Iran, its proxies will meet to discuss retaliation against Israel, say sources (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 month ago by Stamau123@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Funeral of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh held in Tehran
- Israel has not claimed responsibility for the assassination
- Iranian officials to meet regional allies to discuss retaliation

DUBAI, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Top Iranian officials will meet the representatives of Iran's regional allies from Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen on Thursday to discuss potential retaliation against Israel after the killing of the Hamas leader in Tehran, five sources told Reuters.

The region faces a risk of widened conflict between Israel, Iran and its proxies after Ismail Haniyeh's assassination in Tehran on Wednesday and the killing of Hezbollah's senior commander on Tuesday in an Israeli strike on the outskirts of the Lebanese capital Beirut.

Representatives of Iran's Palestinian allies Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, as well as Yemen's Tehran-backed Houthi movement, Lebanon's Hezbollah and Iraqi resistance groups will attend the meeting in Tehran, said the sources, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue.

"Iran and the resistance members will conduct a thorough assessment after the meeting in Tehran to find the best and most effective way to retaliate against the Zionist regime (Israel)," said a senior Iranian official, with direct knowledge of the meeting. Another Iranian official said Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards will attend.

"How Iran and the resistance front will respond is currently being reviewed ... This will certainly happen and the Zionist regime (Israel) will undoubtedly regret it," General Mohammad Baqeri, Iran's armed forces chief of staff, told state TV on Thursday.

Iran and Hamas have accused Israel of carrying out the strike that killed Haniyeh hours after he attended the inauguration of Iran's new president in Tehran on Wednesday.

top 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

Damn, it's like they're daring Israel to strike the meeting and officially start the war.

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

How dare they defend their sovereignty. Only Israel has a right to do that!

[+] Gsus4@mander.xyz -9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

yeah, how dare israel strike the guys who ordered attacks on them, by air and by land (but they probably won't, too much fallout and risk of starting a war they can't finish)

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In accordance to multiple UN resolutions and international law, as well as simple ethics, occupied people have a right to armed resistance. Occupiers and apartheid states do not.

One has to remember that in 1948, the UN was basically nothing but the League of Nations and some puppet states, which had to be bribed and threatened for the motion to pass.

[-] steventhedev@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

Terrorism is not armed resistance

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

How do you feel about Nelson Mandela?

The attack on October 7th certainly had a much much MUCH better uniform/civilian kill ratio (about 1:1) than what ever Israel does (probably in the order or 1:100 if we're being EXTREMELY generous).

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

MK killed fewer than a hundred people and had killed nobody before Mandela was arrested. Comparing MK to Hamas is pretty ridiculous considering Hamas has intentionally gone after civilians.

But hey, if Hamas gets out there and loudly proclaims their adherence to non-violence like Mandela did then I’d be ecstatic.

[+] Gsus4@mander.xyz -8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Fine by me, 2state solution yesterday, do the occupied recognize Israel's 67 borders?

PS: Or do you think israel is going to recognize Palestine only for Palestine to be an islamist spearhead right in the heart of Israel for Iran's attacks? Don't give the fascists in power in Israel more ammo to shame the pacifists.

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So far the only ones who have blocked that continuously is Israel. I for one think that's still a bad deal and would be satisfied with nothing else but a one state solution, but I understand how desperate the Palestinians are and wouldn't fault them either way.

"Pacifism" serves no one but the oppressor. No one's ever freed themselves without strength of actions.

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I was talking about israeli pacifists, who are basically treated as a joke after Oct 7th and apparently by you too. Israel was on the brink of a civil war between the fascists and rule of law moderates before Oct 7th and this attack solidified the fascists in power for decades.

[-] small44@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

None of the pacifist israeli are ruling israel

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz 0 points 1 month ago

and they probably never will, if the fascists inside and the aggressors outside keep them irrelevant.

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

who are basically treated as a joke after Oct 7th and apparently by you too

Unless they were advocating for a one state solution, yes, yes I do.

[+] Gsus4@mander.xyz -7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Israel was created by a UN resolution, simultaneously with Palestine and is a result of the Arabs and Jews as winners against the Ottoman empire in WW1 and the nazis in WW2. They both got land. Jews got half of Palestine. Arabs got everything else: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and half of Palestine. What was the problem here, exactly? Maybe the solution is to return everything to the Brits or the Ottomans. No more squabbling, lol.

[-] Deceptichum@quokk.au 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Palestine was meant to go entirely to the Palestinian.

Zionist terror campaigns and assassinations against the British forced them to concede land to the Zionists.

Zionists were literally trying to ally with Nazi Germany against Britain during WW2 ffs.

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Zionists were literally trying to ally with Nazi Germany against Britain during WW2 ffs.

I know the mufti of Jerusalem was best buds with Hitler, but I've never heard that one. Isn't that part of Mahmoud Abbas' goofy PhD thesis?

[-] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Lehi split from the Irgun militant group in 1940 in order to continue fighting the Britishduring World War II. It initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.[22] Believing that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis, proposing a Jewish state based on "nationalist and totalitarian principles, and linked to the German Reich by an alliance".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group)

Than there’s also the Haavara Agreement where they agreed to stop boycotting Nazi Germany so that they could get more people over to colonise/invade Palestine.

And as I’m sure you know many members of Lehi went on to have long lasting careers in Israeli politics, even being Netanyahus mentor and founding the Likud party he belongs to.

So the people who wanted to ally with the Nazis still run Israel today, crazy world.

[-] small44@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Please tell me that you means pre 67 borders and not 1967 borders

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz 0 points 1 month ago

[-] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

"how dare they". Because targeted assassinations are murder. They are barbaric and in contradiction to the rule of law. And with the civilian "casualties" in Beirut and Tehran it would be appropriate to condemn them as acts of terror, because that is what they are.

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

At this stage, anything that happens in this war is a crime and murder (listen to yourself: if they are targetted in decapitation strikes, it's a crime, if they are indiscriminate, it is even worse) so I'd rather they go after the leaders of hamas who organized the escalations than bomb Palestine any more.

PS: yet the bombing of Palestine is ongoing. More civilians among them journalists dead today...

PS2: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-releases-file-seized-in-gaza-to-show-al-jazeera-reporter-was-hamas-member/

[-] small44@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Should natanyaho be killed because israelis are killing civilians?

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I would care as much about that as about killing Sinwar: not, they both deserve it.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

They still killed one of the more moderate leaders of Hamas. I won’t weep for the guy but I just see this perpetuating the cycle of violence.

[-] Billy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

Moderate?
The guy who lead Hamas when they threw Fatah officials off buildings and shot into crowds of their supporters?
That under him Hamas charter included this very moderate part

“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”

He wasn't a moderate in any way, and it's bizarre to see people referring to him in this way.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It’s all relative. The guy still sucks, but he was still a part of the wing of Hamas that is looking to negotiate.

Edit: also the Hamas charter was revised to remove that in 2017 when he took power as the chair of the Hamas political bureau. I’ll ask you this, do you honestly think his death will change anything? That another person won’t just step in his place and continue killing Israelis? That’s my point, this is a cycle that will just perpetuate. There are no actors in this with clean hands.

[-] Billy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

All the negotiations were approved by Sinwar in Gaza, who's supposedly the most fanatic one.

His death weakens them, although it's certainly not enough. But he's also not the only one they got to.
Hamas is close to losing their grip on Gaza. It will benefit everyone if they become irrelevant.

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think what they mean is that as a leader, he does not really believe his own propaganda, so he can be pragmatic, but if you kill him, whoever succeeds him might be one of the guys who actually believed that fanatically. Or he really does believe that, given his history.

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz -1 points 1 month ago

If one of the guys who ordered the Oct 7th escalation was the only hope for peace in Gaza...I'm not sure there is any point in negotiating with hamas. Isn't there any leader in Gaza outside hamas?

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

There have been atrocities for decades perpetuated by both Palestinians and Israelis. Some people that have done absolutely heinous things will need to be involved in the peace process for it to actually work considering those people are the ones perpetuating the cycle. Look at what happened with the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland and Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa (this one is far more one sided but still applicable).

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The Good Friday agreement would not have been posible if Ireland was 20km away from London and smuggling in help from hostile actors.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

The IRA was armed in part by Libya which was absolutely a hostile state in the UK’s eyes at the time. They almost killed Margaret Thatcher. They had many operatives in Great Britain, I don’t see how the Irish Sea significantly changes things considering there is a massive wall between Gaza and Israel that is easier to defend than thousands of miles of coastline.

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz -2 points 1 month ago

I did not know that, but still, those weapons were not 20km away from London. This is not just fascists in Israel, even the moderates feel too threatened to oppose the fascist narrative.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

They bombed London during the troubles quite often, actually.

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I quoted the 20km distance as the distance between Palestine's borders and major capitals in Israel, but yes, there were lots of bombings in Israel, but I guess they controlled that with the border walls and a police state...again...Ireland is easier to let go as a colony, not right on top of you.

Even if things never got as bloody as Palestine, everyone should still cherish the reasonableness in the Good Friday agreement.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

They haven’t let go of Ireland as a colony though.

I absolutely do cherish the GFA and I see how a bunch of stubborn, violent men had to get together and painstakingly iron out an imperfect peace to achieve it. I want the same for Israel and Palestine.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I'm a bit surprised that Iran would plan an open retaliation for this, since they don't typically officially acknowledge their proxies.

This does risk a full on war between Israel and Iran however if Iran is going to give up all pretenses.

this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024

45 points (92.5% liked)

World News

38529 readers

3803 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.