The same folks taunting with the whole 'Arabs lost the war and hence Palestinians lost their land, get over it!' rhetoric - I wonder if they'd extend the same logic if Putin was successful in completely annexing Ukraine. Would we accept it as Russian territory because Ukraine lost the war and we simply need to get over it? Or do we isolate Russia as a rogue, occupying belligerent? And before anyone chimes in with the retort that Ukraine didn't start the war - well neither did the Palestinians, who's territorial claims to the land were simply cast aside by colonial powers, and were then used as pawns by Arab States who've long since abandoned them.
Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
You are perfectly right about this. The people of Palestine were not really a political entity capable of declaring war on anybody, though I think it's safe to say whose side the local Arabs were on. It's an interesting moral and debating point but in the real world completely irrelevant. There was a war and that was the outcome. The world is full of such stories. Nobody has to accept it but you can't change it either.
That is not the same at all.
The state of Israel was the result of a UN resolution and Israel was recognised as an independent democratic state.
I hardly think that would apply to Ukraine in the (increasingly) likelihood of annexation by Russia.
Recognised within very specified borders, the Israelis have which since ignored and expanded well beyond, to the extent that the same UN that granted them a state has described their ongoing presence in said territory as an occupation. So the parallels do exist in the sense that both are annexing and occupying territory deemed not to be theirs by international law, and continue to convey ambitions to expand their occupation.
Penny for the thoughts of the people of those Arab countries regarding their leaders lending a helping hand to the Israelis during an ongoing massacre in Gaza. Can't exactly be good optics.
This isn't the first time you've said it, and it isn't the first time I've had to respond to the nonsensical take.
You should read up on South Africa's case that they took to the ICJ, which they ruled it was a plausible genocide.
We've not only had Knesset members literally come out with genocidal rhetoric, but we've seen first hand the wanton destruction and indiscriminate killings and murders of unarmed civilians, aid workers, medical staff, journalists etc etc. The list goes on.
There's no excuse for ignorance on this topic anymore.
Please don't be patronising about 'how this game works', I'm well aware that there won't be some 'smoking gun' dossier, but if they've looked at evidence of signals, imagery, human intel etc and still failed to find evidence of Iran's involvement then is it so difficult to conceive of the possibility that it simply wasn't involved? It seems that contrary to the fact every actor involved has concluded or stated that Iran was not involved, you maintain that it still just must have been, despite the lack of evidence for it.
I don't mind if you don't take my view seriously, I know that the view that these actors are not proxies is taken pretty seriously among security experts, it's only really in media opinion and in politically-motivated spheres where 'Iranian proxy' is peddled and applied to distinct and autonomous actors without being meaningfully challenged.
Here's what the International Institute for Strategic Studies had to say about the misuse of 'proxy' when describing Iran's nonstate partners and the suggestion of orchestration.
Its report on Iran's networks in the region is long but can be useful as a reference.
Not really, we're discussing the claim that the 7 October attack was started by Iran.
Never mind the Hamas fighters training in Iran in the weeks before October 7th or the IRGC commanders present in Gaza. Iran has made sure its involved in virtually every anti Western action in the Middle East since the 80s.
How anyone can in good faith call the Nakba “completely irrelevant” is astounding regardless of your background or beliefs.
It is not just an interesting moral and debating point. It’s a core part of modern Palestinian culture and the source of so many of today’s issues.
I mean its hardly surprising. Iran of course has its talons over places like Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, likewise with the US with its talons with their own (equally unpleasant) factions in Syria and others parts of the Middle East, as do the Turks who found themselves abetting ISIS in Northern Syria against the Kurds, likewise the Russians with the Syrian regime. Its hardly unique nor particularly outstanding to see Iranian meddling within Hamas elements.
There's no backing up, because @B. Munich isn't coming to his conclusions based of any principled stance.
This is a grown man, in his 50s or 60s. German guy who grew up abroad, and vividly remembers people being mean to him as a child because of what the Nazis did. He's still lashing out, 50 years later, and because he sees sympathy towards the slaughtered civilian population in Gaza they become his targets.
He's just a microcosm of the absolutely pathetic stance Germany has taken from this conflict. Learning all of the wrong lessons and being on the wrong side of history again.
We can agree that the operation was most likely conceived at ground level by Hamas. We can agree that the political leaderships in Qatar, Beirut and Tehran were most likely consulted prior to the operation. All those things are extremely likely. Had either raised strong objections it would not have gone ahead - that seems a reasonable conclusion. The nuances though, we cannot know much about that. Deniability is a thing. You wouldn't expect hard evidence to exist or be in the public domain if it did.
And then again they may not have realised that the operation was going to be so violent, or that the Israeli reaction would go beyond reprisal to full scale annihilation of Hamas. Or maybe they did. Again, we don't know. We do know they left Hamas in the lurch, but there is a long tradition of that.
You are taking my words out of context. What is irrelevant (to the Israelis) is whether it was the Arabs of Palestine or the Arabs of other countries that started hostilities in 1948. They were all on the same page that Israel needed wiping out and that is why Israel always prioritised defensible borders after that. They were at war with the whole Arab world for a long time, and still are (technically) with much of it. Ironically it is the greater threat of Iran that is beginning to change that.
There’s a reason the other German posters stopped defending it months ago. Except him.
If we're going to be pendantic, my understanding is that the accusations are considered plausible, and the actual ruling will be done at a (much later) date. (also that the ICJ is in fact able to hear the case).
I feel like phrasing it as essentially the ICJ ruling that Israel's actions in Gaza are in fact genocide (which would be a big deal as to my knowledge it has happened exactly once in history) is pretty wide of the reality of the situation.
It reads to me far more like when a judge agrees to hear a case, as the accusations are plausible, than any kind of verdict on said case.
Don't think the average Arab is well disposed to Israel at the best of times! But optics aside, the politics of this developing Israel - Arab "alliance" is interesting, especially as the Israel - Saudi accord was supposedly a reason for the timing of the October attacks in the first place.
Yeah not gonna jump in here and defend Iran ever. Despise their government and what it stands for
Same can be said for the Israeli government and the IDF plus anyone still defending their actions. All cnuts of the highest order.
If it wasn’t for innocents dying on each side I’d just have said let them bomb the shit out of each other
Same can be said for the Israeli government and the IDF plus anyone still defending their actions. All cnuts of the highest order.
If it wasn’t for innocents dying on each side I’d just have said let them bomb the shit out of each other
I agree that israel is there and it will stay and i am fine with it, but i dont agree that they have a historical reason and also that because a UN resolution decide it. Is was not a fair resolution and israel never accepted any resolution that didnt favour it also
But again, israel exist, fine. Lets center to the present. Israel is fecking shit is a terrorist state comitting genocide. And not only is not punished but protected and supplied to keep comitting it.
My stance is criticizing the legitimacy that some people vests in israel to have the right to behave how they do in the present
Was the UN in post WWII mostly dominated by europeans, USSR (half europe) the US and china and being UK protectorate probsbly had the most to say
It was a land grab.by the end of the XIX century they were 5% jews with 2% were born and raised there and 3% born in europe. By the 20-30s they bought land because the plans of having a israel country started to form and it increase to +30% which 90% were from europe-US. So all this people had 0 connection with the land, and it is fine, you buy as private citizen, form a state, and vote consequently. But not go around burn and kill people and because you are not from that religion, you cant go back and they size your land and give it to foreigners.
It is baffling that you are telling me because the jews were persecute and killed they had the right to persecute and kill arabs.
If the holocaust happened in germany, give them german land, not palestinian people that were not involved in politics and minding their lifes
I'm also no military expert but it's common knowledge that when you subject a population to every kind of oppression, violence and dehumanization for decades, that population is likely to exhibit resistance. Therefore, my suggestion to the IDF would be stop creating conditions that will necessarily lead to a violent response.
If support of Hamas (by an election 18 years ago for what it's worth) is so incriminatory as to render civilians in Gaza not innocent, are those victims on October 7th who voted for the current Israeli regime similarly not innocent, having voted for a regime that the ICJ has ruled is plausibly committing the worst crime known to humanity?
These are words that have meaning that are being misused and devalued for hyperbole by political actors. A terrorist is someone who uses violence to create fear, or uses hit and run tactics rather than open warfare. Israel does neither. Neither are they trying to kill Palestinians for the sake of it, they just don't care too much how many of their sworn enemy die in the process of what they are doing. Actual genocides like Rwanda or the Holocaust are very obvious.
The real question is what is their actual objective in Gaza? Some say it's to wipe out Hamas - which is legitimate but almost unachievable. Others say it's ethnic cleansing of Gaza - they want to make it uninhabitable. The latter is a war crime and one they are quite possibly guilty of. Or maybe they have no objective and just want to punish the Gazans. Take your pick.
There are many 'actual genocides' and they don't have to be as stark or drastic as holocaust or Rwanda to be counted as such.
In the same way that lynching black people while wearing white hoods is very obvious racism but you can have racism without it hitting you over the head so obviously.
There are plenty of people who study these things for a living and they've raised concerns about genocide. See here for instance. The case may not be ironclad but it is far more than "misuse from political actors."
Difinition of Terrorism: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims"
Tell me were it doesnt fit in gaza?
Is not hiperbole is a perfect use of the word
Is unlawful to torture, is unlawful to starve people, is unlawful to snipe kids, ia unlawful to summary execute people, etc... the rest is self explanatory
Is lawful what israel ia doing in the west bank? Is lawful accompaning settlers with the military while they are killing people (kids also)and burn cars, olives trees and using terror against civilians?
You have a problems with words because it hurts your narrative, but the reality is that israel state should appear in the picture of rhe state terrorist definition
You have problems with the words genocide when it is blatantly happening.
Well used words hurts your feelings ans your narrative? Sorry not sorry
Israel would argue that their actions are lawful self defence. GIven October 7, they would say attacking Gaza is legal. The question then is whether it is proportionate.
They argue that their violence is targeting Hamas who are using civilians as human shields. They argue that Hamas are the terrorists and it is Hamas that has a declared objective of genocide.
Ultimately these words have been degraded of their original meaning in the propaganda battle, along with words like anti-semitism and islamophobia. I'm inclined to treat them as noise. It's much easier to say that the intention is ethnic cleansing, another war crime, because it is a more meaningful accusation and one that is likely true. If i had a narrative in the way you claim I would hardly say that, would I?
Unbelievable we're still discussing if this is a genocide or not.
If there's a madman on a killing spree in the region right now, that's Netanyahu.
The principle of deterrence shouldn't be reserved to one side. Iran kept quiet, the bombing of their embassy was the straw that broke the camel's back, and expecting them or any country for that matter to let it slide was completely delusional.
Israel, the US and the Arab countries in the region were briefed in advance about when and where the retaliatory attack would occur. Useful informations about how the Israeli air-defense systems react have been gathered, the cheap drones and cruise missiles were sacrificial pawns and some the ballistic missiles went through. Four of them hit the Nevatim Airbase, one of the most protected on Israeli territory, and where its F-35s are stationed. This happened despite the additional support from France, the UK and the US. And I highly doubt that it was Iran's best stuff.
Israel also spent more than $1 billion (some estimation point to 2 Billions) in one night for what essentially was a lightshow, which gives you an idea of how costly the whole thing would become, should it come to a full-scale war. But hey, they still can boast about shooting down 99% of the missiles.
Not implying that Iran would win a direct confrontation with US/Israel, it doesn't stand a chance and doesn't want it anyway. But they drew a clear red line and will act accordingly. So either the US holds back an "ally" completely out of control or the whole region blows up.
In short, I'd think twice about whom the madman theory should be applied to.
Last edited:
Aye, we had a good discussion about 'rational actors' not long ago. Would be nice to actually consider who those are.
A goid chance, yes. The organisation of Islamic cooperation (which Iran is part of) said there would be peace but only if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders.
Abdul-Naser told his war cabinet I am never going to start the war to give the Americans an excuse to participate. He said starting the war is a major political failure and we should prepare ourselves to take the first hit. Charles de Gaulle told Naser 5 days before the Israeli attack the same thing.
I've read this 3 times now and am unclear if I'm being an idiot but cannot see a single shred of evidence there for their claim that Iran knew about and sanctioned October 7th?
As for your post slightly further down, nobody is claiming that Iran does not fund, train and at times direct its proxies. They'd be pretty shite proxies if they didn't. Where the disagreement comes is that some have this cartoonish view that the proxies exist purely and solely to do Iran's bidding. Iran says jump and they say how high. As opposed to groups who are funded and armed by Iran (again nobody disputes this) but who also have their own agency, their own agendas and their own decision making processes.
That's fair and I don't think anybody on here or that I know in real life in any way supports the Ayotollahs.
The dispute that I personally (can't speak for others) have brought up repeatedly is the targeting of a consulate. There either is international law, which we apparently try to uphold, or there isn't. Nobody on here would have said an Iraqi blowing up an American consulate in Costa Rica because there was a general in there at the time was reasonable or 'part of the game'. It would have rightly been condemened.
I have absolutely no love for Iran's theocratic regime and think that the Iranians deserve much better, but that is up to them to deal with it and no one else.
Israel and Iran have been trading dirty blows and fighting a shadow war by proxy for decades in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, especially since 2006 once Iraq was effectively wiped out. The Mossad most likely assassinated top nuclear Iranian scientists directly on Iranian soil between 2007 and 2020.
Still both carefully avoided a direct confrontation... Until Netanyahu decided that it would be a great idea to blow up an Iranian consulate in the middle of a failed genocidal campaign on Gaza, with the firm intention of dragging the US into a regional war to get rid of its archnemesis and more importantly, save his sorry ass.
Under article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran had every right to retaliate after the bombing of its consulate, which was a flagrant violation of the Vienna Convention, no matter how much spin the Western media and some posters here want to put on it. The retaliation was carried out in a manner that wouldn't give any excuse to the US or its allies to launch a strike against Iran.
Despite the official condemnations which are just for show, the Western governments are now panicking and urging Israel to not escalate and it shows how much of a loose cannon Israel has become. We'll see what happens next.
Last edited:
It is my view based on the nature of their relationship. If you want evidence you're not going to get it. But Hamas doesn't exist without Iran so do the maths.
Israel doesn't exist (both historically and currently) without the USA. And yet the 56 Suez crisis happened without the knowledge of the USA.
I don't 'want' evidence but if you're going to be making such definitive statements, and linking articles claiming they provide the contrary argument, which turns out to just be some Joe Bloggs talking about how x and y show how Iran was behind it, while listing objectively completely irrelevant facts, then people are going to comment.
The issue is that there are basically no posters on here who support Iran or its idiotic leaders.
The fact that people point out the rife hypocrisy or denounce an attack on a consulate does not mean they support the Iranian regime at all.