Two short videos showing Israelis protesting against Israel's war against Iran and Israelis protesting against Israel state police

[timeforreflection]

Two short videos showing Israelis protesting against the actions of the Israeli state, and Israelis protesting against Israel state police.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6dJFfliqKQs

No the UK has not been attacking Russia.
I was critiquing the logic that Iran has been attacking Israel for decades because proxies were used.

SunnyToday stated:
”You posted that Iran only began bombing Israel relatively recently without acknowledging the fact that they have been bombing Israel for very many years through their proxies.”

That’s not how the law works, the attack by an alleged or acknowledged proxy of one country on another country is not considered to be an attack from one country to the other country. Only direct attacks count,

The UK and Russia example was to show how their logic fails when applied to any other conflict if you decided to count attacks by proxies as if they were done by the countries backing them.

But why did you even use the UK/ Russia example if it’s not comparable to the situation with Israel and Iran?

You said “If law worked that way, then the UK has been bombing Russia since 2014, so Russia would then have every right to bomb London.”

Neither has Ukraine been bombing Russian territory since 2014, nor has the UK been supplying them with weapons since 2014, so the analogy doesn’t work at all.

Had the UK used Ukrainian troops to launch attacks on Russian territory it would have been an entirely different story, surely.

I used it because it is both relevant and recent as we are currently fighting a proxy war with Russia. A proxy war doesn’t justify direct war.
The UK has been supplying weapons and funds since 2014 that have been used to attack Russian troops in Russian occupied/ claimed territory. You are forgetting the Ukraine separatist movement where half the country wanted to be part of Russia and the other half wanted to be aligned with Europe.

I used it mostly to show the reason why people don’t include attacks by proxies as attacks on a country. The reason is they don’t count and are not considered to be sufficient reason to launch direct attacks.

so in summary, the comment that people don’t say that Iran has attacked Israel for decades with alleged proxies is that these do not count as attacks by Iran on Israel.

This is well worth a read if you want to learn about proxy war. It specifically addresses historical, recent and current proxy wars
https://defensefeeds.com/analysis/conflicts/proxy-war/

The Shah became a close ally of the US. But in the late 1970s, millions of Iranians took to the streets against his regime, which they viewed as corrupt and illegitimate. Secular protesters opposed his authoritarianism, while Islamist protesters opposed his modernization agenda.
The Shah was toppled in the 1979 Islamic revolution, which ended the country’s Western-backed monarchy and ushered in the start of the Islamic Republic and clerical rule.”

Just to point out in relation to this paragraph that there are different ways of interpreting what happened. The Shah taking control via the coup was funded by the UK/US (he said this himself, publicly) but during the 1970s the Shah started to become more critical of the west, giving potentially embarrassing interviews saying that the west were lying about Iran, and that the Jewish Lobby controlled the US/the west, controlled the senate, the media, pretty much everything. Shortly afterwards became ill. I would not be surprised if the "popular uprising" turned out to be encouraged by the west, which then backfired.

I agree with what you said otherwise, just pointing out the above.

There is old footage of Trump from the 1980s/early 90s saying that he advocated simply taking the oil from Iran, forcibly, if they are real and not AI corrected, so the interference from the US was not imagined. I think that perhaps public opinion is changing now, that in the past the interference was accepted by a passive public, whereas the public is more critical. Or perhaps it is the possibility of wwIII which is changing public opinion.

The Russia/Ukraine example is comparable, because behind both wars are geopolitical designs and wealthy backers of desired regime changes.

And for both, sophisticated marketing and spin. And for both hatred externally manipulated between peoples.

Most people have no idea what caused what is happening in Ukraine, about the roots in the conflict going back 20 and more years.

nor has the UK been supplying them with weapons since 2014 the UK has been very active in helping build a war machine to support Ukraine since 2016, I have met engineers who were working on tanks for that purpose since 2016 personally, and Ukraine has received military aid and funding to the tune of billions since then, I think that this is well documented and common knowledge.

A reminder also that Amnesty is no longer widely regarded as providing fair and well researched reports, their input is a voice for human rights which is good (though their conduct is frequently criticised) but issues are often/sometimes - not always - more complex and contextualised than their reports allow.

And terms "democracy" and "regime" and "humane" are getting less and less clear in meaning - today I have seen a lot of reports about the fact that the death penalty is legal for "Palestinian"s in Israel who have been found to have committed certain crimes with commentators appalled about this and about the fact that there is no recriprocal punishment for non Palestinians

Your views here remain extreme - a tiny number of Iranians outside Iran support the return of the royal family (which was only put there by the west in the first place) by means of bombing; some Iranians outside of Iran express a desire to change governance in whole or in part in Iran by themselves and are notwithstanding very vocally against the bombing and against the US/Israel interference; some say that the discrediting of the current leadership is completely made up by the west and with the aim of destabilisiing so that the west gets control of oil, or Israel takes over Iran. There is a wide range of views. Generally the tiny numbers supporting bombing could tell you nothing about Iran or its people or its geography, and often know nothing about the Muslim religion even, so how are they so sure Pahlavi could rule there successfully and for the majority of the people? There is in fact support for the leadership in Iran, you cannot deny that, and as others have said, of 90M it is very unclear how many support and how many want change and how many want the US to come along and bomb, and so why do you think you know what they all want? Your response to the Iranian professor, talking from Iran, is that he is a shill. Presumably you say the same about anyone in Iran who supports current leadership? There are many different viewpoints here and very little expertise outside Iran, and unless you understand that, it is you who is "yet again denying the agency of the Iranian people".

Have you seen the videos of US soldiers about to leave to go to Iran? Their faces as they hug their relatives goodbye? Still think the bombing is a good idea?

"refusing to wear a hijab" - see the home videos, the streetwalks - many women not wearing hijab. See also the videos by young people who choose to wear the hijab. You are mixing things up with rhetoric to back your extreme views.

To explain the first point, , some commentators believe that the driving force behind external backers of Ukraine is aimed at regime change in Russia, and that the active work towards this behind the scenes started at the end of the 20th c and continues up to now. Also that sophisticated marketing has been used following play books from many previous wars and using the same tags and words (going right back to wwI even) to justify actions and get public support, and that Ukraine is being used to try achieve regime change in Russia whilst at the same time become a controlled "partner" of the backers. And that this is why the peace deal in the early days of the conflict fell apart.

Basically if these commentators are right, there would be various similarities and synergies with what is going on in the ME it seems. And for both you have some other commentators saying "evil regimes, democracy, freedom".

I am not sure this is an uncontested fact in the sense that Iran has said that the funding of Hamas, Hezbollah was to do with Iran supporting them to fight against Israel to defend themselves. Only recent conflicts are listed by @SunnyAfternoonToday whereas the conflicts, terrorism by both sides, alleged genocides and land grabbing, and wars have been going on since 1920s or so since the Mandate. So if you see Israel as the victim you see H and H as the aggressors - and vice versa - but if you stand in a neutral position you see a terrible and deadly situation which will only end if there is a 2 state agreement and every state in the region agrees to keep to its boundaries.

Its not me who is extreme in this conversation. The Islamic Republic is a grotesque regime and any equivocation about that is extreme. My Iranian friends (not Pahlavi supporters btw) would be much less polite.