cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/20919616
Senior White House figures privately told Israel that the U.S. would support its decision to ramp up military pressure against Hezbollah — even as the Biden administration publicly urged the Israeli government in recent weeks to curtail its strikes, according to American and Israeli officials.
Not everyone in the administration was on board with Israel’s shift, despite support inside the White House, the officials said. The decision to focus on Hezbollah sparked division within the U.S. government, drawing opposition from people inside the Pentagon, State Department and intelligence community who believed Israel’s move against the Iran-backed militia could drag American forces into yet another Middle East conflict.
Officials in the intelligence community, in briefings and talks with members of Congress last week, had said they were increasingly worried about the potential for a direct ground confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah. Similar conversations were occurring in the State Department, where officials were concerned about the mounting civilian death toll in Lebanon.
The internal administration division seems to have dissipated somewhat in recent days, with top U.S. officials convening Monday at the White House with President Joe Biden to discuss the situation on the ground. Most agreed that the conflict, while fragile, could offer an opportunity to reduce Iran’s influence in Lebanon and the region.
Still, the White House is walking a fine line, U.S. and Israeli officials said. The Biden administration wants to support Israel’s actions against a U.S.-designated terrorist group that has killed Americans and threatens the region. But it is not comfortable endorsing Israel’s campaign completely — or publicly — because it is worried it will creep too far into Lebanese territory, instigating an all-out war, one of the U.S. officials said.
You must log in or # to comment.
This won’t end well for anyone. What the fuck man.
Most agreed that the conflict, while fragile, could offer an opportunity to reduce Iran’s influence in Lebanon and the region.
Iran influence is based on “Israel” actions. No Genocide, No aggression, means no one would need Iran. The same in Iraq and other regions. Which makes me question the statement unless these people are really stupid.
Shades of “if we just keep indiscriminately bombing in the vicinity of where we think terrorists are, we’ll certainly reduce the influence of terrorist organizations among the populace”.
Surely it’s worth a nearly infinite number of (Arab) lives and residential buildings to kill one Hezbollah leader. After all, they’re super-terrorist masterminds without which no one could think of setting off a bomb or firing unguided rockets into Israel.
Not to mention that this is exactly how you create more terrorists (and Bibi knows this)
Out of curiosity, is there a way to find out how many Americans have been killed by Hezbollah and hamas vs Israel?
All of those numbers are teeny tiny in comparison to the number of Americans killed by America.
Are you denying Israel has the right to start World War III due to its half century of barbaric apartheid occupation and abuse of the Palestinian people?
Annihilating your neighbors because they refuse to bow down to your genocidal regime is self defense!
fuck genocde-joe and may he burn eternally in hell
They did not quietly support it, when you learn to look for their actions instead of their words.
That land is owed to Israel, it’s not an invasion and you’re an antisemite, or whatever Reddit said
Ok so I have a solution. We glass Israel, Lebanon and Iran. About 10m people per faction. We can use neutron bombs as well to make it super highly radioactive for quite a while.
That way NO ONE can live in that region and be dragged into more stupid wars and it equally distributes the deaths.
The stupidest part of this exceedingly stupid take is your assertion that the United States has any right to decide what to do halfway across the world.
Imperialism, paternalism, and down right stupidity rolled into one. An alternative solution is to “glass” you and everyone like you in countries all over the world so that we can move forward towards a solution.
Alright since you and a handful of other people didn’t pick up that I wasn’t actually serious about murdering 10m people imma respond.
This is an exceedingly complex issue that clearly can’t be solved by any of us on the internet. It was a problem started by a lot of people who are long dead. By the time I was born the whole shit show had gotten to pretty much this exact same spot.
I don’t know why the US has supported Israels actions for the past 80 years. I don’t know why they continued in the past 30 among anything. I do know that there is a lot of economic interest and military benefits in keeping Israel right where it is.
One problem is Israel has Netanyahou and other than Israeli’s we can’t do shit about that. Hezbollah is a proxy by which Iran can war with Israel. Another Problem is Iran doesn’t have the military strength to be a concern to most Western countries, but it can fuck with the whole region and fuck it’s own people quite well and happily does.
If the US stopped giving weapons to Israel (which I assume Israel isn’t actually paying for) then Israel would be forced to manufacture its own weapons internally or find some way to generate the money to buy the weapons (probably through taxes). Both of which will force Israel into a position where stupid military strikes become unpopular because of the cost to the citizens.
But from what I understand the US won’t stop giving the weapons because of the strategic importance of Israel, and protecting quite a few big companies that set up shop there. Compound that with the strange notion that the religious right has about Israel being some sort of Land for Jews at all costs.
Once you bring religion into the picture the clusterfuck being a domestic nightmare, an international nightmare, and a humanitarian nightmare.
Based on what I know, the logical choice is that the US witholds weapons. But the US didn’t. Logic keeps getting thrown out. It quickly becomes an emotional issue that no one can work together on as you and a whole bunch of other people have made a great example.
Fairness would be glassing - think along the lines of Thanos in Infinity War. It doesn’t actually solve anything, it just resets the entire geographic area to no longer be an issue.
Justice would be completely different. There will be no justice, because all the factions disagree on what that would be.
You said way more this time but still ended it with killing 10 million people and permanently destroying their homeland is “fair”.
Two women approach the king. One woman claims the other kidnapped her baby. The other claims the baby is hers. The king says fine, he’ll cut the baby in half for both of them out of fairness.
The woman with the baby sees this as technically fair.
Horrified, the woman says the other woman can keep the baby to ensure it survives.
In the rest of the parable the king gives the horrified women the baby as that is the expected response of a mother.
I am offering a fair solution. I’m not offering a realistic or sustainable solution. I have yet to hear from any faction (other that the Israeli led genocide) a detailed solution to ensuring a good outcome. This falls on the US too. The US has the capability of the King - the West as a whole can enforce it until the region can enforce it themselves.
a great demonstration of your bronze age worldview
And I have yet to hear what you consider fair.
I already said that you and everyone like you getting out of the way would be fair
