this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
219 points (97.0% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2480 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, was hoping for a honeymoon period after his inauguration last week, he must be sadly disappointed. Less than 12 hours after Pezeshkian was sworn in, an explosion, reportedly caused by a remotely controlled bomb, shook an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) compound in central Tehran. The target: Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader, an honoured guest at the inauguration, and one of the Middle East’s most wanted. The bomb under the bed killed Haniyeh instantly. Honeymoon over.

The Haniyeh assassination, attributed to Israel and not denied in Jerusalem, has scrambled all those hopes. Pezeshkian finds himself in the eye of an international storm that analysts warn could lead to all-out war, engulfing the Middle East.

Infuriated by an audacious attack that humiliated him, his country and its elite armed forces, Khamenei – Iran’s ultimate authority – is said to have ordered preparations for direct military retaliation against Israel. Avenging Haniyeh’s death was “our duty”, Khamenei said. Pezeshkian had no choice but to meekly go along. Now the world waits to see what Iran will do. So much for a fresh start.

Iran’s next step may be decisive in determining whether the Middle East plunges into chaos. Its pivotal position should come as no surprise. Its gradual emergence as the region’s pre-eminent power has accelerated in the wake of 7 October. Iran’s anti-Israeli, anti-American “axis of resistance”, embracing ­militant Islamist groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and ever more openly backed by China and Russia, is now a big force challenging the established western-led order.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JASN_DE@lemmy.world 80 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Fucking religious nutjobs...

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you look at it through a geopolitics lens, it makes a lot more sense.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

When you see how the geopolitics are fueled directly by multiple clashing religious groups vying for the same land (which is so important because muh ancient texts) it makes even more sense.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

Not denying that religion plays a role, but seeing this as sectarian violence doesn't have as much explanatory power as a struggle between competing nationalisms. Simply put, for the vast majority of the people involved, nationalism explains a lot more. And note also of course that nationalism is extremely effective in incorporating and weaponizing religion to its narrative. And the fuel of nationalism is geopolitics.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] markon@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You'd think they'd have moved on by now. Well. Oh well.

[–] JASN_DE@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh please. The middle east has been and will be religious nutjobs vs. religious nutjobs for ages.

[–] rammer@sopuli.xyz 7 points 3 months ago

Don't forget rampant nationalism and outside meddling mixed in.

[–] roboto@feddit.org 9 points 3 months ago (6 children)

How about taking about the elephant in the room that is British + French colonialism plus the establishment of a genocidal apartheid settler colony along with US driven regime changes through funding terrorist groups or just outright invasions?

It’s so damn lazy to blame all of this on religion.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Both empires dissolved decades ago. The situation in Israel would have gone the way of South Africa or Hong Kong, if it weren't for American mysticism propping it up.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 3 months ago

The US could, but it would require imposing actual conditions on Israel.

[–] RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Killing the negotiator... Zionists never wanted peace, not even in 1923.

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

Fuck me that was horrific.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I guess that motherfucker never took that oath he spoke of.

[–] RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Here's another quote where he was more honest [emphasis mine]:

[It is the] iron law of every colonizing movement, a law which knows of no exceptions, a law which existed in all times and under all circumstances. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else – or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempts to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not “difficult”, not “dangerous” but IMPOSSIBLE! … Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonialization.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ze%27ev_Jabotinsky

Yet, nearly half the comments here blame the Palestinians for the natural response Jabotinsky accurately predicted.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

“… a colonizing adventure that stands or falls by the question of armed force.” I hate how unflinchingly this statement was made while the implications of it are terrifying. That is something I simply can’t wrap my head around.

How can people have such callous disregard for humanity?

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

Colonialists and imperialists and capitalists in general have been known to say and write this stuff all the time. I watched a video on United Fruit (now Chiquita) that described the military response to protests by Banana growers in the early 20th century that had them describe 'with great delight and satisfaction' (not the exact words, but similar sentiment) after machine guns were fired into the crowds and hundreds were killed or injured.

[–] RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Israeli journalist and author Gideon Levy in 2015 explains how Israelis do it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EtNFXL_ykg

tl;dw: they don't see Palestinians as humans

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, Iran's lack of direct force projection capability.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's not going to be war, Iran has to retaliate but they are not going to escalate things. I would expect a similar response to response for the attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 4 points 3 months ago (13 children)

The middle east has been warring for millennia. You can't stop them

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You’re leaving out crucial pieces of information. Stop “them?” The world superpowers have meddled in, armed, and essentially used the Middle East as playgrounds for their international power struggles. So the entire world has been warring for millennia because going back to the times before that was the case, the rest of the world was fighting wars on our own turf. We just moved all of our wars there.

And this is no different. This is largely if not entirely propped up by “west vs east.” It’s just a sphere of influence for the rest of the world, and serves as a staging ground for wars we don’t want on our own doorstep. Nukes saw to that, I think. The “we’re not the ones at war” security blanket stops the nukes from dropping, I guess.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It's silly to think the middle east is at war only because of exterior meddling once you actually read the history of the region. I'm going over Byzantine and Roman history and the eastern tribes have always been at constant war with each other.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah…but so has the rest of the world. You’re acting like that’s an anomaly. Colonialism has played a massive part in the unrest in the Middle East for centuries. And, I mean…it’s the birthplace of modern society. Humans have constantly been at war, so to paint the Middle East as particularly war-ridden without noting the effects of colonialism is disingenuous at best. The area was a valuable trade route and has been resource rich—it’s literally the Fertile Crescent.

So yeah, it’s a war torn area, but discounting the effects of colonialism dating back centuries and the fact that it’s the birthplace of agriculture…it just feels weird the way you’re putting it. As if middle eastern people are particularly conflict prone. People are conflict prone. And the rest of the world has meddled in the Middle East as long as it’s been possible. The French and the British (and Italians and Russians) literally just drew borders on a whim—and for their own ends. That’s a huge part of modern strife there. And the rest is, as I said, proxy battles for the rest of the world.

So war spans the globe, so to point out he Middle East as somehow worse while completely overlooking the cause dating back centuries (that is, colonialism), really just feels like you have some ulterior motive or are pushing some fucked up idea.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The problem here is western nations use orientalist and racist narratives to pretend as if their meddling in the Middle East is not the primary cause of modern conflict in the region. People just accept those natives uncritically and assume they must be the smart ones for having read articles in the NYT about it. Never do they study the modern history of the region and the ways in which western powers are constantly intervening.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

Exactly my point. The people who responded above seemed to imply It was the people of the Middle East that were causing wars. And as if dating back to the time before colonialism was a factor the rest of the world wasnt just as war-prone. You hit the nail on the head, it’s just a racist trope. I was just avoiding using that word for some reason. But the imperialist powers plundered and meddled in the Middle East ever since they were able to spread their influence there. That is the root cause of almost all modern Middle East strife.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (4 children)

You get downvoted out of emotional reaction but you're right. It's silly how many young people think this is all new or even fixable. You could eliminate every Jewish person from the middle east and Gaza and the people left will just start killing each other instead. It's always been tribal in the middle east and it hasn't changed in 2024. One tribe gains power and oppresses the rest, rinse and repeat.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is such a wildly naive and orientalist view of the Middle East. If you actually studied the modern history of the region you would know that since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire western powers have ceaselessly meddled in the affairs of the people there.

They’ve supported coups in order to overthrow democratic governments. They funded right wing jihadis including the precursors to and allies of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. They’ve enabled war crimes left and right. They even invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to bomb the whole region with an extensive and secretive drone program. Even now the west continues to defend authoritarian and genocidal regimes like Saudi Arabia or Israel as long as they serve their western interests regardless of their destabilizing effect.

The reality is you have no idea what a Middle East would look like without western intervention. To pretend that you do only reveals your complete ignorance and racist arrogance.

[–] kerrypacker@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Sure let's look at other places where the 'meddling western powers' have leftand peace broke out.

Oh hang on....

[–] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Based on what? The Muslims, [Palestinian] Christians, Jews, Samaritans, Polytheistic Nomads, and the Druze living in Southern Lebanon seemed to be in peace a few decades ago.

[–] RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This tacit racism and ahistorical bigotry gets upvoted. Just awful. Western meddling and Zionism is the cause.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Still doubt it's gonna escalate tbh.

They say Houthis are an Iranian proxy and yet they've done more to Israel than whatever Iran has tried directly.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago

What's saying that's not intentional? using a proxy to fight a battle is nothing new.

[–] dellish@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Yes. That's how proxies work.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 months ago

Well, yeah, if you have to do the things yourself and take direct responsibility for them, then your proxies aren't very useful

load more comments
view more: next ›