Trump, Netanyahu and Khamenei – three angry old men who could get us all killed | Simon Tisdall
www.theguardian.com
Whether inept, driven by survival or corrupt, they are unfit to lead their countries, let alone make decisions that imperil the whole world, says Guardian foreign affairs commentator Simon Tisdall

This was not inevitable. This is a war Israel chose. It could have been prevented. Diplomatic talks were ongoing when the bombers took off for Iran. Israel’s continuing, illegal, unjustified airstrikes are unlikely to achieve their stated aim – permanently ending Tehran’s presumed efforts to build nuclear weapons – and may accelerate it. They must stop now. Likewise, Iran must halt its retaliation immediately and drop its escalatory threats to attack US and UK bases.

This conflict is not limited, as was the case last year, to tit-for-tat exchanges and “precision strikes” on a narrow range of military targets. It’s reached a wholly different level. Potentially nothing is off the table. Civilians are being killed on both sides. Leaders are targets. The rhetoric is out of control. With Israel fighting on several fronts, and Iran’s battered regime backed against a wall, the Middle East is closer than ever to a disastrous conflagration.

Reasons can always be found to go to war. The roots of major conflicts often reach back decades – and this is true of the Israel-Iran vendetta, which dates to the 1979 Islamic revolution. The so-called “shadow war” between the two intensified in recent years. Yet all-out conflict had been avoided, until now. So who is principally to blame for this sudden, unprecedented explosion?

Answer: three angry old men whose behaviour raises serious doubts about their judgment, common sense, motives and even their sanity.

  • iAvicenna@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    2 days ago

    More than a year? There is a 2023 article calling it a genocide and zionism. I have linked tens of articles above ranging from 2023 to 2024 with similar tones. I have not seen any links from you that support your claims.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      I never saw that 2023 article before. Must have been buried in the back beneath TheGuardian their fake rape claims of october 7

      By cross-referencing testimonies given to police, published interviews with witnesses, and photo and video footage taken by survivors and first responders, the Guardian is aware of at least six sexual assaults for which multiple corroborating pieces of evidence exist. Two of those victims, who were murdered, were aged under 18.

      Here is the actual news which you will NEVER see TheGuardian publishing:

      No rape allegations filed from 7 October, reveals Israeli prosecutor

      Gaz stated that her department has found no evidence of sexual violence. “In the end, we don’t have any complainants. What was presented in the media compared to what will eventually come together will be entirely different,” she said.

      Moreover, women’s rights organisations contacted by her office also reported no cases brought to their attention. “We approached women’s rights organisations and asked for cooperation. They told us that no one had approached them,” Gaz added.

      • iAvicenna@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 hours ago

        I agree the tone of the article is extremely biased (the same author (Guardians Jerusalem correspondent I believe) did at least went on to document many civilian deaths on the Palestinians side as well at least). Guardian also reports on the other side of the story too:

        Claims of Israeli sexual assault of Palestinian women are credible, UN panel says

        and many others. So this is to me more a case of bad individually biased journalism rather than a reporting that is enforced by general journal policies. Were it the latter case, we would not be able to see all the other articles I linked and the same author would not be able to write articles such as

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/24/new-details-on-killing-of-paramedics-in-gaza-appear-to-contradict-idf-account

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/19/gaza-palestinians-israeli-aid-blockade

        This is not what a completely biased media is. What you linked looks more like a hastily written article without waiting for resolution of all the evidence, perhaps because the author took the supposed description of events too emotionally. I agree though, it would have been much better if that news was presented in the form of laying all the facts neutrally and leaving it there such as:

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_October_7_attacks

        The fact that Israeli government tried to created a distorted perception of what happened during the Hamas attacks or is committing genocide in Palestine does not clear Hamas of killing (in some cases violently) and kidnapping civilians though. So there is that. Fuck state of Israel and zionism but also fuck Islamist terrorist organizations who forces their msoygnistic world views on the populace the moment they get control of a city. So there is that just to clarify my perspective on the matter.

        • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          8 hours ago

          Yes but these other reports did not make their front page.

          Furthermore, what matters is TheGuardian gave their own reputation to spread lies about seeing video evidence of tape. This did not exist. Thus TheGuardian has no reputation left and is an Israeli propaganda outlet. Placing a few pro-Palestine posts after Gaza is flattened does not undo their previous lies…

          • iAvicenna@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            8 hours ago

            I think we have all seen what Israeli propaganda outlets look like. People get fired and labelled anti-semitist at the slightest mention of war crimes by Israel let alone mentioning the genocide. An Israeli propaganda outlet does not publish articles that help form a public consensus that what Israel is doing is genocide. I agree such news definitely cost Guardian its reputation but I disagree that Guardian is a full on Israel propaganda outlet. In fact claiming this after seeing all those articles about genocide and zionism (all of which by the way can be reached by just a one click on the Israel-Palestine link at the main page) is absurd in my opinion.