Why is Israel determined to start WW3?

[ssd]

What is wrong with them?

This isn't self defense, they attacked Iran first.

Netanyahu needs to go, I'm sure the ordinary Israeli people don't want this either. At least i hope they don't.

I’m nor talking about the hostages, but about the settlement policies that have been claiming Palestine lands for decades.

How can Israel ignore the hostages in a peace deal?

A few hostages vs war/ peace in an entire region. This has never been about the hostages.

This is a weird take. But anyway, you dont get to just move the goalposts. You said Israel was only interested in peace in its own terms. Yet evidence suggests that is not entirely true. You cant just say you dont like the evidence & would like to talk about something else. I think its probably true that some Israelis are willing to sacrifce the hostages in a bigger picture. I fear its academic anyway as I doubt they are all alive. Part of that bigger picture is that Hamas chose to conduct the largest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, with the backing of Iran. I think for all Israelis it very much is about that.

Men and ego explains most war.

I don't think either side give a shit about any hostages.

I agree.
Killing each others children for decades over a little bit of land.

I think that will be it for a while. The brush off from Israel's attack is indicative of Iran not responding.
I think things will start to quieten down now.... until the next time.
I do not believe we will have WW3 any time soon. I do believe we will keep edging closer to it though but not enough for all out war. I hate these tense times.

Let's imagine, just for a minute, that the entire world, and every person in it was pacifist. Human beings could have built such a wonderful world. Just think of all the money even that we could have spent on other things.
I know it could never happen btw, human beings are sadly far to blood thirsty and hate filled.

And the ridiculous playground, must have last word, nonsense. WTAF!

Isreal has done a fantastic job of ignoring the hostages whilst carpet bombing and starving Gaza.

They have not been carpet bombing. The inability to use google explains a lot of your analysis. No point in continuing to debate with you, I think.

The whole thing is an epic shit show.

Iran is a country being run under a hostile theocratic dictatorship masquerading as a democracy (it has elections from time to time), that opresses its people, particularly women. It has a long history of hostility and proxy-violence to the Jewish state and people.

Israel at the moment is not actually that much better. Netanyahu is a war-hungry ghoul who wishes to annihilate Iran as much as Iran does Israel. He appears to be looking for any excuse to start proper country to country conflict. But seems also insistent to drag the west in too.

both countries are interesting as they have governments with a core religious aspect and context and I think that’s problematic anyway; I do not think religion and government go together, or rather governments should not favour people of different religions over others, or enforce religious observances. That is not democracy.

Iran is currently playing a very interesting game of appearing to be the most reasonable. The consulate attack was problematic - even if there were terrorist groups and senior military officials meeting there, Iran cannot just come out and say ‘oh yeah it doesn’t matter that you bombed our consulate because they were bad guys’. So they planned the most feeble attack imaginable, with tons of notice. They put a few big weapons on the end to make a point but gently. Israel has gone back and the press narrative this week is ‘Iran started it with the drones’ but the issue is that this has been going on forever.

There is a Persian saying ‘cut their throat with a feather’ which makes me slightly nervous about what comes next. Iran being measured isn’t always a good thing.

but my big personal issue at the moment is that this whole thing is a massive distraction from the absolute atrocities being carried out by the IDF in Gaza. The Palestinian people are all just caught up in this.

Change ‘human beings’ to ‘men’.

Has anyone else that has responded or read this thread actually been to Israel? I have (not really as a tourist) and certainly it is a strange experience with the level of 'security' being akin to state paranoia. I would not bother going again as even the rough dangerous end of Sao Paulo felt more welcoming generally. This is not to say individuals were not very hopspitable BUT there is a permanent air of tension. Damascus (with the ever present possibilities of bomb threats (when I went) felt more relaxed and open.

indiscriminate bombing is probably the most accurate. Although with up to 80% of Gaza destroyed, it’s a bit of a moot point.

Perhaps you should read into the history, back to before the 1940s.

It's really quite self-centered and completely inaccurate to think 'it's all Britain's fault for interfering' or that 'Britain gave Israel to the Jews'. It's quite strange how that's become a standard narrative. Part of our post-colonial self flagellation combined with self-importance, I suppose. And definitely a bit of anti-semitism in it too - in terms of not recognising that Jewish people are just as local to the area as Arabs and holding both to the same standard.

@IItisymoi I had the impression that the British were an enemy that had to be kicked out by Jewish fighter groups, hence King David Hotel bombing etc. It didn't seem like Britain gave them the the land, more like they gave up and left, and the UN attempted to resolve issues by partitioning. There was quite a good TV film called 'The Promise', I think, which gave that impression, though years since I've seen it.

I really dislike the term "the Arabs" as much as I dislike the term " The Jews".
An Egyptian/a Moroccan/An Algerian are all Arabs as much as a French/a Pole/an Italian are all Europeans.
When people refer to Palestinians as Arabs, they are, in my view, making no distinction between different nationalities/culture/customs/cuisine.
I am French before being an European.

A Gazan is a Palestinian before being an Arab.
I have noticed that this term is used by pro Israeli government posters in general. I would like to understand why.

Whether you are in support of Israel's prosecution of this war or not there is no way that Israel is not much better than Iran. Try being a woman or a gay person and see how you get on in each (I suspect about an hour will be all you need). Israel's problem is too much democracy leading to small extremist parties & political groupings holding too much power in coalition governments. There is no evidence that Neyanyahu wants to annhilate Iran except in his dreams (the Iranian peoole would also, mostly, like to annhilate their leadership). He is just warning them not to try & annhilate Israel which Iran certainly would like to do & trying to control their influence which is an entirely legitimate thing to do.

I don't feel able to comment as I'd really like to but I am equally bemused at the fact the rest of the world appears to be somehow fine about not stopping it. I know there have been many protests around the world by all kinds of people - including many, many ordinary decent Israelis who are absolutely horrified at what is being done in their name.

Yet somehow these protests never seem to make it to the mainstream media.

Future generations will judge us very harshly - if, if course, there's anyone left TO judge, because at this rate I'm not convinced there will be.

I use the terms primarily to describe ethnicity, but sometimes also cultural identity which crosses countries. I do that when it seems the accurate term. I can't guarantee that I haven't mistakenly used it in other ways, but accuracy is generally my intention.

I use the term 'Arabs' when the discussion requires me to distinguish people of the ethnicity who originated on the Arabic Peninsula - who tend to share a culture - from people of Jewish ethnicity - who tend to share a different culture.

I especially use it when talking historically about a time when both lived in the area which now forms Israel, and the people of Arabic ethicity didn't have any other specific national or cultural name to identify them.

I find it revisionist to use the term 'Palestinians' for Palestinian Arabs when talking about the period before 'Palestinian' became a national identity in the 60s.

The British did talk about 'Palestinian Arabs' and 'Palestinian Jews' - but at that time 'Palestinian' referred to the region rather than a specific national identity - in the same way as we might refer to 'European Jews'. I drop 'Palestinian' from both when it's obvious we're talking about that region.

I also use it for current people when I'm talking about a cultural identity across a number of nationalities, very much as I'd use the term 'Europeans' to group British, French, German, Italian people when talking about some shared cultural ideas. 'European' describes a geographic area, but it can also be used to describe shared traditional culture across the different countries, where that shared culture stems from our shared history, from a time when people didn't tend to travel so far. (Of course, we also sometimes use the term European to describe citizenship or geography)

I don't think either term is offensive when used in that way.

Sorry, that post was to @Auvergne63

You see I would have been with you on this until they started genocide - imagine being a woman or child in Gaza and see if you still think they are better. They've sunk to the same level.

There focused on getting that 500 trillion worth of gas of the gaza strip coast line plus they want to build there beach houses on gaza they want the Palestinian people gone, look at all the land Israel has stolen already this is all about greed, uk and America has already signed deals for gas with Israel. The whole world is watching a genocide and doing nothing because the mainstream media has it so twisted