[dotancohen]

That's why they've been hitting residential buildings and hotels as well? They assume that because their proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah) hide in civilian structures, so does the US army?

All these attempts to justify Iranian terror demonstrate just how deep Qatari influence online has been. And even Qatar is being attacked by Iran now.

[kasey_junk]

Is Hezbollah hiding in the elementary school that got bombed? Perhaps that’s where the Iranian nuclear research was done?

We attacked them. Full stop. And as far as I can tell we haven’t given them any conditions for when we will stop bombing them. In what moral framework do you have to just accept another sovereign, a vastly more powerful one, invading your country without fighting back?

[Symbiote]

It's not quite as clear-cut as it might first seem.

The school was either within or bordering a military barracks, depending which way you wish to spin it.

Al-Jazeera's article has obvious bias, but plenty of pictures and diagrams:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/3/questions-over-minab...

[dotancohen]

Thank you for the link. AlJazeera is blocked in my country, but I was able to read it. Why is the school called Shajareh Tayyebeh, Arabic for Good Tree? Don't the Iranians speak Persian? Why an Arabic name?

[ta20240528]

I can't guess what the USA wants other than a distraction from the raping-of- children saga, but I bet Israel would settle for "we acknowledge your right to exist and won't fund or encourage organisations that plan to harm you."

If Saudi Arabia can get there…

[kasey_junk]

The world has seen what Israel does when they’re attacked. They don’t get to set moral frameworks anymore.

[ta20240528]

Agreed. But that wasn't the OP's question.

[dotancohen]

Who in your opinion sets the moral framework for defending oneself against an enemy which has sworn genocide and proven capable of destroying entire peaceful villages along their borders?

[arbitrary_name]

you're describing Israel here, right?

[dotancohen]

Which village in Gaza do you consider to have been peaceful?

[JasonADrury]

There are no peaceful villages in Israel, they exist only due to recent violence.

[dotancohen]

You do not consider Kibbutz Beeri to have been a peaceful village bordering Gaza? Or you are just unfamiliar with the area?

I challenge you to research Kibbutz Beeri and find a non-peaceful description of the village.

[ta20240528]

[flagged]

[dotancohen]

The IDF did not starve civilians - that lie has already been disproven. I know that you'd love to repeat it until history records it, but by no objective measure was there famine nor starvation in Gaza. Other than the starvation of Hamas' hostages.

The images of "starving children" were images of children with other medical conditions. The UN reports used a metric that considered starvation at HALF the threshold used in every other conflict zone, and even with that metric only found "evidence" in a single location once.

[pydry]

israel will never be reasonable. we can bully them or appease them but they cannot be reasoned with.

appeasement is seemingly having the same effect it did when chamberlain did it.

[JasonADrury]

Why should Israel have a right to exist? And under what parameters? Within which borders? Who gets citizenship?

Surely there's no moral case to be made for Israel having a right to exist in its current religious ethnostate form? People who presumably should have citizenship due to their ties to the land area are excluded because they believe in the wrong ancient delusions.

[dotancohen]

  > Why should Israel have a right to exist?

There are at least three basic answers to that question, depending upon one's worldview.

1. Israel does not have a right to exist, in fact no state has "a right to exist".

2. Israel has a right to exist because her citizens successfully defend her from those who wish her not to exist.

3. Israel has a right to exist because the UN declared it.

  >>> random.randrange(1,4)
  3

That's the tough one, but I'll answer under that worldview for the remainder of the reply...

  > And under what parameters?

Under the parameters established by her founders, and the UN, and those established by her neighbouring states.

From the Israeli declaration of independence:

  "WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness"
  - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_(Israel)

From the neighbouring states:

  "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel."
  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit

Need I remind you that seven nations attacked Israel on the day of her independence? That attack caused a million and a half people to become refugees - both Arabs in the holy land and Jews in the rest of the middle east. It also moved the lines of control from the UN partition plan lines to the 1948 cease fire lines - which far favoured the Jewish state and extended in some places to the internationally recognised borders of Mandatory Palestine.

  > Within which borders?

Within the borders of the predecessor state, Mandatory Palestine, just like all other newly-established states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis_juris). Had the Arabs founded an Arab state on the remaining lands of Mandatory Palestine then I would argue that Israel should be established only on the land allocated by the UN and the land lost by the Arabs in their failed war. But the Arabs never established a state there.

  > Who gets citizenship?

The people who live within the borders of the new state, and those whom the state determines are eligible for immigration. Just like every other state.

In other words, there is no reason to treat Israel any differently than any other state on the planet.

[cced]

> We attacked them

During negotiations, for the second time.

[dotancohen]

Negotiations during which the Iranians continuously stalled and continued their nuclear work. The threat of attack was part of the US negotiation strategy, and the Iranians thought they would call the "bluff". They were wrong.

[LAC-Tech]

Gentiles have a right to defend themselves.

[dotancohen]

Which is exactly why I expect the Americans to destroy the nuclear capability of the state that regularly chants "Death to America".

[LAC-Tech]

Did they chant that before or after hamas beheaded 40 babies? I lose track of all the lies.

[atsaloli]

The primary condition is giving up nuclear ambitions.

[randunel]

Quid pro quo? Whoever requests that of others must do the same.

[LAC-Tech]

It is too late, Israel already has nuclear weapons.

[lyu07282]

> All these attempts to justify Iranian terror

At the end of the day you have to understand the reality that Iran is a sovereign nation that is going to defend itself. And yes they are hitting residential buildings and hotels with US military personnel present. None of this is terrorism, this is a nation state retaliating after an attack on their nation, you have to understand this basic concept, actions have consequences.

This is not propaganda, you are just willfully ignorant. If you want to destroy Iran you have to take retaliation into account, everything else is just propaganda, what do you expect them to do instead? Just lie down and take it?

You can't use retaliation of the nation you attacked as justification of why the attack was justified, its circular logic, this is textbook propaganda you are repeating.

[LAC-Tech]

I genuinetely do not think Hasbara like this works anymore. The overton window on this has irrevocably shifted since 2023 and it would be a better strategy for you to live within this new reality, rather than making ludicrous claims that the middle eastern country most vehemently trying to shape western views on the region is... Qatar. It just comes across as an obvious projection, and only encourages sentiment that has a real potential to become harmful to you personally.

That is, unless posts like thos are designed to encourage that sentiment, which I sometimes suspect.

[lyu07282]

I think this shifted overtone window has partially to do with why they started this war to begin with, they see the writing on the wall and their window of opportunity is closing. Trump is at historic lows in polling [1]; 65% of democrats now sympathize more with Palestinians over Israelis (17%) [2]. HN is just a generally reactionary place, I wouldn't read to much into that.

[1] https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil...

[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead...

[bayindirh]

I believe they have warned that any country offering support will be targeted, even before the attacks began.

So they are cowards if they do what they say, and they are cowards if they don't do anything.

What should they do? Evacuate the country and offer the land for free?

[throw-the-towel]

> They assume that because their proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah) hide in civilian structures, so does the US army?

> Two US Defense Department employees were wounded when an Iranian drone struck a hotel in Bahrain's capital Manama, The Washington Post reported Monday.

[dotancohen]

Are you suggesting that two people sleeping in a hotel makes the hotel a valid military target? Because people have been telling Israelis for years that hospitals, mosques, residential apartment buildings, and schools from which rockets are stored and launched are not valid military targets, even when these activities are supported by the building administration and the rocket handlers are clearly visible.

[XorNot]

I mean if you want to put your geopolitical blinkers on, sure...but how to beat America is old news at this point: cause casualties however you can, and wait for the US to give up.

Complain about it all you want but what are you going to do? The US is already bombing them.

Perhaps all of this goes into the big bucket labelled "war is expensive and unpredictable, maybe try diplomacy?"

Which the current administration has made a note of promptly tearing up prior agreements with everyone anyway so...whoops I guess.