So has WW3 just started?

[Newsenmum]

I can’t believe I’m not seeing more threads on this. Starmer back israel against Iran. Other Muslim countries are supporting Iran.

If I remember, Iran bombed Israel a couple of days ago. Also, Iran's current constitution supports the destruction of Israel, and Iran funds groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Huthis in Yemen. Israel does not include the destruction of Iran in its constitution afaik.
It's Persia, btw, part of the old Ottoman Empire that was by succession the Median Empire that fought Greece at Salamis, Thermopylae, Macedon etc - they are that old and that steeped in empire-making. (Not that empires are necessarily wrong, and they are something that humans always have done and always will do - they are massive free-trade, multi-cultural enterprises, too.)
People worry about Iran because it is a fundamentalist theocratic tyrrany which is on its way to having nuclear weapons and has shown itself more than ready to carry war to other states, though usually by proxy.

You may have noticed that the PP is labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a terrorist sympathizer or supporter of genocide. Don’t waste your energy defending yourself—this isn’t about genuine dialogue or reality. It’s a tactic to shut down dissent, not to engage in serious discussion.

Because they are heartless backwards regimes?

He has and his cabinet has hinted to quite the opposite in quite a few instances. He is behaving all buddy buddy with Putin. This of pretending the old alliances are on unchanged is burying ones headin the sand. Much much much has changed since Trump's arrival to the White House.

Absolutely with you on this, @Grammarnut . Thank you for cutting through the noise with facts and clarity.
The idea that Iran is some innocent actor just minding its business until randomly attacked is completely disconnected from reality. Iran’s regime has spent decades arming and funding militant proxies across the region—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen—none of whom are shy about their genocidal rhetoric toward Israel. This isn't conjecture; it's official policy, broadcast openly and repeatedly.
What’s particularly frustrating is the naivete of many Western liberals, who—despite having access to facts—still buy into an oversimplified narrative where authoritarian regimes are somehow the oppressed underdogs. In their rush to adopt a fashionable moral posture, they ignore decades of history, double standards, and the actual power dynamics on the ground. It’s moral relativism masquerading as justice, and it does real harm.
You’re absolutely right to call out this selective outrage and revisionist framing. These conversations should be grounded in historical context, realpolitik, and facts—not slogans or knee-jerk accusations from people unwilling to engage in serious debate.

If you're referring to me, it's you who has accused me of supporting terrorism while you continue to support a genocidal regime. You've just written a post about that regime actively pursuing peace while bombing the ME, undertaking apartheid, imprisoning and torturing thousands of people and committing numerous war crimes. Israel is being run by an alleged war criminal and you think he should win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Let’s be serious. Throwing around terms like “genocidal regime” doesn’t make your argument stronger—it just shows how detached it is from reality.
For the record, I don’t support everything Israel is doing in Gaza. I have serious concerns about the scale of destruction, the civilian toll, and the broader humanitarian consequences. But I’m also capable of nuance—and of looking at this situation through a historical and factual lens rather than simplistic moral binaries.
Israel is a flawed democracy, like many others, and is currently led by a deeply controversial and divisive figure. Criticism of its leadership and military actions is absolutely valid. But calling it a genocidal regime—while ignoring the openly stated genocidal goals of Hamas, Hezbollah, and others who deliberately target civilians—cheapens the term and derails any serious conversation.
What’s even more telling is your refusal to say something as basic and humane as “Hamas should release the hostages.” That silence says a lot. Instead, you accuse anyone who disagrees with your framing of being a terrorist sympathizer or genocide supporter. That’s not debate—it’s moral posturing used to shut people down.
You talk about war crimes, apartheid, and torture while ignoring the context: a country under constant existential threat, surrounded by actors who have explicitly vowed to destroy it. You don’t have to like Israel’s government—many Israelis don’t either—but reducing this entire conflict to one-sided villainy is not only dishonest, it’s deeply unhelpful.
And no, no one seriously believes Netanyahu deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, he was voted first following Iran intentionally seeking to derail the peace process throgh Hezbollah and Hamas. However, fact is that historically, Israel has made painful, real concessions for peace. That doesn’t excuse everything that’s happening now, but it proves the situation is far more complex than the black-and-white slogans you're using.
If you’re genuinely interested in a serious, historically grounded conversation, I’m here for it. But if all you have is loaded language and bad-faith accusations, then it’s clear you’re not trying to engage—you’re just trying to shout people down.

@QuiteUnbelievable
Is your post about Christianity a reply to this convo?
I was just replying to a previous poster. I cannot make much sense on your actual post content. I quite did not gather your meaning.
What I do mean is the guys leading these conflicts can claim to follow any religion, as their actions are in full opposition to the religions themselves.
They will, at times, attempt to claim they do what they do in the name of religion. But it is not. They are just using and twisting religious beliefs.
Historically, yeah of course I agree so called Christian Kingdoms got religion and power mingled in the past, for centuries, to the detriment of the civilians and, furthermore, those conquered.
But I thought it important to make a difference, because religion itself is not to be blamed.

@DickAhOn It's you who accused me of supporting terrorism because I said that both Israel and Hamas should release their prisoners. According to you, that makes me a terrorist supporter.

I'm perfectly aware of the history behind these two countries. I'm also aware that Israel was found guilty of apartheid and is carrying out a genocide.

I've noticed a pattern with Netanyahu supporters; everyone else is to blame. If you're against war crimes, you're part of the problem. That to me has no nuance. We're where we are now because people constantly made excuses for the inexcusable. I've even had conversations where people were justifying mass starvation.

Agree that most, if not all the hostages are dead - at Israel's own hands!

Not unless you read the Mail on Sunday. Even the reader's comments don't believe such tosh. Unfortunately by commenting, the paper got its clicks.

Rather fond of how pathetically weak Trump is realising that he is.

@MushMonster I'm saying you can't at all compare the two religions main religions of Christianity and islam between Western Christianity and islam in the middle east for the reasons I've explained

@DickAhOn agree but it's not just fighting wars by proxy it's killing its own, especially of course women abs children (Iran)

OK
But it was never my intention to compare religions.
My intention is to separate the religions themselves (You shall not kill, shared by the 3 monotheist religions in the area) from whatever bullshit the participants on this conflict want to attempt to justify using religious terms and presenting their actions as justified by their twisted interpretations.
But this is of no importance, really.
The stopping these mad people and keeping the UK neutral on this war is what I would like to see from Starmer.

@MushMonster I understand

I' wasn't questioning your intention or critising it I was taking it and building on it

Sorry @QuiteUnbelievable I was not getting the point of the replies.

@JHound

@justasking111

"I asked earlier why did Kuwait kick out nearly a million Palestinians. Why won't Jordan take any more. Why wouldn't Egypt take them in?"

"Because they are heartless backwards regimes?"

FFS - don't you people have access to Google or Wikipedia??

Kuwait kicked 287k Palestinians out of Kuwait after they sided with Saddam Hussein in the invasion of Kuwait and seized Kuwaiti property.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PalestinianexodussfromKuwaitt(1990%E2%80%9391)

After admitting Palestinian refugees after the 1967 six day war, Jordan expelled the Palestinian leadership in 1971 after the PLO assassinated the PM of Jordan and when they tried to overthrow King Hussein.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September

Egypt wouldn't take the Palestinians in either when Hamas and Islamic State launched terrorist attacks against Egypt in Northern Sinai smuggling weapons and terrorists into N Sinai via tunnels, that Egypt eventually tried to stop by flooding the tunnels with sewage.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency

So in all three cases after offering refuge to Palestinians refugees, their leadership turned on their hosts.

And you wonder why neither Egypt or Jordan want to repeat this mistake?

You said this:
You seem to be trying to derail the thread by accusing people who don't support apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide of being terrorists. People who don't support war crimes are terrorists. People who don't support arbitrarily bombing countries are terrorists. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is conveniently a terrorist.
Which implies I do support apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide, committing war crimes and arbitrary bombing, and I gave evidence that I do not support these things (because I don't). That's what you did.
You also said I was derailing the thread. No, I am not.

Grammarnut · Today 13:01

Yes, @MiloMinderbinder925 is.

Is doing what?

Yes, Iran bombed Israel on Saturday, after Israel killed several citizens the previous 2 days, which including a number of scientists who were directly targetted as well as members of the government - with a total death toll of 78.

As for their constitution supporting the destruction of Israel, that's a rather telling inference, given that their constitution does not mention Israel or the zionist entity explicitly, but does call for the elimination of imperialism (Article 3) and the just struggles of the oppressed against the oppressors (Article 154)...if the cap fits, I guess.

In terms of fundamentalist theocratic tyrannies, Israel is a state whose leader invokes I Samuel 15, to describe the Palestinians as the "children of Amalek" then calls to "blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven" (the commandment originally given to the Jews during the Exodus, but which Saul rejected), while he presides over an ethno-nationalist state imprisoning, bombing and starving what is left of the 2.2 million population of Gaza.

(And, lets not forget that while Israel's nuclear weapons are illegal, uninspected and unaccountable, the US - the only state that has proven a willingness to use them against a civilian population, and which has been involved in multiple wars with millions of deaths over just the last twenty years, often utilising proxies - openly has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world.)

Iran, whose leader has repeatedly stated that nuclear weapons are against Islamic principles, and has issued a fatwa (religious judgement) to that effect seems positively benign by comparison and definitely a whole lot more sane.

Cryptic. Accusing someone of being stuff they are not. Any disagreement with you is treated as bad faith. I am going away. Not the first, I think.

What a strange reaction to someone asking you what you meant.

I told you what I meant. Buy a dictionary if you don't understand what I said and what it meant. Bye.

@1dayatatime thanks for that brilliant summary.

See... why would people use Google? Mumsnet is far better.

There was a section on LBC when a caller asked a Palestine expert about this, why doesn't Egypt take them in and I was alert whilst cooking to hear the reply... she' smoothly distracted and avoided it.