Can I ask people to make an effort to centre own voices? We seem to be getting away from that. Please reflect what people directly involved have to say about these things and quote them/link to their opinions rather than solely give your own as an outsider.
For example, what do those living in the region or otherwise directly affected by the war have to say about the religious dimensions of the conflict and what role religion plays?
This is Epiphanies and not Purgatory so it's not appropriate for outsiders to describe other people's religions as 'bullshit'. Please don't do that here.
If the Israeli government sends ground troops into Lebanon, are they still going to pretend they are not at war with Lebanon ? Related question: what would they have to do to be described as at war with Lebanon - they are currently bombing the capital city ?
@The_Riv I don't know if you missed my host post accidentally but in case you didn't, please re-read guideline 4 for the board - I've pasted some relevant bits here
We'd like folk who don't have personal lived experience of a particular subject to focus on the voices and first-hand experience of those who do. It is never going to be appropriate to flatly tell someone that their lived experience is wrong, perhaps your experience is different – and if it is relevant you can share that...
try to ensure your sources of information include the voices and experiences of people whose experiences and identities are bound up in the subject under discussion and are of high quality
So for discussing the religious aspects of this subject we would need to hear what people of the region in question have to say on the subject of the role that they think religion plays in the conflict nowadays and how they think their different scriptural/religious traditions do or do not play a part in it. This needs to be discussed with 'own voices' - thanks!
Israel's defences worked again, from what I've seen. I wonder what Iran hopes to gain. Is it perhaps assessing the Iron Dome and gathering information to evade it in future?
Iran is trying to provoke a wider conflict for reasons unknown. I think they are likely to regret it, but then in the short term I suspect things are going to get difficult in Israel.
Iran is trying to provoke a wider conflict for reasons unknown. I think they are likely to regret it, but then in the short term I suspect things are going to get difficult in Israel.
From Iran's perspective they are retaliating for previous attacks, on the basis that if they didn't do anything then it wouldn't deter future attacks.
Isn’t it Israel who are provoking wider conflict, by invading their neighbour? There seems to be no stopping the murder and displacement of innocent people under the shrug of ‘collateral damage’, humanity has left the building. Lord, have mercy.🙏
Maybe if UNIFIL had done their job when Hezbollah first appeared on the scene things would have been very different.
And now we have echoes of the past crawling out of the woodwork with increased sabre rattling from the PFLP.
Does anyone else get a distinct feeling of deja vu that Iran may be hoping to have an influence on the US Presidential election, in the same way they tormented Carter's campaign in 1980?
Isn’t it Israel who are provoking wider conflict, by invading their neighbour? There seems to be no stopping the murder and displacement of innocent people under the shrug of ‘collateral damage’, humanity has left the building. Lord, have mercy.🙏
To be honest, it's half a dozen of one and six of the other. Iran is using proxies to poke Israel in return Israel has been hitting targets that it is fairly sure will not lead to escalation.
If Iran and Israel start a direct war, that's a whole other thing.
Just noticed on the Labour govt thread, Alan Cresswell make the point that everyone says Israel has the right to defend itself, why not the Palestinians? No-one ever says that.
Just noticed on the Labour govt thread, Alan Cresswell make the point that everyone says Israel has the right to defend itself, why not the Palestinians? No-one ever says that.
I think one could argue that one of the principles of just war - which is where self-defence comes in - is that military action needs to be appropriate, proportionate and have a reasonable chance of success. Most armed Palestinian action tends to fail on one or more of those - especially the first and last. So, however, does much Israeli action - often on all three points.
There was some American chap on the radio yesterday going on about how Iran uses the Palestinians to proxy attack Israel. What he missed out was that in order to harness a grievance in this manner there has to be a grievance to harness.
Grievance is at the heart of the conflict afaik, grievance that those in Palestine were driven out of the area at gunpoint and left in the desert, never allowed to return to their homeland - a grievance passed on to their descendants and which has been exacerbated by the events ever since. Hammering them again and again is surely more likely to increase the grievance than to quell it.
Hammering them again and again is surely more likely to increase the grievance than to quell it.
And at the same time the entire region has been subjected to colonialism followed by the imposition of Western backed dictators who've closed off the possibility of change, and so it's not surprising that many people in surrounding countries see in the Palestinian struggle a mirror of their own:
If Palestine was a proper country, you could apply conditions such as just war theory. But Israel is destroying the Palestinians. Would I tell a slave not to use violence against the slave owner?
If Palestine was a proper country, you could apply conditions such as just war theory. But Israel is destroying the Palestinians. Would I tell a slave not to use violence against the slave owner?
The problem is you then get Israeli civilians getting the worst of it - and it matters little if the person killing you is from a recognised country's armed forces or not.
I wonder if there's some kind of honor-shame thing going on. Iran, perhaps being a dictatorship, cannot take an insult without answering it. Israel's attack is an insult to Iran, so Iran is obligated to respond or lose face. Israel figures that they can afford to keep hitting Iran more than Iran can afford to keep hitting Israel.
Sadly, or infuriatingly, depending on what you're preferred response is, I think for both factions Palestine is just a sore spot to be manipulated for whatever gain they can get out of it.
My current gut is that Israel will win this one. I'm not optimistic for Palestinians if that happens. That said, I'm not sure what could be done for them that wouldn't involve a massive regional realignment that would also - under current circumstances - involve an awful lot of violence because nobody wants to give up their current home for a stranger. It just sucks all around.
This all said as an American observer who doesn't like violence but suspects that lots of people in the region have lots of understandable reasons to pursue it, and has little hope of persuading any of them to change directions.
I wonder if there's some kind of honor-shame thing going on. Iran, perhaps being a dictatorship, cannot take an insult without answering it. Israel's attack is an insult to Iran, so Iran is obligated to respond or lose face.
Can you tell me a state of whom this isn't true? Because it seems to me that in most cases states operate this way as long as they have the power to do so - witness the numerous times a US President has stood up and said "If you harm an American/American Interests, We will respond".
And Hamas was Israeli backed - or more accurately Likud backed - because Netanyahu thought it would deprive Palestinians of moral authority.
I feel the bad faith of Netanyahu and Likud bears repeating.
I don't see how honor has anything to do with it. Iran's big proxy, Hezbollah, is severely compromised, so Iran has to do its own fighting now. Iran issued a statement that seems pretty clear to me:
Iran launched scores of ballistic missiles into Israeli territory on Tuesday, in what it described as an exercise of its “legitimate right to self-defense under the UN Charter.” The attack came hours after Israel announced a ground incursion into Lebanon, and as UN experts warned of the dire consequences of regional hostilities.
In a statement, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the attacks aimed to avenge the deaths of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, and Iranian General Abbas Nilforoushan in Israel’s ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon.
The IGRC then warned of the possibility of further escalation, again citing international law In doing so:
Warning is given that if [Israel] responds militarily to this operation, which is in accordance with the country’s legal rights and international laws, it will face subsequent crushing and destructive attacks.
Does anyone else get a distinct feeling of deja vu that Iran may be hoping to have an influence on the US Presidential election, in the same way they tormented Carter's campaign in 1980?
Iran is sowing division in the US and distrust in the election process through online disinformation and has particularly targeted Trump's campaign and Trump himself, an assassination plot, in retaliation for Trump ordering a strike on an Iranian general in 2020 (sources: AP news, CNN). They hacked the Trump campaign and sent info obtained to the Biden campaign and US media outlets (Office of the Director of National Intelligence). This is the third US election cycle in a row Iran has tried to disrupt (NPR).
I think Biden will be extremely careful about putting American forces in harm's way -- he would be careful anyway, but the low-propensity voters who have not yet made up their minds to vote because they rarely pay attention to politics or even the news would probably not be swayed unless something like the 1980 hostage situation took place. Americans have to be killed or in danger for this to sway the election, IMO. The Iranians seem to be more against Trump than Harris, though it seems they mainly want disorder in the US, as that would undermine US prosperity and thus US dominance.
[Aside: US foreign policy is not shaped by honor in the least; it is shaped by a wish for global power and dominance. Honor is bestowed by others, and the US does not wait around for others to bestow anything. American politicians may talk about national honor, but what they mean is national pride. Operating out of a sense of national honor went out the window a very long time ago, when France and Britain went to war in 1792 and Washington decided the US would be neutral rather than come in on France's side after the French aided the American colonies in their war with the British.]
I wonder if there's some kind of honor-shame thing going on. Iran, perhaps being a dictatorship, cannot take an insult without answering it. Israel's attack is an insult to Iran, so Iran is obligated to respond or lose face.
Can you tell me a state of whom this isn't true? Because it seems to me that in most cases states operate this way as long as they have the power to do so - witness the numerous times a US President has stood up and said "If you harm an American/American Interests, We will respond".
So in that sense the 'honor-shame' framing feels redundant, and seems to be adjacent to Orientalism.
Thanks for calling me out on that, I will fairly accept that call out and agree with you, completely. This kind of ego driven foreign policy is hardly unique to Iran. Heck, I remember reading a book that described it as a middle eastern thing in seminary and thought "gee, that sounds like what I experienced in American Junior High..."
Interestingly, I'm not certain Israel is playing the same game, which might be why I think Israel is looking stronger. Netanyahu is baiting Iran, basically making force plays and figuring that he'll win on superior strength.
And Hamas was Israeli backed - or more accurately Likud backed - because Netanyahu thought it would deprive Palestinians of moral authority.
I feel the bad faith of Netanyahu and Likud bears repeating.
I've also had that suspicion. It feels a bit paranoid and extremely cynical, but I can imagine him feeding them and provoking them because they have a knack for giving their own cause the worst possible PR in many eyes. And then he gets the mantle of "Good guy" in the ensuing conflict, passive aggressively crying "Self defense!" when it's just passive aggression.
Mind, among people I know, the IDF also give their case terrible PR, so it's kind of a running hate-fest, which ticks me off because a lot of bad actors seem to thrive on the divisive hate that gets produced regardless of who's winning.
And this from Ori Goldberg in the independent Israeli site +972 mag
Israel has no strategy, it excels in tactics only. The reason the pagers and cell phones exploded now is because Israel clearly planned this operation months in advance, and felt like it had to strike while the iron is hot. This is no different than the assassination of Haniyeh. Israel works according to necessities and constraints that it creates for itself.
This attack is a blow to Hezbollah’s image, since Israel shows that it has intelligence superior to everyone else in the region. But on the other hand, it reveals the limits of Israel’s power. I think Israel wants Hezbollah to start a full-blown war — Netanyahu doesn’t feel he has a mandate from the public to start that war, so he needs Hezbollah to launch it. But Hezbollah has repeatedly said that it began firing [after October 7] in solidarity with Gaza, and will settle its account with Israel in the future.
And Hamas was Israeli backed - or more accurately Likud backed - because Netanyahu thought it would deprive Palestinians of moral authority.
I feel the bad faith of Netanyahu and Likud bears repeating.
I've also had that suspicion. It feels a bit paranoid and extremely cynical, but I can imagine him feeding them and provoking them because they have a knack for giving their own cause the worst possible PR in many eyes. And then he gets the mantle of "Good guy" in the ensuing conflict, passive aggressively crying "Self defense!" when it's just passive aggression.
Mind, among people I know, the IDF also give their case terrible PR, so it's kind of a running hate-fest, which ticks me off because a lot of bad actors seem to thrive on the divisive hate that gets produced regardless of who's winning.
I think one has to be reminded of a few things regarding Israel, Palestine and the surrounding countries.
First, Israel is a militarised society that feels constantly under threat. Most young people serve in the military, have connections to the military and regularly see the military. It isn't surprising that the society is focussed on the military and thinks in terms of military wins.
Second, Palestine isn't a militarised society, there is no consistent military or paramilitary force in the oPt other than the IDF. Clearly some people are members of militant groups, but most aren't. In contrast to when I travelled in Egypt and Jordan, where there are many people with guns and in uniform everywhere.
Third there are different populations of Palestinians which are essentially divided from each other and have been for a very long time. There are those in Gaza, those in the West Bank, those in the camps in Syria Lebanon and Jordan.
It's a complex situation. Mix in the extra complexities of the Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians and it becomes near impossible to generalise about anything.
And Hamas was Israeli backed - or more accurately Likud backed - because Netanyahu thought it would deprive Palestinians of moral authority.
I feel the bad faith of Netanyahu and Likud bears repeating.
I've also had that suspicion. It feels a bit paranoid and extremely cynical, but I can imagine him feeding them and provoking them because they have a knack for giving their own cause the worst possible PR in many eyes. And then he gets the mantle of "Good guy" in the ensuing conflict, passive aggressively crying "Self defense!" when it's just passive aggression.
Mind, among people I know, the IDF also give their case terrible PR, so it's kind of a running hate-fest, which ticks me off because a lot of bad actors seem to thrive on the divisive hate that gets produced regardless of who's winning.
I think one has to be reminded of a few things regarding Israel, Palestine and the surrounding countries.
First, Israel is a militarised society that feels constantly under threat. Most young people serve in the military, have connections to the military and regularly see the military. It isn't surprising that the society is focussed on the military and thinks in terms of military wins.
Second, Palestine isn't a militarised society, there is no consistent military or paramilitary force in the oPt other than the IDF. Clearly some people are members of militant groups, but most aren't. In contrast to when I travelled in Egypt and Jordan, where there are many people with guns and in uniform everywhere.
Third there are different populations of Palestinians which are essentially divided from each other and have been for a very long time. There are those in Gaza, those in the West Bank, those in the camps in Syria Lebanon and Jordan.
It's a complex situation. Mix in the extra complexities of the Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians and it becomes near impossible to generalise about anything.
I don't pretend expertise, though I've read up a bit on the region, but that all seems very apt to me. And it's certainly true that it's dangerous to generalize.
@KoF You're forgetting the fourth population of Palestinians: the Jews who were never part of the diaspora. I have family members descended from these but the only people who recognise them as bona fide Palestinian are the Israelis. (And you might also include Jews who legally moved to Palestine before the Balfour Declaration.)
@KoF You're forgetting the fourth population of Palestinians: the Jews who were never part of the diaspora. I have family members descended from these but the only people who recognise them as bona fide Palestinian are the Israelis. (And you might also include Jews who legally moved to Palestine before the Balfour Declaration.)
Really? I thought a lot of Israelis refused to recognise the existence of Palestinians as a group.
@KoF You're forgetting the fourth population of Palestinians: the Jews who were never part of the diaspora. I have family members descended from these but the only people who recognise them as bona fide Palestinian are the Israelis. (And you might also include Jews who legally moved to Palestine before the Balfour Declaration.)
Really? I thought a lot of Israelis refused to recognise the existence of Palestinians as a group.
It's my impression that once you get past the mutual fear and hatred - fully acknowledging that this may be a damned hard thing to do for people who live there - there are deep fractures in both groups. There is room for a lot of particular interpretations here, I think, and I suspect different people will carry them differently.
@Arethosemyfeet No, the Israelis have always recognised there was a mandated area known as Palestine and that the people within it were known as Palestinian. Check out the famous film clip of Golda Meir holding up her first passport, which was issued under the auspices of the Palestine Mandate, just like my aunt's and those of two of my cousins.
The idea that Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian Territories do not recognise Jewish Palestinians whose families have been in the area for thousands of years is for the birds.
What they object to is being cleared from their historic lands in order to accommodate migrants from elsewhere in the world who have no recent family ties to the land whatsoever.
@Arethosemyfeet No, the Israelis have always recognised there was a mandated area known as Palestine and that the people within it were known as Palestinian. Check out the famous film clip of Golda Meir holding up her first passport, which was issued under the auspices of the Palestine Mandate, just like my aunt's and those of two of my cousins.
Maybe it's Zionists outside Israel, but I've seen a lot of people claiming that the idea of Palestinians was invented after 1948. And Israelis routinely refer to "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians".
@Arethosemyfeet No, the Israelis have always recognised there was a mandated area known as Palestine and that the people within it were known as Palestinian. Check out the famous film clip of Golda Meir holding up her first passport, which was issued under the auspices of the Palestine Mandate, just like my aunt's and those of two of my cousins.
Comments
Scripture gives an excuse for the racism and colonialism. It does not cause it.
For example, what do those living in the region or otherwise directly affected by the war have to say about the religious dimensions of the conflict and what role religion plays?
This is Epiphanies and not Purgatory so it's not appropriate for outsiders to describe other people's religions as 'bullshit'. Please don't do that here.
Thanks,
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Scripture gives the justification for the racism and colonialism and the genocide. It condones it, endorses it.
So for discussing the religious aspects of this subject we would need to hear what people of the region in question have to say on the subject of the role that they think religion plays in the conflict nowadays and how they think their different scriptural/religious traditions do or do not play a part in it. This needs to be discussed with 'own voices' - thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
From Iran's perspective they are retaliating for previous attacks, on the basis that if they didn't do anything then it wouldn't deter future attacks.
Right, and they were signalling their strategy as one of 'escalating to de-escalate':
https://www.axios.com/2024/09/21/us-israel-lebanon-hezbollah-war-pressure-diplomatic-deal
Something to which the US government appear to have given tacit approval:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30/us-israel-military-hezbollah-00181797
And now we have echoes of the past crawling out of the woodwork with increased sabre rattling from the PFLP.
Does anyone else get a distinct feeling of deja vu that Iran may be hoping to have an influence on the US Presidential election, in the same way they tormented Carter's campaign in 1980?
Didn't Israel just assassinate one of their leaders?
To be honest, it's half a dozen of one and six of the other. Iran is using proxies to poke Israel in return Israel has been hitting targets that it is fairly sure will not lead to escalation.
If Iran and Israel start a direct war, that's a whole other thing.
I think one could argue that one of the principles of just war - which is where self-defence comes in - is that military action needs to be appropriate, proportionate and have a reasonable chance of success. Most armed Palestinian action tends to fail on one or more of those - especially the first and last. So, however, does much Israeli action - often on all three points.
There was some American chap on the radio yesterday going on about how Iran uses the Palestinians to proxy attack Israel. What he missed out was that in order to harness a grievance in this manner there has to be a grievance to harness.
And at the same time the entire region has been subjected to colonialism followed by the imposition of Western backed dictators who've closed off the possibility of change, and so it's not surprising that many people in surrounding countries see in the Palestinian struggle a mirror of their own:
https://www.parapraxismagazine.com/articles/leftwing-melancholia
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2024-10-01/statement-the-secretary-general-latest-attacks-the-middle-east
The problem is you then get Israeli civilians getting the worst of it - and it matters little if the person killing you is from a recognised country's armed forces or not.
Sadly, or infuriatingly, depending on what you're preferred response is, I think for both factions Palestine is just a sore spot to be manipulated for whatever gain they can get out of it.
My current gut is that Israel will win this one. I'm not optimistic for Palestinians if that happens. That said, I'm not sure what could be done for them that wouldn't involve a massive regional realignment that would also - under current circumstances - involve an awful lot of violence because nobody wants to give up their current home for a stranger. It just sucks all around.
This all said as an American observer who doesn't like violence but suspects that lots of people in the region have lots of understandable reasons to pursue it, and has little hope of persuading any of them to change directions.
Can you tell me a state of whom this isn't true? Because it seems to me that in most cases states operate this way as long as they have the power to do so - witness the numerous times a US President has stood up and said "If you harm an American/American Interests, We will respond".
Apart from anything else it's fairly basic deterrence theory.
So in that sense the 'honor-shame' framing feels redundant, and seems to be adjacent to Orientalism.
I feel the bad faith of Netanyahu and Likud bears repeating.
Iran is sowing division in the US and distrust in the election process through online disinformation and has particularly targeted Trump's campaign and Trump himself, an assassination plot, in retaliation for Trump ordering a strike on an Iranian general in 2020 (sources: AP news, CNN). They hacked the Trump campaign and sent info obtained to the Biden campaign and US media outlets (Office of the Director of National Intelligence). This is the third US election cycle in a row Iran has tried to disrupt (NPR).
I think Biden will be extremely careful about putting American forces in harm's way -- he would be careful anyway, but the low-propensity voters who have not yet made up their minds to vote because they rarely pay attention to politics or even the news would probably not be swayed unless something like the 1980 hostage situation took place. Americans have to be killed or in danger for this to sway the election, IMO. The Iranians seem to be more against Trump than Harris, though it seems they mainly want disorder in the US, as that would undermine US prosperity and thus US dominance.
[Aside: US foreign policy is not shaped by honor in the least; it is shaped by a wish for global power and dominance. Honor is bestowed by others, and the US does not wait around for others to bestow anything. American politicians may talk about national honor, but what they mean is national pride. Operating out of a sense of national honor went out the window a very long time ago, when France and Britain went to war in 1792 and Washington decided the US would be neutral rather than come in on France's side after the French aided the American colonies in their war with the British.]
Thanks for calling me out on that, I will fairly accept that call out and agree with you, completely. This kind of ego driven foreign policy is hardly unique to Iran. Heck, I remember reading a book that described it as a middle eastern thing in seminary and thought "gee, that sounds like what I experienced in American Junior High..."
Interestingly, I'm not certain Israel is playing the same game, which might be why I think Israel is looking stronger. Netanyahu is baiting Iran, basically making force plays and figuring that he'll win on superior strength.
Did I mention I hate this game?
I've also had that suspicion. It feels a bit paranoid and extremely cynical, but I can imagine him feeding them and provoking them because they have a knack for giving their own cause the worst possible PR in many eyes. And then he gets the mantle of "Good guy" in the ensuing conflict, passive aggressively crying "Self defense!" when it's just passive aggression.
Mind, among people I know, the IDF also give their case terrible PR, so it's kind of a running hate-fest, which ticks me off because a lot of bad actors seem to thrive on the divisive hate that gets produced regardless of who's winning.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
https://www.972mag.com/iran-israel-hezbollah-ori-goldberg/
I think one has to be reminded of a few things regarding Israel, Palestine and the surrounding countries.
First, Israel is a militarised society that feels constantly under threat. Most young people serve in the military, have connections to the military and regularly see the military. It isn't surprising that the society is focussed on the military and thinks in terms of military wins.
Second, Palestine isn't a militarised society, there is no consistent military or paramilitary force in the oPt other than the IDF. Clearly some people are members of militant groups, but most aren't. In contrast to when I travelled in Egypt and Jordan, where there are many people with guns and in uniform everywhere.
Third there are different populations of Palestinians which are essentially divided from each other and have been for a very long time. There are those in Gaza, those in the West Bank, those in the camps in Syria Lebanon and Jordan.
It's a complex situation. Mix in the extra complexities of the Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians and it becomes near impossible to generalise about anything.
I don't pretend expertise, though I've read up a bit on the region, but that all seems very apt to me. And it's certainly true that it's dangerous to generalize.
Really? I thought a lot of Israelis refused to recognise the existence of Palestinians as a group.
It's my impression that once you get past the mutual fear and hatred - fully acknowledging that this may be a damned hard thing to do for people who live there - there are deep fractures in both groups. There is room for a lot of particular interpretations here, I think, and I suspect different people will carry them differently.
What they object to is being cleared from their historic lands in order to accommodate migrants from elsewhere in the world who have no recent family ties to the land whatsoever.
And it is also true that survivors were protected by some brave Muslim neighbours.
Here's a BBC report about that http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8219864.stm
Maybe it's Zionists outside Israel, but I've seen a lot of people claiming that the idea of Palestinians was invented after 1948. And Israelis routinely refer to "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians".
Golda Meir specifically used her passport to claim that there were no distinctive Palestinian people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3FGvAMvYpc
Assuming any of them existed, sure.