Israel / Palestine News Thread

[royce]

On 9/28/2024 at 8:06 AM, royce said:

On 9/28/2024 at 6:30 AM, Inliytened1 said:

No just a guy who sits at the Passover seder each year to talk about how Egypt enslaved us and we got out.  So for once we are on the offensive.   Why not?

 

@Inliytened1 After that reply, I couldn’t take you seriously anymore.

[Inliytened1]

18 minutes ago, royce said:

@Inliytened1 After that reply, I couldn’t take you seriously anymore.

Well i took my matzah ball soup more seriously than i ever took you.

What was the big pronlem with that dialogue that Hitler was being compared to Netanyahu?  Even Leo retracted his comments because it was insensitive but you jumped on the bandwagon on how any old leader could be compared to Hitler.  When you didn't even read his auto-biography. 

 

Edited October 3 by Inliytened1

[royce]

16 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

insensitive

why insensitive ?

[Inliytened1]

17 minutes ago, royce said:

why insensitive ?

I don't know i guess the killing of six million Jews is no big deal.  

[royce]

@Inliytened1 It's not about the numbers; your neighbor might be worse than both of them.

 

Can i compare Netanyahu to Stalin or this is insensitive too ?   

Edited October 3 by royce

[Inliytened1]

Just now, royce said:

@Inliytened1 It's not about the numbers; your neighbor might be worse than both of them.

Chances are he's not.

 

 

[royce]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Chances are he's not.

 

 

Your neighbor or Netanyahu?

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, royce said:

Your neighbor or Netanyahu?

Enough games. 

[IronFoot]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

$20k down in the US will not buy you a shack, nevermind a house.

Depends on where you are buying. Go somewhere like Roanoke (or almost anywhere in southern va) and you could get something decent with 20k down. Won’t be luxurious, but it could be comfortable. 

[Inliytened1]

He's in Vegas   

I got a nice colonial for 20k down in Chicago.  

 

Edited October 3 by Inliytened1

[Nivsch]

6 hours ago, Atb210201 said:

But it certainly isn't framed that way for most of the people in Iran it is the regime's fault not the US.

But there are some people who support the regime who think it's all US's fault.

Its interesting to see how your people have much more appreciation to the west's good sides when aren't for granted and can really see what for example many Europeens already can't.

Edited October 3 by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

49 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

your people have much more appreciation to the west's good sides

If that were true Iran would be Western, but it ain't.

No Iranian who is on this forum is a typical Iranian.

Even MAGA Christian Nationalists are incapable of appreciating the foundations of the West. Nevermind Iran. America will be lucky to hold onto democracy this year. And you want secular democracy in Iran?? Have you lost your mind?

If Israel cannot free itself of religous and nationalist fanatics in its government, why expect Iran to? Isreael is not even developed enough to live up to Western democratic ideals.

Edited October 3 by Leo Gura

[zazen]

 

Some quotes from Brookings institute on policy options towards Iran:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

On striking Iran

''As noted above, in the section on the time frame for an invasion, whether the United States decides to invade Iran with or without a provocation is a critical consideration. With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.''

''A critical challenge for this policy option is that, absent a clear Iranian act of aggression, American airstrikes against Iran would be unpopular in the region and throughout the world. This negative reaction could undermine any or all of America’s policy initiatives in the region regardless of how the Iranians respond.''

''For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)''

 

On Nuclear disarmament 

''It is clear from discussions with Israeli military and intelligence officials, and from numerous press leaks and reports that Israel is well under way in planning for a military operation to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said in 2007 that “the things that we do behind the scenes, far from the public eye, are far more important than the slogan charade,” implying that Israeli covert capabilities are already hard at work trying to cope with the Iranian threat and preparing to attack it if they must. It is impossible to know what those plans entail in detail without access to the IDF’s secret planning, but Israelis say the mission is “not impossible.” The IDF’s September 6, 2007 attack on the Syrian nuclear facility at Dayr az-Zawr is widely believed in Israel to have been in part a message to Tehran that Iran may be next.''

As in the case of American airstrikes against Iran, the goal of this policy option would be to destroy key Iranian nuclear facilities in the hope that doing so would significantly delay Iran’s acquisition of an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. However, in this case, an added element could be that the United States would encourage—and perhaps even assist—the Israelis in conducting the strikes themselves, in the expectation that both international criticism and Iranian retaliation would be deflected away from the United States and onto Israel. The logic behind this approach is that allowing Israel to mount the airstrikes, rather than the United States, provides a way out of the dilemma described in the previous chapter, whereby American airstrikes against Iran could become self-defeating because they would undermine every other American initiative in the Middle East, an outcome exactly the opposite of what a new Iran policy is meant to accomplish.

An Israeli attack on Iran would directly affect key American strategic interests. If Israel were to overfly Iraq, both the Iranians and the vast majority of people around the world would see the strike as abetted, if not authorized, by the United States. Even if Israel were to use another route, many Iranians would still see the attack as American supported or even American orchestrated. After all, the aircraft in any strike would be American produced, supplied, and funded F-15s and F-16s, and much of the ordnance would be American made. In fact, $3 billion dollars in U.S. assistance annually sustains the IDF’s conventional superiority in the region.''

[Leo Gura]

Is there any doubt that Netanyahu has a 300-page covert plan in his desk to goad Iran into a war and then cry self-defense?

He jerks off to that plan every night, floating in a bathtub full of matzah balls, wearing a shtreimel.

Edited October 3 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He jerks off to that plan every night in a bathtub full of matzah balls and wearing a shtreimel.

😂

Edited October 3 by Nemra

[Nivsch]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If that were true Iran would be Western, but it ain't.

No Iranian who is on this forum is a typical Iranian

It could be that their regime is deterring enough that the citizens are too scared to really uprise against it.

As I understand roughly 20-30% of the Iranian are pro the regime but most of them against it.

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Isreael is not even developed enough to live up to Western democratic ideals.

Israel is just many things combining together and is extremely diverse and polarized. The group which is as developed as western or northern Europe here is just not big enough to win the elections. These are the anti Netanyahu camp.

Edited October 3 by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

As I understand roughly 20-30% of the Iranian are pro the regime but most of them against it.

That is the case with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but the Taliban ain't going nowhere.

It doesn't matter what the loose masses think, what matters is those who politically organize and do the fighting.

The Taliban rules Afghanistan because they are by far the most effective fighting force in that region. They defeated the US, they defeated the Soviets. And those Jihadists will defeat a Zionist puppet regime.

Edited October 3 by Leo Gura

[Nivsch]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The Taliban rules Afghanistan because they are by far the most effective fighting force in that region.

But this is interesting because it implies that once someone from outside will outfight this regime, it can cease to rule. Therefore an outside intervention (not a manipulative one but an authentic one that done out of survival concerns and necessities of the interventor) of for example Israel against Iranian's regime can maybe be an important key in defeating it.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

But this is interesting because it implies that once someone from outside will outfight this regime, it can cease to rule.

That's the opposite of what it means.

It means if someone from the INSIDE.

From the outside is a dead end. It was tried and failed twice. If the US and Soviets cannot hold Afghanistan there is no way Israel can hold Iran.

The Soviets poured $80 billion in weapons into Afghanistan and it still fell to the Jihadists.

Edited October 3 by Leo Gura

[Nivsch]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

That's the opposite of what it means.

It means if someome from the INSIDE.

From the outside is a dead end. It was tried and failed. If the US could not hold Afghanistan there is no way Israel can hold Iran.

But you said that it keeps ruling because it is the most effective force in the region. So according to this if it will be no longer a dominant player in the region, it will have better chance to be defeated from inside.