• The blame needs to lie with the aggressors, which in this case is Iran.

    This is a matter of perspective. If you were to ask Iran, they’d argue they’re supporting Palestinian freedom fighters who Israel aggressively removed from their homeland in 1948, and has been treating with aggression ever since. Back then, there were zionist groups that were labelled as terrorists. Iran has no strategic reason to oppose Israel, they have ideological and historical reasons to do so. Stopping the train of thought at “they want to weaken Israel” is not good enough, you need to grab a history book and ask yourself why they want to weaken specifically Israel so much.

    For us, it might seem that there is a conflict that started on october 7th. To them, the conflict never stopped since 48.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yes, but “aggressively removed from their homeland in 1948” also means “was voted on and approved by the UN as a direct result of what happened to the Jewish people in the world wars, and the collapse of the Ottoman empire for supporting the axis in WW1.”

      Their country tried to win a war, and failed. Why shouldn’t there be consequences for that, like getting broken up and given in pieces to various more friendly groups.

      Germany lost territory after the world wars too, but you don’t see them shooting rockets at their neighbors to get it back.

      • Yes, but “aggressively removed from their homeland in 1948” also means “was voted on and approved by the UN as a direct result of what happened to the Jewish people in the world wars, and the collapse of the Ottoman empire for supporting the axis in WW1.”

        You’re pretending that Israels independence followed the book as outlined by the UN, but that’s not entirely the case. They declared their independence earlier than was planned, and they tried to take control over more areas that the UN agreed upon. And then there’s the matter where it’s perhaps ethically dubious to let the UN divide the land with little regard to the people already living there, and them perhaps being wary (to put it lightly) of now being under the governance by a group of people who are supported by people who were part of zionist terrorist cells (the history of the Likud party is quite… colourful. I urge you to look it up in order to better understand why the Arab nations weren’t so keen on Israel).

        Their country tried to win a war, and failed. Why shouldn’t there be consequences for that, like getting broken up and given in pieces to various more friendly groups.

        Because the consequence is that Israel has treated these people as lesser than their own civilian population, leading to a lot of hardship and strife, even for those who didn’t actively participate in the war. And revanchism is a powerful and dangerous force as well. It rarely ends well. And after the war Israel took more land in violation of the UN plans. Even today Israel builds settlements in areas that don’t belong to them and which have been declared illegal by the UN.

        Germany lost territory after the world wars too, but you don’t see them shooting rockets at their neighbors to get it back.

        After Germany lost land in WW1 they famously invented rockets that they then shot at their neighbours, whilst being led by a man with a funny moustache. Revanchism from WW1 drove a lot of Germans into the grubby hands of the Nazi party.

        And after WW2 the Allies were not particularly keen on taking more land, specifically to avoid another war, instead opting for temporary occupational zones led mostly by Germans, and an effort was taken to sway the German population to the Allied side. There was land in the east that was swapped over to Poland, but this was also in part because the Soviets intended to keep former eastern Poland and wanted to move people to eastern Prussia, now owned by Poland. They also moved a lot of Germans away from that region.