• djsoren19@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Both countries are run by fundamentalist religious zealots who are certain they are doing the will of God. Don’t underestimate their willingness to turn the entire region to ash.

  • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 hours ago

    As ghandi once said, “An eye for an eye and the whole world…ahh… fuck it…we’re fucked”.

    • Akasazh
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      That’s my Civilization Ghandi.

      (I know that is a bit of a myth yet in this case I think it’s topical)

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I wonder how far back you’d have to go in order to find the original incident that set off this enormous chain of retaliations. Probably at least 5,000 years.

    • Mrkawfee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      37 minutes ago

      What? Mate, it’s 1948 the date that the racist colony called Israel was founded on the bones of Palestinians.

      Only the Zionists want you to think it’s a religious dispute.

    • MehBlah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Nah you just have to go back to the end of WWII when the the postwar allies decided it was easier to give all the Jews who survived the genocide Palestine. They armed them. Then let them push out the people who had been there for thousands of years out to create their new country. Its continued this entire time. There is a site somewhere that shows how isreal has steadily took over land that wasn’t given to them in the original agreement. Further more the document that established the new isreal guaranteed a Palestinian state which isreal has consistently prevented since their inception. All of this information can be found but you can bet isreal tries to suppress that as well. I’m done with isreal. WWII was fought in part to prevent their genocide. Now they are killing on that scale and can’t see the hypocrisy in their actions. It must gall them when someone with a Jewish heritage like Bernie Sanders takes action to prevent the US from enabling the genocide they are currently carrying out.

    • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Bout 80 years actually. The current conflict is settler colonists fighting natives. The religious justification is just that, justification with no history support. Just classic colonization and ethnic cleansing of natives.

      • Fondots@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I’d probably push it back to a little over 100 years to include WWI, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the British Mandate for Palestine, since that all set the stage for Israel being founded pretty directly, and there had already been a pretty substantial movement for Jews to immigrate to the region by about the '30s (known as the “Fifth Aliyah”) so a bit outside of your 80 year range.

        But of course, none of these events happen in a vacuum, if you want to get really nitpicky, you can start talking about the events that world war 1, trace them way back, through the crusades, the birth of Muhammad, Christianity, the Roman empire, all the way back to the bronze age, and maybe even further if you were able to somehow find decent historical records going that far back.

        Trying to point to one single event as the one that kicked off a certain conflict is tough, because there was always something that led up to that event too, and when you try to unravel it, before too long you might come to a very Douglass Adams-y conclusion that it all started when our first ape ancestors decided to come down from the trees, only for someone else to say that the trees had been a mistake in the first place and that we never should have left the oceans.

      • Snowflake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Jewish settlers 80+ years ago bought their land legally. Meaning they legally own the land. Such classic colonization. Somehow after the ethnic cleansing they were left with 10x the population they started with. Seriously cleansed them didn’t they.

        • Saleh@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Even if some of the land was bought legally, most was stolen.

          And the title to a plot of land is no justification for founding a state and exercising political and military power over your neighbour, denying him sovereignity.

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          7 hours ago

          bought the land legally doesn’t really mean much, the american settlers obtained their land ‘legally’ too.

          • Snowflake@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            6 hours ago

            “buying land doesn’t really mean much.” Tell that to the Palestinians who got upset when Jews moved into the land they sold to them. One thing it definitely means is the new owners might move in.

            American settlers did obtain their land legally too. What’s your point? That to begin with, without us legally obtaining that land you wouldn’t have electricity. You wouldn’t have airplanes. You wouldn’t have a cell phone.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              24 minutes ago

              That to begin with, without us legally obtaining that land you wouldn’t have electricity. You wouldn’t have airplanes. You wouldn’t have a cell phone.

              “Just look at all the capitalist treats you got out of our genocide, you ungrateful plebe”

            • Deceptichum@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              2 hours ago

              without us legally obtaining that land you wouldn’t have electricity. You wouldn’t have airplanes. You wouldn’t have a cell phone.

              Peak coloniser mindset.

  • tal@lemmy.todayOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    A top Iranian military commander has warned that his country will hit Israel’s entire infrastructure if it takes any action against its territory.

    Iran’s armed forces joint chief of staff Gen. Mohammad Bagheri said Wednesday that the Revolutionary Guard was prepared both defensively and offensively to repeat its missile attack with “multiplied intensity.”

    “If the Zionist regime, that has gone insane, is not contained by America and Europe and intends to continue such crimes, or do anything against our sovereignty or territorial integrity, tonight’s operation will be repeated with much higher magnitude and we will hit all their infrastructure,” he said.

    Hmm.

    Israel’s U.N. ambassador says his government will decide when and how to respond to Iran’s barrage of close to 200 ballistic missiles that forced Israel’s 10 million population into bomb shelters. “But I can tell you one thing, it will be noticed,” he said. “It will be painful.”

    Hmm.

    The U.N. Security Council has scheduled an emergency meeting on the escalating situation in the Middle East for Wednesday at 10 a.m., at the request of France and Israel.

    Hmm.

    Ryder said two U.S. Navy destroyers — the USS Cole and the USS Bulkeley — fired about a dozen interceptors to defend Israel in the latest attack.

    He decried reports indicating Iran wants to de-escalate tensions in the region.

    “You don’t launch that many missiles at a target without the intent on hitting something,” Ryder said.

    Hmm.

    • tal@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Well, I can pretty much guarantee one thing – given the international situation, Russia is gonna veto any action against Iran at the UNSC, so Israel isn’t looking for UNSC action in calling for the UNSC to convene.

      Countries don’t need UNSC signoff to defend themselves, though.

      I think that there may be an obligation to notify the UNSC, though, if a country is taking military action in defense of itself or another country with which it has a collective security agreement.

      kagis for the UN Charter

      Ah, yeah, here it is.

      https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text

      Article 51

      Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

      So I suppose that it’s good odds that that’s what this is.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 minutes ago

        Russia is gonna veto any action against Iran at the UNSC, so Israel isn’t looking for UNSC action in calling for the UNSC to convene.

        And the US will run cover for Israel, which I suspect is the point of raising the issue in an emergency session. Similar to a vote being raised in congress on a bill or resolution that is known to fail, sometimes the point is just to have the opposition go on record about the issue.

        Israel is circling the wagon while domestic pressure for policy change is high.