Free the people of Iran

Classic DARVO https://x.com/stop_jew_hate/status/1854881566553411612

We've been down this road before.

Israel isn't done yet. Hezbollah is almost done, but there is still the head of the octopus: the Iranian regime. As long as they are in power and are working towards nukes, Israel will not be able to live in peace.

A two state solution is a long term goal. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was the first test of a 2SS and look how that turned out. The Palestinian people have a role to play in this too, by making a commitment to pursue peaceful coexistence. Otherwise we will go through all this again in another 15 years.

Yes, the Middle East is a rough, regressive, oppressive neighborhood. Islam has a lot to do with that.

But there are Muslim countries that have shown an interest in at least progressing from the most archaic and extreme interpretations of Islam. Those countries are pursuing normalization with Israel not because they suddenly like Jews, but because they respect the strength and prosperity of Israel and recognize it as a valuable partner for their own national development. These countries have put their past conflicts with Israel behind them.

Ironically, the people of Iran are among the least antisemitic in that part of the world. They scored lower on the ADL Global 100 than Greece!

LOL, defending Samidoun isn't a good look.

There are two types of Palestinian activist:

1. People who are peace-oriented and are genuinely concerned about the well-being of the Palestinian people; and
2. People who want Israel destroyed

Unfortunately, (1) is a much, much smaller group than (2). Many Palestinian activist organizations have been shown to have clear links to terrorism.

Yes.

Huh?

Progressives in the West have been awful quiet about this because it invalidates their narrative.

Thank you very much.

There is a significant chilling effect for sure. One example which might seem insignificant to others but makes the Jewish community very angry is how every single statement about antisemitism made by a public figure or organization has to have "and Islamophobia" added to it. It's as if people don't feel they can highlight Jewish suffering on its own because people will be offended. This would never be tolerated with any other group.

I understand that employee-owned companies exist (though I think it's rather telling that I haven't heard of any of them) but I thought this was a model for economic policy at the societal level. Those companies all exist within a capitalist economy.

Looks like an isolated incident and should be investigated.

"We were viciously attacked by the terror proxy of a genocidal regime that wants to destroy us, but we shouldn't respond because it's bad for the environment."

What color is the sky in your dream world?

Thank you. I didn't really understand what I did to warrant a ban.

I’m old enough to remember George W. Bush arguing in favor of invading Iraq going “They’re violating 17 UN resolutions!” and the reaction from sane people was “Yeah? And Israel is violating 80? 90? We going to invade Israel too?”> Okay, but also not analogous. Bush used this as justification for invading another country that didn't pose a threat to the US.

Where Squid went off was the whole “UN doing nothing” thing. It’s pretty clear to me you MEANT nothing about 1701, but they are doing a lot of good humanitatarian work on the ground, you know, when Israel isn’t SHOOTING AT THEM.> I'm sure they are. They're just not doing what they're supposed to be doing with respect to 1701, and their failure to do so poses an existential threat to Israel. I'm sure you're aware that in recent days the IDF has uncovered both Hezbollah plans to carry out a 10/7-style attack but on a larger scale, and multiple instances of Hezbollah operating from positions within very close proximity to UNIFIL positions. Kinds looks like UNIFIL has basically been providing cover for Hezbollah.

And you know full well that the Lebanese are controlled by Hezbollah. Unless they want to plunge the country into another devastating civil war, they're not going to challenge Hezbollah.

I see, so you think Israel is telling civilians to move just so they *look *merciful. Because it just can't be possible that Israeli leaders are human beings with consciences and actually want to prevent civilian death if they can. Is that the implication?

Yes, of course my plan rests on a lot of assumptions. The settlements are the most complex part of negotiating peace between the two sides. But agreements have been reached in principle in the past (like Camp David and Taba). It's difficult but not impossible, provided both sides are willing to figure it out. I probably should have included in my plan that the Netanyahu government eventually has to be replaced by a more moderate administration.

Mandating it doesn't seem to be consistent with individual liberty, though.

Forgive me for being pragmatic about this, but if this was such a good idea and consistent with the interests of the people, you wouldn't have to mandate it. This is how things would be done.

Interesting theory. Does this exist on any large scale anywhere in the world?

Does it really feel like that's where the region is headed? Is that why Israel keeps telling Gazans and Lebanese people to move out of target areas? Don't you think Israel could eliminate all 2 million Gazans in a few hours if they wanted to? Step back from the propaganda and think critically for a minute.

If you think there are a lot of Palestinians who want revenge, that's all the more reason to postpone the recognition of a Palestinian state. Part of the problem with the two state solution is that it rests on a faulty assumption: that statehood is a goal of the Palestinian people. The past 75 years of history shows that to be false. If they wanted a state, they would have one. The goal of the Palestinian people (or to be fair, the Palestinian leadership) has always been the destruction of Israel. That's what has always defined Palestinian nationalism. So pushing the 2SS is pushing a solution on the Israelis and Palestinians that the latter never wanted, and now the former don't really want either.

The only real solution is one that will take time and involves several important developments:

1. Israel eliminates the immediate genocidal Islamist threats. That includes not only Hamas and Hezbollah, but preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
2. Israel will have to retain some level of security control over Gaza while rebuilding plans are developed. An interim government will have to step in to govern Gaza, which will likely be a coalition of the PA and moderate Arab countries (like UAE, SA, etc).
3. The Iranian regime must be removed from power. They are the biggest impediment to peace in the region and the people of Iran want them gone.
4. Israel continues to develop the Abraham Accords with moderate Arab nations. and, eventually, with a moderate Iranian leadership.
5. Palestinian leaders emerge with a vision for a thriving Palestinian state that can coexist peacefully with Israel. One of these leaders beats the PA in an election and begins the process of developing a Palestinian state.
6. Everyone lives happily ever after.

Over the long term, yes.

There will always be jihadists and Islamist terrorists will always exist on a small scale, but without the backing of Iran none of it would exist on a scale that can threaten Israel or other countries in the region. The moderate Sunni countries like SA would become the main Muslim influence in the region and could help bring the Middle East into a new era of peace and prosperity.

I don't disagree that some soldiers engage in reprehensible behavior. That's pretty standard in war. But that wasn't what I have in mind when people say things like "Israel is committing war crimes." That has a much different connotation to it.

Oh, and I realized later that I chose the wrong word. I actually meant to say 'prosecute' rather than 'perpetrate'. My bad.

The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they’re failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.> That is absolutely a valid question. But most people don't pose it as a question. They think they are experts on warfare and can make a judgment about the morality of the war based on photos of destroyed buildings or abstract death toll numbers. And let's face it, most people who are critical of the war are staunchly anti-Israel and don't think Israel should have responded at all. Many people also don't understand the big picture. They think this war is just, as you suggest, retaliation for 10/7. But it isn't. If it were, it would have been more like 2014 - quick, a couple thousand dead, move on.

The attack on 10/7 made Israel realize that it can no longer tolerate genocidal enemies on its borders. The approach to Hamas and Hezbollah had always been containment - Israel can tolerate the occasional rocket attack or one-off terror attack, as long as that's it. But 10/7 was a wake-up call and Israel has decided they can't be tolerated anymore. But even more than that, it's about moving towards a new Middle East. Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords. His hope was that the rest of the Islamist world would join in and fully destroy Israel, but if they didn't do that at least the moderate Muslim countries would see how evil Israel is and abandon the Accords to side with their radical brothers. Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed. I truly believe we are seeing history being made right now. This war will ultimately usher in a new era of peace in the Middle East.