The impact of any war depends very much on where the front lines are. For both WW1 and 2, Europe was a major front line, and suffered greatly. The USA on the other hand came out of both quite well.
They will come out of it well again flogging ever more kit to Israel and benefitting massively if the price of oil goes through the roof when markets open on Monday.
Is it really that simple?
True, but an attack on an embassy is considered as an attack on the country it represents. So, technically, Israel directly attacked Iran when it attacked its embassy.
And sadly this is the reality, both sides will never accept the other's existence because of their fundamental religious differences. This isn't a war like WWII, this is a "holy war" that frightened old men engage with in the hope that their sky fairy will reward them when they die. Its beyond pathetic, and it will only change when the people supporting the frightened old men turn around and say "not in my name" to them, which sadly may never happen.
Religion is the facade these regimes use to justify their actions. It's really about land, power, control, etc., but good luck getting your populations to get on board with those reasons for war.
For those at the top religion has always been the facade. I know a lot of people draw hope from their respective religions, but their religious leaders are responsible for centuries of hate, violence and war. For any Star Trek fans out there what we need is a "First Contact" to bring some sanity into this insane world.
Netanyahu has strengthen his position for now so no change anytime soon i fear
He is the latest in a long line of autocrats/leaders who has resorted to war in order to retain power by distracting from internal struggles: Putin and the Iranian regime are other current examples; if China do invade Taiwan, Xi is another leader presiding other relative economic struggles.
Too late. Iran have been escalating conflicts in the Middle East for years. Time they were made pay a heavy price.
Though, of course, if Iran hadn't sponsored attacks on Israel via its proxies Hezbollah and the Houthis the embassy wouldn't have been bombed...
The citizens of Gaza are far from innocent. They voted in Hamas as their government and 75% of them supported the October attacks. If they had their way, Israel wouldn't exist. They have zero desire for peace. It was them that rejected the two-state solution.
Good grief, what an appalling generalisation. I don't think this line of conversation is even worth continuing with.
The war was started by the government of Gaza. Not some rogue element within a state - the actual government with support from the public.
Innocent people don't elect a terrorist organisation as their goverment. Innocent people don't support the murder and rape of thousands as well as the kidnapping of hundreds. You have a very pecular definition of innocent if you think that they are innocent. There is undoubtedly a minority that are innocent - but definitely not the majority.
Though, of course, that was nearly twenty years ago now and considering the demographics of Gaza most of the residents there now probably weren't born yet and certainly weren't old enough to take part in that election. Not sure it's viable to blame the current population for that particular election. Certainly not if one is attempting to justify the continued assault on Gazan civilians.
Yes that's the point I'm trying to make. It's reductive to try and suggest that just one thing along the lines of "x bombed y therefore y responded, if only x hadn't bombed y" would have meant the violence would not have occurred. The conflict is far more complex than that.
About half the population is under 18 and not of voting age. About half the eligible current voting population could have voted in 2006 going by the demographics. Nearly 3 in 4 supported the attacks on Israel.
So around a quarter of the current population was eligible to vote in 2006 and of that quarter perhaps a little under half voted for Hamas. Again, I'm far from convinced it's a viable argument to lay the blame on today's Palestinians for an election that happened nearly twenty years ago in which only a fraction were eligible to vote in that election and only a fraction of that fraction actually voted for Hamas.
Perhaps so though what is the reliability of polling in Gaza? Considering that Hamas will happily torture and murder those who they suspect of collaboration with Israel I'm not entirely sure how much you can trust anyone to give an accurate response to a pollster. Even if they do surely that is simply a reflection of the ongoing destruction and killing by Israel against them and their family/friends?
