Another cost of blindly supporting Israel no matter what.
Israel causes more drama then they're worth as an ally, they're a bully and have acted like it for decades.
I'm really not sure, if I can follow.
How is Israel (absolutely doing a genocide atm - just to have that said) involved with that? What's the connection?
Maybe I missed something just scrolling through?
I could.copy/paste what I said, but by now I'd hope you scrolled down and saw it by now.
But I dont know, maybe you stopped here and area till waiting on a reply to scroll down.
Ok, I'll go search for your other comment
Edit: I'm still not sure how the US supporting Israel is making Russia attack Ukraine or how that should be connected - obviously, geopolitical everything is somehow connected, but not causal
Edit 2: I'm absolutely not in favour of US backing Israel (or their fucking imperial capitalism), but do you want to say, that Russia had no other choice or...?
I do know this sounds foolish, but I'm currently really struggling to make sense of what you want to say
You're not wrong. It's a bullshit point that has no merit. US could have nothing to do with Israel, and that would have no bearing on Iran sending missiles to Russia.
Russia is getting missiles from Iran, because they need them and Iran is supplying them, it's as simple as that.
I'm a bit confused where the line actually is - it seems to be a very low bar - but at least some red lines for the US do seem to exist.
E.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/15/biden-israel-occupy-gaza-big-mistake/ (don't retake Gaza)
The flip side is that the US being allied with Israel can sometimes be asset - able to push for justice by asking Israel to investigate it's own forces in https://www.npr.org/2024/09/09/nx-s1-5106819/us-israel-american-woman-shooting-west-bank (though admittedly the "expression of deep regret" as per https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/10/israel-says-highly-likely-its-troops-killed-turkish-american-aysenur-ezgi-eygi sounds a lot like "thoughts and prayers")
A slightly more successful version, https://theintercept.com/2024/08/09/israel-prison-sde-teiman-palestinian-abuse-torture/ , where the US asked Israel to investigate, resulting in some arrests...
That said, I do hope that the US soon follows suit with the UK on this, https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/10/australian-government-backs-uk-decision-to-curb-arms-sales-to-israel
Nonsense. Take your Hamas talking points elsewhere. Iran would have done this regardless.
Mostly agree. At least, the threshold to get Iran to not do this is much, much higher - remember that Iran is trying to get a nuclear program among other things that the US and many other allied countries take an issue with, and it's likely those would have to get put on the table as well if one were to hypothetically attempt to negotiate with Iran over the subject in the article..
Yes, Russia can be a good ally for Iran as they have tech and knowledge they lack. Also just another channel to get stuff they cannot get themselves. The latter goes for both.
Lmao everything is Hamas
In this case dragging the Hamas Iran Israël thing into it is just silly.
When the US backs Israel no matter what. The countries Israel keeps starting shit with don't have many other options besides Russia or China
If America stayed out of it, Israel wouldn't be as aggressive, and their neighbors wouldn't have to run to Russia and China.
Like...
Has no one explained to you that one of the big factors the West had in creating Israel was to create a volatile area for proxy wars instead of another war in Europe?
If you don't know that, hardly anything else is going to make sense ...
with don’t have many other options besides Russia or China
*cough cough* North Korea *cough cough*
Has no one explained to you that one of the big factors the West had in creating Israel was to create a volatile area for proxy wars instead of another war in Europe?
Citation needed.
It seems to somewhat contract the info in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Aliyah - namely that Jewish immigration to what was then Ottoman Palestine started half a century before WWII, and that it was based on a desire for these folks to return to their ancient religious homelands...
Anyways, if that was indeed the desire, it can't really have been said to be a smashing success, considering the long list presented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#21st_century (and also look above to say the 1950s - it's quite a long list of conflicts in Europe post WWII)
Like... Those panarab trash countries attacked Israel and lost back in 1947. Let them try again sore losers. Like.... We stayed out of it since the 1990s we've simply sent aid and medical supplies to gaza. And they wanna invade Israel again on October 7th.
The West did not create Israel as it is that was mostly all Russia from actions in the 80s, Russian immigrants started the first major settlement where thousands from Yemen and eastern Europe immigrated to in 1882.
Like… Those panarab trash countries attacked Israel and lost back in 1947
When Israel was founded...
The weat didn't magically create that land, it existed and people had lived there for thousands of years ..
The UN said it was now Israel and everyone who wasn't Jewish had to leave....
And you want to start the clock immediately after that?!
How does that make any sense?
The West did not create Israel
They did...
In 1947 the UN voted to partition the region into separate Jewish and Arab states.
https://www.britannica.com/summary/Israel
as it is that was mostly all Russia from actions in the 80s, Russian immigrants started the first major settlement where thousands from Yemen and eastern Europe immigrated to in 1882.
Everyone that moved there prior to the creation of Israel was moving to Palestine...
Did any of that help you understand?
They did…
In 1947 the UN voted to partition the region into separate Jewish and Arab states.
The UN includes Russia, China, lots of African countries, ...
We could say that the UN helped to create Israel and call it a day. We could even say it was Western-led, with the UK having the Mandate and all prior to the UN taking it up. But to say that the West made it implies that the other countries who were members of the UN at the time had no involvement or responsibility here, which isn't accurate.
Everyone that moved there prior to the creation of Israel was moving to Palestine…
Well, to the British Mandate of Palestine. Semantics, agreed.
That's not true. No one was moving to "Palestine". It was a somewhat dead area. As well there was never a country called Palestine. You don't see it on any maps. From all the development in Israel brought a lot of Arab immigrants to Palestine area as well. There could have been a Palestine but they declined that partition plan and chose to lose a war. They continue to lose wars.
That’s not true. No one was moving to “Palestine”. It was a somewhat dead area.
Perhaps it was but there was some movement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Aliyah - but I think you alluded to this earlier when you mentioned what Russia and such did back in 1882.
As well there was never a country called Palestine. You don’t see it on any maps.
From what I can tell, this is correct. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Ottoman_period
the Palestine region within it was divided into the five sanjaks (provincial districts, also called liwa′ in Arabic) of Safad, Nablus, Jerusalem, Lajjun and Gaza.
In common usage from 1840 onward, "Palestine" was used either to describe ... a region that extended in the north–south direction typically from Rafah (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly defined place where the Syrian desert began.
Countries - or even provinces - usually have well defined borders, so up to Ottoman control it wasn't a single entity but a poorly defined grouping.
I guess one could make the case for it after the British Mandate of Palestine, but of course it still wasn't an independent country when the British were running things.
From all the development in Israel brought a lot of Arab immigrants to Palestine area as well.
I don't know too much about this but it sounds plausible.
There could have been a Palestine but they declined that partition plan and chose to lose a war. They continue to lose wars.
Well, Oct 7 really was a major setback. I would admit that Netanyahu seems like the last person to allow for Palestine or a two state solution, like, ever. But he was about to be handed a major setback in gov't control back in Sept and Oct 2023 which one could kinda see as maybe paving the way for a new gov't to take control, one more likely to offer a new olive branch to the Palestinians - until Oct 7 happened and everyone agreed to coalition and stand behind Netanyahu.
Perhaps it was but there was some movement.
Right, that movement was not to Palestine however. Those people would have been moving to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria because there was no country named Palestine.
I don't know too much about this but it sounds plausible.
For it not to be plausible would mean from 1850 to now every woman would had to have 15+ kids and their kids have 5+ kids with 0 mortalities.
Well, Oct 7 really was a major setback. I would admit that Netanyahu seems like the last person to allow for Palestine or a two state solution, like, ever....
As well netanyahu has voiced his vision for a two state solution.
It's a fair take given that time and time again Gaza advances to destroy Israel.
Well, to be fair some folks might have moved in a time when there was a territory that went by the name of the British Mandate of Palestine. Anyways, semantics, mostly agreed.
I would agree on the bit regarding Hamas ... but I think one shouldn't conflate all Gazans and their beliefs with just Hamas. Remember that Hamas took power only after overthrowing a unity government that was under the Palestinian Authority (which does still support a two state solution).
Regarding Netanyahu, the article from CNN you cite kinda shows the problem. Netanyahu is not in favor of Palestinian sovereignty.
In fact, CNN makes it very clear,
Netanyahu has never been a full-throated supporter of a two-state solution
That said, the security concerns regarding Israel are indeed valid. I'm not sure what the right answer to that would be... perhaps in the beginning we'd need to have peacekeepers? But perhaps we could find a neutral islamic country (who? Perhaps Malaysia?) to fit that role. With fellow followers of Islam keeping the peace and IDF having withdrawn, perhaps then Israel can feel secure while a new Palestine is built?
Why would he have complete supporte for their sovereignty given what his country has seen at their hand. The right answer to this is why do they need a military. They are surrounded by Muslim brothers. I'm sure israel would offer their protection as well as allies near them. There are various countries today without a military force.
That said, the security concerns regarding Israel are indeed valid. I'm not sure what the right answer to that would be... perhaps in the beginning we'd need to have peacekeepers?
The problem is. Hamas wants nothing to do with that. They don't want a two state solution unless they keep their terror military and weapons. In fact they won't accept or recognize Israel at all. Then your problem is you blame their denial for a two state solution on Netanyahu. Or you expect him to give the terrorists sovereignty anyways.
The problem is. Hamas wants nothing to do with that. They don’t want a two state solution
they won’t accept or recognize Israel at all.
Agree this is a problem. They caused Oct 7 and they need to be stopped.
The innocent Gazans unaffiliated with Hamas, and the PA and the folks living in the West Bank deserve to have their country and their rights respected, but none of that should read as saying Hamas should stay in power, or even be allowed to exist at all.
Then your problem is you blame their denial for a two state solution on Netanyahu.
This is a misreading of my argument. Hamas != State of Palestine
Or you expect him to give the terrorists sovereignty anyways.
Well, not to Hamas!
Why would he have complete supporte for their sovereignty given what his country has seen at their hand.
Again, not to Hamas! For the past twenty years the PA has kept peace with Israel - this is the model to follow.
The right answer to this is why do they need a military. They are surrounded by Muslim brothers.
Yeah... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict
There are various countries today without a military force.
Let's say for the sake of argument that magical wizards come in and fix everything. We end up with two states tied together by peace, with the violence behind them. (Model for this being the Troubles in Northern Ireland.) Or even a single Israel state with peace - for the sake of this argument, this detail doesn't matter.
It's a volatile area with lots of conflict between different countries, even if one excludes Hamas and related insurgents. Any country in that area would need a military just to defend its own existence.
The countries that don't have any military forces - I imagine none of them are in this kind of situation.
I’m sure israel would offer their protection as well as allies near them.
In theory that could work. The problem in practice is that IDF has lost a lot of good will, and perhaps might be seen as occupiers instead of peacekeepers from a friendly allied country. Hence my suggestion for Malaysia to step in - Islamic troops from a far away neutral country - might be better perceived.
Heck, a lot of goodwill might be earned just by being fresh and new. Now that may not be entirely fair to the IDF, but politics is rarely fair.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/