Israel/Iran Showdown

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
25,150
Location
Ginseng Strip
the situation really is far more complex than that
It really isn’t. Golaan is internationally recognised Syrian territory that’s occupied. Considering the countries are still at War the Syrians and their allies are well within their rights to take back territory that’s rightly theirs.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
25,150
Location
Ginseng Strip
Borders rely on mutual acceptance, and you conveniently leave out the other side. Hezbollah isn't accepting any border in the north, Hamas isn't accepting any border in the south, Iran isn't accepting any border even behind the Golan. They don't accept Israel's existence as a whole, so the borders argument is a bit hypocritical.

As long as these forces want to meet in al Quds along with "millions of martyrs" (Nasrallah, Sinwar), Israel would be a bit stupid to act the way you demand.
The reason Hezbollah even exists was because of Israel’s annexation of South Lebanon in ‘82.

But forget Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran for a minute. The international consensus demand seems that Israel returns to its pre-67 borders and vacate occupied territories. By refusing to do so, coupled to their ramped up settlement colonisation of internationally recognised Palestinian territories will only dignify any rebuttal of sovereignty.
 

Nikhil

New Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
2,348
Location
Form is temporary, bans are permanent.
It really isn’t. Golaan is internationally recognised Syrian territory that’s occupied. Considering the countries are still at War the Syrians and their allies are well within their rights to take back territory that’s rightly theirs.
It is a very dangerous move to be carried out by the Iranians, regardless of whether the Golan is occupied or not. The US, Israel and Sunni Arab countries are against them. Turkey has been taking overtures to Saudi lately. All sides should act in a manner so as to deescalate the situation and prevent a war with the Iranis. Conflict and an invasion of Iran will be unbelievably tragic.

The Saudi rulers aren't slaves of the US, as some may think. They are despicably tyrants who want to see the end of Iran. They must be so happy right now.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
25,150
Location
Ginseng Strip
It is a very dangerous move to be carried out by the Iranians, regardless of whether the Golan is occupied or not. The US, Israel and Sunni Arab countries are against them. Turkey has been taking overtures to Saudi lately. All sides should act in a manner so as to deescalate the situation and prevent a war with the Iranis. Conflict and an invasion of Iran will be unbelievably tragic.

The Saudi rulers aren't slaves of the US, as some may think. They are despicably tyrants who want to see the end of Iran. They must be so happy right now.
Any hope of descalation died with Trump deciding to rip up the Iran deal, instead choosing to ramp up the aggressive rhetoric on Iran, along with their Israeli and Saudi allies.

Also let’s wait before we jump to conclusions on the end game here. The Iranians are amongst the craftiest players in the regions, I’d wager there’s probably a lot more to this than we can make out at this point.
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,283
The reason Hezbollah even exists was because of Israel’s annexation of South Lebanon in ‘82.
Israel never annexed southern Lebanon. The only territories Israel has annexed beyond the '49 armistice lines are East Jerusalem and the Golan.

The international consensus demand seems that Israel returns to its pre-67 borders and vacate occupied territories.
The international consensus is that they should be returned in exchange for peace and mutual recognition. That hasn't happened, the two states are still in a state of war, and so Israel's continuing occupation is legal (but not the annexation and settlements).
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
25,150
Location
Ginseng Strip
Israel/US/World wants Iran to come clean on Nuclear weapons. If disclosure matters so much Israel has never come clean on their Nuclear capabilities, although it is an open secret they do possess capabilities. Where's the outcry from the international community? Why no inspections form international atomic agencies?

Hypocrisy much!
It’s nothing to do with disclosure or the principled objection to Nuclear armament. The fear here is the power shift and leverage the Iranians gain as a potential Nuclear state, that scares the US and her allies more so than the idea of another nuclear state. The idea of regime change and covert attacks become a lot more complicated then.

Just compare the leverage the North Koreans have over the doomed late regimes of Saddam and Gadaffi.

As discussed, this situation became more macabre when the US and her regional allies made it clear they weren’t willing to oblige a deal that would seek to deescalate this.
 

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
3,795
Location
The 10" dick club
Israel never annexed southern Lebanon. The only territories Israel has annexed beyond the '49 armistice lines are East Jerusalem and the Golan.



The international consensus is that they should be returned in exchange for peace and mutual recognition. That hasn't happened, the two states are still in a state of war, and so Israel's continuing occupation is legal (but not the annexation and settlements).
Exactly.
 

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
3,795
Location
The 10" dick club
Israel/US/World wants Iran to come clean on Nuclear weapons. If disclosure matters so much Israel has never come clean on their Nuclear capabilities, although it is an open secret they do possess capabilities. Where's the outcry from the international community? Why no inspections form international atomic agencies?

Hypocrisy much!
Not really. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, Israel is not.
 

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
3,795
Location
The 10" dick club
Any hope of descalation died with Trump deciding to rip up the Iran deal, instead choosing to ramp up the aggressive rhetoric on Iran, along with their Israeli and Saudi allies.

Also let’s wait before we jump to conclusions on the end game here. The Iranians are amongst the craftiest players in the regions, I’d wager there’s probably a lot more to this than we can make out at this point.
Really? They've just had 50 bases destroyed after their own attack landed in Syria, the rest taken out by the IDF's Iron Dome. Russia did nothing to stop Israel. The Sunni world is happy, and Trumps effectively bankrupted the Mullahs.
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
4,066
@2cents already answered on some aspects, so this more of an addition.

The reason Hezbollah even exists was because of Israel’s annexation of South Lebanon in ‘82.
And to "liberate all of Palestine".
But forget Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran for a minute. The international consensus demand seems that Israel returns to its pre-67 borders and vacate occupied territories. By refusing to do so, coupled to their ramped up settlement colonisation of internationally recognised Palestinian territories will only dignify any rebuttal of sovereignty.
That argument only works if Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran (they really can't be left out when discussing this) were to recognize Israel's borders (ergo: existence) afterwards. My view is they won't. More importantly, it's their declared view as well. Revoking the foundation of Israel - reclaiming Islamic rule over this area through holy war - is ingrained in their religious and political identity.

Counterexample: Egypt and Jordan have signed peace agreements with Israel, the borders are mutually recognized and respected. It either goes both ways or nowhere at all.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
29,103
Can't be a direct war between the two because Israel has nuclear weapons and the US has been looking for a predicate to invade Iran since the Revolution of 78/79. Iranians won't overplay their hand, even if backed by Russia.

With regard to proxy wars in Syria et al, that will most likely continue to intensify but it's something that's been happening in the region for decades in one way or another.

A war with Iran would be catastrophic (for the entire world). The blowback from arming rebels in Afghanistan was the Taliban who hosted Bin Laden. The blowback from invading Iraq has been ISIS and the current civil war you see in Syria. An invasion of Iran, or direct war with Iran, would be Iraq intensified by many degrees. They have a highly developed military, revolutionary guard (3 million?) and a central state structure that isn't in threat of overthrow or in any way particularly weakened. Yes, you could defeat them easily in a conventional war (easily meaning causalities running into the millions for the Iranians and many thousands for US/Whoever). After that you have a failed state and a series of tribes and factions and it shouldn't have to be noted, but also a recipe for worldwide instability on a scale not seen since Vietnam.
 
Last edited:

rotherham_red

Full Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
5,057
@2cents already answered on some aspects, so this more of an addition.


And to "liberate all of Palestine".

That argument only works if Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran (they really can't be left out when discussing this) were to recognize Israel's borders (ergo: existence) afterwards. My view is they won't. More importantly, it's their declared view as well. Revoking the foundation of Israel - reclaiming Islamic rule over this area through holy war - is ingrained in their religious and political identity.

Counterexample: Egypt and Jordan have signed peace agreements with Israel, the borders are mutually recognized and respected. It either goes both ways or nowhere at all.
Their actions in Yarmouk and other places where Palestinian refugees live in Syria say otherwise...
 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
10,649
I don't think Assad is involved in this. Sounds like Quds Force are retaliating for previous Israeli bombings and the Israelis are reciprocating.
I think Assad has some say in what is being conducted from his territory , otherwise it's basically an occupation.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
25,150
Location
Ginseng Strip
Israel never annexed southern Lebanon. The only territories Israel has annexed beyond the '49 armistice lines are East Jerusalem and the Golan.
Sorry annexation was the wrong term, they invaded South Lebanon during the civil war. The point is Hezbollahs formation is no accident of ideology.

The international consensus is that they should be returned in exchange for peace and mutual recognition. That hasn't happened, the two states are still in a state of war, and so Israel's continuing occupation is legal (but not the annexation and settlements).
It’s a two way process. Israel doesn’t seem to even entertain the notion of returning to its pre-67 borders and its only attempts at reconciliation involve them forcing in a handful of unreasonable clauses which they know the Palestinians wouldn’t accept.

Even Hamas are willing to accept a Palestinian state build on pre-67 lines.
 

Mr H

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
2,458
They've been waiting to retaliate for Israeli strikes on their position inside Syria, but were holding off until Trump made a final decision on the Iran deal. Now that he has, the gloves are officially off.
This should be specified in the opening post IMO, you would think that the agression came from the Syrian first when 30 minutes after Trump's press conference there were reports on CNN that Israel attacked an Iranian position in Syria.

The opening post doesn't pain the full picture in my opinion.
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,283
It’s a two way process. Israel doesn’t seem to even entertain the notion of returning to its pre-67 borders and its only attempts at reconciliation involve them forcing in a handful of unreasonable clauses which they know the Palestinians wouldn’t accept.

Even Hamas are willing to accept a Palestinian state build on pre-67 lines.
We were talking about Syria though, and immediately after the '67 war Syria was one of the states which issued the famous three "NOs" declaration on the question of peace with Israel. Despite a brief period of negotiations in the 90s, the Syrian stance remains unchanged since 1948 when they attempted to snuff out Israel just as it was born. So while negotiations may indeed be a two-way process, the onus is on Damascus to prove that it's serious about peace, especially since Israel holds the military and territorial cards. The Egyptian and Jordanian examples prove that Damascus could find a willing partner in Jerusalem should that happen - imagine if Bashar al-Assad pulled an Anwar Sadat and visited Jerusalem to speak before the Knesset?

Of course Assad and others are well aware of what happened to Sadat as a result, and given that the Alawite-dominated Ba'th's legitimacy in the Arab world is inextricably tied to maintaining Syria's status as a confrontation state, it's impossible for him to make such a gesture.

As for Hamas, yes they support the establishment of a Palestinian state in the WB and Gaza from where to continue the conflict with Israel.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
25,150
Location
Ginseng Strip
@2cents already answered on some aspects, so this more of an addition.


And to "liberate all of Palestine".
Forget the ideology of the faction. The fact of the matter is there was no Hezbollah pre 1982, it was created by Israel.
That argument only works if Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran (they really can't be left out when discussing this) were to recognize Israel's borders (ergo: existence) afterwards. My view is they won't. More importantly, it's their declared view as well. Revoking the foundation of Israel - reclaiming Islamic rule over this area through holy war - is ingrained in their religious and political identity.

Counterexample: Egypt and Jordan have signed peace agreements with Israel, the borders are mutually recognized and respected. It either goes both ways or nowhere at all.
Fun fact: Neither Egypt nor Jordan were required to recognise Israel as a Jewish state in their respective peace treaties. Meanwhile you have even the likes of Hamas willing to compromise on pre 67 borders (thereby foregoing the right of return).

As for the likes of Hezbollah, they’ve been committed to a secular Lebanon where they’ve not attempted to enforce a theological footprint. If anything they, along with their Iranian sponsors have been instrumental in fighting extremist Islamic factions supported and funded by guess who.
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
4,066
About 3,800 Palestinians have died under Assad's brutality (supported by Iran)

http://www.actionpal.org.uk/en/index.html
Yeah, I know of this, and of the rift between Iran and Hamas caused by the Syrian War's sectarian dimension. My question to @rotherham_red was more about how his comment related to mine.

I obviously don't know yet, but I guess we were simply talking of two different things. When I said "liberate all of Palestine", I was quoting the Islamist/Arab nationalist slogan for ending Israel. Here's Nasrallah:


This is something very different from liberating Palestinians as actual people, serving their interests, or merely treating them well. Which seems he understood to be my intented message.
 

Water Melon

before it dries out, eh
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
3,121
Location
garden bed
Not really. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, Israel is not.
No shit Sherlock. Israel was allowed to not sign up and has nukes actually. Now tell us if Iran decides to quit IAEA and cancel NPT agreements, does it grant this country a right to have nukes?
 

Il Prete Rosso

Prete, the Italian Pete
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
4,117
Location
Ospedale della Pietà
It is a very dangerous move to be carried out by the Iranians, regardless of whether the Golan is occupied or not. The US, Israel and Sunni Arab countries are against them. Turkey has been taking overtures to Saudi lately. All sides should act in a manner so as to deescalate the situation and prevent a war with the Iranis. Conflict and an invasion of Iran will be unbelievably tragic.

The Saudi rulers aren't slaves of the US, as some may think. They are despicably tyrants who want to see the end of Iran. They must be so happy right now.
#Qatarlikesthis
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
110,258
Location
Los Angeles
I think Assad has some say in what is being conducted from his territory , otherwise it's basically an occupation.
Part of the quid pro quo of having Iranian forces on his territory is to allow them to take care of their own business, which generally means consolidating their positions as the slither closer and closer to Israel.
 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
10,649
Part of the quid pro quo of having Iranian forces on his territory is to allow them to take care of their own business, which generally means consolidating their positions as the slither closer and closer to Israel.
Until bombs start to fall on Damascus .
 

Van Gaalacticos

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
1,040
Nor is how they treat the people in Gaza and the West Bank
Israel have made concessions previously and were then fecked over? They are constantly under attack and then people have a go at them for proactively defending themselves. They haven't forgotten the Holocaust and will defend their rights to their land to the hilt. What is the issue with that considering if in my opinion Israel laid down its arms it would be purged from the map.
 

Ramshock

CAF Pilib De Brún Translator
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
39,942
Location
Swimming against a tide of idiots and spoofers
Israel have made concessions previously and were then fecked over? They are constantly under attack and then people have a go at them for proactively defending themselves. They haven't forgotten the Holocaust and will defend their rights to their land to the hilt. What is the issue with that considering if in my opinion Israel laid down its arms it would be purged from the map.
Dont give me this shit, they are fighting fecking pea shooters with brutal murderous force. Look Im not going to get into an argument over the Israel/Palestine conflict especially if someone thinks an aggressive military giant has legitimate reason to pen people in and shoot at them like fecking fish in a barrel and yeah its okay to even kill kids. Sorry mate Im not getting into it.
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
4,066
Forget the ideology of the faction.
Why? It's crucial.
The fact of the matter is there was no Hezbollah pre 1982, it was created by Israel.
As far as I know, it was created by Lebanese Shia Islamists and Iran. In response to the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon, of course. But in terms of fundamental goals regarding Israel you can perhaps relate to the Nasrallah statements I quoted a few posts above this one (#63).
Fun fact: Neither Egypt nor Jordan were required to recognise Israel as a Jewish state in their respective peace treaties. Meanwhile you have even the likes of Hamas willing to compromise on pre 67 borders (thereby foregoing the right of return).
What?
As for the likes of Hezbollah, they’ve been committed to a secular Lebanon where they’ve not attempted to enforce a theological footprint.
Which also reflects the objective demography of Lebanon. But I fail to see what Lebanese internal politics have to do with the original question of acknowledgement of certain borders. The discussion about Hezbollah's objectives was in connection with that.
If anything they, along with their Iranian sponsors have been instrumental in fighting extremist Islamic factions supported and funded by guess who.
Honestly, your reluctance to even use the word "Islamist" in connection with Iran and their proxies says a lot.
 

Van Gaalacticos

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
1,040
Dont give me this shit, they are fighting fecking pea shooters with brutal murderous force. Look Im not going to get into an argument over the Israel/Palestine conflict especially if someone thinks an aggressive military giant has legitimate reason to pen people in and shoot at them like fecking fish in a barrel and yeah its okay to even kill kids. Sorry mate Im not getting into it.
Fair play if you don't want to get into it but Palestine are the ones using child suicide bombers hence why children get shot. Like I say Israel have made concessions and been completely fecked over previously. Why are "pea shooters" attacking Israel? Would it not be better to let the situation de-escalate? Or can they just not stop until Israel is wiped off the planet despite any concessions Israel makes?
 

Zlatattack

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
5,115
Fair play if you don't want to get into it but Palestine are the ones using child suicide bombers hence why children get shot. Like I say Israel have made concessions and been completely fecked over previously. Why are "pea shooters" attacking Israel? Would it not be better to let the situation de-escalate? Or can they just not stop until Israel is wiped off the planet despite any concessions Israel makes?
child suicide bombers? BS. 16 and 17 year olds. it doesn't explain bombing children playing on the beach and shooting babies.

http://www.child-soldiers.org/document_get.php?id=966
 

Ramshock

CAF Pilib De Brún Translator
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
39,942
Location
Swimming against a tide of idiots and spoofers
Fair play if you don't want to get into it but Palestine are the ones using child suicide bombers hence why children get shot. Like I say Israel have made concessions and been completely fecked over previously. Why are "pea shooters" attacking Israel? Would it not be better to let the situation de-escalate? Or can they just not stop until Israel is wiped off the planet despite any concessions Israel makes?
I am disagreeing with you because this debate, as with the NI debate, is just poison and one of us, likely me, will get rapped on the knuckles or get banned over it. So I am respectfully disagreeing with you on this.
 

Van Gaalacticos

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
1,040

Van Gaalacticos

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
1,040
I am disagreeing with you because this debate, as with the NI debate, is just poison and one of us, likely me, will get rapped on the knuckles or get banned over it. So I am respectfully disagreeing with you on this.
Fair enough, we will have to agree to disagree. I do agree however it's a poisonous debate. I'd certainly hope nobody got banned for expressing their opinion or exploring the possible options.
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,283
Honestly, your reluctance to even use the word "Islamist" in connection with Iran and their proxies says a lot.
This is one of the bizarre consequences of the discourse produced by a certain section of the anti-Israel left during the Syrian Civil War - you have voices who do everything to paint groups like Hamas in a moderate, reasonable light defending Assad by portraying all the forces fighting against him as fanatic terrorists - despite Hamas sharing basically the same ideology and in most cases having been, historically at least, responsible for far more heinous acts.

People who, often with good reason, criticise Israeli conduct during military operations in Gaza then turn around and justify the destruction of entire cities in Syria by Assad on the ground that "Assad is secular/Christians can celebrate Christmas again", etc. as if those things don't apply to Israel.
 

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
3,795
Location
The 10" dick club
This is one of the bizarre consequences of the discourse produced by a certain section of the anti-Israel left during the Syrian Civil War - you have voices who do everything to paint groups like Hamas in a moderate, reasonable light defending Assad by portraying all the forces fighting against him as fanatic terrorists - despite Hamas sharing basically the same ideology and in most cases having been, historically at least, responsible for far more heinous acts.

People who, often with good reason, criticise Israeli conduct during military operations in Gaza then turn around and justify the destruction of entire cities in Syria by Assad on the ground that "Assad is secular/Christians can celebrate Christmas again", etc. as if those things don't apply to Israel.
There's a name for that exceptionalism.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
25,150
Location
Ginseng Strip
Where have you got that idea?
This time last year Hamas said they were willing to accept a pre 67 Palestine as the foundation of their country. That surely can’t be compatible with the right to return. Granted it’s not exactly an olive branch of peace and they’re still reluctant for right or wrong to accept Israel’s sovereignty, but it’s a significant mellowing of viewpoints from Palestine’s most radical faction. What has Israel put forward in terms of compromise?
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
40,304
Location
CA
Israel/US/World wants Iran to come clean on Nuclear weapons. If disclosure matters so much Israel has never come clean on their Nuclear capabilities, although it is an open secret they do possess capabilities. Where's the outcry from the international community? Why no inspections form international atomic agencies?

Hypocrisy much!
To be fair Sultan, Israel never used nuclear weapons even when a lot of Arab states attacked it, and also doesn't threaten any other state with destruction. Their nuclear weapons are just a guarantee of their existence and I cannot blame them for that considering the treatment the world gave to Jews.

I like both Israel and Iran (I don't like Biby or Ayatollah) and have only good experiences with people from those countries. I hope his doesn't escalate further.