Hamas Attacks Israel

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Btw I think chain of command was based on Iran.

[phantom000]

We could just try to stop giving them weapons funding and see how that works. Has anyone tried that or are we going to keep rubber stamping it in the hope that maybe they'll listen if the US asks politely?

What, and risk the cannon fodder for a hypothetical war with Iran not being fully equipped?

Please elaborate. I'm not very familiar with the role Iran plays in this situation.

The US has been funding the IDF to act as a local proxy for generations. That's a very expensive bridge to burn.

But if you don't you're basically giving Netanyahu a blank check to do whatever he wants because the US will always back him up and that is frightening to consider because that's basically how World War One started back in 1914.

[CharlesPhipps]

But if you don't you're basically giving Netanyahu a blank check to do whatever he wants because the US will always back him up and that is frightening to consider because that's basically how World War One started back in 1914.

Like I said, Biden hopes that being on the inside of the tent will allow pressure to be exerted to, well, not do a genocide. Unfortunately, it's not working. The problem is that Netanyahu can do a genocide perfectly fine on his own and he's an autocratic Far Right populist elected on a policy of anti-Palestinianism to begin with.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

We could just try to stop giving them weapons funding and see how that works. Has anyone tried that or are we going to keep rubber stamping it in the hope that maybe they'll listen if the US asks politely?

What, and risk the cannon fodder for a hypothetical war with Iran not being fully equipped?

Please elaborate. I'm not very familiar with the role Iran plays in this situation.

The US has been funding the IDF to act as a local proxy for generations. That's a very expensive bridge to burn.

But if you don't you're basically giving Netanyahu a blank check to do whatever he wants because the US will always back him up and that is frightening to consider because that's basically how World War One started back in 1914.

I'd say it's more like how the US got involved in WWII lol.

The US is mainly an economic octopus in the region. A nuisance in its own right in the food chain, but hardly an apex predator of sorts.

[phantom000]

We could just try to stop giving them weapons funding and see how that works. Has anyone tried that or are we going to keep rubber stamping it in the hope that maybe they'll listen if the US asks politely?

What, and risk the cannon fodder for a hypothetical war with Iran not being fully equipped?

Please elaborate. I'm not very familiar with the role Iran plays in this situation.

The US has been funding the IDF to act as a local proxy for generations. That's a very expensive bridge to burn.

But if you don't you're basically giving Netanyahu a blank check to do whatever he wants because the US will always back him up and that is frightening to consider because that's basically how World War One started back in 1914.

I'd say it's more like how the US got involved in WWII lol.

The US is mainly an economic octopus in the region. A nuisance in its own right in the food chain, but hardly an apex predator of sorts.

To me this feels more like 1914. The Russian Empire pledged to support Serbia in a war with Austria so when the Arch Duke was killed the Serbs rejected all of Austria's demands thinking they were safe since how could Austria win against the Russians? Except Austria had received basically the same promise from Germany, that they would support Austria if it came to war, with anyone. So when the war started it wasn't Austria and Serbia fighting it was Germany and Russia and Britain and France were worried what it would mean if Germany won so they joined in.*

Now, before anyone says anything; yes this is a very simplified summary of events but I want focus on the risks of what happens when you pledge your support to someone and don't impose any limitations or threats to withdraw that support. If you tell Netanyahu that the US is going to support his war in Gaza, regardless of how the war is conducted or whatever happens to the Palestinian people, then how are you not making the same mistake Germany and Russia made in 1914? What if Netanyahu doesn't stop with Gaza and decides to pick a fight with Egypt or Iraq, what then? Is the US still going to support Netanyahu and Israel when they become the aggressors?

Granted that would be a kind of worse case scenario, but I think it is fair to ask what is stopping it, or something like it, from happening?

[CmdrKing]

But if you don't you're basically giving Netanyahu a blank check to do whatever he wants because the US will always back him up and that is frightening to consider because that's basically how World War One started back in 1914.

Like I said, Biden hopes that being on the inside of the tent will allow pressure to be exerted to, well, not do a genocide. Unfortunately, it's not working. The problem is that Netanyahu can do a genocide perfectly fine on his own and he's an autocratic Far Right populist elected on a policy of anti-Palestinianism to begin with.

I doubt that was ever the reasoning. What happened was, Hamas having hostages overrided the normal course of events of immediately calling for restraint, and since losing that week to rah rah bloodlust they’ve been caught entirely flat footed by how far Israel is ready to go and no longer have a meaningful exit strategy.

Fundamentally the issue is that Netanyahu is among history’s greatest monsters but spent 25 years and every ounce of his political capital convincing the US and EU he was a tough man making tough choices, and nobody in politics has the courage to say “this genocidal maniac completely snowed us and we have to make it right.”

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

We could just try to stop giving them weapons funding and see how that works. Has anyone tried that or are we going to keep rubber stamping it in the hope that maybe they'll listen if the US asks politely?

What, and risk the cannon fodder for a hypothetical war with Iran not being fully equipped?

Please elaborate. I'm not very familiar with the role Iran plays in this situation.

The US has been funding the IDF to act as a local proxy for generations. That's a very expensive bridge to burn.

But if you don't you're basically giving Netanyahu a blank check to do whatever he wants because the US will always back him up and that is frightening to consider because that's basically how World War One started back in 1914.

I'd say it's more like how the US got involved in WWII lol.

The US is mainly an economic octopus in the region. A nuisance in its own right in the food chain, but hardly an apex predator of sorts.

To me this feels more like 1914. The Russian Empire pledged to support Serbia in a war with Austria so when the Arch Duke was killed the Serbs rejected all of Austria's demands thinking they were safe since how could Austria win against the Russians? Except Austria had received basically the same promise from Germany, that they would support Austria if it came to war, with anyone. So when the war started it wasn't Austria and Serbia fighting it was Germany and Russia and Britain and France were worried what it would mean if Germany won so they joined in.*

Now, before anyone says anything; yes this is a very simplified summary of events but I want focus on the risks of what happens when you pledge your support to someone and don't impose any limitations or threats to withdraw that support. If you tell Netanyahu that the US is going to support his war in Gaza, regardless of how the war is conducted or whatever happens to the Palestinian people, then how are you not making the same mistake Germany and Russia made in 1914? What if Netanyahu doesn't stop with Gaza and decides to pick a fight with Egypt or Iraq, what then? Is the US still going to support Netanyahu and Israel when they become the aggressors?

Granted that would be a kind of worse case scenario, but I think it is fair to ask what is stopping it, or something like it, from happening?

A major difference is the association of the UN, which had only been conceived as an associative concept after WWI.

Up until Trump, the US was consistent with UN policy discretion, while Biden himself now is trying to get ahead of the curve with it.

This has always been an internationally conscious endeavor by the US, directed by IGO diplomats more than federal.

[TGLS]

Once again, I have to ask the question that nobody answered. Why are Democrats supporting this? What is their motive? What do they get out of it? I already know why the Republicans are doing it, but the Democrats I don't understand.

Well lots of Americans are Pro-Israel

[CharlesPhipps]

Also, I keep pointing out that Hamas did launch an unprovoked terror campaign against civilians. They absolutely need to go and if they aren't removed, it's solely because Israel wants them still in power.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

, it's solely because Israel wants them still in power.

So you mean they're trying to follow in the vein of Ukraine by terms of support from the global community?