I’m upvoting this just so people can finally realize how batshit insane the Atlantic Council is.
A new normal where Israel gets punished for breaking international law 😔
By countries defending themselves from attacks on their embassies?
That has been “the normal” for a long time…
US should respond with severe sanctions against Isreali government.
A Washington think tank that thinks the US and its allies should be allowed to conduct military actions without consequence? How novel!
Citation needed
For the other user, could you please cite in the article a statement that supports “without consequence”?
When it comes to Israel vs Palestinians, an organization dedicated to preserving the status quo is precisely who we should ignore.
When it comes to Israel vs Palestinians, an organization dedicated to preserving the status quo is precisely who we should ignore.You’re right, I can’t find anything supporting these statements.
Ftfy
It’s actually pretty obvious in context:
Israel attacked the Iranian embassy in Syria, killing some people.
Iran responds, targeting rural areas with no loss of life and no harm done.
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-04-15-24/index.html
The US and Israel now feel Iran has no right to have responded to being attacked and are discussing a “proper response”.
(This article.)
Op’s conclusion is sound. US ally Israel can attack anyone they like and not suffer repercussions.
Thank you for responding, however:
The US and Israel now feel Iran has no right to have responded to being attacked
Is not supported by the article. I noticed there is no quote from the article to support this about the US, Israel, or the Atlantic Council (which is the original claim, so no it is not sound). I find that is indicative that the claim lacks factual backing.
If you can cite the article (not broadly claim “context”) or anything else related to the Atlantic councils view as the above user said, that would lend itself to the claim (about the Atlantic council).
Follow the logic:
A attacks B.
B attacks A.
A and C: “Look at this guy over here, what are we gonna do with him?”The inherent implication is B had no right to respond to A, and the inherent implication of that is that A should be allowed to do what they want and B should just take it.
These are basic inferences anyone can draw from the events and the articles linked.
As ignored again, this is being levied against the Atlantic council publication. None of the implications (uncited) indict the Atlantic council of feeling like the US/Israel can act militarily without consequence, nor support that there was any notion of there being no rights to respond. This is unsourced opinion that is used to bad mouth the Atlantic council publication.
If you can claim “context” without a citation then my “context” is just as good (and trumps yours). See why we need sources for our claims? Because this is not substantive discussion. It’s aimed to dissuade readers from going through the information in the article, claiming the Atlantic council is “batshit insane” to cite another user.
ITT: what do we want the article to say?
