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.

Archive link

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      You said way more this time but still ended it with killing 10 million people and permanently destroying their homeland is “fair”.

      • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

              • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Oh you mean the glass the West thing.

                I guess I didn’t even think of that as being a solution to the Israel problem because it just removes countries with their shit together. And the only real country that could glass the West is probably China given that Russia threatening nuclear consequences so often has clearly painted them as not having any that function.

                If China did that, it wouldn’t really be fair to the Chinese due to the massive amounts of IP and funds they rely on external to their country. Not to mention all the other companies that depend on globalization.

                I mean if you think shits bad now wait until it’s just countries where there is absolutely no voting, no education, and it’s run by cults. I don’t think that’s very fair. Plus, you’re talking billions of lives of one side of an issue rather than 10 million equally distributed between sides.

                Getting people out of the way is precisely the problem. Netanyahou wants his opposition out of the way. To do that he intends to distract by getting Palestinians out of the way. Iran has some connection to that I don’t understand still so they fund Hezbollah to get the IDF out of the way, which then Israel wants to get Lebanon out of the way to get to Hezbollah out of the way. At which point it becomes Iran and Israel trying to get eachother out of the way. If total nuclear annihilation was your solution, that seems far more fair than just the West.

                • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I’m not gonna read all that but no I don’t mean “the West” I mean people like you whose opinions are not useful. It can be glassing, shutting up, or otherwise fucking off for all I care.

                  Adults are speaking

                  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    You’re hardly speaking, you’re just saying I’m evil for offering up a terrible yet balanced solution.

                    And if you’re not going to read my arguments I can tell you don’t actually have anything to gain or lose in this conversation, you’re merely here to stroke fire.

                    Maybe that’s what I’m doin? Maybe I’m trying to infuriate you? Or maybe I’m trying to get your mind to stop being so emotional about this and realize that feelings are going to get in the way the whole time. Deescalating any of this requires calm.

                    And my solution would certainly calm things down there. Maybe not from Iranian allies or Israel allies, but in the area they would be.