If those countries were democracies, I would think the "Abraham Accords" would either be suspended pending recognition of a Palestinian state and reform of Israeli policies or scrapped altogether.

That a few Arab leaders—not nations, but a few dictatorial leaders—have done little to nothing to oppose the IDF's massacres in Gaza but have rushed to help Israel militarily is seen by many (and I would expect most) Arabs as an act of rank treason.

As things stand, what we have in the Middle East is a far-right, expansionist Israeli government, a medley of dictatorial and failed Arab governments, and an Iranian government steeped in violent theocracy and proxy-based militarism—all of which are either propped up or conveniently overlooked by their respective, more powerful allies.

As much as I wish to be proven wrong, I don't see much hope for or precursors to genuine peace in the region anytime soon (as opposed to largely bureaucratic de jure "peace" à la the "Abraham Accords").

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As things stand, what we have in the Middle East is a far-right, expansionist Israeli government, a medley of dictatorial and failed Arab governments, and an Iranian government steeped in violent theocracy and proxy-based militarism—all of which are either propped up or conveniently overlooked by their respective, more powerful allies.

What could possibly go wrong?
Salaam, my friend.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What could possibly go wrong?
Salaam, my friend.

Thanks, Jay. Salaam back at you and yours!