If they decide to continue down the path of violence and keep trying to destroy us, they will keep losing land and living in tents. The ball is in their court.

This is the neighborhood.

Israel supported islamist elements in syria, iraq, yemen, and even palestine itself.. There is no right or wrong, there is good policy and bad policy.

As for "ring of fire", had you given gulan pre 90-2000s, there would be no conflict with syria, had you not armed "fsa", nusra and other elements, hez would´ve had viewed you far less of a threat. Talks about dismantling the threat, it is an process with no end or benefit.

Iran and nukes is a different topic, but i think it is fairly obvious that they posses them or may posses them at any point, they already got s400s, hypersonic missiles etc (hint russia). That is another example of bad policy, ending the non-conflict pact with the russians

This post was edited by ownyaah on Nov 20 2024 04:56pm

Right, I agree with that and that is the natural outcome.

The natural conclusion to that method is genocide - when they are living in tents & still raiding & slaughtering civilians, what's the next step after tents? While they are still living in those tents, is Israel going to provide them with food, water & medical care? If they do not provide them with such, how do they live & reproduce? The natural outcome is that they all die of "natural" causes, i.e. starvation, dehydration, exposure, & plague. Subjecting them to conditions where they cannot live is not distinguishable from genocide. We all recognize what the German regime did was genocide, most of that was not gassing or shooting people, it was confining them in concentration camps (a step above tents I guess) & letting them die of malnutrition and exposure.

El1te nobody cares about ethics, I don´t think the goal is genocide but rather pacification, or more beneficially displacement. Starvation is historically associated with pacification, but in the end "pacification" could just be prolonging the inevitable relapse.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Nov 20 2024 05:00pm

Regarding the first highlighted point: does establishing a field hospital to treat wounded Syrians reflect support or simply humanity?

We have no conflict with Syria; it has been Israel’s quietest border since 1973, and it has nothing to do with the “ring of fire.”

As for the Golan Heights, there is no chance of returning that territory due to its topographical significance. The previous border gave Syria a height advantage, which makes such a move unthinkable. This also has no connection to current events.

The Golan was taken from Syria in a defensive war and will therefore never be returned.

Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, and despite all its bravado, Iran now fears attacking because it knows it would face a response dozens of times stronger.

I mean, displacement is clearly the best solution to Israel's problem.

The problem with displacement is that they have nowhere to go, no one will take them. This is their own fault of course - they antagonized their neighbours of Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon such that they want nothing to do with it. Displacement is only an option on the table if they have somewhere to go, and they don't. I doubt Iran will take them.

I agree that genocide isn't their goal (or maybe it is because of the logic I've outlined). What I'm getting at here is that it is inevitable unless Israel capitulates to them, for reasons I outlined. The only other solution is that Hamas & friends magically bury their hatchets and collectively decide to live in peace with Israel - to me at this point this is delusional wishful thinking. The idea that forcing a Carthaginian peace on them will pacify them is to me, delusional

To add my discussion here is not considering ethics or morality, but simple cold hard reality

This post was edited by El1te on Nov 20 2024 05:05pm

Israel will continue to provide them with food, water, and medicine, as it has been doing so far. They will live this way until they choose differently.

If necessary, the military will step in to eliminate terrorists and “mow the grass.”

In the Middle East, the language is different — this isn’t Sweden and Norway arguing over territory.

For the record 800,000 jews died in getthos, while the rest 5.2 mil died in extermination camps

This post was edited by Many_Names on Nov 20 2024 05:10pm

1. If you think the extent of "support" was treating wounded al-nusra fighters you are naive.
2. Isreal striked syria even today, 35 dead, mostly SAA. Syria has long been used as a open hub for transport of military equipment to hez from iran, but has intensified significantly since 2012.
3. That is sort of revision of history, Arab nationalism is a dead concept and israel knew this as early as 90s. There was peace talks between israel-syria as late as 2000s, had you simply dealt with assad on a fair basis you would be in less conflict today.
4. Sinai was also taken in a defensive war, and i still think return of Sinai was more significant than the possible return of golan.
5. If i recall most recent public records is that they are 60%+ enriched, and could do it in weeks if they wanted, especially with Russian backing.

I´ll give you one point though, my views aren´t particularly valuable today, because the cats out of the bag. It is hard to predict the results and duration of power politics. The politicans did fail you though, isreals position today isn´t nearly as good as it could be. Perhaps my views will become more relevant in the next decades

Israel treated wounded Syrians from all sides of the conflict, not because it supported Al-Nusra, but to stabilize its borders. The humanitarian aid was about keeping things manageable, not endorsing any particular group. It’s a pragmatic, defensive move to prevent spillover, not an ideological alignment.

Israel’s strikes in Syria are about self-defense. The goal is to stop Iranian weapons from reaching Hezbollah, which poses a direct threat to Israel. Syria has been a hub for these transfers, and Israel has every right to prevent them, especially given the risks Iran and Hezbollah present. The deaths of Syrian soldiers are a byproduct of Israel’s efforts to maintain security, not the primary target.

Arab nationalism may be weakening, but Syria’s ties with Iran and Hezbollah are still key issues. The peace talks in the 2000s didn’t fail because Israel didn’t negotiate fairly; Syria’s refusal to break ties with Iran made a stable peace impossible. Israel needed more than just the return of the Golan—it needed a trustworthy partner, and Assad was not that.

The return of Sinai was important, but the Golan Heights is far more critical to Israel’s security. The Golan provides Israel with strategic high ground and surveillance over Syria, which Sinai did not. Giving it up would put Israel at a major disadvantage in terms of defense.

While Iran is enriching uranium, it’s not as simple as “they could build a bomb in weeks.” Weaponizing nuclear material is far more complex, and Israel has been actively working to delay Iran’s progress. Yes, the situation is worrying, but Iran still faces significant obstacles to developing a nuclear weapon, and Israel has made it clear it won’t allow that to happen.

Israel’s policies are based on practical security concerns, not ideology. The Middle East is unpredictable, and Israel’s decisions are shaped by the need to protect its people and borders. The region is too volatile for idealistic peace agreements, and Israel will continue to act in its own defense. Your points are valid, but Israel’s reality is a lot more complex than it might seem from the outside.

Iran are shias, they would take in jews without any real issue (not joking), but would never take in militant sunnis.

The palestinians doomed themselves when they allowed islamism into their ranks, that is my view. Sure israel had part in it, but ultimately there is self-accountability.