Attention Required! | Cloudflare
www.middleeasteye.net
  • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
    416·
    2 months ago

    Legal? Probably not. But there has been little interest for Israels international allies to uphold legal principles when it comes to Israeli actions.

    Rational? In order to assess that we would need to know, which information they had when they made the decision. Probably we’ll have historians analyze and discuss this in a few years.

    Legitimate? From what we know the strikes were aimed and hit military targets, in particular air bases. Weakening Israels ability to bomb people relentlessly like the continue to do in Gaza and Lebanon will prevent many more civilians being killed in those air raids.

    Ultimately the problem with every military escalation is that there is only three possible scenarios. Either one side, or the other side miscalculated their strength and resolve compared to their enemies, or both sides miscalculated. If everyone involved calculated correctly, they wouldn’t bother fighting.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      14·
      2 months ago

      Your assuming those involved are remotely rational. Once you get to the point where someone is willing to kill themselves to kill others it doesn’t really matter about anyone else’s strength and resolve.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    355·
    2 months ago

    Honestly, considering the whole “land invasion of Lebanon” thing, I’d even say it was gentle.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3118·
    2 months ago

    “With God’s help, the blows of the uprising front will become stronger and more painful on the worn and rotting body of the Zionist regime,” he said.

    Sounds very rational.

      • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        134·
        2 months ago

        Oh that explains a lot. Wonder when they’ll go full r/worldnews levels of post and comments control

        • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldEnglish
          27·
          2 months ago

          That’s why we have a diverse moderation team. My politics don’t effect my moderation decisions. But even if they did, other mods would step in to correct it. And vice-versa.

      • DancingBearEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        So you are denying South Sudan has a right to exist?

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldEnglish
        718·
        2 months ago

        I definitely support the right of women to uncover their hair in public without getting murdered. Yet you seem to be spending an awful lot of energy defending the regime in Iran.

        • Count042@lemmy.mlEnglish
          192·
          2 months ago

          You went to a lot of trouble to answer a question no one asked.

          I ask again, did Rhodesia have a right to exist?

          I will remind you that the Europeans in Rhodesia also viewed their existence as an existential fight against barbarism.

          Apartheid countries always do.

          • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldEnglish
            39·
            2 months ago

            It was actually no trouble at all to discuss Iran in a post about Iran. What would be weird is if I started bringing up non-existent countries from completely different continents.

            • Count042@lemmy.mlEnglish
              81·
              2 months ago

              In recent history there have been three apartheid countries.

              Apartheid South Africa (interestingly enough at the end they were ONLY supported by Israel which even then recognized they were an apartheid country) which peacefully gave equal rights to all citizens, even though they described the citizens with unequal rights as terrorists.

              Rhodesia, with delusions of grandeur of their own martial skill (huh, the metaphor is even better than I thought. I mean, who the fuck thought it was a smart idea to have a tank heavy army in an urban setting without screening infantry.) That fought against giving their unequal citizens rights militarily until they were defeated.

              And Israel. Whom every black person that lived through apartheid South Africa and has visited the West Bank or Gaza has described as being far worse in terms of humiliation and lack of rights.

              And you wonder why I bring up Rhodesia?

              At this point, defenders of Israel are as morally repugnant as every white person in the eighties that defended apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia.

              And no, a racist (which is a required attribute to defend apartheid) is not a diverse voice that should be represented.

              Oh and that racist country is currently trying to do everything in it’s power to start a war with Iran, and drag my country into it. Also, all the weapons that racist country uses is paid for with my tax dollars, so every one of the twenty thousand or more children it has blown up is someone that is dead through my money. So yeah, it’s very relevant. I’m sick of paying for Israel to murder children of a people whose land it wants.

                • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  51·
                  2 months ago

                  I saw no defense of Iran in their comment. Like do you think everyone reading this cannot see exactly what you’re trying to do?

                • Count042@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  31·
                  2 months ago

                  Twenty thousand child blown up, or shredded by shrapnel, or buried alive in a year. Multiple torture camps that keep civilians and doctors tied up tight enough that limbs are amputated regularly, the regular intentional targeting of medical personal, an apartheid government based on race.

                  That’s what you defend.

                  I don’t agree or like Iran’s government, but I don’t want a war with them. It says so much to everyone here that you read that as supporting them.

  • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    103·
    2 months ago

    Following Friday’s killing of Nasrallah, a former conservative Iranian MP told MEE that Israel was behaving like a “rabid dog”, adding that it “must be controlled.”

    well, there’s a first time for everything. i just agreed the first time with an Iranian conservative.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1914·
    2 months ago

    Its just as legal as israel’s attacks. Not that I think those are legal.

    • b161@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      339·
      2 months ago

      They’re not at all comparable. Iran’s missile’s killed one person, a Palestinian man but were not targeting civilians.

      This is in retaliation for Israel’s full year of genocide, terrorism and attacks on its neighbours.

      Israel uses bunker busters, and the most cruel and gruesome bombs dropped directly on refugee camps, hospitals, schools, humanitarian aid vans, journalist’s homes.

      • acargitz@lemmy.caEnglish
        173·
        2 months ago

        You’re making an argument for legitimacy not legality. All of the bombing that all of the parties have been doing is illegal under a strict reading of international law in that war is generally not allowed unless approved by some UN resolution.

      • MehBlah@lemmy.worldEnglish
        212·
        2 months ago

        So your saying that one is more legal than the other. Nonsense.

        Edit: Its funny how many people confuse their personal sense of morality for legal and illegal.

        By funny I’m saying pathetic.