cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/20919616

Senior White House figures privately told Israel that the U.S. would support its decision to ramp up military pressure against Hezbollah — even as the Biden administration publicly urged the Israeli government in recent weeks to curtail its strikes, according to American and Israeli officials.

Not everyone in the administration was on board with Israel’s shift, despite support inside the White House, the officials said. The decision to focus on Hezbollah sparked division within the U.S. government, drawing opposition from people inside the Pentagon, State Department and intelligence community who believed Israel’s move against the Iran-backed militia could drag American forces into yet another Middle East conflict.

Officials in the intelligence community, in briefings and talks with members of Congress last week, had said they were increasingly worried about the potential for a direct ground confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah. Similar conversations were occurring in the State Department, where officials were concerned about the mounting civilian death toll in Lebanon.

The internal administration division seems to have dissipated somewhat in recent days, with top U.S. officials convening Monday at the White House with President Joe Biden to discuss the situation on the ground. Most agreed that the conflict, while fragile, could offer an opportunity to reduce Iran’s influence in Lebanon and the region.

Still, the White House is walking a fine line, U.S. and Israeli officials said. The Biden administration wants to support Israel’s actions against a U.S.-designated terrorist group that has killed Americans and threatens the region. But it is not comfortable endorsing Israel’s campaign completely — or publicly — because it is worried it will creep too far into Lebanese territory, instigating an all-out war, one of the U.S. officials said.

Archive link

        • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Oh you mean the glass the West thing.

          I guess I didn’t even think of that as being a solution to the Israel problem because it just removes countries with their shit together. And the only real country that could glass the West is probably China given that Russia threatening nuclear consequences so often has clearly painted them as not having any that function.

          If China did that, it wouldn’t really be fair to the Chinese due to the massive amounts of IP and funds they rely on external to their country. Not to mention all the other companies that depend on globalization.

          I mean if you think shits bad now wait until it’s just countries where there is absolutely no voting, no education, and it’s run by cults. I don’t think that’s very fair. Plus, you’re talking billions of lives of one side of an issue rather than 10 million equally distributed between sides.

          Getting people out of the way is precisely the problem. Netanyahou wants his opposition out of the way. To do that he intends to distract by getting Palestinians out of the way. Iran has some connection to that I don’t understand still so they fund Hezbollah to get the IDF out of the way, which then Israel wants to get Lebanon out of the way to get to Hezbollah out of the way. At which point it becomes Iran and Israel trying to get eachother out of the way. If total nuclear annihilation was your solution, that seems far more fair than just the West.

          • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m not gonna read all that but no I don’t mean “the West” I mean people like you whose opinions are not useful. It can be glassing, shutting up, or otherwise fucking off for all I care.

            Adults are speaking

            • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              You’re hardly speaking, you’re just saying I’m evil for offering up a terrible yet balanced solution.

              And if you’re not going to read my arguments I can tell you don’t actually have anything to gain or lose in this conversation, you’re merely here to stroke fire.

              Maybe that’s what I’m doin? Maybe I’m trying to infuriate you? Or maybe I’m trying to get your mind to stop being so emotional about this and realize that feelings are going to get in the way the whole time. Deescalating any of this requires calm.

              And my solution would certainly calm things down there. Maybe not from Iranian allies or Israel allies, but in the area they would be.

              • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                what is this Thanos-ass argument you’re trying to legitimize by your persistence? No one takes it seriously and you’re unwell for suggesting it. I’m glad you’re nobody.

                • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Trying to legitimize? I want you to come up with a better solution that involves less death since that seems to have set you off.

                  The personal attacks are a bit odd. Unwell and a nobody?

                  If that were truly the case, I assume you wouldn’t have continued this conversation. You see some benefit in continuing to engage.

                  Or, you have a personal policy to always have the last say. Which means we could go on forever, and personally, that might be fun to try.

                  • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    To be fair your solution has to be among the top for most deaths, at least in the short term. And you can only justify it by precluding any long term solution thats less violent. I just don’t agree with the assumption everything less violent has been tried and failed. Its a lack of creativity maybe, or you’ve lost faith that most people have positive motivations.