49
Israel Is About to Make a Terrible Mistake
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
49 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10168 readers
2 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My guess is the logic goes like this:
Tell the evangelicals, they’re the ones who’re propping Israel up for that reason anyway
I'm really not understanding this whole "start WWIII" bit. This is, at best, a proxy war. None of the other countries are going to risk that kind of political or economical power to fight over this tiny strip of land, that has already been in its own private little war for six decades, anyway. Especially not for middle-eastern territories. The old white guys in the Western world care as much for that region as they do for African countries, which is to say not fucking much. And the last major war that was fought there that even involved the Western countries was called the "Six-Day War" for a reason.
WWII started because Hitler actually took over entire first-world countries. This is no comparison.
I think it is a reference to what certain extremist Christians believe will/should happen in the region according to their scriptures, not actually what would be politically pragmatic for any of the nations involved. (Correct me if I’m wrong?)
If Iran gets involved, Israel might respond with nukes, at which point all bets are off.
I know that sounds far fetched, but Netenyahu 'accidentally' made that threat a few weeks ago:
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230922-netanyahu-at-un-issues-nuclear-threat-to-iran-later-retracted
Nobody, however suicidal or craven, wants to be the leader that caused their country to get nuked into the stone age, or be the one firing the nukes to said country.
I also doubt Iran gets involved in any official capacity. Russia is too involved in another war to step in, and Iran is content with this being a proxy war.
And Russia has also made a bajillion nuclear threats in the last 20 months. Doesn't mean shit
Man, I would really like point 4 to happen.