Last Friday, I had planned for Shalzed to send a question related to personal sanctions against government officials as a means of protesting violations of human rights.
Israel has been under attack since Iran’s proxies struck in October 2023, if not before. So Iran is in no position to complain now that its proxies are no longer particularly useful. I wouldn’t have called it preemptive, because this is just a continuation of an already simmering conflict.
For what it's worth, there has actually been academic sort of debate about that, whether the war between Israel and Hezbollah, as Iran's proxy, means that Israel and Iran should also be considered at war.
Based on the arguments put forward here, would a preemptive strike on the US, say to US bases that would be used to attack an enemy, or even DC where the political decision makers are located, by the Iraqi military leading up to the 2003 invasion (which was pretty eminent), be justified? Or how about a naval base in Hawaii in 1941, after the US goaded Japan into an attack so as to enter WW2? I am a Jew and believe in Israel’s sovereignty, but I’m not sure where the line is. Like many American Jews I am deeply disturbed by Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank. I have no answers and apparently few if any do, except to resort to use of force and extreme violence.
Alan- These are exactly the questions I meant to point out. Even for those of us who may be sympathetic to Israel's goal of preventing Iraq from acquiring a nuclear weapon, the precedent here is very disturbing. The same logic Israel is using to justify this preemptive strike as legitimate self-defense could be used to justify nearly any preemptive military action. That is both troubling in its own right and antithetical to the goal of removing force as a legitimate tool of international relations.
Given Iran was / is the “source behind Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis… is striking Iran really preemptive or just the extension of the battle coming to the nucleus rather than being fought over proxies?
Israel has been under attack since Iran’s proxies struck in October 2023, if not before. So Iran is in no position to complain now that its proxies are no longer particularly useful. I wouldn’t have called it preemptive, because this is just a continuation of an already simmering conflict.
For what it's worth, there has actually been academic sort of debate about that, whether the war between Israel and Hezbollah, as Iran's proxy, means that Israel and Iran should also be considered at war.
Based on the arguments put forward here, would a preemptive strike on the US, say to US bases that would be used to attack an enemy, or even DC where the political decision makers are located, by the Iraqi military leading up to the 2003 invasion (which was pretty eminent), be justified? Or how about a naval base in Hawaii in 1941, after the US goaded Japan into an attack so as to enter WW2? I am a Jew and believe in Israel’s sovereignty, but I’m not sure where the line is. Like many American Jews I am deeply disturbed by Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank. I have no answers and apparently few if any do, except to resort to use of force and extreme violence.
Alan- These are exactly the questions I meant to point out. Even for those of us who may be sympathetic to Israel's goal of preventing Iraq from acquiring a nuclear weapon, the precedent here is very disturbing. The same logic Israel is using to justify this preemptive strike as legitimate self-defense could be used to justify nearly any preemptive military action. That is both troubling in its own right and antithetical to the goal of removing force as a legitimate tool of international relations.
Given Iran was / is the “source behind Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis… is striking Iran really preemptive or just the extension of the battle coming to the nucleus rather than being fought over proxies?