Israel vows to pursue Syria operations until Iran leaves

I was wondering the same thing as 10 of my posts were deleted as well - and to be frank - I almost never report people - even when they are hurling insults and so on.

I did not say I did not believe the reports (although the State Department/ Pentagon are about as trustworthy as sputnik) I stated that the actions he is accused of are not war crimes.

Why would you bring up the Embassy Hostage situation - it has no relevance.

 

The above premise is 1) Unsupported 2) False 3) Fallacious in its expression.

1) none of your points supports your premise - If I am wrong please point out where anything below means extermination of the Jews
2) Israel is well able to protect itself from Hamas - The reverse however is not true - If the Pesky UN would just get out of the way - the ethnic cleansing could begin - just like in the good ol days of the OT - and as per the Zionist Manifesto.

Israel is 50 x ( and likely way more) more powerful than Hamas. Iran is a different story -and a different topic.

3) "Giving Hamas what it wants ? - Hamas want's many things - and you have not defined which of those wants you are referring to - so this is a vacuous statement ?

So your Premise so far is - some undefined desire of Hamas - - will lead to extermination of the Jew.

Do share more - and expound on this hypothesis.

I submit that agreeing to stop stealing land - something Hamas wants - will not lead to extermination of the Jews.
So at face value - lacking definition - meaning your statement is too general - and includes the desire I have put forth - your premise is false.

 

Hamas wants two things IMO
1 - own Israel
2 - to defeat Fatah and own the West Bank.

Owning Israel means the expulsion or murder of all Jews not willing to live
under Islamic rule - as Jews had to do for centuries.
As for "ethnic cleansing." Yes, Hamas will do this. In the meanwhile 400,000
Palestinians go to Israeli hospitals each year - either as casualty or visitors.
Palestine's first ever hospital was built for them by the Jews.
What Hamas doesn't want is peace with Israel - this means it can't achieve
these objectives. It thrives in the chaos, and this chaos makes many Fatah
supporting Arabs think that Fatah "does nothing."
The UN does not serve Israel well. In it's eyes half of all the world's human
injustices occur in Palestine. It turned a blind eye to the militarization of
Hezbollah by Iran, it vacated the Sinai when it was badly needed to prevent
an Egyptian war with Israel. It ignored Egypt closing the Staits of Tiran which
is against international law --- and so on, so forth.

 

The embassy thing concerned our friend the Iranian general assassinated
by America. The American Embassy hostage crisis was where he first came
to power.

 

General Soleimani was not, by any stretch of the imagination, of the students who took over the US embassy. At the time, he was laborer working in Kerman, who would volunteer to serve in the newly formed Iranian revolutionary guards as a grunt when the Iran-Iraq war started. He quickly rose in the ranks during that war, mainly due to his bravery and the intelligence he showed. A bravery and intelligence that he exhibited throughout his career.

 

He was a very nice peace seeking person .. i hope he got 73 and not 72 virgins in heaven

 

Yes - I am sure there are many in Hamas that would like to see every Jew drowned in the Ocean. The point of bringing this up is what ?
There are many in Hamas that realize that this objective does not jive with Reality.

Then there are the Palestinian people caught - who regularly get sht on by the State of Israel - and the people in Gaza.
The Palestinians have recognized Israel's Right to Exist .. a big step given these are your oppressors.

The UN does not serve Israel well because the UN represents the worlds opinion - not that of State Sponsored Right wing propaganda - driven in large part by religious zealotry.

Many in Israel would argue that the UN does serve Israel well - and that Netanyahoo's Zionist Policies are what does not serve Israel well - making them a Pariah on the international stage - and deservedly so.

It is not just a few Muslim nations that side against Israel ... it is almost Every other nation - in some cases the US being the only abstaining vote. Over 100 times Israel has violated the agreement on which its existence was premised.

If it was Russia treating some group of people the way the Palestinians are being treated - - the US Propaganda Machine would be all over it - like flies on sht. Say it ain't so ..

 

We are all aware of the Iran Hostage situation. Perhaps Solimani's wife was there too - should we kill her as well ? - or did we get her in the target assassination ?

What does this have to do with the question of assassination of the leadership elite in foreign nations ? - and the central question at hand - which is whether or not this is a good path to go down.

Why are you so desperate to avoid this question ? - did you take of the Trump blinders as I suggested and hit the objectivity button ?

 

A better way to understand what motivated the cold-blooded assassination of General Soleimani is to see how those who were most active in promoting this action view its consequences? We don't need to go far: read practically any report in the Israeli media just about the subject covered in the OP. While their assessment of the impact of that assassination is certainly a bit exaggerated, you can easily see what really upset them about General Soleimani.

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/is-iran-really-leaving-syria-627265
Is Iran Really Leaving Syria?
...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/defen...-of-syria-as-israel-pummels-its-forces-there/

While there are a lot more accurate, and less propaganda tainted, portraits of General Soleimani, the following quotes from the Times of Israel should help understand the general the US assassinated.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/qasse...y-general-who-wielded-influence-like-a-sword/
Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s shadowy general who wielded influence like a sword
Reviled abroad but beloved at home, the Quds force leader and Instagram star used military prowess and diplomatic heft to extend Iranian power throughout the Middle East

 

This piece in the Guardian is interesting, mainly because it presents a view of the appointment of the Iraqi PM (which to me is a sign of capitulation by Iran and seems to be part of an effort by Iran to find some rapprochement with Saudi Arabia at any price) which I don't share. And while there is no denying that Iran suffered a major blow from the assassination of its revered general, I also don't share the view that the assassination is the main reason for Iran finding itself in a difficult situation geopolitically. I have alluded to one of those reasons, namely the role the Russians are playing in Syria. Another reason was already apparent even when General Soleimani was alive: the US and Saudi Arabia had successfully combined economic pressures, sanctions and rewards, with propaganda, to create problems for Iran's allies in places like Iraq and Lebanon. Within that framework, of course, not having an experienced, willy and very popular (partly because he was, indeed, both brave and very down to earth, incorruptible basically) general who had been a 'jack of all trades' for Iran, has been costly.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/09/iran-iraq-khadimi-control-middle-east-suleimani
Can Iraq's new PM, and the region, escape Suleimani's long shadow?
Rise of spy chief to premier comes as Iran struggles to maintain momentum months after killing of powerful general

I don't agree with the final assessment by whoever is that official, as I believe the US/Saudi Arabia have indeed scored a major victory in Iraq for now. But I also believe that ultimately things often do work out in rather mysterious ways and this isn't over yet.

 

Incidentally, in listing the factors that have actually weakened Iran's ability to wage an effective fight right now, I forgot to mention the most important one of all: Covid-19! While Iran, which has indeed suffered a lot from the pandemic, has not suffered as much as some of those who were basically making fun of it when the pandemic had not yet reached their shores, there is no denying that you can't run an effective foreign operations campaign when your nation has been locked down by the pandemic (Iran is just beginning to reduce some of the business closures and such), with its borders all but sealed until recently, not just by Iran, but by its neighbors, as a result of this pandemic.

 

I'd have replied sooner, but my internet was down for most of the weekend.

May I gently remind you what you replied to:


Have you read it? Your reaction is soooo knee jerk and devoid of any context, that my first impression was that you have some ready-to-use phrases somewhere on your computer and just copy-paste them when certain key-words are used by your opponent.

The reason for rejecting the deal is clearly stated in the text: no to normalization with Israel. Given that any peace process is meant to take place between enemies and slowly lead to solutions and normalization, this statement is an euphemism for "no to the peace process".

Hussein al-Sheikh is not Hamas, by the way. He's a PA minister. As I said, knee jerk reaction, no fact check, no prior knowledge about the places you talk about. Jenin is not in Gaza.

 

I hate getting into the polemics about the Israel/Palestinian issue, as the truth is so clear to me that any attempt to address it will simply give room for more falsehoods and myths. But let me ask you as well: have you read it?
"no to normalization before the demise of occupation..."

Is that how you read it? Certainly not the way I read it.

 

Of course I read it - it is you that has reading comprehension issues - I did not claim that anything in the above was false.

I stated a fact - that this is one example - of one deal - at one point in time. This blood feud has being going on for 80 years

Pointing to one aspect of one of those deal attempts - as if it represents the whole story over 80 years- is not a coherent premise.

and if you are not doing this - then what is your point - Yes - the Palestinians have been been obtuse during the negotiations - throughout the years - as have the Israelis.

What else ?

 

I pressed the post reply button too soon, sorry. Here's the answer to the rest of your post.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not a blood feud. All the terrorist (you of course would call them "militants" or "freedom fighters") organizations that mushroomed in Judea, Shomron, and Gaza, were not created by Palestinians.

Before the six day war, the terror attacks in Israel were masterminded mainly in Egypt and Jordan, with the PLO created by the USSR taking the lead in 1964. Arafat was an Egyptian citizen, not a Palestinian refugee. I can't wait to hear your "but but but blood feud between Jews and Russians and Egyptians and Jordanians and and and...." explanation.

Hamas is the offspring of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and was later adopted by Iran as their main proxy in Gaza, but is now being replaced by the Islamic Jihad as relations between Hamas and Iran soured following attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Syria by pro-Assad forces. Hamas is Erdogan's darling right now. Blood feud between Jews and Turks, perhaps?

The conflict is the result of several factors, one of which is the pan-Arab nationalism born with the fall of the Ottoman empire. The other factors are, of course, power struggles between the US, Europe (mainly France) and the Soviet empire over influence in the Middle East, and the oil embargoes of the 70s that saw western Europe suffer severe shortages and economic loss.

Not the case with the poster you replied to, but there are many so-called pro-Zionists whose only reason for supporting Israel is hatred of Arabs and Muslims, true. This fact, however, says something about them, not about the conflict.

This mess was purposely created by Arab leaders, who totally rejected the idea of a Jewish state and did everything they could for decades to destroy Israel, and further enhanced by aggressive Soviet anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish propaganda both in the Arab world and in international forums like the UN.

Dividing the humanity into good-because-they-think-like-me people and bad dissidents? Seriously?

Settlements in Judea and Shomron are not illegal, according to international law. Yes, I know it's too much to ask from the anti-Israel crowd to actually go out there in the cold realm of fact checking to understand what international law is and how it works (hint: UN resolutions are not a source of international law), but hope is a resilient bug. Google "the document of the mandate", for instance.

What ceasefire?

When was the first rocket attack from Gaza on Jewish civilians?

 

The PLO charter clearly states that Palestine is the whole territory of the British Mandate. In other words, they see all Israeli territory as occupied Palestinian territory. Knowing that, it's fairly easy to understand that the "demise of the occupation" really means "the demise of the Jewish state".

Context and perspective are paramount.

 

1) Yes it is
2) quit projecting
3) Israel has been illegally stealing land for 8 decades - so we are discussing the "illegal settlements" not the legal ones.
4) There was a truce/ceasefire in place at the time when they took out the commander

Asking when the first attack was - in a blood feud that's been going on for 80 years - is a mindless and nonsensical question.

 

Not a blood feud.

What do you mean "one aspect"? Since when is totally rejecting normalization an aspect of a peace process? It's flushing the whole damn thing down the drain, all aspects included.

 

Dodging is the name of the game with you. When knowledge is scarce, imagination fills the gaps.

1. Define "blood feud". Explain how it applies to the conflict in proper historical, cultural, political and religious context.

2. You used the term "good Israelis", implying that the rest are bad. There's nothing you can say to change that.

3. Please post a list of all lands Israel has been allegedly stealing, alongside the text of international law or laws pertaining to the situation.

4. Name of the commander, please. A particular incident took place years ago, during a war, meaning the targeted assassination took place after we were attacked, not before. Can't confirm or disprove your assertion without details.
One particular incident, however, not a decades old habit makes, so even if what you claim is true for that particular case, claiming it's always true is a non-sequitur.

I didn't ask when the first attack took place. I asked when was the first rocket attack from Gaza on Israeli civilians.

 

It is one aspect of an 80 year blood feud .. one deal - rejected normalization of relations because of some issue du jour.

Of course its a blood feud - tit for tat .. back and forth - one side strikes - the other side strikes back - on and on for 80 years - with plenty of ethnic hatred

There is no good side in this blood feud - both sides are guilty of atrocity.

 

1) defined in the last post to you
2) never implied anything of the sort Mr. Strawman
3) What an absurd request - Please post all the lands that comply .. Only someone completely ignorant of the conflict does not realize that Israel has been called out by the UN for illegal occupations. Go fly a kite with your pretending to be ignorant and mindless questions.

 

I like what the Israelis say (as do many others) "Terrorism is an act of war."
You engage in terrorism then you are engaging in warfare - not of warrior
warfare but usually of the silent, stealthy, killing innocents kind of warfare.
You know - blowing up buses, restaurants, hotels and airplanes. And firing
rockets at civilians, or setting of "incendiary kites" or shooting at school buses
with rocket propelled grenades. Killing such animals isn't "assassination" it's
warfare.
Good path to go down? You could take out the entire country like America
tried to do with Afghanistan, but using the assassin's own tactics is better.

 

Sure, there's an element of truth in what you write. I don't necessarily support everything Israel does,
particularly the settlers in the West Bank. But many UN members vote on perceptions, and Hamas,
like the Vietnamese before them, learned how to manipulate perceptions - this is why you get armies
of kids opposing the Israeli army - it's wonderful TV. Manipulative. There wouldn't be one of those sad
kids who could tell you the real history of Palestine back to 1900 - just reading of the British mandate,
the Oslo Accords, Peres and Rabin, Arafat, Black September etc. makes your head spin.

 

It is a quasi religious feud around land ownership.

After all these years we still American anti-semites. Amazing.

The pro Palestinian position is that the lands won by Israel in the 6 day war that it didn't start should have been returned to Egypt and Jordan.

 

Friendly fire happens quite often and creative people have great opportunity to invent fantastic conspiracy theories why it happened. Israeli attack on the USS Liberty created on the best. Here is a list other friendly fires, most missing good conspiracy theories - good opportunity for the beginners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_friendly_fire_incidents