We need to have realistic expectations though - air defense is an inherently asymmetric problem. The US broadly has the best air defense, but it's explicitly not focused on Russia or China, because it acknowledges that deterrence is the only plausible defense there.
While Iran isn't a superpower, they have hypersonic weapons that no system can intercept very reliably, and a sizeable assortment of ballistic missiles. Even if all other militaries joined forces, they probably couldn't intercept every single projectile coming out of Iran, at least not without depleting their interceptors to unacceptable levels.
> Benjamin Netanyahu on record. And there's plenty of such quotes.
If there are "plenty" of quotes like this, can you identify just one that we know he actually said? (Not the "thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state" quote, which is unverified and denied by him [1].)
In any case, actions speak louder than words. If we look past Wikipedians' spin and look the substance of what Israel actually did, they once facilitated Qatari aid to fund some basic civil services, to prevent societal collapse in Gaza. That's it, that's essentially the sole basis for all the misleading claims about Israel "supporting Hamas".
Correcting misinformation is “shilling”? What does my work have to do with anything?
Your claim was that Netanyahu was "on record" with "plenty" of quotes. If that's true, surely it must be very easy to identify two or three specific quotes that he definitely said? Your link doesn't do that. The first answer doesn't quote Netanyahu. The second says "well he didn't deny the unverified quote", which is obviously false/outdated per my link above.
In any case, is there some particular action Netanyahu took to "support Hamas" that you disagree with? Do you think Israel should have blocked the Qatari aid funds, which were ostensibly necessary to keep basic civil services running and prevent societal collapse?
The problem is that the language you're using—"propped up Hamas"—obscures the fact that for the bulk of the time when Israel was directly supporting Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's efforts, "Hamas" technically didn't exist.
Yes, those early contributions obviously facilitated its emergence, but this is probably why people are disagreeing with you.
On the other hand, that doesn't belie the argument that Israel/Netanyahu's tactics since 1989 (e.g. leveraging Qatari aid) have ulterior motives assigned.
Your original point about Hamas being used as a proxy for Iran was solid. It's a pity that it's since descended into an argument about a secondary remark. But the support that Hamas gets from Iran versus the support than Hamas gets from Qatar (with Israeli/American approval) shouldn't be conflated.
Lying about nukes until Mordechai Vanunu outed the program. Iran has been cooperative in letting its nuclear program being audited, your country like the countless "execptions" it claims for itself does not permit any audits.
You tell me, if Iran, Hamas, and (insert other groups you hate) played games about nukes and told you they "don't" have nukes despite having hundreds how would you feel?
Israeli nukes must be brought under audit and transferred or decommissionied urgently by neutral third parties, it is a very grave matter.
Again do you have some sort of example or evidence?
> your country
I'm not Israeli
> the countless "execptions" it claims for itself
What exceptions? They don't need an exception to an agreement that they never consented to.
> played games about nukes
It's not much of a game, they just don't divulge sensitive information about their capabilities.
> transferred or decommissionied
Why would Israel give up a means of defending itself, while several of its neighbors continue trying to wipe it off the map? The only way this becomes plausible is if Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis stop trying to destroy Israel.
Who said anything about the NPT? The exceptions are to such things as audits of nukes which the other party here, Iran has had no problems with. Israel also claims exception and offense to the ICCPR which was one of the examples I had in mind of how Israel always seems to want "exceptions" for perfectly normal things.
>It's not much of a game, they just don't divulge sensitive information about their capabilities.
Nobody is expecting them to divulge any intelligence about its nuclear weapon systems. Why do Israel supporters always exaggerate and invent things not said by anyone? We ask Israel to simply be subject to similar audits of its nukes as Iran was, being like Iran and several other countries in that region a volatile and violent country. Illegal nukes in such a country should be a subject of concern.
And suppose Iran walks out of NPT, I have a feeling you'd still want to interfere and bomb their attempts at making nukes. So please do not lie that it is anything about the NPT.
>Why would Israel give up a means of defending itself, while several of its neighbors continue trying to wipe it off the map? The only way this becomes plausible is if Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis stop trying to destroy Israel.
Who said I want Israel to give up its means of defence? I only wish for them to be subject to standard audits and inspections.
>Why would Israel give up a means of defending itself, while several of its neighbors continue trying to wipe it off the map? The only way this becomes plausible is if Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis stop trying to destroy Israel.
Israel's origin is a long and complex story. No entity in that region is blameless, Israel included.
Again, you tell me, if Iran, Hamas, and (insert other groups you hate) played games about nukes and told you they "don't" have nukes despite having hundreds how would you feel? Obviously they would not wish to divulge sensitive information about their capabilities.
What would be illegal about them? Israel never agreed to the NPT.
> Nobody is expecting them to divulge any intelligence about its nuclear weapon systems.
Even if Israel could trust a group of foreign auditors not to leak any military secrets, what information would you hope to gain from the exercise? Confirmation that Israel does have nuclear weapons, which we already know in practice anyway?
> you'd still want to interfere and bomb their attempts at making nukes
Only as long as a regime with an official stance of "Death to America and Israel" is in charge.
Why not. If we take words as violence, how about the dreams of violent annexation to achieve the so called Greater Israel. Or statements by Israeli's of threatening to nuke Rome and the entirety of Europe. I have very little trust in Israel or Iran, both are crappy countries high on fumes of religion and nationalism and constantly belligerents. Though funnily this war was started by Israel and America unprovoked while pretending to negotiate with Iran, after of course a series of murders of negotiators. Actions are louder than words. It shows far more who is more unpredictable, violent and backstabbing liars. I trust Israel today even less than I trust Iran, thus we should treat them just like any other untrustworthy and volatile entity such as by conducting thorough and 24x7 audits of their nuclear programs.
I am neither Israeli nor Iranian. They can bomb and kill each other all they want as long as they don't involve anyone else. And they will continue bombing and killing each other as they are both driven by the classic cause of endless wars: religion and nationalism. I do not think one side better than other. I considered Israel mildly better but I had to change my stance. Being that I am not a fan of either country, I would prefer either Israel's nuclear capabilities be incapacitated or Iran develop nuclear capabilities as a balancing factor.
> statements by Israeli's of threatening to nuke Rome and the entirety of Europe
I take it you’re quoting some random individual? Certainly no Israeli leaders said anything of the sort. The Iranian regime’s leaders on the other hand are quite explicit about their ambitions of destroying the US and Israel.
> this war was started by Israel and America unprovoked
Israel has been attacked with over a hundred thousand Iranian rockets and drones in recent times. If that isn’t a provocation, what is? How many Iranian rockets do you expect Israel to tolerate before finally responding?
It may be random, but I didn't hear any Iranian saying they want to nuke the entire Europe if they feel threatened. I can already tell who I feel more threatened by. Even if we assume the Iranian govt truly means that, its still countries that have bonbed, hurt and destroyed Iran, and this begins far before the Islamic republic itself such as toppling Irans just and honorably elected government to install a dictatorial puppet monarch. Whereas that Israeli is threatening the entirety of Europe who never hurt Israel and even against all common sense and justice and fairness have been giving billions of euros to the Israeli entity, and this is how the ingrates respond.
Being neither Israeli nor Iranian and not having my brain clouded by the stupidities of religion, nationalism or racialism there is a certain clarity of mind that arises in these matters.
Greater Israel expansionism is something Israeli leaders including Bibi constantly say. Israel wants Lebensraum. If that's not a statement by thr government, what is?
Are you sure about the timing, who started shooting who first?
Have you talked to an actual Israeli before? They just want to not suffer constant rocket attacks. If Hezbollah stopped attacking, there would be ~zero interest in any sort of military action in Lebanon.
Israeli's are people like anyone else. However they are a peoples who are heavily propagandized to be fearful and hateful of everything since birth by their government, a peoples who have in my view become somewhat pathological as a reaction to the Holocaust. It is not wholly their fault. There are good people and bad people like in any country or group. But what I have seen of them has been more than enough for me, I have seen them laugh about throwing rocks and launching rockets at a peaceful Palestinian settlement for example. What do you say of that? Is that an example of they will stop violence if they are left alone?
I am not a big fan of basically any country in that region, Israel while better in some respects eg lgbtq is also more paranoid and psychotic in other aspects.
There's no need for anyone to "propagandize" Israelis into fearing attacks; they personally experience enemy attacks all the time. So much so that a lot of Israelis are just sleeping in bomb shelters at this point, so they don't have to jump out of bed and run whenever there's yet another nighttime attack.
You don't want to go into "who fired the first shot". The terrorist group who did the King David Hotel bombing yielded one of Israel's prime ministers. The formation of the country itself was a series of violent terroristic attacks by self proclaimed zionists. I do not say the arab countries around them are innocent, but that who fired the first shot does not leave Israel innocent either. Israeli's are just experiencing for the first time the fun of bomb shelters that all their neighbors felt due to them for years.
I didn't say anything about who fired the first shot. I was just responding to
> Greater Israel expansionism is something Israeli leaders including Bibi constantly say. Israel wants Lebensraum.
The reality is that Israelis don't care about ancient maps, they care about the terrorists operating in Lebanon that have been bombarding them for years.
> Israeli's are just experiencing for the first time
Not at all. Israel was attacked by five armies the day after it declared independence, and has been attacked many times since, including regular rocket attacks over the past ~25 years.
What's not to care about who fired the first shot? I am not talking about 3000 year old maps, though Bibi is. I am talking about events in the late 1940s where jewish terrorists constant bloodsoaked violence and terror led to rhe states foundation, including prime ministers being extracted from one of these terror outfits. It's all a direct continuation of that.
>Again do you have some sort of example or evidence?
There is discrepancy between what Vanunu said and what the government of Israel said. Evidence points to Vanunu being truthful, thus naturally, the Israeli government are liars.
You claimed something about "lies about nukes". There's really no way to construe "we neither confirm nor deny" as a lie, whether or not someone else leaks the information.
Netanyahu did not fund Hamas. You might be thinking of when Israel allowed Qatar to provide aid funds for some Gazan civil servants, infrastructure projects, etc.
It's not "peace" when the Iranian regime sends tens of thousands of projectiles to Hezbollah specifically for attacking Israel. It's not "offensive" to respond to decades of bombardment.
If we want peace, regime change in Iran is the only option, otherwise the best case is a return to somewhat slower paced proxy warfare.
>Israel apologized the same day of the incident. They also paid $13m in reparations (much more if we adjust for inflation).
That's the "public" view yes. Many survivors disagree of course.
The entity who committed theft was Israel not Mordechai, however I reread it and it looks like it was a secret collaboration with South Africa not theft. But the main point is, why should you listen to whining about Iran having nukes from a country that blatantly lies about its own nukes and refuses to let its nukes be inspected? Iran is a much more responsible party clearly when it comes to the nuclear department.
It's also very well known that Israel secretly sold western defence tech secrets to China.
For example, BBC tweeted "Hundreds feared dead or injured in Israeli air strike on hospital in Gaza, Palestinian officials say", which turned out to be disinformation from Hamas (although they did attribute the claim, but still).
While it's less about Hamas, another incident that stands out was their documentary with "sanitized" translations, like replacing "jihad against the Jews" with "fighting and resisting Israeli forces".
>"jihad against the Jews" with "fighting and resisting Israeli forces"
But isn't this a fair editorial change? "Jihad" just means "fighting for a noble cause", and most Palestinians don't like to refer to the proper name "Israel" since they feel it validates the existence of that country. Thus, they tend to refer to "Israelis" by the ethnic designation that they came to be known as during the colonial era - "the Jews".
If the editor hadn't made that correction, Jewish people living in London or New York City might believe that Palestinian resistance groups intend to fight them, while the correction makes the true context much more clear?
If I didn't like to refer to the US by name because of my personal hatred for it, so I called it the Great Satan instead, would it be fair game to edit that back to "the US" in subtitles?
Arabic speakers have plenty of options for referring to Israeli forces other than "Yahud". There's the widely used Arabized transliteration of Israel, or "occupation forces", "enemy forces", etc. When someone says "Yahud", it's because they're referring to Jews, not because some limitation in their language forced them to say it.
But even if (hypothetically) language limitations plausibly forced a certain "unintended" choice of words, it's not the role of a translator to come up with a fundamentally different statement that they might have meant to say. If they were worried that a literal translation would led to confusion, they could have just omitted the quote.
It's apples and oranges to compare an externally-imposed nickname like "The Great Satan" with an ethnic designation that was the group's primary identity within the lifetimes of still-living people. There were no Israelis during the colonization of Palestine, recall. There were "the Jews", however, which is when the term entered the region's popular lexicon.
FWIW though, if there was some other group called "The Great Satan" that wasn't the US, and you were a journalist reporting on what someone had said about the US while terming then "The Great Satan", yes, you would still want to clarify that, I think?
>Arabic speakers have plenty of options for referring to Israeli forces other than "Yahud".
Don't Israelis also refer to themselves as "the Jews", though? As in, "eternal homeland of The Jews", "Netanyahu is the leader of the Jewish people", etc.? And wasn't that what most Palestinians, including Jewish ones, called the Jewish colonial population of Palestine prior to Israel's formation in 1948?
>it's not the role of a translator to come up with a fundamentally different statement that they might have meant to say.
But it isn't fundamentally different, when understood in the likely intended context. Jihad just means "fighting for a noble cause", and "the Jews" to anyone in the region clearly refers to Israelis, so there's no change in meaning, just the opposite - the chance of a drastic misunderstanding is reduced by the translation.
Israel has existed for 78 years now, and it didn't take long for us to update language, like replacing "Jewish militias" with "Israeli forces" to reflect the present reality. Such updates happened universally, across nations and languages (Arabic included).
Even political leaders who don't recognize Israel as a state still mostly refer to it by name. The few holdouts who refuse to say "Israel" are doing so out of hatred, not because 78 years wasn't enough time to work out the proper linguistic updates.
> you would still want to clarify that
Yes, but not by changing the statement and sanitizing its meaning. The usual method is to add bracketed context, like "The Great Satan [reference to the US]".
> Don't Israelis also refer to themselves as "the Jews", though? As in, "eternal homeland of The Jews", "Netanyahu is the leader of the Jewish people", etc.?
Both are in fact references to the Jews, not to Israel. The latter is just a weird metaphorical statement.
Thanks for taking the time to share your views! I don't know that we'll be able to reach much more consensus, but I appreciate hearing your perspective. Cheers!
I would love to know which Iranian proxy Israel "directly created". You might be confusing Hamas with Ahmed Yassin's previous charity, which ran schools, mosques and clubs. Even that charity was not "directly created" by Israel, Israel merely allowed them to operate.
Even if Israeli Jews whose ancestors once lived in Poland were interested in immigrating to Poland, where 90% of Jews were murdered, Poland has not offered them citizenship. Would you like them to disappear?
Do you apply the same logic to all the immigrants from Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc.? Do you categorically oppose all immigration, or only when it's Jewish families?
While Iran isn't a superpower, they have hypersonic weapons that no system can intercept very reliably, and a sizeable assortment of ballistic missiles. Even if all other militaries joined forces, they probably couldn't intercept every single projectile coming out of Iran, at least not without depleting their interceptors to unacceptable levels.
reply