Iran warns Israel it will intervene if Gaza operation continues, report claims
Iran warns Israel it will intervene if Gaza operation continues, report claims
Iran’s foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian warns Israel could suffer ‘huge earthquake’ if fighting continues
Iran has told Israel through the UN that it will intervene if the country’s operations against Hamas in Gaza continue, a report has claimed.
Israel has warned 1.1 million people living in the north of the enclave to evacuate ahead of an expected ground operation in Gaza with the IDF planning to strike the territory from land, sea and air.
Iran’s involvement could be through a militant group from Syria or by backing Hezbollah to join the conflict, diplomatic sources told Axios.
Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian said that Israel’s operations could cause fighting to expand to other areas of the Middle East which would cause Israel to suffer “a huge earthquake”, reported the Associated Press.
You're viewing a single thread.
Israel is 110% not going to heed this warning in the absolute slightest.
Iran does not pose a credible military threat to Israel. They only have a couple of options - terrorist attacks from their proxies, maybe a cross-border incursion from Lebanon that would be a slaughter and change the balance of power there, or an air strike. Israel is so amped up right now that they’d respond with airstrikes inside Iran, and US carrier groups are in the area with no misunderstanding as to what they signify.
This is saber-rattling for theatrics.
Iran are not wrong though, Israel need to chill.
It’s really annoying how the mainstream media is like yeah this is cool, when they’re commuting atrocities no better than Hamas committed.
I don’t know what it is with Israel that makes the world walk on eggshells but they have committed horrific acts and they should be called out on it.
Fucking monsters the Israeli government are.
Fucking monsters the Israeli government are.
They are despicably evil.
Fuck Hamas and all people who support leftist terrorists
Hey man, you do know that Hamas has nothing to do with the left right? And yeah, fuck Hamas anyway, but you should not be equalizing leftism with terrorism support because, let me tell you, I have yet to meet one leftist that backs ups what Hamas did. The ones that "sound" lile they do, only are explaining that extremism is born through dispair, of which Palestinians have plenty of it after being ethnically clenaed for 70+ years. But that does not mean, in any way possible, that they not condemn Hamas actions. Quite the contrary, they condemn every terrorist action, Hamas or Israeli.
They might not be wrong about Israel committing atrocities. They would be wrong to add to it by committing atrocities of their own. The article certainly doesn’t seem to indicate they’ll “intervene” in a benign manner, and their track record is as blemished or worse.
This is doubly dumb if Israel is like they say. There is zero chance Israel would back down if Iran intervened; really, they’d probably have no issue extending the rampage to Iran as well. More people will die horribly.
It’s not right to sit and watch everyone commit various crimes against humanity. But adding your own violence with absolutely no chance at preventing loss of life, as Iran is implying they will do here, is somehow worse than apathy.
I'm not saying I support Iran with their threats but I think I have a problem with the generality of what you said. The same could be used to say the west shouldn't support Ukraine with weapons because then the war would be over sooner, preventing deaths and violence.
Iran is an uninvolved third party poised to add to the bloodshed with no possible gain, unlike with Ukraine where lives in the future may be saved. I’m not saying there should be no third party interventions in general. Simply that Iran coming in to make things expressly worse— I think we can all see there will be absolutely nothing improved by their intervention— is of unparalleled uselessness and would result in pointless loss of life. If they could contribute, all power to them, but they cannot do anything but make it worse.
Again I am not in support of Iran taking action here, I disliked the general dismission of intervention in your first comment
I feel like even in that first comment alone I repeated that I’m against this specific case of intervention because it would be “committing atrocities of their own” despite “zero chance that Israel would back down,” and that adding “more violence with absolutely no chance of preventing loss of life”.
That’s three separate quotes from three separate paragraphs, very narrowly commenting only on Iran’s proposed intervention. I’m not sure how I could have made it more clear that I’m only against the pointless killing this specific intervention, the one indicated by the article would lead to? Like even now I don’t see how it could have been clarified, and I’m genuinely interested in knowing how. This thread isn’t even about intervention in general, just the exact instance I was commenting on.
Apologies if this sounds even the slightest bit hostile— I genuinely don’t mean it to have that tone, and I haven’t gotten into a single argument on Lemmy. I just cannot see how it wasn’t abundantly clear when I paid extra effort to comment very very very narrowly across three paragraphs in the first comment alone.
Sorry I should have clarified/specified what I was objecting to. I apparently misinterpreted this paragraph
It’s not right to sit and watch everyone commit various crimes against humanity. But adding your own violence with absolutely no chance at preventing loss of life, as Iran is implying they will do here, is somehow worse than apathy.
The rest of your comment is fine and it's clear that you are explicitly talking about the actions of Iran. I read this paragraph as a summary/generalization which you used as the basis of your opinion about the actions of Iran. I'll switch it around a bit to make it clear how I read it:
It’s not right to sit and watch everyone commit various crimes against humanity. But adding your own violence, with absolutely no chance at preventing loss of life, is somehow worse than apathy. Which is what Iran is implying they will do here.
Where the first two sentences are the generalization tied back to the conflict discussed in the thread with the last sentence. And I would object to this generalization.
Edit:
Apologies if this sounds even the slightest bit hostile
Don't worry I am always happy to be more specific if asked! I get that I am sometimes not as specific as I should be in these comments
Iran is involved, they fund and support Hamas, teach them even.
Yeah fair point. I guess I meant more in the capacity of direct action, didn’t really think about it in that way
Iran, like Hamas, wants Israel to cease to exist for religious reasons. So they are natural allies with Hamas, and natural enemies with Israel.
Expressly worse? Do you mean like lobbing against a peace agreement like Boris Johnson did? Or is it like sending weapons but not all at once, just a little at a time to make the war last longer, just like NATO is doing in Ukraine?
Yup, expressly worse exactly like what Boris did. See, Boris didn’t take the only expressly worse slot in the whole world. Iran can also go cause harm for nothing.
We can whatabout all day and it doesn’t change that Iran “intervening” has no benefits. It’s clear that people disagree with me here, but not once has anyone attempted to express any upside to Iran inserting themselves in the way the article is detailing. You’re getting caught up in everyone else doing bad things that you… want Iran to do their own bad things, kill more people, have their people killed, and achieve nothing?
Don’t feel the need to respond unless you have something besides “but what about [the next horrible act]?” I’m not here defending everyone else’s crimes. I just think it’s stupid for Iran to add to the bodycount for no reason, and that purposeless violence should be avoided. I’m not on Lemmy to pointlessly argue on the internet like the olden days and I don’t want to waste your time either. I fully respect your concerns about other people doing bad things but they have no effect whatsoever on the topic set by this article, and whataboutism has never led to an interesting discussion, so if you want to talk please try something engaging. If you don’t have other thoughts, don’t feel the need to create one just to respond either, real conversations shouldn’t be forced.
And like I said elsewhere, please don’t take any of this as hostile. In recent years I’ve tried to remove negative emotions from my internet usage (we should all be here for a good time) and oddly I think it made me sound less friendly.
I'm happy to believe you, but do you have any sources besides för middleeasteye.net that lists the atrocities Israel's done? I can find the atrocities Hamas has done everywhere, but the eye seems to be the only place I can find claims that Israel has done stuff that is wrong.
So you can check the United Nations for reputable repeats or condemnation of Israeli actions here is one suck link, but you can search more on the site. .
You can Google Israel using white phosphorus and again find reputable sources.
Also, listen to content from more liberal Israeli’s that are willing to call out their own government.
Again, I want to be abundantly clear I am not defending Hamas, peering pointing out that Israel are just as bad if not worse.
I’ve been very active this morning so stalk my profile to see all the posts I’ve been on and follow those sources and make up your own mind as we all should.
Don’t just believe me. I, like everybody on Earth, has bias.
I did search white phosphorus and all I found was an article from human rights watch, and above that, and article from twb guardian refuting it. I am happy to believe that both Hamas and Israel are committing atrocities, but I would like an actual source so I can point to when arguing with a pro Israel family member.
There is going to be lots of contradictory news sources for the next few weeks. Once the dust settles we will get a fuller picture of what have gone on.
That said you can find videos from Gaza and photos showing what appears to be white phosphorus being used.
The guardian article I saw said that Israel denies using it, which isn’t so much the guardian saying it didn’t happen.
Not that it matters but it’s a fact they used it in 2009 and so why wouldn’t they use it now? Again to be 100 we have to wait a little longer.
Things we do know though is they bombed Gaza and turned of the power so the hospitals couldn’t even help and there are dead Palestinian children thanks to Israeli retaliation.
Which is terrible, particularly since they condemned Hamas for killing Israeli children.
All I want is that Israel to be called out on their horrific acts just the same as we do for any other group, without being called an anti-Semite. Just because they had one of the best worlds worst things happen to them in WWII doesn’t mean they’re above criticism and if anything you would think they of all people would not perpetuate the same level of hatred for a group of people.
Indeed. It is not anti Jews to be anti Israel to the same level we are anti Hamas.
Believe, at most you're gonna get frustrated and maybe, implicitly called anti-semite. I myself i'm of jewish heritage, and hate that people conflate israeli critiscism with antisemitism.
UN's condemnations of Israel are about as credible as Putin's statements on Ukraine.
How so?
They condemn Israel like it's a pastime sport.
Just look at the last 50+ years.
Muslims trying to slaughter all the Jews, Muslims trying to slaughter all the Jews again, Jews strike first because Muslims about to try and slaughter all the Jews again, Muslims trying to slaughter all the Jews, Israel gives independence to some of the Muslims, they proceed to try and slaughter all the Jews.
Yup, just did.
Illegal settlements? Two-tier justice system?
Not trying to kill every jew on sight.
Yeah, the only thing Israel is concerned about is the international reputation. They know they can't go full ham, even now every western government in support is dropping the "and I am SURE Israel will keep to international law" as a hint and reminder that there is a limit somewhere.
Lol... The UN has been trying to chastise Israel for decades now for literally breaking international law, and the US shuts it down with their veto power. They've already been doing it for decades.
Jewish people don’t eat ham.
Also Israel had nukes and Iran doesn't yet
Think they'll speed it up now?
They're idiots if they don't.
What about ballistic missiles? Iran has it...
Israel hasn't gotten many chances to test its other 2 layers of its defense system. Iron dome is just the first, short range layer.
A nuclear threat would change that.
Probably not all that much, to be honest. Look at India and Pakistan. That would be the closest example here.
Nuclear weapons’ most important role today is preventing an all out invasion of the country. Israel is already a nuclear power. They could launch a nuclear attack on Iran at any time. They don’t, for obvious reasons. Russia could launch a nuclear attack on Ukraine. They don’t, for equally obvious reasons.
I started my career in Soviet analysis, and ended up knowing quite a bit about the role of nuclear weapons in foreign and military policies. In the early days (50s), we thought it would be possible to fight and win a nuclear war. I don’t think anyone thinks that anymore.
There is no scenario which includes Russia using a nuclear weapon against Ukraine that does not end with the end of the Putin government if not the end of Russia as we know it. It wouldn’t even need to be a global nuclear war for that to happen.
The same holds true for India and Pakistan, which like I said is the best analogy. Implacable enemies with religious and territorial disputes, screwed over by colonialism, and ongoing low level violence.
Israel-Iran is the same, only more so. The I-P conflict doesn’t have the US as an unquestioning ally, unlike Israel. I-P have about 150 weapons each. Israel is estimated to have 100. Iran has 0, and even if and when they start production, they’ll have 5-10. And then you have to factor in the delivery of the weapon, which would be the opposition between the Iranian and Israeli (and US) air forces, with predictable results.
Thanks for your insights! I think I learned one or two things here. Please comment more on topics like these, if you like.
India and Pakistan, which like I said is the best analogy. Implacable enemies with religious and territorial disputes, screwed over by colonialism, and ongoing low level violence.
Sounds good indeed. I spotted another parallel between the two conflicts: Both can use the same abbreviation. At first I was confused when you started talking about "The I-P conflict".
By whom? Israel is the only one with nukes in the area.
It's signaling to the region.
Israel has a strong military for sure but they can't fight every country. Also, declaring war on the Muslim world is not something Israel can win even with Western support.
Permanently Deleted
I mean they literally can fight every country, they did it before when they didn't even have their MIC up and running yet
And did you say Russia was just saber-rattling back when they invaded Ukraine?
You mean 2014?
They may tighten down some screws in preparation.
USA already issued a response after the statement from Iran, wanting to avoid a larger war.
Why would they?
Clearly the statement from Iran had some impact, USA already released a statement that they want to avoid a larger conflict.
So you're ok with a world where everyone backs down at the word of Iran??
I never stated any opinion in the above comment.