Winner
Diverse in Unity
Which in what way is relevant to the statement that Israel is unwilling to live in peace with their neighbors?*
In the same way your comment was relevant to N.'s comments.
Benjamin Netanyahu wants War and Mitt Romney
- Thread starter holy king
- Start date
In the same way your comment was relevant to N.'s comments.
As a fellow deficit hawk I agree that we should not be giving another dime of support to Israel. Let their god protect them.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
I am very reluctant to act against Iran, at all. I find it entirely reasonable that they would want to harness nuclear power even while possessing vast petroleum reserves. I don't entirely trust Iran, but depending on exactly what their level of cooperation is/was with the international community with regard just how much we could monitor what they're doing with their nuclear program...that is to say, if we had access and could follow what they do with the nuclear material, then I wouldn't object to the program. HOWEVER, if they are hiding anything and the process is being concealed from the view of the international community, then I feel as though the rest of the world has a cause for suspicion. I don't know, at this point, because the situation is now so murky; I just don't know where we started with this and what we did know about the Iranian nuclear program beforehand. It's hard to make a judgment.
Now, Israel is very well justified in fearing a fanatic Islamic "Republic" in possession of nuclear weapons and I won't fault Benjamin Netanyahu for pursuing his nation's interest in this regard. I don't think he just wants war for the sake of war. I think that he is very concerned for his people, wants them to be safe, and genuinely feels like Iran's nuclear program is a critical danger to that safety. This is Cuban Missile Crisis-type moment for Israel, and I won't blame the guy for getting uppity about this.
Now, Israel is very well justified in fearing a fanatic Islamic "Republic" in possession of nuclear weapons and I won't fault Benjamin Netanyahu for pursuing his nation's interest in this regard. I don't think he just wants war for the sake of war. I think that he is very concerned for his people, wants them to be safe, and genuinely feels like Iran's nuclear program is a critical danger to that safety. This is Cuban Missile Crisis-type moment for Israel, and I won't blame the guy for getting uppity about this.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Clearly you didn't read what you quoted then.
I did, but perhaps you're not getting it.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
How much more diplomacy do you do until it is enough?
Yeah, at some point you have to say to Israel that the free ride is over and let it play out without interference.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
We have been tell Iran to stop for many years now, so it seems people would rather risk a nuclear Iran.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Its not just Israel. Neither side really wants peace. You can't sit here and pretend that any of the Muslim countries(aside from Egypt) maybe actually wants peace.
Verbose
Deity
I'd say the Israeli problem is that it actually NEEDS a large and determined international line-up for things to get anywhere with Iran. The US in war-happy mode could be sufficient, but it's currently pretty far from it. Unilateral Israeli strikes might be militarily next to useless, and likelier badly politically counter-productive for it.
Even if Netanyahu, or most other Israeli politicians, would be unwilling to admit it, a fundamental problem for Israel is that it no longer is in full control of its own destiny. It was for a period, when it's military, economic and political (US backed) situation was strikingly favourable. It somehow relied on the the Arab nations being politically, economicall, socially etc. moribund and static. And they have been for the better part of the last forty years. The odds of that situation lasting forever were always impossible however. So now we might start worrying over whether the Isralis might already have lost a couple of decades following 1967 that was after all a missed window of opportunity, if Israel wanted to try for a negotiated settlement from the strongest possible position it will ever get? It seems they overestimated how strong it was and how long it might last however, victims of unrealistic expectations from their own success...
Even if Netanyahu, or most other Israeli politicians, would be unwilling to admit it, a fundamental problem for Israel is that it no longer is in full control of its own destiny. It was for a period, when it's military, economic and political (US backed) situation was strikingly favourable. It somehow relied on the the Arab nations being politically, economicall, socially etc. moribund and static. And they have been for the better part of the last forty years. The odds of that situation lasting forever were always impossible however. So now we might start worrying over whether the Isralis might already have lost a couple of decades following 1967 that was after all a missed window of opportunity, if Israel wanted to try for a negotiated settlement from the strongest possible position it will ever get? It seems they overestimated how strong it was and how long it might last however, victims of unrealistic expectations from their own success...
Verbose
Deity
None of them wants peace AT ANY COST, which is kind of the problem here. Very, very few in history has EVER wanted that, so why some kind of special approbation should fall on people in conflict with Israel is unclear.
There has been a radical mis-match in perceptions of long-term strength however. And most of the mis-match is over the perceived strength of Israel. Winning those wars soleved precisely nothing, and that contrary to popular perception on many hands is what wars do. Israle has won the wars, and lost the peace. And I'd say largely from radically overestimating what kind of advantages winning the wars would bring. Up to 67 at least they were absolutely necessary victories for Israel, and I'm all for them, given the likely alternatives. The mistake is still to think thay solved any damn thing at all.
Biggest Israeli problem really is that it has never groomed a partner it could deal properly with in the Palestinian side. That would have required giving in to such a partner on at least some key issues, actually giving somethings seriously important up for peace. But everytime things moved in that direction either it got to hard for Israel, which back-pedalled (killing Rabin, electing Bibi), or the Israelis showed they were piss-poor at politics of the calibre required, meaning when they did make decent offers, they had made precisely zero preparation for it, and so got it rejected (Ehud Barak's offer). That's another aspect of hubris not paying attention to what's going on with an adversary you're looking to eventually partner with. Again, it's only attitudes coming from being in a position of relative strength and comfort, when you can delude yourself that you don't HAVE to take the other side seriously, and they will just take whatever they get thrown regardless of all other circumstances. Lazy and thus becoming stupid for the most part, especially considering the stakes involved for Israel...
While I agree that many sides don't want peace. That's not the same as saying that no one does. But in order for anyone who wants peace to pursue it, others have to as well. And in Israel's case, they have made it clear that they will accept no peace short of driving all of the Palestinians out. Which is just unacceptable to any other group in the region. You would be right in then stating that the reciprocal goal is clearly the objective of several of the other powers in the area. But even that does not mean that no lasting peace is a possibility, if one of the sides is willing to work for peace. Clearly Israel refuses to even consider peace. And that leaves nothing other than a permanent state of low grade war.
Until Israel eventually loses and new problems overtake the area.
We have been tell Iran to stop for many years now, so it seems people would rather risk a nuclear Iran.
No we haven't
We've been isolating Iran for no good reason for ages.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
And clearly you're just repeating the same baseless statement as before.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
This is a case of the tail wagging the dog and it could blow up in Netanyahu's face. I hope he wises up and shuts up.
Does anyone know if the Israelis saber rattled this much before they bombed the Iraq reactor in the 80's?
They didn't before they bombed the Syrian one a few years back.
My gut is telling me they are trying to manipulate our political process and public opinion to get us to help them with a strike that they (probably) couldn't pull off alone successfully. I don't care for this one bit.
Does anyone know if the Israelis saber rattled this much before they bombed the Iraq reactor in the 80's?
They didn't before they bombed the Syrian one a few years back.
My gut is telling me they are trying to manipulate our political process and public opinion to get us to help them with a strike that they (probably) couldn't pull off alone successfully. I don't care for this one bit.
I just want Netanyahu out. Get us a politician who won't bend down to the haredi in Israeli society. Better yet, get the haredi a lot more integrated into larger Israeli society so that they stop espousing such extreme views.
Most insightful--the Israeli problem is that they took a position of relative strength and have squandered it.
Definitely--after all, what is Netanyahu's red line? He seems awfully keen to push the US to specify one, but he's not putting one out himself. He must be taking a page out of R-money's playbook.
Having watched the lead-up to any number of recent military interventions stretching back to Kosovo in the Clinton days and studied several more, we seem to be getting the boilerplate first steps of the "sell the people on a war" treatment. I'm just waiting for the reserve of former generals to start hitting primetime, then we'll be in trouble.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
True and true.
What is especially troubling is that there are really no scenarios where a strike on Iran wouldn't cause massive retaliation, or even a regional war. As other's have pointed out, Iran's military isn't like Iraq's before Gulf War II. And even then, we applied massive amounts of force to take down Iraq's military.
We'd essentially have to start Gulf War III to take out their nuke sites and prevent them from retaliating militarily (won't be able to stop the hezbullah stikes though).
Until recently, I was pro-intervention against Iran under a narrow set of circumstances. I'm losing my affinity for that position though. I mean, any nuclear strike from Iran would result in a retaliatory strike from the US and Israel.
I know many Arab countries don't want a nuclear Iran, but in this case, if they won't put up, they can shut up.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Tail trying to wag the dog. One area where Obama is much better than Clinton (though nowhere near where he should be) is in dealing with Israel.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
But there is a reason. It is the same one we used overthrew the democratically elected government in Chile and elsewhere. They no longer allowed their natural resources to be exploited by those in other countries to the detriment of their own.
And for that reason the conservatives consider him to be "soft" on foreign policy, instead of just the opposite. That he is an "appeaser", instead of a diplomat who is finally willing to try to address the real issues.
