Israel declares war on Hamas

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Zary's-Mustache

Dude why do you continuously tell us how powerful Israel is and how nobody can do anything about it?

Half your posts are misinformation on the middle east and the other half is telling us Israel can do whatever it wants and nobody can do anything about it.

Honestly feels like you're gloating or something and comes off weird ad hell.

No I'm not gloating, I think Israels actions are reprehensible, have since '82, but Israel can do whatever it wants, the proof is 20 to 30,000 dead Gazans and I think suggesting to Palestinians that there is any other solution but that they either throw themselves on the mercy of Israel or leave is utterly disingenuous to them, how many dead Palestinian children are worth the price of nothing changing at all, just things getting worse?

[Manhattanboy]

This is chilling for some, not others....

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-805068

"'Iran planning a Holocaust for us within two years,' Liberman says

Former defense minister Avigdor Liberman warned that Iran's axis plans to attack Israel from all fronts within two years.

Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman said Wednesday morning in an interview with Army Radio.

"We are in the midst of an Iranian plan of destruction," explained Liberman, a former defense minister.

"After they acquire a nuclear bomb within two years, Israel will be attacked with the aim of destroying it from multiple fronts with tens of thousands of missiles simultaneously. They are planning a Holocaust for us in the next two years."

"We must understand that Iran is planning an all-out attack within two years, where their entire axis working against Israel," he said at the time. "A credible and severe attack from Iran itself, from Lebanon by Hezbollah, from Gaza by Hamas, from Syria by Sh'ite militias, from Iraq and its [Iran-backed] militias, and from the Houthis in Yemen. Of course, they will also try to spark something in the West Bank.""

Interestingly, according to another article from the JPost, "Lieberman, who served as defense minister from 2016 until 2018 under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his former government, drafted an 11-page memo in 2016 accurately predicting much of what Hamas did on Oct. 7, from overrunning the high-tech security barrier to seizing hostages in civilian border communities.

Lieberman accurately foreshadowed such an attack would “lead to significant harm to the morale and feelings of the citizens of Israel.”"

[Fuzz]

"After they acquire a nuclear bomb within two years,"


And I stopped reading. Iran has said to be been 2 years away from a bomb since 1980, and to still see them use that dog whistle? I guess it seems to work.

[Fuzz]

The April 24, 1984, edition of the British defense publication Jane’s Defence Weekly informed its readers: “Iran is engaged in the production of an atomic bomb, likely to be ready within two years, according to press reports in the Persian Gulf last week.” Subsequent warnings from U.S. and foreign sources about Iran’s imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon have been offered over the past four decades. These false guesses are worth bearing in mind as news from the nuclear negotiations in Lausanne, Switzerland, emerges.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-1980s/389333/


This article is from 2015, I'm sure it could be updated with a few dozen more prognostications from war mongers.

[afc wimbledon]

And for the sake of balance, I also think Israels stance is ultimately self destructive, that the US will fall and in 2 or 300 years Israel will be overwhelmed by its neighbors just due to sheer weight of numbers and the reality that many liberal Jews won't (and don't) want to live in an increasingly theocratic state, I also think it is possible that a desperate Muslim group could make Israel all but uninhabitable with some kind of dirty bomb long before that but none of this is any good for a Palestinian living in Gaza right now

[_Q_]

Lol. So many questions.

Did Hamas just jump the gun 2 years early?

Is Iran not really in full control of its "proxies"?

Are all the Palestinians just going to be sacrificed in this nuclear war in order to free Palestine?

Hasn't Iran been on the cusp of developing a nuke since like 1999?

[Manhattanboy]

Obviously Israel has several red lines. Iran's missile attack on April 13 does represent a game-changer in my view to the extent it was the first time it launched an attack from its own own territory. You know what they about first times...

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Obviously Israel has several red lines. Iran's missile attack on April 13 does represent a game-changer in my view to the extent it was the first time it launched an attack from its own own territory. You know what they about first times...

They are an embarrassing letdown?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Thank you, I appreciate an honest answer. If it is disputed, then why is Israeli law being imposed there? Does using the wording "disputed" justify the illegal settlements(so named by basically every court and legal expert outside of Israel)? Further, and ultimately, does this help move towards or away from peace?

Disputed means that there are two or more parties that are disputing claims to the land.

In this case Israeli law is enforced for the simple reason that Israel won the wars and holds the land. As stated Jordan had invaded the land in 1948 and later annexed it. Israel gained control of the land in a later war in 1967.

For the record, I do not support the settlers generally. I think that any one ethnicity claiming exclusive occupancy over the land, including the West Bank, is wrong. However, in order to have a two state solution, Palestinians need a large and continuous area of land to live in.

I, however, do not think anti-settler arguments should apply to Jerusalem and its immediate surrounding area. There's nothing in the history of Jerusalem that provides that any area of it (apart from portions of the old city) should be exclusively Arab and/or under Arab vs. Jewish control.

This is particularly true when you put the history of the city into context. There have been multiple massacres of and restrictions placed on Jews through history in Jerusalem. This included systems of high taxation on Jews, which forced them out of the city under Ottoman rule. Some of it being recent enough to be totally relevant to the current conflict:

1720, due to failure to repay the debts, Arab creditors broke into the synagogue, set it on fire, and took over the area. The Ottoman authorities held both HeHasid's group and the pre-existing Ashkenazi community collectively responsible and expelled all Ashkenazi Jews from Jerusalem

In 1740, Rabbi Haim Abulafia, the rabbi of İzmir, renewed Jewish settlement in Tiberias and the surrounding area under the patronage of local governor Zahir al-Umar. In 1742, a group of Jewish immigrants from Morocco and Italy led by Moroccan rabbi Chaim ibn Attar arrived in Palestine, and most settled in Jerusalem. At the time, the vast majority of Jews in Palestine were Sephardi or Mizrahi Jews, with only a small number of Ashkenazi Jews. The Ottoman authorities restricted the number of Jews permitted to live in Jerusalem.

The growth of the Jewish community of Palestine, which was known as the Yishuv, was disrupted by the outbreak of World War I in 1914. During the war, many Jews were expelled from Palestine by the Ottoman authorities as enemy nationals, since they had immigrated from countries now at war with the Ottoman Empire. In 1917, the Ottoman authorities carried out the Tel Aviv and Jaffa deportation, expelling the entire Jewish civilian populations of Tel Aviv and Jaffa. Many deportees subsequently died from hunger and disease

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...Land_of_Israel

This is why I take issue with a lot of the argument about there was only X percentage of Jews in the land on X date....well yes, the Muslim ruler had historically practiced brutal campaigns of economic and regular violence against non-Muslim inhabitants. Modern day Israel shouldn't have to abide by the effects of that historical violence.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

And for the sake of balance, I also think Israels stance is ultimately self destructive, that the US will fall and in 2 or 300 years Israel will be overwhelmed by its neighbors just due to sheer weight of numbers and the reality that many liberal Jews won't (and don't) want to live in an increasingly theocratic state, I also think it is possible that a desperate Muslim group could make Israel all but uninhabitable with some kind of dirty bomb long before that but none of this is any good for a Palestinian living in Gaza right now

I disagree with your view on the demographics. The Ultra Orthodox population numbers are only now recovering from the effects of the holocaust. Expect their numbers to explode in the next 50 years. Meanwhile Iran, and specifically the Persian population, has a fertility rate below replacement.

By the end of the 21 century, there could be upwards of 80 million Jews in the Middle East, with many more large populations in areas like New Jersey. Meanwhile Iran is aging and see a sharp population decline throughout the last half of the 21st century.

Demographic trends are on Israel's side, which is a big part of why many right wing Israelis are no longer pushing for long term peace.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Lol. So many questions.

Did Hamas just jump the gun 2 years early?

Is Iran not really in full control of its "proxies"?

Are all the Palestinians just going to be sacrificed in this nuclear war in order to free Palestine?

Hasn't Iran been on the cusp of developing a nuke since like 1999?

Maybe I read the article wrong but Lieberman does not say that Iran will drop a nuke on Israel, but he is saying that once Iran develops a nuke they will attack Israel. I am inferring here but I believe he is saying that the threat is more so Irans long range missiles and if they develop a nuke it will give them the confidence to initiate what he calls a “holocaust”. Not really a fan of that wording.

I think it is up for debate how much control Iran has over their proxies. I don’t think anyone really knows. There have been reports that Hezbollah has been planning to invade the Galilee, if so, why did they not invade it on October 7th? Iran obviously has influence over these groups but to what degree is impossible to say.

Edit: also quick add, Lieberman is also a conservative politician and while he correctly predicted several events that took place on October 7th it is in his and his parties best interest to spread fear of Iran. Whether there is tangible intel behind his claims we don’t know. The 2 year claim by him is quite the statement.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Maybe I read the article wrong but Liberman does not say that Iran will drop a nuke on Israel, but he is saying that once Iran develops a nuke they will attack Israel. I am inferring here but I believe he is saying that the threat is more so Irans long range missiles and if they develop a nuke it will give them the confidence to initiate what he calls a “holocaust”. Not really a fan of that wording.

I think it is up for debate how much control Iran has over their proxies. I don’t think anyone really knows. There have been reports that Hezbollah has been planning to invade the Galilee, if so, why did they not invade it on October 7th? Iran obviously has influence over these groups but to what degree is impossible to say.

I really hope Hezbollah doesn't invade, for the sake of the people of Lebanon. They've already seen a mass exodus due to the recent economic crisis. Although it's likely always been Iran's plan to totally destabilize Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, so that they can slide into the power vacuum.

Iran's initial nuclear strike would likely be a strike that would kill a few hundred thousand Israelis. Meanwhile, Israel would strike back with a barrage of cutting edge thermonuclear devices. Not a good trade off for Iran.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

Disputed means that there are two or more parties that are disputing claims to the land.

In this case Israeli law is enforced for the simple reason that Israel won the wars and holds the land. As stated Jordan had invaded the land in 1948 and later annexed it. Israel gained control of the land in a later war in 1967.

For the record, I do not support the settlers generally. I think that any one ethnicity claiming exclusive occupancy over the land, including the West Bank, is wrong. However, in order to have a two state solution, Palestinians need a large and continuous area of land to live in.

I, however, do not think anti-settler arguments should apply to Jerusalem and its immediate surrounding area. There's nothing in the history of Jerusalem that provides that any area of it (apart from portions of the old city) should be exclusively Arab and/or under Arab vs. Jewish control.

This is particularly true when you put the history of the city into context. There have been multiple massacres of and restrictions placed on Jews through history in Jerusalem. This included systems of high taxation on Jews, which forced them out of the city under Ottoman rule. Some of it being recent enough to be totally relevant to the current conflict:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...Land_of_Israel

This is why I take issue with a lot of the argument about there was only X percentage of Jews in the land on X date....well yes, the Muslim ruler had historically practiced brutal campaigns of economic and regular violence against non-Muslim inhabitants. Modern day Israel shouldn't have to abide by the effects of that historical violence.

Would the Israeli policy of swiss-cheesing the West Bank, and using ring settlements not be an indication that Israel is working against a two state solution?



Further, the international community condemns and names all the settlements illegal, including those in Jerusalem. You seem to support Israel having full control over it, despite that never being the intent. Do you not worry that antagonizes the situation more, and would ultimately lead to further violence?

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by blankall

I really hope Hezbollah doesn't invade, for the sake of the people of Lebanon. They've already seen a mass exodus due to the recent economic crisis. Although it's likely always been Iran's plan to totally destabilize Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, so that they can slide into the power vacuum.

Iran's initial nuclear strike would likely be a strike that would kill a few hundred thousand Israelis. Meanwhile, Israel would strike back with a barrage of cutting edge thermonuclear devices. Not a good trade off for Iran.

Unfortunately it’s looking ever more likely that all out war with Hezbollah is on the horizon, regardless if a ceasefire with Hamas is brokered. All out war between Israel and Hezbollah would have major implications for the entire region, notwithstanding it being extremely bloody. Grim days ahead.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by blankall

I disagree with your view on the demographics. The Ultra Orthodox population numbers are only now recovering from the effects of the holocaust. Expect their numbers to explode in the next 50 years. Meanwhile Iran, and specifically the Persian population, has a fertility rate below replacement.

By the end of the 21 century, there could be upwards of 80 million Jews in the Middle East, with many more large populations in areas like New Jersey. Meanwhile Iran is aging and see a sharp population decline throughout the last half of the 21st century.

Demographic trends are on Israel's side, which is a big part of why many right wing Israelis are no longer pushing for long term peace.

I am not thinking Iran is the problem, in fact the opposite, if any population in the middle east is likely to become moderate it is Iran, my worry would be the Sunni ummah as a whole, 900 million and growing, and to be clear Islam could calm down and become more moderate but I think Israel isnt learning the lesson Jewish history teaches it, Palestinians and their allies will also be repeating 'next year in Jerusalem' for just as many years as Jews have, at some point all countries lose power and wealth, to my way of thinking the time to create peace is when you have power because you wont get it when you're weak

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Unfortunately it’s looking ever more likely that all out war with Hezbollah is on the horizon, regardless if a ceasefire with Hamas is brokered. All out war between Israel and Hezbollah would have major implications for the entire region, notwithstanding it being extremely bloody. Grim days ahead.

it will keep Bibi in power so the cost in blood is irrelevant

[Skootenbeeten]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They are an embarrassing letdown?

So since their missile strike on civilians failed they are "an embarrassing letdown"? If they would have succeeded and killed a couple hundred people would they be a glorious success? What a vile stance from a vile person, who is the war monger here?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

So since their missile strike on civilians failed they are "an embarrassing letdown"? If they would have succeeded and killed a couple hundred people would they be a glorious success? What a vile stance from a vile person, who is the war monger here?

....

No, 'an embarrassing letdown' is his reply to manhattanboy saying 'you know what they say about first times'

It's a joke. Relax.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

So since their missile strike on civilians failed they are "an embarrassing letdown"? If they would have succeeded and killed a couple hundred people would they be a glorious success? What a vile stance from a vile person, who is the war monger here?

Son you’re a sack of hammers aren’t ya. That was a first time sex joke cmon

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

So since their missile strike on civilians failed they are "an embarrassing letdown"? If they would have succeeded and killed a couple hundred people would they be a glorious success? What a vile stance from a vile person, who is the war monger here?

Fuzz responded to my post and I am quite certain he was making a joke about the "first time".....