2023-24 Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah-Iran-Houthi Conflict

[Omphalos]

Then isn’t it a big waste of military resources?

Munitions have a shelf life. If they fired off their old missiles it might even have been cheaper than disposing of them.

Back when my dad packed his own cartridges for deer hunting, he and Mom would take the oldest ones out to the gun range during the off-season. Saved them the trouble of disposal, and it also kept their skills sharp and helped to keep the rifles calibrated. It'd make sense to me if Iran was thinking similarly.

[Alvosa]

So will you make a separate thread about Lebanon or keep it on this thread?

[Infected Mushroom]

Munitions have a shelf life. If they fired off their old missiles it might even have been cheaper than disposing of them.

Back when my dad packed his own cartridges for deer hunting, he and Mom would take the oldest ones out to the gun range during the off-season. Saved them the trouble of disposal, and it also kept their skills sharp and helped to keep the rifles calibrated. It'd make sense to me if Iran was thinking similarly.

But wouldn’t those 100+ missiles cost a fortune?

[First Nightmare]

Back when my dad packed his own cartridges for deer hunting, he and Mom would take the oldest ones out to the gun range during the off-season. Saved them the trouble of disposal, and it also kept their skills sharp and helped to keep the rifles calibrated. It'd make sense to me if Iran was thinking similarly.

But wouldn’t those 100+ missiles cost a fortune?

No. They DID cost a fortune. But if you already have them they no longer cost a fortune to produce.

[Areebistan]

Back when my dad packed his own cartridges for deer hunting, he and Mom would take the oldest ones out to the gun range during the off-season. Saved them the trouble of disposal, and it also kept their skills sharp and helped to keep the rifles calibrated. It'd make sense to me if Iran was thinking similarly.

But wouldn’t those 100+ missiles cost a fortune?

They already have costed a fortune, and disposal would cost another fortune

[Kaumudeen]

I'm not a military expert so I can't really answer that. But periodically shooting missiles then backing down for months doesn't seem like the way.

It's for the sake of saying that they're doing something to fight the ebul joos.

Last time I checked there is like 30k Jews in Iran.

[Areebistan]

Iran is not doing enough against Israel, but they will fool the majority of the muslims of the world into thinking that they are the bastion of resistance against Israel. Still seems like they will do all the talking and hezbollah or hamas or someone else has to do the walking.

[Post War America]

Iran is not doing enough against Israel, but they will fool the majority of the muslims of the world into thinking that they are the bastion of resistance against Israel. Still seems like they will do all the talking and hezbollah or hamas or someone else has to do the walking.

I mean, the US has been chomping at the bit for a convenient excuse to invade Iran for like, the past 40 years. They're not likely to stick their necks on the chop to attack Israel more aggressively.

[Areebistan]

Iran is not doing enough against Israel, but they will fool the majority of the muslims of the world into thinking that they are the bastion of resistance against Israel. Still seems like they will do all the talking and hezbollah or hamas or someone else has to do the walking.

I mean, the US has been chomping at the bit for a convenient excuse to invade Iran for like, the past 40 years. They're not likely to stick their necks on the chop to attack Israel more aggressively.

But their motivations for continuously talk about what it will do to Israel is more to garner support among the sunni population of the world in comparison to the Sunni Arabs who are doing nothing whatsoever. The Iranians do not care about palestine either, they are using this as a way to assert dominance over the Saudis.

[Imperializt Russia]

How are the Lebanese military and police responding to the Israeli incursion? Somehow they aren't mentioned in the news at all, do they even care about the situation or is the country basically an anarchy? Allowing militias after the Lebanese civil war was a huge mistake

The Lebanese military aren't responding to Israel, but they are responding to the incursion. They are not the target.

As such, they're not engaged in combat operations and are acting as civil defence and disaster relief. They often do this during Israeli-Hezbollah conflicts.

[Elwher]

How are the Lebanese military and police responding to the Israeli incursion? Somehow they aren't mentioned in the news at all, do they even care about the situation or is the country basically an anarchy? Allowing militias after the Lebanese civil war was a huge mistake

The Lebanese military aren't responding to Israel, but they are responding to the incursion. They are not the target.

As such, they're not engaged in combat operations and are acting as civil defence and disaster relief. They often do this during Israeli-Hezbollah conflicts.

The Lebanese government in general, including the military, has no control over the country and is incapable of accomplishing even basic functions like keeping electricity flowing, much less actually governing or protecting the country. The only real question is which group of non-government forces will run which parts of Lebanon.

[Untecna]

The Lebanese military aren't responding to Israel, but they are responding to the incursion. They are not the target.

As such, they're not engaged in combat operations and are acting as civil defence and disaster relief. They often do this during Israeli-Hezbollah conflicts.

The Lebanese government in general, including the military, has no control over the country and is incapable of accomplishing even basic functions like keeping electricity flowing, much less actually governing or protecting the country. The only real question is which group of non-government forces will run which parts of Lebanon.

What happens when you structure a government based on the religions of its members.

[Fahran]

Arresting people for criticising him doesn’t exactly spark hope in me.

I mostly meant in regard to the Jewish-Arab ethnic conflict. You mentioned wanting Jews to go back into Diaspora. Mohammed VI is one of very few Arab leaders who makes it a realistic possibility. It's still not going to happen, of course, but I figured I'd name-drop him all the same.

Funny how success on the battlefield somehow translates into deserving to steal land?

When you refuse to consistently accept diplomatic or legal determinations as to which political entity owns and administers which territory, it leaves violence as the sole recourse. Didn't you say the Arabs were correct in rejecting UN determinations previously? Why are UN determinations the be all end all of the conversation for you now that the Palestinians have basically exhausted the effective military option? Isn't that sort of backwards?

Which was it, Egypt or Palestinian militias?

Palestinian militias were operating pretty much continuously against Israel after 1948. The mobilization of the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian military forces along Israel's borders and various other actions taken against Israel occurred under these circumstances. It's not possible to argue in good faith that these things did not constitute acts of war in 1967.

“But if they won they would done bad things” isn’t really a good argument. Besides, you said that “Pursuing ethnic maximalism and irregular fighting for forty years has consequences.” in response to me criticising Israel stealing land. Are you saying that Israel had a right to steal that land, or that the Palestinians deserved to have their land stolen? Because that sure is what it sounds like you’re saying.

I think calling it "stealing land" is problematic in the first place. You cannot chronically disrespect the laws with regard to territorial integrity and then expect to be protected by those same laws, which you were chronically disrespecting at the time, when you lose a bunch of territory as a result of wars you repeatedly provoked. This isn't an instance where one sovereign country randomly invaded another sovereign country. It's an instance where a partition wasn't respected and continuous rejections of sovereignty and extant borders led to unceasing military conflict.

Ok, the bulk of the Zionist leadership weren’t interested in negotiating. Even at the time of the Peel Commission they wanted the whole of Palestine.

While Zionists were divided over the Peel Commission's precise allocation of land, they tended to favor partition by 1937, which meant that they weren't going to gain all the territory they wanted. Both Weizmann and Ben-Gurion expressed support for partition. The Arabs rejected the idea of partition.

[Fahran]

Iran claimed to have destroyed over 20 F-35s with strikes at Nevatim Airbase. Considering this is the Iranian government, I’m not sure how true this is. I’m pretty sure Iran have struck Nevatim Airbase though.

They claimed to have destroyed Nevatim Airbase the last time around. I suspect it's going to be revealed, yet again, that damage was minimal and that the bulk of their missiles were either shot down or fell in random fields.

[Fahran]

Strongly worded letters, sanctions and military strikes. Clearly the same.

The international community isn't engaging in military strikes against Iran or Israel at the moment, least of all as a punitive measure against their mass slaughter of civilians.

[Fahran]

Last time I checked there is like 30k Jews in Iran.

8,300.

And they have faced and still face serious social and legal discrimination under the IRI.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Last time I checked there is like 30k Jews in Iran.

8,300.

And they have faced and still face serious social and legal discrimination under the IRI.

Ah but you see Fahran, 8,300 honorary Jews must mean that Iran is a literal Jewish paradise with 0 racism or discrimination.

[Imperializt Russia]

The Lebanese military aren't responding to Israel, but they are responding to the incursion. They are not the target.

As such, they're not engaged in combat operations and are acting as civil defence and disaster relief. They often do this during Israeli-Hezbollah conflicts.

The Lebanese government in general, including the military, has no control over the country and is incapable of accomplishing even basic functions like keeping electricity flowing, much less actually governing or protecting the country. The only real question is which group of non-government forces will run which parts of Lebanon.

Beirut still hasn't properly recovered from the fertiliser explosion in 2020. It's a country in a volatile region with few legitimate income sources left available to it and routinely subject to military action with the regularity of the pop culture nostalgia cycle.

Why is this surprising to you?

[Liberal Malaysia]

UNRWA confirms Hamas leader in Lebanon was its employee

"Aid workers" lol.

Shut down UNRWA NOW.

So will you make a separate thread about Lebanon or keep it on this thread?

It should be renamed the Israel-Iran Proxy War Thread or the Israel-Axis of Terror Thread. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran are all involved in the same conflict with Israel.

[Ifreann]

UNRWA confirms Hamas leader in Lebanon was its employee

"Aid workers" lol.

Shut down UNRWA NOW.

Sherif was killed today in an airstrike on the al-Bass refugee camp in the southern Lebanese city of Tyre, along with his wife and children.

Shut down Israel now.

[Fahran]

Israeli and American assessments find that there was minimal damage from Iranian strikes to a few airbases and civilian structures. The majority were shot down and others missed. No aircraft were destroyed. So far we still have a single fatality.

[Fame And Even More Fame]

Arresting people for criticising him doesn’t exactly spark hope in me.

I mostly meant in regard to the Jewish-Arab ethnic conflict. You mentioned wanting Jews to go back into Diaspora. Mohammed VI is one of very few Arab leaders who makes it a realistic possibility. It's still not going to happen, of course, but I figured I'd name-drop him all the same.

Funny how success on the battlefield somehow translates into deserving to steal land?

When you refuse to consistently accept diplomatic or legal determinations as to which political entity owns and administers which territory, it leaves violence as the sole recourse. Didn't you say the Arabs were correct in rejecting UN determinations previously? Why are UN determinations the be all end all of the conversation for you now that the Palestinians have basically exhausted the effective military option? Isn't that sort of backwards?

Which was it, Egypt or Palestinian militias?

Palestinian militias were operating pretty much continuously against Israel after 1948. The mobilization of the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian military forces along Israel's borders and various other actions taken against Israel occurred under these circumstances. It's not possible to argue in good faith that these things did not constitute acts of war in 1967.

“But if they won they would done bad things” isn’t really a good argument. Besides, you said that “Pursuing ethnic maximalism and irregular fighting for forty years has consequences.” in response to me criticising Israel stealing land. Are you saying that Israel had a right to steal that land, or that the Palestinians deserved to have their land stolen? Because that sure is what it sounds like you’re saying.

I think calling it "stealing land" is problematic in the first place. You cannot chronically disrespect the laws with regard to territorial integrity and then expect to be protected by those same laws, which you were chronically disrespecting at the time, when you lose a bunch of territory as a result of wars you repeatedly provoked. This isn't an instance where one sovereign country randomly invaded another sovereign country. It's an instance where a partition wasn't respected and continuous rejections of sovereignty and extant borders led to unceasing military conflict.

Ok, the bulk of the Zionist leadership weren’t interested in negotiating. Even at the time of the Peel Commission they wanted the whole of Palestine.

While Zionists were divided over the Peel Commission's precise allocation of land, they tended to favor partition by 1937, which meant that they weren't going to gain all the territory they wanted. Both Weizmann and Ben-Gurion expressed support for partition. The Arabs rejected the idea of partition.

“After more than 50 years, the state of Israel has never established legal, binding borders.”
The current UN proposals are the best I’ve seen. The ones in 1948 were definitely not.


How is mobilisation an act of war, especially when even the USA confirmed they had no intents of invasion? Even then I can get behind a preemptive strike, but how do you defend keeping land and building colonies even after it surfaced that Egypt had no intentions to invade? That sounds like a war of conquest to me, and not “self defence” or whatever you want to frame it as.


I don’t think “they stole land too” is a very good argument either. Besides, the Israelis have and still systematically steal land from individual Palestinians. The fact that the Arab states invaded Israel in 1948 doesn’t magically excuse that.


“Divided” is a nice way to put it. The Zionists rejected the Peel plan saying it didn’t give them enough (even though it gave them the majority of the Palestinian economy and the Galilee which was Arab).
“At the same Zionist Congress, David Ben-Gurion, then chairman of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, told those in attendance that, though "there could be no question...of giving up any part of the Land of Israel,... it was arguable that the ultimate goal would be achieved most quickly by accepting the Peel proposals."[39] University of Arizona professor Charles D. Smith suggests that, "Weizmann and Ben-Gurion did not feel they had to be bound by the borders proposed [by the Peel Commission]. These could be considered temporary boundaries to be expanded in the future." Ben-Gurion saw the plan as only a stage in the realisation of a larger Jewish state.”
Please stop pretending that the Zionists were nice and cool but the Arabs were evil and unreasonable.

[La Xinga]

Last time I checked there is like 30k Jews in Iran.

8,300.

And they have faced and still face serious social and legal discrimination under the IRI.

I know a Persian Jew whose father had to flee Iran after 1979. I forgot the whole story, but there was certainly a story.

[Fame And Even More Fame]

Israeli and American assessments find that there was minimal damage from Iranian strikes to a few airbases and civilian structures. The majority were shot down and others missed. No aircraft were destroyed. So far we still have a single fatality.

“An Israel Defense Forces spokesperson declined to comment to NPR on casualties or damage resulting from the strike.”
Looks like we’re not going to get much trustworthy information anytime soon. Though I agree it is unlikely Iran destroyed F-35s.

[Fahran]

“After more than 50 years, the state of Israel has never established legal, binding borders.”
The current UN proposals are the best I’ve seen. The ones in 1948 were definitely not.

You cannot establish legal, binding borders if the people contesting said legal, binding borders refuse to accept them. The current UN proposal is worse for Palestinians than the 1948 proposal was. Why do you imagine that is?

How is mobilisation an act of war, especially when even the USA confirmed they had no intents of invasion? Even then I can get behind a preemptive strike, but how do you defend keeping land and building colonies even after it surfaced that Egypt had no intentions to invade? That sounds like a war of conquest to me, and not “self defence” or whatever you want to frame it as.

Permitting militias to persistently raid your neighbors is an act of war.

Closing down vital channels of maritime commerce is an act of war.

Expelling UNEF or other peacekeeping forces mandated by previous treaties is an act of war.

Mass mobilization along three borders of an adversarial nation-state certainly would strike most as giving the appearance of imminent invasion - which is how Israel took it.

Engaging in political brinkmanship, involving multiple acts of war against another country, while giving the appearance that you're about to invade said country can lead to escalation. Who knew?

I don’t think “they stole land too” is a very good argument either. Besides, the Israelis have and still systematically steal land from individual Palestinians. The fact that the Arab states invaded Israel in 1948 doesn’t magically excuse that.

Individual and state ownership of land are distinct points of discussion, but I'm not certain we can describe changes in the territory controlled by state or political actors that occurred as a result of continual rejections of earlier allocations of territory "stealing."

“Divided” is a nice way to put it. The Zionists rejected the Peel plan saying it didn’t give them enough (even though it gave them the majority of the Palestinian economy and the Galilee which was Arab).

The Jews had contributed a sizable amount to the Palestinian economy, especially in coastal regions, where they often constituted a majority.

“At the same Zionist Congress, David Ben-Gurion, then chairman of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, told those in attendance that, though "there could be no question...of giving up any part of the Land of Israel,... it was arguable that the ultimate goal would be achieved most quickly by accepting the Peel proposals."[39] University of Arizona professor Charles D. Smith suggests that, "Weizmann and Ben-Gurion did not feel they had to be bound by the borders proposed [by the Peel Commission]. These could be considered temporary boundaries to be expanded in the future." Ben-Gurion saw the plan as only a stage in the realisation of a larger Jewish state.”
Please stop pretending that the Zionists were nice and cool but the Arabs were evil and unreasonable.

It's not that the Zionists were nice and cool or that the Arab nationalists were evil and unreasonable. It's that one group was a lot more flexible when it came to diplomacy than the other group. This goes back to Husseini being a fail-son genocidaire who couldn't read a room or even attempt to appear reasonable half the time. If Nashashabi's faction had been in charge, things might have been different.