WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The killing of three U.S. troops and wounding of dozens more on Sunday by Iran-backed militants is piling political pressure on President Joe Biden to deal a blow directly against Iran, a move he’s been reluctant to do out of fear of igniting a broader war.
Biden’s response options could range anywhere from targeting Iranian forces outside to even inside Iran, or opting for a more cautious retaliatory attack solely against the Iran-backed militants responsible, experts say.
American forces in the Middle East have been attacked more than 150 times by Iran-backed forces in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and off the coast of Yemen since the Israel-Hamas war erupted in October.
But until Sunday’s attack on a remote outpost known as Tower 22 near Jordan’s northeastern border with Syria, the strikes had not killed U.S. troops nor wounded so many. That allowed Biden the political space to mete out U.S. retaliation, inflicting costs on Iran-backed forces without risking a direct war with Tehran.
Unconditional surrender worked out pretty well for Japan and Germany. Palestine keeps choosing violence, losing more and more because of it, and they’re all out of ideas.
You always go on about this, but just for anyone who actually buys this Germany and Japan are completely different situations. More correct comparisons would be North Ireland during the Troubles or Apartheid South America, or the civil rights movement in America. Something tells me unconditional surrender wouldn’t have helped in these situations.
Palestine is a separate nation than Israel. I suppose the troubles is the most comparable of all of these examples, but the methods Palestinians use make even Sinn Fein distance themselves from them.
My point is that choosing violence didn’t work for Palestine, they lose more and more every time they try it, yet polling shows most still want intifada, most don’t want a two-state solution, or a one state solution where Jews have equal rights. Around 3/4 approve of October 7th and Hamas.
Well, with this sort of hard line approach, a hard line response is unsurprising. Perhaps it’s time to try something new.
The reason the civil rights movement was successful is because they embraced pacifism. Where is the Palestinian MLK or Gandhi?
My point is that choosing violence didn’t work for Palestine, they lose more and more every time they try it, yet polling shows most still want intifada, most don’t want a two-state solution, or a one state solution where Jews have equal rights.
Violence is at least producing results (declining international support for Israel). Peace (the Oslo accords) did nothing except give us the dysfunctional PA and ever-increasing numbers of settlements. Remember the Great March of Return where nothing happened except Palestinians getting shot by laughing IDF snipers? You can’t have peace with an oppressor that rejects your existence.
the methods Palestinians use make even Sinn Fein distance themselves from them.
Yes but no. The IRA also relied a lot on car bombing and other blatant terror actions, because nothing else worked. That’s the case in Palestine, and in settler colonialist societies in general; when you outnumber the natives (or at least have numerical parity with them), there’s no reason to listen to their demands since they have no leverage. That’s how you get violence; it’s a way to produce leverage out of nothing.
The civil rights act was only passed after the riots that came after MLK’s death. There was very much violence involved, though that violence would’ve been impossible without the base MLK built.
Where is the Palestinian MLK or Gandhi?
Those two lived in completely different situations. Also they weren’t peaceful; they were nonviolent. On the subject of MLK, where are the Israeli youth who are going to march with said Palestinian MLK? Where’s the unfair but at least functional justice system they can use to fight against Apartheid? And that’s not to mention how Israel’s left wing basically rolled over and died in the 80s. The base that MLK used in America simply doesn’t exist in Israel. Palestine is under a military occupation; they get tried by military courts and can be shot by Israeli soldiers and civilians with impunity. That’s not a situation where you can peacefully resist; the closest anybody got to that was the first Intifada, and look how that turned out.
In Gandhi’s case, he correctly observed that the British occupation of India was impossible without the cooperation of Indians, so he called on Indians to completely boycott the occupation government and let it collapse. Palestine is different; Israel can (and is in the case of Gaza) maintain their occupation with exactly 0 Palestinian cooperation. Palestine is a cage with people locked inside by Israeli people with guns, and every other day the cage gets just a little smaller. There’s very little you can do in that situation except violent resistance. This is why I prefer the comparison with the Troubles; it gets most accurately the situation Palestine is in across, and why “well they should just negotiate peacefully” doesn’t work.
