Iran has told Israel through the UN that it will intervene if the country’s operations against Hamas in Gaza continue, a report has claimed.
Israel has warned 1.1 million people living in the north of the enclave to evacuate ahead of an expected ground operation in Gaza with the IDF planning to strike the territory from land, sea and air.
Iran’s involvement could be through a militant group from Syria or by backing Hezbollah to join the conflict, diplomatic sources told Axios.
Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian said that Israel’s operations could cause fighting to expand to other areas of the Middle East which would cause Israel to suffer “a huge earthquake”, reported the Associated Press.
Again I am not in support of Iran taking action here, I disliked the general dismission of intervention in your first comment
I feel like even in that first comment alone I repeated that I’m against this specific case of intervention because it would be “committing atrocities of their own” despite “zero chance that Israel would back down,” and that adding “more violence with absolutely no chance of preventing loss of life”.
That’s three separate quotes from three separate paragraphs, very narrowly commenting only on Iran’s proposed intervention. I’m not sure how I could have made it more clear that I’m only against the pointless killing this specific intervention, the one indicated by the article would lead to? Like even now I don’t see how it could have been clarified, and I’m genuinely interested in knowing how. This thread isn’t even about intervention in general, just the exact instance I was commenting on.
Apologies if this sounds even the slightest bit hostile— I genuinely don’t mean it to have that tone, and I haven’t gotten into a single argument on Lemmy. I just cannot see how it wasn’t abundantly clear when I paid extra effort to comment very very very narrowly across three paragraphs in the first comment alone.
Sorry I should have clarified/specified what I was objecting to. I apparently misinterpreted this paragraph
It’s not right to sit and watch everyone commit various crimes against humanity. But adding your own violence with absolutely no chance at preventing loss of life, as Iran is implying they will do here, is somehow worse than apathy.
The rest of your comment is fine and it’s clear that you are explicitly talking about the actions of Iran. I read this paragraph as a summary/generalization which you used as the basis of your opinion about the actions of Iran. I’ll switch it around a bit to make it clear how I read it:
It’s not right to sit and watch everyone commit various crimes against humanity. But adding your own violence, with absolutely no chance at preventing loss of life, is somehow worse than apathy. Which is what Iran is implying they will do here.
Where the first two sentences are the generalization tied back to the conflict discussed in the thread with the last sentence. And I would object to this generalization.
Edit:
Apologies if this sounds even the slightest bit hostile
Don’t worry I am always happy to be more specific if asked! I get that I am sometimes not as specific as I should be in these comments
