▲ 537 ▼ Israel sharpens its tone to Spain: "The Inquisition is over. Those who harm us, we will harm them" (www.elnacional.cat) submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 207 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) What do you mean Israel in the United States have never had a conflict between them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] machineLearner@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Referencing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident?wprov=sfti1 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Yeah, not a conflict. And so long ago that the current political situation is totally different. The US wouldn't have a choice, if Israel attacks a NATO country then it's article 5 automatically. Then their only option would be to leave NATO and they're not going to do that. You are not arguing in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] machineLearner@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Okay man. Note that nowhere in the comment chain before you decided to chime in did anyone say conflict. And as far as I know, an attack is an attack and it usually warrants retaliation. But Israel gets unlimited oopsies, lord forbid that Egypt or Lebanon does this, it’s immediately casus belli if the current governments aren’t friendly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] machineLearner@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Referencing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident?wprov=sfti1 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Yeah, not a conflict. And so long ago that the current political situation is totally different. The US wouldn't have a choice, if Israel attacks a NATO country then it's article 5 automatically. Then their only option would be to leave NATO and they're not going to do that. You are not arguing in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] machineLearner@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Okay man. Note that nowhere in the comment chain before you decided to chime in did anyone say conflict. And as far as I know, an attack is an attack and it usually warrants retaliation. But Israel gets unlimited oopsies, lord forbid that Egypt or Lebanon does this, it’s immediately casus belli if the current governments aren’t friendly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Yeah, not a conflict. And so long ago that the current political situation is totally different. The US wouldn't have a choice, if Israel attacks a NATO country then it's article 5 automatically. Then their only option would be to leave NATO and they're not going to do that. You are not arguing in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] machineLearner@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Okay man. Note that nowhere in the comment chain before you decided to chime in did anyone say conflict. And as far as I know, an attack is an attack and it usually warrants retaliation. But Israel gets unlimited oopsies, lord forbid that Egypt or Lebanon does this, it’s immediately casus belli if the current governments aren’t friendly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] machineLearner@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Okay man. Note that nowhere in the comment chain before you decided to chime in did anyone say conflict. And as far as I know, an attack is an attack and it usually warrants retaliation. But Israel gets unlimited oopsies, lord forbid that Egypt or Lebanon does this, it’s immediately casus belli if the current governments aren’t friendly. permalink fedilink source parent