140

Iran tells Hamas it will not enter the war with Israel (www.telegraph.co.uk)

submitted 10 months ago by Rapidcreek@reddthat.com to c/news@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] lmaydev@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago

They must have known Israel would retaliate heavily.

I wonder if their plan was to try and draw in other countries and create a large multi country war.

If so they seem to have failed.

[-] uphillbothways@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Iran and Hamas just wanted to stop Saudi Arabia from establishing diplomatic ties with Israel, further marginalizing Iran in the region. They succeeded there, and the majority of the retribution fell on the citizens of Gaza.
Iran got everything they wanted and came out clean.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 6 points 10 months ago

That was Hamas strategy for sure.

[-] guacupado@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Iran won't join; Hezbollah will go in their stead.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee -3 points 10 months ago

Iran or Israel's plan? Iran is well known for enlisting terrorists to do their dirty work for them, and Israel is probably eyeing up some border territory they can grab.

Apparently the sentiment among settlers is that the "natural borders of the Jewish Homeland" extend from the Nile to the Euphrates.

You know, that famous Jewish city, Dubai.

[+] MooseGas@kbin.social -14 points 10 months ago

I think this is something a lot of people don't realize. If Israel showed any weakness after the Hamas terrorist attacks, it is likely Iran, Lebanon, who else knows who, would attack as well.

Israel was put in an impossible situation and did what it had to do to protect itself.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

Gaza has been under military occupation by Israel since 1970 (including after the disengagement in 2005; the blockade is very much a form of military occupation). Being attacked by the people you're occupying is the obvious outcome, setting aside the specific details of the attack because I know Hamas did some unspeakable things in Oct 7. If Israel wanted to protect themselves they'd stop their occupation of Palestine and retreat to 1967 borders.

[-] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 4 points 10 months ago

Palestinian leaders never accepted the 1967 borders until 1988. And even then it wasn't genuine:

https://www.meforum.org/6264/why-the-oslo-process-doomed-peace

"We make peace with enemies," Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin reassured a concerned citizen shortly after the September 13, 1993 conclusion of the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (DOP, or Oslo I). "I would like to remind you that the [March 1979] peace treaty with Egypt had many opponents, and this peace has held for 15 years now."[1] True enough. But peace can only be made with enemies who have been either comprehensively routed (e.g., post-World War II Germany and Japan) or disillusioned with the use of violence—not with those who remain wedded to conflict and war. And while Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was a "reformed enemy" eager to extricate his country from its futile conflict with Israel, Yasser Arafat and the PLO leadership viewed the Oslo process not as a springboard to peace but as a "Trojan Horse" (in the words of prominent PLO official Faisal Husseini) designed to promote the organization's strategic goal of "Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea"—that is, a Palestine in place of Israel.

Arafat admitted as much five days before signing the accords when he told an Israeli journalist, "In the future, Israel and Palestine will be one united state in which Israelis and Palestinians will live together"[3]—that is, Israel would cease to exist. And even as he shook Rabin's hand on the White House lawn, the PLO chairman was assuring the Palestinians in a pre-recorded, Arabic-language message that the agreement was merely an implementation of the organization's "phased strategy" of June 1974. This stipulated that the Palestinians would seize whatever territory Israel surrendered to them, then use it as a springboard for further territorial gains until achieving the "complete liberation of Palestine."

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Almost every Palestinian around wants a one-state solution. That's bad because? A one-state solution is better than a two-state solution in every way possible, except in securing Israel's Jewish majority state where they can practice apartheid.

[-] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

It's bad because if your goal is peace, it's a non-starter. No moral judgement about either side, that's just how it is. Maybe if we get peace through a two-state solution, 100 years from now there might be a chance for unification, but right now the wounds are too deep.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago

I mean Palestinians (including Hamas, believe it or not) are currently working towards (or would like to, but the other side is a genocidal state that has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo) a two-state solution, but the fact that one state encompassing all of Palestine is no secret. The article you linked uses that as a proof that the Oslo process was doomed from the start. That's unadulterated bullshit. The Oslo peace process was the closest the conflict ever came to ending, until a Zionist terrorist assassinated Rabin. There's just no way that can be blamed on the Palestinian side.

[-] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

I agree, but the simple fact is Arafat and other Palestinian leaders were telling the people they were negotiating with one thing, and their own people another thing. The simple fact is neither side has ever wanted anything but "from the river to the sea". The Oslo process wasn't necessarily doomed, and it was the closest to peace we've been, but it would have been (if it had succeeded) far from the end of the peace process.

[-] guacupado@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Gaza has been under military occupation by Israel since 1970

Which also happened after everyone around Israel tried attacking them and ended one-sidedly losing still.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago

And that justifies apartheid because?

[-] guacupado@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

If Israel showed any weakness after the Hamas terrorist attacks, it is likely Iran, Lebanon, who else knows who, would attack as well.

Ironically enough, this is how they got the land in the first place; except they won so strongly they actually ended with more land than they started.

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Having multiple carrier groups locked and loaded right next door makes this decision pretty easy.

[-] krayj@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 months ago

They don't need to "enter the war" because they are already successfully planning, funding, and supporting it from behind the scenes.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

I would like to remind everyone of the current year and that in this year a nation of 90 million people are ruled by a council of shamans. You know just in case anyone was kinda happy that this was isn't going to explode even more so.

[-] ComradeWeebelo@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Pending United States government if the Far Right ever gets their way.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Religion needs to become history.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 9 points 10 months ago

Dark Brandon's message to Iran seemed to have worked.

"Don't."

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't think Iran needed Dark Brandon to remind them a direct conflict with Israel would be a stupid risk for them. Iran's strategy was always to use proxy groups to attack Israel even when Israel attacked Iranian territory. If they won't start a war as a response to a direct aggression it's pretty obvious they would never risk themselves trying to save what they see as disposable tools¹.

¹ if you disagree with this assessment, look at who contributes more foreign aid for Palestine, even when accounting for the donor's GDP

[-] rosymind@leminal.space 9 points 10 months ago

I just want this war to be over already. I'm tired of reading about dead babies and naked women being spat on. It's gross on all sides

[+] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -6 points 10 months ago

Unless the apartheids regime falls this will continue. The only thing that will lead to peace is getting America to stop supporting Zionazis

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Peace is a long ways away and would require strong will for it on both sides as well as a lot of luck.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

One side is doing Genocide and colonialism. The other side just tries to live in peace. Wanna know how they got peace in South Africa? They kicked out the white nationalist government

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

My intent was not to put equal blame on both sides. But if Israel wants peace and good relations, it won't happen unless the people of Palestine are agreeable to the terms. And just accepting some cease fire or peace agreement doesn't imply they like the terms, it just implies they prefer those terms over being bombed and invaded. They will need terms they can be happy with otherwise there will be another terror attack down the line and the cycle of violence might start up again.

Realistically, I don't think this situation will be resolved in a way that eliminates violence completely. But they might be able to get to a place where they can agree to blame individuals involved in the violence rather than blaming the other group.

And yeah, as long as the current regimes have power, it will be hard to separate the intent of the individuals from the groups.

[-] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 1 points 10 months ago

Good.

this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023

140 points (93.8% liked)

News

23001 readers

3323 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world