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.
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.
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.