General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIsraelis are understandably not thrilled with the Iran deal
This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated. 7/23/14That is a direct quote from the Supreme Leader of Iran posted on his own twitter account less than a year ago.
Iran is run by an unelected dictator who has ruled the country for over 25 years.
This man is the commander of the armed forces and has the power to declare war as he sees fit.
He has on more than one occasion referred to Israel as a "cancer" that needed to be removed. (And in case one thinks his issues are directed at Zionists in particular and not Jews, generally, he has questioned whether or not the Holocaust actually took place on more than one occasion).
Everyone is understandably upset with the rhetoric coming from Netanyahu, but Khamenei has consistently used dehumanizing rhetoric towards the people of Israel numerous times over the decades in which he has been in power, up to and including the threatening tweet posted above.
Can one at least have some understanding, then, as to why some in Israel might have some concerns here?
Even if you think their concerns are unfounded, can you at least acknowledge that it might not be just that Israelis wanted to start a war against Iran for the hell of it, but that many of them are genuinely alarmed by the potential of a country whose leader has such deep disdain for the Israeli people potentially developing a nuclear weapons capability?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)It is Bibi against the world, not even 25% of Israeli Jews voted for Bibi, 29 seats out of 120, millions of Jewish folks less than voted for Obama....where is Bibi's majority coalition, by the way?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)trying to get this resolved without bombing Iran? Bibi has said some statements which are not nice also, tit for tat.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Of the agreement and get it signed by all. Now Bibi wants his demands taken care of but he was running around like a chicken with his head cut off trying to stop the negotiations, now he needs to live with whatever comes out of this.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Let's face facts, shall we? Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, and any belligerence outside its borders would be met with swift and decisive reprisals by Israel, possibly including nuclear weapons. But if bellicose rhetoric is now the standard for other nation's security, what are Palestinians to make of Netanyahu's remarks in the heat of a tight re-election campaign, remarks he tried to walk back as soon as he'd secured another term as prime minister?
Some people in Israel are not thrilled with any deal that would humanize or seek to bring Iran back into the community of nations, but I submit that that lack of thrill is due not to any reality-based fear, but rather is a cynical stirring of the shit intended to garner more aid, weaponry and sympathy for a nation that is already armed to the teeth and not shy about using that weaponry on non-combatant populations and for blanket reprisals. Some forces in Israel are (probably) not wanting to start a war against Iran, but the prospect is a very useful stalking horse in service of gaining more money, weapons and power.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The rightwing talking points are just nonsense.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)
Thanks, Obama 
on edit: Is that a milkshake in that cup, and, if so, whose is it?
Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka
Follow
President Barack Obama's #IranTalks remarks summed up for the @GOP and those in the media who want war.
8:51 AM - 2 Apr 2015 55 Retweets 40 favorites
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/04/02/the-president-makes-a-statement/
That one is getting copied to the HDD! 
WHUwuut? I thought we wanted peace in the middle east! Gee...Obama delivers and we get some frumpy grumpy gusses sussing us not to trust those dam blasted Iranians!
Darn blasted peace loving no good war hatin profit denying flim flarm!
Cha
(296,893 posts)
So many want Peace in the Middle East.. the neocons and Bibi not so much.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I heard it here on DU! 
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)dissentient
(861 posts)He won't get his war after all, boo hoo.
As another duer posted, I'm just wondering if he will try a false flag attack at this point, attack his own people, and say Iran did it, to try and scuttle the US-Iran deal.
I wouldn't put it past him.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
Puglover
(16,380 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)some sympathy.
But, all they do is sit back and throw spitballs at the United States when the US is going above and beyond to scale back Iran's nuclear program. All they do is complain about how the US is betraying them, and that the only acceptable outcome is for Iran to capitulate completely. Not content to try to order the US around, now they're trying it with France, Germany, the UK, Russia and China.
Their latest demand is that Iran recognize Israel. As if that was part of the sanctions regime in the first place.
The US had nuclear missiles pointed at us from a guy who pounded his show on the UN lectern threatening to bury us.
We coped.
And so Israel needs to learn to cope with hostile regimes whom it can't crush militarily as it does to the people of Gaza and Lebanon.
Israel has never engaged in diplomacy on this issue. Only rejectionism and shrill hyperbole.
Time for them to grow up and treat the rest of the world as adults, and to shed their colossal arrogance.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)In this new world we live in, the Iranian regime is trustworthy.
They never threatened Israel - those are merely mistranslations. Each of the scores of instances: mistranslations.
Israel, with its nuclear arsenal and its ability to annihilate Iran in moments with barely a thought, has always been the antagonist and aggressor. Israel, a postage stamp of a nation two countries over and still surrounded by others sworn to destroy it, somehow poses an existential threat to Iran.
And here's the latest logic Superpretzel: Iran is so threatened by Israel and its nukes that it also needs nukes, so this deal merely evens the playing field in the Middle East and protects Iran from those bloodthirsty Jews. But this deal, we are told, is to prevent Iran from getting nukes, and in any case we were repeatedly assured over the years that not only does Iran have NOT nukes, but it absolutely has no aspirations to build any. Its nuclear program was and is completely based on energy production.
Why would this deal be necessary if Iran didn't have a robust research program devoted to developing nuclear weapons?
Mind you - anyone who points any of this out is a warmonger who only wants war and who should go sign up blahblahblah. This is the same logic applied by teenyboppers when someone questions their puppy love.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)inspections and monitoring of not only current dismantling and repurposing of facilities and fissile material, but also of compliance going forward.
You are pushing the false narrative that negotiating with Iran makes Obama and the other P5+1 a bunch of silly, naïve hippies.
It's the Neocon jingoist warmongers who insist that any negotiation or diplomacy with Iran is a sign of weakness--those are the fuckers who are justly accused of being warmongers, because they will not accept anything less than regime change in Iran.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)I never said anything negative about Obama or anyone else other than Iran.
Why, if this deal specifically prevents Iran from getting a bomb, are people gloating over Bibi? Why, if this doesn't legitimize Iran's nuclear aspirations, would anyone care what Bibi thinks?
Why, if Iran only wanted to build nuclear reactors (which, in light of Fukushima and Iran's well-known earthquake risk, one would assume are a bad idea....where is that critique?), is this deal being cast as a finger in the eye of Iran's enemies?
Weird.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Iraq.
The goal for the Netanyahu crowd in the US and Israel isn't to scale back Iran's nuclear program, it's regime change in Tehran.
No one with any degree of authority or responsibility has ever claimed Iran has a kumbaya program.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)So I will cut Israel a slightly wider berth than some will.
840high
(17,196 posts)with Israel.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Grousing about people you hate is hot air without the capacity to back it up. They've been going on about how Israel sucks for 36 years without doing anything about it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Which is why countries like Iran hate them. See how it works?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Please stop repeating this lie that Bibi pushed the US to invade Iraq.
It is simply not true.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I thought he gave bullshit info about Iraq trying to develop WMD's? I think you may be being a BIT disingenuous.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Here is what the DEMOCRATIC PARTY thinks...funny how it is so different than what the OP is saying...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/03/netanyahu_s_speech_to_congress_democrats_react_to_bibi_s_message_on_iran.html
"A few minutes after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrapped up a speech to Congress about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Indiana Republican Rep. Jackie Walorski yelled, “Wooh, baby! That was awesome!”
In a cramped, dark room in the basement of the Capitol, sentiments were very different. About a dozen liberal House Democrats—most of whom boycotted the prime minister’s speech—assembled to tear into Netanyahu’s address and Speaker John Boehner’s decision to invite him without the White House’s imprimatur.
Rep. Jared Huffman of California, who attended the speech, accused the prime minister of trying to push the United States into war."
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
I totally took a class in internet searching once. Got a certificate.
Cha
(296,893 posts)Netanyahu Lied About Iraq’s WMDs, Now He’s Saying the Same Things About Iran
snip//
"There was no Iraqi nuclear weapons program in 2002; it was dismantled in the early 1990s by United Nations inspectors. There were none of the chemical or biological weapons Netanyahu spoke of. No Russians. No North Koreans. Bupkes.
Netanyahu also warned that Iraq would give nuclear warheads (which it did not have) to “terrorist groups.”
He also argued that no inspections could possibly find “mobile weapons sites” (which are impossible), implying that invasion and occupation was the only course open.
Netanyahu proved that neither he nor the Israeli intelligence organization, Mossad, had the slightest actual intelligence on Iraq, and that neither should be trusted to provide such intelligence to the US. Clearly, some right wing Israeli leaders always want the US entangled in regional wars in the Middle East, insofar as they are seeking US support in a hostile region. They therefore habitually exaggerate the dangers, and are little more than bullsh*t artists.
MOre
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/10/republicans-netanhayu-charge-u-s-foreign-policy-bush.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6458416
Rex
(65,616 posts)It will just be ignored or someone will pretend you are saying that Bibi single handedly got Bush to invade Iraq (sadly that one has already been used in another thread by Mr. OP).
I just don't get the problem with peace. I wish one of these geopolitical experts would explain it to us.
"Who earned his Noble Peace Prize? Rolling with my friends watching haters crying in the streets!"
Cha
(296,893 posts)No, Bibi didn't "single handedly" persuade bush to invade Iraq. bush-cheney and the neocons persuaded the American Pubic via corpMediaWhoreInc including the Judy Miller and the NYT. They just used Netanyahu for Leverage. Would Bibi Lie?! All of them Lied in sync.
Another dastardly era of American History.
Mahalo for the gif.. Always good to see the Obamas and their Friends out cruisin' in their jeep.
Mosby
(16,267 posts)WASHINGTON – A senior official at the US State Department has said that political, diplomatic and military officials in Israel warned the United States against invading Iraq even before the American forces entered the country, the Inter Press Service news agency reported over the weekend.
According to the official, Israel tried to convince the Bush administration that the main problem in the region was Iran, not Iraq.
The man, Lawrence Wilkerson, was a member of the US State Department's policy planning staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell.
In an interview with the news agency, he said that "the Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy - Iran is the enemy."
According to Wilkerson, different sources in Israel explained to senior US officials that "if you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3444393,00.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Like, dude, really? Really? This is too funny.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Yeah, pure BS.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)so he could increase the profits of his Halliburton stock options.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)After all it was he who said, something like "America is an easy thing to move" or some-such.
Cha
(296,893 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Cha
(296,893 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)reverberations on the region…the test and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also transform that society and thereby begin too the process of democratizing the Arab world.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, testifying before the United States Congress in 2002
http://www.lobelog.com/lets-all-for-a-moment-remember-bibis-wisdom-on-iraq-10-years-ago/
Rex
(65,616 posts)but not the other! 
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)does it by offering up fact-free defenses of their record.
We should build a DU arena for the Kremlin trolls and the hasbara trolls to demonstrate which has the superior immunity to facts and basic logic.
"There are no Russian troops in Ukraine!"
"We should we negotiate with people who chant 'death to America?'"
Rex
(65,616 posts)You can throw source after source at them and it won't matter, which makes is extremely obvious imo.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Manipulated into war by those evil Israelis!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And that what you said was "simply not true" and "total BS" is in fact undeniably true?
Pretty sad when you have to dissemble while defending the record of a Neocon war pig like Netanyahu.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)You cannot possibly believe that George W Bush would not have invaded Iraq were it not for a few statements made by Netanyahu agreeing that it would be a good idea to do so.
That you somehow think your quote shows that Israel is the reason the US invaded Iraq is just beyond belief.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)he did help grease the skids and enable Bush's war, even if the idea was Bush's (and that of Netanyahu's ideological soulmate Dick Cheney).
Mosby
(16,267 posts)I gave you a link already.
see post 254.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Apparently not. Bibi worked with Bush on pushing that war. Bibi = Bush when it came to lying us into/supporting that war.
'Poor peace-loving Bibi! Manipulated into war by that evil Bush!!'
Now is the irony apparent?
2naSalit
(86,393 posts)http://www.globalresearch.ca/netanyahu-s-speech-to-congress-racism-war-mongering-and-fabrication/25003
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/netanyahu-2002-iraq-has-centrifuges-the-size-of-washing-machines-to-produce-a-bomb.html
And there's plenty more over at the Google...
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.
Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.
"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."
The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.
As evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.
more...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/
still_one
(92,063 posts)and looking to scapegoat Israel for that is bullshit.
With that logic I guess we can blame Israel for the Korean War, Viet Nam, Chile, and much of South America
The U.S. and wonder boys from those Ivy League colleges have done quite a good job directing the foreign policy of the United States
Cha
(296,893 posts)Netanyahu Lied About Iraq’s WMDs, Now He’s Saying the Same Things About Iran
snip//
"There was no Iraqi nuclear weapons program in 2002; it was dismantled in the early 1990s by United Nations inspectors. There were none of the chemical or biological weapons Netanyahu spoke of. No Russians. No North Koreans. Bupkes.
Netanyahu also warned that Iraq would give nuclear warheads (which it did not have) to “terrorist groups.”
He also argued that no inspections could possibly find “mobile weapons sites” (which are impossible), implying that invasion and occupation was the only course open.
Netanyahu proved that neither he nor the Israeli intelligence organization, Mossad, had the slightest actual intelligence on Iraq, and that neither should be trusted to provide such intelligence to the US. Clearly, some right wing Israeli leaders always want the US entangled in regional wars in the Middle East, insofar as they are seeking US support in a hostile region. They therefore habitually exaggerate the dangers, and are little more than bullsh*t artists.
MOre
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/10/republicans-netanhayu-charge-u-s-foreign-policy-bush.html
Rex
(65,616 posts)You hit the nail on the head!
EDIT -http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/03/netanyahu_s_speech_to_congress_democrats_react_to_bibi_s_message_on_iran.html
Democrats on Netanyahu’s Speech: Bibi’s Never Seen a War He Doesn’t Want the U.S. to Fight
"A few minutes after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrapped up a speech to Congress about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Indiana Republican Rep. Jackie Walorski yelled, “Wooh, baby! That was awesome!”
In a cramped, dark room in the basement of the Capitol, sentiments were very different. About a dozen liberal House Democrats—most of whom boycotted the prime minister’s speech—assembled to tear into Netanyahu’s address and Speaker John Boehner’s decision to invite him without the White House’s imprimatur.
Rep. Jared Huffman of California, who attended the speech, accused the prime minister of trying to push the United States into war."
still_one
(92,063 posts)installed the Shah, which was a direct cause and effect of what Iran is today
We encouraged an 8 year war between Iran and Iraq where millions were killed. Saddam was our ally then
Our invasion of Iraq destabilized the entire Middle East
It is way past due that we try a different approach from war
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Would Yemen still be intact without the USA dronning kids to death?
840high
(17,196 posts)Iran will stick to the deal. Past hiestory does nothing to reassure me.
calimary
(81,139 posts)I believe it was when we got rid of a legitimately-elected leader of Iran, and forcibly installed the Shah. And how'd THAT work out for everybody?
Perfect.
Rex
(65,616 posts)They seem to be melting down over Bibi and his war sadz!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)You too? Interesting.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to John Bolton's think tank.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It's interesting how people assume the very worst intentions with respect to Israel's leaders and the very best with respect to Iran's when both countries are ruled by right-wing conservative regimes.
And I daresay, it's not even arguable that Iran's ruling regime is more right-wing and more conservative than Israel's.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
karynnj
(59,498 posts)All one has to do is link to all the right wing pandering comments he made to steal votes from Bennett's party (the far right - mostly settlers' party) so that he could beat the number expected for Herzog. The comments we are now all suppose to think meant nothing - even if some are a better match to his actions than his new "corrected words".
What you ignore is that even before the election called by Netanyahu, there was a majority of right and right/center Knesset ministers. Netanyahu did NOT increase that majority - he just shifted more to Likud to insure that he would be the one forming the government. What the election may have done is made it clearer that Israel does not have the politics it had back in the 60s!
What those comments have done is made more apparent the real conflict between"liberal"and "Zionism" in liberal Zionism. It has a problem if Israel keeps all the land -- and Netanyahu's comments on settlements bothered me as much as his comment that a two state solution could not be achieved now. He ignores that if not now, and the settlements continue to expand - there will NEVER be a possibility of 2 states.
One thing I noticed in reading of the elections, is that the JEWISH settlers in the West Bank had the ability to vote in Israel. Yet, as we know, the Palestinians there can't. This has gone on for almost 50 years.
It really does come down to an Israeli choice. As people have said for decades they have to choose 2 of these three things - being democratic, being Jewish, and having all the land.
Ageless Democrat
(80 posts)and they are citizens of Palestine.
It's a different country. Would you like me, as an American, vote for, say, France's PM?
Or perhaps a Somalian voting in a Kenyan election?
Same concept.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Can Palestine tell Israeli soldiers to leave? No. Then Israel is controlling a land and people without giving them any say in their state. They are still settling in Palestine. They call those settlements a part of Israel. Steal steal steal. Deflect deflect deflect. We google it all the time. It is apartheid. Every year more and more see it for what it is.
Ageless Democrat
(80 posts)Israelis soldiers are not in any of the Palestinian territory except when it is necessary to contain a problem, per Israeli/Palestinian agreement
They control the border crossings, that's about it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They call their settlements Israel. Theft.
Respond to that, if you can without prevaricating.
Ageless Democrat
(80 posts)if they encroach the Palestinian zone.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)Not to mention, if the West Bank is Palestine - why are so many people working hard to achive a two state solution? Not to mention, if it is Palestine, why are the settlers voting in another country - Israel?
The fiction that the Palestinians in the West Bank are a separate country ignores that countries have boundaries - what are the boundaries? Big question - when you have an Israeli settlement on the hilltop surrounded by Palestinian villages that have been there for centuries in the valleys - what country are you in when you step into the settlement? This is the reality that has made negotiations for a two state solution ultimately unsuccessful each time -- and why Israel has never put out their version of what the map should be.
They complain that there are Arab states that create maps calling the entire area Palestine, but there are also Israeli maps that no longer include the "green line". I think that the decision decades ago to build settlements on occupied (or as Israel prefers "disputed"
land was a disaster to the culture and country that Israel used to be.
Ageless Democrat
(80 posts)and what's more - the occupation may be permanent after Abbas and Bibi talk, discussing land swaps.
The biggest question is what to do about Jerusalem that would satisfy both parties.
I would back an international DMZ for Jerusalem patrolled by UN soldiers
That way, all aspects of people can access to Jerusalem, even the Palestinians who wants to worship at Haram al-Sharif.
All rules regarding holy sites still apply even after the international zone is established.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)As to Abbas and Bibi taliking - it is pretty clear that will not happen. Obama has tried twice - with two very good diplomats, George Mitchell and John Kerry. Netanyahu likely told the truth before the election that he will not have a 2 state solution on his watch.
Jerusalem is not the only problem. I do think an international Jerusalem might be a good solution - but BOTH want it for their capital. There is a huge problem that developed with teh settlements - the word "settlement" belies how large and permanent they are. Unless the settlers were forced to leave from all but a few settlements right on the border, you are left with something that looks like Swiss Cheese - one with a lot of holes. Not to mention the roads between these holes and Israel proper - that can only be accessed by Israelis.
840high
(17,196 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Which one has had sanctions placed on it for resistance to inspections?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Do you think Iran considers Israel--"a postage stamp of a nation"--the biggest threat to it? Was it Israel who overthrew Iran's democratically-elected president in 1953, and installed, and then supported the Shah? Was it Israel that called Iran part of the "Axis of Evil", along with Iraq and North Korea, and then preceded to ignore the biggest actual threat of those three, and invade the one that didn't have a nuclear program, but did have oil? I wouldn't blame the Iranians for building a bomb, but the fact is they haven't, and are now willing to negotiate with their greatest enemy to prevent the necessity for one. Would that Israel would do the same.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)...they held Americans hostage for over a year and we did nothing. Some threat.
Does Iran mention annihilating Israel just for fun, then?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Oh and please give me a list of countries Iran has invaded or annihilated.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Mosby
(16,267 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Ever heard of "Iran Contra?" Ever heard of, "Arms for hostages?"
Here is a little history lesson for you, so you can clear this up in your head:
You see, Iran would have released the hostages except that Ronald Reagan told them he would give them arms if they held the hostages until the election was over. Thus they weren't released.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/bonus-video/presidents-lying-reagan/
world wide wally
(21,739 posts)Israelis should be celebrating like the rest of the world.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)world wide wally
(21,739 posts)The RW meme is that it allows Iran to build nukes and nobody is challenging that with facts
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)When now we're told it's an economic deal.
Of course, adults know that it's both. Iran wants sanctions dropped, and they want a path to have nukes that they can someday use on Israel. I wish people would be adults and admit it, but instead they invent ways for Israel to be a threat to Iran.
world wide wally
(21,739 posts)Don't confuse the two
840high
(17,196 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That would be my guess.
http://www.mepc.org/articles-commentary/commentary/how-real-israels-threat-against-iran?print
Rex
(65,616 posts)I guess the OP would have signed the letter Cotton sent to Iran. One has to ask why anyone would be mad about peace.
world wide wally
(21,739 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I just look who it is and would have not expected anything else from them.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am not upset about the deal. I think it's great.
I just can understand why some Israelis might see it differently from their perspective.
Rex
(65,616 posts)And there is zero reason to believe you know anything about how average Israeli feels.
Sorry you didn't get the war you wanted...
You seem to have an endless supply! LOL
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Its just the same shit, different day.
Mosby
(16,267 posts)Oberliner shows some empathy towards Israelis and DU throws a fucking hissy fit.
WTF?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Sorry, Charlie.
Mosby
(16,267 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
sinkingfeeling
(51,438 posts)"Since 2012, at least Israeli intelligence has agreed with US intelligence that Iran has not made any decision to try to acquire nuclear weapons. And a series of Mossad chiefs have taken the unprecedented step openly rejecting Netanyahu’s use of the term “existential threat”.
‘Existential danger’ dismissed by Mossad
Tamir Pardo, the current chief of Mossad, has said that a nuclear Iran would not necessarily pose an existential threat to Israel even if it did acquire nuclear weapons. His predecessor Meir Dagan, who has made no secret of his disdain for Netanyahu’s handling of policy toward Iran as dangerously reckless, said flatly in 2012, that “Israel faces no existential threat,” and another previous Mossad chief, Ephraim Halevy, has also criticized Netanyahu for talking about an “existential threat” from Iran."
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2015/03/05/the-long-history-of-israel-gaming-the-iranian-threat/
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Go beat your hate drum somewhere else.
Fuck Bibi and all his thug friends.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Someone won't get their war and it is driving them cray cray!
I WANT MY WAR I NEED A NEW YACHT!
I'm glad the deal got done, let the grownup sit at the table.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Just sort of your average Israeli on the street.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)No war for you either.
Gotz a sad, bro?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)for Likrud and all the other right wing Israeli shits.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Lord knows how many millions will/would vote for Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and the rest of those right wing American sh*ts.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Supports Bibi and his thug friends is what you are saying? Though you don't support "Bibi and his thug friends" on this issue, you do agree with those who support Bibi and his thug friends on this issue?
See the irony??
closeupready
(29,503 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...coming out of mad mens mouths. GW Bush used to make stupid bombastic statements. So did Reagan. This Khamenei guy is just like them.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)I know, that's silly, huh?
clarice
(5,504 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Do you have any more childish arguments to make against diplomacy and in favor of war?
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Help me out here: Iran, the counterparty, televises its leaders leading chants of Death to America, yet somehow that aids "diplomacy?"
As I said, night is now day.
I will avidly watch any clip you happen to have of United States officials leading chants calling for the annihilation of Iran. Since such a things doesn't exist and never will, I won't hold my breath.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)starting with Iraq.
See Michael Ledeen eg, remember him? Part of Cheney's 'shadow government' whose stated goals for the entire ME was to 'turn the entire place into a glass parking lot' and when asked 'when', his response was 'FASTER PLEASE'.
So some of those nations like Iran, constantly being threatened by Bibi with tactical nukes, again go back and start reading, that doesn't sit will with them.
Seems to me the Neocons do not recognize the legitimacy of the people of that region as even worthy of LIVING.
Funny how quickly some people 'forget' just who has actually CARRIED OUT these genocidal policies.
All should have been prosecuted for WAR CRIMES in this country by now.
So spare us the 'poor neocons' routine, the world views the US and Israel and their allies as the biggest threat to world peace.
Maybe our allies who participate in these negotiations finally realized that someone has to stop them and persuaded the US to participate in ending the Neocon warmongering before we find ourselves in WW111.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)But I do see how you put chant in quotes, since no, the US never did what Iran continues to do, and in any event I struggle to see where Bibi threatened to nuke Iran. He didn't - you made that up from whole cloth because you think he EFFECTIVELY threatened them.
If we are the threat to world peace, why is our end of the agreement to merely end sanctions and legitimize a nuclear program that people here swore never existed in the first place? Some "threat."
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Even the older Cold Warriors stepped in to try to diminish the rhetoric/chants of all out destruction of the entire ME, since they certainly showed their willingness to bomb and destroy ME nations.
And just how much 'peace' has been achieved, how much 'democracy' since Bush/Cheney began the bombings and invasions over 12 years ago?
And who has Iran bombed btw?
As someone in the State Dept said a while ago 'we can't KILL our way to PEACE'. No doubt anyone harboring such thoughts isn't welcome as far as the warmongering neocons are concerned.
But in this instance, wiser heads appear to have prevailed. For now.
Rex
(65,616 posts)"Of the 151 Israeli scholars polled, 47 responded, yielding a slightly higher response rate. While U.S. scholars of international relations believe that relations between the United States and Israel are increasingly strained, both U.S. and Israeli scholars generally agree that a nuclear deal with Iran is good for their countries.While U.S. scholars of international relations believe that relations between the United States and Israel are increasingly strained, both U.S. and Israeli scholars generally agree that a nuclear deal with Iran is good for their countries."
So GEE...we have the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and a majority of Israeli scholars in agreement that the deal is a good one! But you know, internet posters are SO MUCH more an expert on the subject.
So sad to watch the Bibi meltdown...but I guess it is to be expected.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)If I don't trust Iran, why, I MUST want war!
I get it: this is a shiny new toy for you to play with, and you don't want anyone coming and disturbing your reverie. That's fine.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)fools who trust Iran.
It's classic Cheneyism.
And you're not fooling anyone with it.
If people trusted Iran, they would oppose the sanctions and the inspection regime and the dismantling of the nuclear facilities.
Instead, they are praising the agreement because it achieves all of those things, and deprives Team Neocon of their war.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)But hey, maybe it's a new day. Maybe the homophobic theocracy that is suddenly the apple of liberals' eyes is turning over a new leaf and will now stop threatening to destroy Israel as a matter of course.
I happen to doubt it, but I won't kick over your applecart anymore.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)No one trusts the ayatollahs.
The split is between the "diplomacy, negotiations, inspections and verifications" advocates and the "rerun the Iraq playbook in Iran--war and regime change please" crowd.
We all can see which of those two factions includes you.
It's not that we trust Iran, it's that you trust Netanyahu and Cheney.
Rex
(65,616 posts)"Of the 151 Israeli scholars polled, 47 responded, yielding a slightly higher response rate. While U.S. scholars of international relations believe that relations between the United States and Israel are increasingly strained, both U.S. and Israeli scholars generally agree that a nuclear deal with Iran is good for their countries.While U.S. scholars of international relations believe that relations between the United States and Israel are increasingly strained, both U.S. and Israeli scholars generally agree that a nuclear deal with Iran is good for their countries."
So GEE...we have the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and a majority of Israeli scholars in agreement that the deal is a good one! But you know, internet posters are SO MUCH more an expert on the subject.
So sad to watch the Bibi meltdown...but I guess it is to be expected.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)have any idea how it could be made better
And AS IF we are defending Iran here! You and I are both very pro-Israel! Yet, gee why are WE not running around with a SADZ because Bibi didn't get the war the GOP promised him!?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)regardless of religion or nationality to live free of war, oppression, and to have the chance to realize their individual and collective potential.
And there's this crazy notion that talking to someone doesn't mean you'd trust them to babysit your safe deposit box, favorite car, and newborn child.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)who doesn't consider Bibi Netanyahu the least-trustworthy person alive. Bibi is just a manipulator, anything to advance his agenda...no lie too big, no manipulation too extreme, no act too indecent to cling to power and effect his bellicose agenda.
At least the Ayatollah is upfront about his hatred of America and peace. I trust him when he says "Death to America" a lot more than I would trust him if he declared himself our best friend. That makes him a smidgen more believable than the guy who invited himself to Congress to attempt to instigate a war and is...shocked! Shocked, I tell you...that the US government considers it to have damaged his nation's reputation with the United States of America.
I feel bad most of all for the people of Israel and Iran who want peace and find themselves caught between two belligerent assholes bound and determined to have a fight.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)I have to question the basic intelligence of anyone who doesn't at least nominally agree.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)feel free to question my intelligence then. It doesn't bother me.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)...its signatories have to be the absolute greatest, bestest, gosh-darned PALS who ever trod the earth.
So fine. Iran good. Everyone else not as good. Most others nowhere near as good.
Happy?
At least you know where you stand with the Ayatollah - he's upfront that he hates your guts and would destroy you if he could.
Israel calls itself the US's best friend and would (and HAS) stabbed us in the back, undermined us and lead the charge of "America should fight country X" up to an including manipulation, spying and all out bombing (USS Liberty ring a bell?).
I KNOW what Iran is. Unfortunately, after the stunts pulled by our Republican congress, Bibi, and the idiot that sent the letter to Iran, figuring out who is truly loyal to the US is a hell of a lot more difficult to discern.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Couldn't have said it better, GT.
2naSalit
(86,393 posts)
neverforget
(9,436 posts)else do you want?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Is that diplomacy?
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)I didn't say "leading a throng".
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Sorry...apples and bowling balls.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And joking about killing innocent people
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)
He is quite powerful. Also, he encouraged Israel to "Go Rogue" and attack Iran anyway after Obama made the deal with the Iranians. So, yes, he is still chanting.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4532915/mccain-calls-war
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Peace has a tendency to reduce "Death to *X*" chants. Funny how that works.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Now that the American bombers have stopped carpet bombing and now that the Israeli army has mercifully packed up and gone home, Iran can now stop chanting for the death of its aggressors.
Oh, wait. Iran hasn't been attacked in a meaningful way by the US or Israel, ever, and it's been chanting that bullshit since at least 1979.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)I can't stop ya, but I can stop treating you as if you are worth conversing with on this topic.
Have fun storming the castle!
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/01/timeline-a-long-covert-conflict.html
Covert War Inside Iran: New Details Emerge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/covert-war-iran-cia-israel_n_1417764.html
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)as if nothing of importance involving the US and Iran happened before that date....and while pre-1979 might sound like ancient history, try to remember that less time passed between 1953 and 1979 than has passed since 1979. Many in the US cherish the memory of Iranian treachery while discounting the fact that the Iranians' memory is just as good as ours and their hatred was well-justified. Good for them that at least some in power are willing to move beyond it. Makes them seem like adults on the world stage....
edited for spelling
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)(mourning, not celebrating) http://newamericamedia.org/2011/09/911-raised-unrealized-hopes-in-us-iran-relations.php (of course, Dimson Bush totally missed an opportunity there because he already had a plan to remake the Middle East, and rapprochement with Iran wasn't part of it). And shoot "selfies" with the image of President Obama on TV just yesterday.
Someone urged you to have fun storming the castle, but it sounds to me like a bunker in an undisclosed location would be more your style.
Good luck.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)I get it. I disagree with you, and you don't brook disagreement, so I'm evil. But I know the Iranian people are lovely, as is the country, and it is merely their leadership that is fucked in the head.
Still...were those robots chanting on Iranian TV?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I don't think you are evil--project much, btw?--I just think you are demonstrating a near total lack of historical understanding of the relationship between these two countries, and something that certainly resembles cowardice. I've never had much patience with either trait.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts) Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died . . . .
The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives, but never apologized or acknowledged wrongdoing.[14] George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United States at the time commented on the incident during a presidential campaign function (2 Aug 1988): "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy."[43][44] Bush used the phrase frequently[45] during the 1988 campaign and promised to "never apologize for the United States" months prior to the July 1988 shoot-down[46] and as early as January 1988.[47][48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
I suppose the 66 children on board Iran Air Flight 655 might beg to differ with you, but they can't, see, because they're dead at the hands of the U.S..
"Oh, wait. Iran hasn't been attacked in a meaningful way by the US or Israel, ever." Do tell.
world wide wally
(21,739 posts)
whathehell
(29,037 posts)Talk is cheap.
ann---
(1,933 posts)Israel annihilated - it would have happened long ago.
If israel wants to go to war with Iran - go right ahead,
but leave the U.S. out of it.
Wars should not be the solution when someone uses
words we don't like. Iran has never been aggressive to
Israel - or Israel would have lost.
I don't want our military to fight and die for Nuttyahoo's warmongering.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)They don't even share a common border.
Throw in the fact they fought Iraq to a eight year stand off, a nation Israel could dispatch in less than a week...
ann---
(1,933 posts)If Israel could have "dispatched" Iraq in less than a week, why
didn't they fight with the U.S. when Bush started the war there?
Oh, wait - they let America do their dirty work for them so our
soldiers would die and not theirs.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)And they already dispatched of Iraq with relative ease during the 48, 67, and 73 wars when Iraq was fighting on the side of almost all the Arab nations.
Throw in the fact that our first war with Iraq in 1991 was because they attacked and occupied a fellow Arab nation, Kuwait, not Israel... That was the predicate to the misbegotten Gulf War ll because it led to the inspections regime the Bush administration said Iraq was violating as a pretext for invading it.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... is Israel doesn't like the agreement, tough shit. We are not their satellite although we act like it from time to time.
If Israel wants war they can get off their asses and fight. Otherwise I wish they would shut the fuck up, I am tired of hearing Yahoo, the Israeli equivalent of George Shrub Bush.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Let me preface my remarks by saying I thought the president did a great job and even made a thread to that effect:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026452368
However I have a feeling that if Iran or any other nation that wants a nuclear weapon can develop one despite what regime is in place to prevent them from doing so.
We went down this road with North Korea in the 90s and they have nuclear weapons.
I suspect Mutual Assured Destruction will continue to be the order of the day and there will be multiple nations in that region with nuclear weapons...
So far nations have used extraordinary, extraordinary...extraordinary restraint in not using nuclear missiles. I pray that holds.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Senators want to, as well, just for the hell of it. So do the Saudis and Qataris.
Just for the hell of it. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on Iran??
See when you are constantly the target of warmongering neocons, who have not left ANY DOUBT about their plans for the entire ME, and so far have managed to stir up so much horror over there, destabilizing the entire region and causing the tragic deaths of MILLIONS of innocent human beings, you might react by referring to those constantly threatening your country with some pretty nasty rhetoric.
Get back to us when Iran has done anything even close to what the neocons, Bibi being their favorite goto warmonger over there, other than say a few nasty things which to the world looking on, means very little unless those words are accompanied by the use of WMDs as WE and Israel and our Western allies actually HAVE done.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)And can you provide a citation that Israel has killed millions in the region?
Thank you in advance.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to 2005 to find lunatics in our own Republican Congress still advocating for the use of Tactical Nukes on Iran.
Congressman Suggests Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iran
The congressman criticized the recent Iran nuclear deal, remarking that the need to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capability is "inevitable." Asked whether he thought there would be war with Iran, Hunter responded "I sure as hell hope not."
Instead Hunter suggested a "massive aerial bombardment campaign" with tactical nuclear strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities would be the preferable route to ground war. He acknowledged that such a campaign would cost "billions and billions of dollars," but would still be better than sending US troops in.
.......
Meanwhile Iranian state-funded PressTV reported Hunter's statements with a note of concern, citing Kingston Reif of the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation as saying "even suggesting such a possible course of action is the height of reckless irresponsibility and so far out of bounds it is astonishing."
Iran, and the rest of the world, has been hearing this from Israel and from the lunatic far right supporters here in the US for ten years now. Is it any wonder they might respond strongly to such dangerous threats?
All I can say is, I am glad that we have a Democrat in the WH who appears to be unwilling to allow these lunatics to finally carry out these decade long threats.
Even Bush the lesser apparently split with Cheney on attacking Iran in the end.
I remember well when Israel made these threats back around 2005 and remember military analysts explaining the disastrous results of such a plan. The estimates of how many could die were approx 10 million within the radius of the strikes alone, with unknown far reaching consequences beyond that.
I think that finally it has been decided to reign in these warmongering fools before the set the whole world on fire.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)And the U S has killed ten, twenty times as many Arabs as have been killed in all the Israeli-Arab wars combined.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)were more than happy to help them do it.
Are you suggesting that Israel played no role in the Iraq invasion?
Where were you during the past ten years or so? IF you were on Democratic forums you cannot possibly say you were unaware of Israel's constant threats to use Tactical Nukes.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I'm going to need a citation that the Israelis threatened to use nuclear weapons on Iran in light of the fact that it is their official policy to not even admit they have any:
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v20/d349
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Just one of many articles regarding Israel's plans to use tactical nukes during those years. Clearly even Bush the lesser wasn't willing to go along with this madness:
Published: 7 January 2007
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters", according to several Israeli military sources.
The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open "tunnels" into the targets. "Mini-nukes" would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
..........
As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian Nuclear Progect will be demolished," said one of the sources.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)on Iran??
I am not disputing Israel has plans to destroy Iran's nuclear program but that's different than actually threatening them.
Bill Clinton had a plan on his table to attack North Korea in 1994 to stop their nuclear program which he rejected and he never issued a threat he would invade them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)nukes on Iran.
You demanded a 'cite'.
I gave you one of probably thousands at that time.
Now you are quibbling over semantics.
I will say it again, any rhetoric coming from Iran at that time, was in REACTION to the 'plans' which are worse than mere 'threats' actually, Israel was revealed to have had in place to launch a nuke attack on their nation.
It was widely known at that time what Israel PLANNED, again, worse than THREATENED, to do to a nation that had not posed a threat to them.
Widely discussed in horror at these plans, was the fallout for millions of innocent people from such madness, at that time.
Nuclear Scientists provided graphic images of the likely outcome of such an attack.
And in response, some Iranians reacted with rhetoric which most people around the world, found it hard to blame them for.
But now that you have been provided with the 'cite' you wanted, you are arguing over 'words'.
I rest my case. You can continue to point to mere RHETORIC from some Iranians and view it as MORE DANGEROUS, than actual plans to use Tactical Nukes against Iran if you like.
But you won't find much sympathy anywhere for that viewpoint, other than from those with a vested interest in getting it done.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I also cited a thread I started yesterday voicing my strong and unequivocal approval of the president's plan, ergo:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026452368
If these attempts to impugn my character were true I might be offended but since they aren't I'm not. I wear em like a badge.
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #140)
sabrina 1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It cost the United States a fortune in higher energy prices and nationalizations of oil holdings by OPEC countries to pay that blackmail.
See, http://fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm
THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES:
ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army
The Counterproliferation Papers
Future Warfare Series No. 2
USAF Counterproliferation Center
Air War College
Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
September 1999
The Counterproliferation Papers Series was established by the USAF Counterproliferation Center to provide information and analysis to U.S. national security policy-makers and USAF officers to assist them in countering the threat posed by adversaries equipped with weapons of mass destruction. Copies of papers in this series are available from the USAF Counterproliferation Center, 325 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427. The fax number is (334) 953-7538; phone (334) 953-7538.
Counterproliferation Paper No. 2
USAF Counterproliferation Center
Air War College
Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6427
The internet address for the USAF Counterproliferation Center is:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm
( . . .)
On the afternoon of 6 October 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in a coordinated surprise attack, beginning the Yom Kippur War. Caught with only regular forces on duty, augmented by reservists with a low readiness level, Israeli front lines crumbled. By early afternoon on 7 October, no effective forces were in the southern Golan Heights and Syrian forces had reached the edge of the plateau, overlooking the Jordan River. This crisis brought Israel to its second nuclear alert.
Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, obviously not at his best at a press briefing, was, according to Time magazine, rattled enough to later tell the prime minister that “this is the end of the third temple,” referring to an impending collapse of the state of Israel. “Temple” was also the code word for nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Golda Meir and her “kitchen cabinet” made the decision on the night of 8 October. The Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs. The number and in fact the entire story was later leaked by the Israelis as a great psychological warfare tool. Although most probably plutonium devices, one source reports they were enriched uranium bombs. The Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and the nuclear strike F-4s at Tel Nof were armed and prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets. They also targeted Damascus with nuclear capable long-range artillery although it is not certain they had nuclear artillery shells.[62]
U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was notified of the alert several hours later on the morning of 9 October. The U.S. decided to open an aerial resupply pipeline to Israel, and Israeli aircraft began picking up supplies that day. Although stockpile depletion remained a concern, the military situation stabilized on October 8th and 9th as Israeli reserves poured into the battle and averted disaster. Well before significant American resupply had reached Israeli forces, the Israelis counterattacked and turned the tide on both fronts.
On 11 October, a counterattack on the Golan broke the back of Syria's offensive, and on 15 and 16 October, Israel launched a surprise crossing of the Suez Canal into Africa. Soon the Israelis encircled the Egyptian Third Army and it was faced with annihilation on the east bank of the Suez Canal, with no protective forces remaining between the Israeli Army and Cairo. The first U.S. flights arrived on 14 October.[63] Israeli commandos flew to Fort Benning, Georgia to train with the new American TOW anti-tank missiles and return with a C-130 Hercules aircraft full of them in time for the decisive Golan battle. American commanders in Germany depleted their stocks of missiles, at that time only shared with the British and West Germans, and sent them forward to Israel.[64]
Thus started the subtle, opaque use of the Israeli bomb to ensure that the United States kept its pledge to maintain Israel's conventional weapons edge over its foes.[65] There is significant anecdotal evidence that Henry Kissinger told President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, that the reason for the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to “going nuclear.”[66]
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Yes but they have never publicly threatened to use nuclear weapons, especially on Iran, which is what was asserted:
on Iran??
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The "all options on the table" and "red line" terms were originally Israeli language used in those threats that got carried into US statements.
It is, in fact, Israel's very real nuclear threats that have been driving US policy, and the very thing that most Americans worry most about. Israeli nuclear blackmail of successive US Administrations has been a constant for more than four decades.
Ball is in you court. Please find something to refute the evidence presented, or retract. I will check back later to see whatever sources you've managed to come up with.
I think this is a very important point.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Israel has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity when it comes to its possession and use of nuclear weapons...Of course it's a well established fact they possess them...That's never really been in dispute...What seems to be in dispute is the suggestion that Israel has threatened to use them. I am still waiting for evidence that is the case , not subjective inferences from ambiguous statements...
" Israel currently maintains a policy of "nuclear ambiguity," or "nuclear opacity," refraining from overt admissions that it possesses nuclear weapons. Israel has also made extensive efforts to deny other regional actors the ability to acquire nuclear weapons, most prominently in the air strikes against Iraq's Osiraq Reactor in 1981 and Syria's suspected reactor near Al-Kibar in 2007.
http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/israel/nuclear/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-nuclear-capability-strategic-ambiguity
leveymg
(36,418 posts)of first-use against its neighbors and actual preemptive attacks on neighboring countries nuclear facilities, i.e., air raids to demolish Iraqi and Syrian nuclear reactors, as well as back-channel messages to the US that it would use the Sampson Option in the event that any foreign military actually penetrated IDF defenses and entered Israel, as almost occurred on the Golan Heights in 1973.
The timing of Israel's development of its first operational atomic bombs immediately prior to its launch of the 1967 October War suggests that acquisition of nuclear weapons has contributed to Israel's confidence in taking "preemptive" conventional military action and confidence that it holds a trump card in any conventional war it might initiate. The "Sampson Option" is actually part of Israel's conventional war fighting plans, and it makes Israel the greatest actual nuclear threat in the region.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)They have no say over which deals America makes, just like we have no say over Israeli land thefts and bombings of the Children of Gaza. Israel chose to keep a warmonger as leader. This is what happens. People stop caring what you think when all your leaders talk about is war war war. Pick better representatives and they will get more say. Palestine picked Hamas and now they suffer for it. Israel picked Netanyahu and he is making sure they suffer for it with his rhetoric and inability to be respectful to Our president and his BLATANT racism.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Please remember the majority of Israelis did not vote for Netanyahu, just like the majority of Americans did not vote for warmonger George W Bush.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We will behave just as we are wont to do with rightwingers. We suffered a big loss of worldwide goodwill under Bush and it has taken Obama years to get those relationships back in working order. Israel will continue losing the good will of the left of center people world wide until they give up on racist rightwing politicians and policies. There are consequences to their votes just like there were consequences to our national vote for Bush and the Palestinian vote for Hamas. Not all of them voted Hamas either, but that does not stop Israel from dropping bombs. Sauce for goose is sauce for gander.
Ageless Democrat
(80 posts)and the MKs will abandon Bibi and join Herzog's coalition which will have more than enough for him after Bibi's 42 days are up.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I find that dissappointing.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Israel needs to start liking the proposed treaty, for two reasons.
First, there is a chance it will work. It's possible, even if unlikely, that Iran does not want a nuclear weapon. Even if this is not true now, it may become true in the future. Iran used to be a modern, rather liberal society, and it could be once again, if the stars align.
Second, it gives them a legitimate reason for bombing Iran. Israel has only to wait until some weapons inspectors are denied access, and they can bomb the snot out of Iran. Same tactic GW Bush used to invade Iraq. I suppose Iran thinks a treaty makes it less likely Israel will strike at them, but it probably makes it more likely.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)They are one faction. Many Israelis support this deal. Netanyahu is a clown. A dangerous bloodthirsty clown.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)My guess is that most of them would be opposed to the deal, but that is just a guess.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Based on Israeli polls on "other matters" i have seen in the past few years i would suspect a majority of Israeli's feel the same as Netanyahu.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)can determine "what I think" the number might be. I'm sure, since you are so certain about this, that you can, for example, produce the public opinion polling data, right?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And while many Israeli do support this deal, many also do not - and I can at least understand where they might be coming from.
My assertion is that there are some Israelis who have concerns about the deal, and about Iran - and they are not just warmongering or bloodthirsty - they are generally disturbed by the sorts of sentiments expressed in the tweet from the Supreme Leader being coupled with said leader having access to nuclear weapons.
Hopefully, though, this deal with prevent that from actually happening as Obama has assured that it would.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)(That does not count military and civilian deaths in WWII)
Mao's Cultural Revolution in China put to death between 1.5 and 8 million. (Many more starved to death.)
Those are just two of the people we negotiated with.
Though Iran does support Hezbollah and other Shia terrorists organizations, Iran has not started a war since around 1750. Netanyahu may be a racist, but Israel does have legitimate concerns with Hezbollah.
I think using claims that Israel is a war monger or Iran exports wars are red herrings.
The questions Americans should ask is, "Do we want to fight a war with Iran."
The majority of Americans do not want the US in another Mideast war.
Our concern should be with the policy that is best for our country.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And I think Netanyahu is being ridiculous and hyperbolic.
However, I can understand from the Israeli person in the street perspective, where some of their concerns about Iran might be coming from.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Israel has no good options.
Bombing Iran would, at best, just give them a little more time for Iran to build a bomb. Israel doesn't have the power or population to invade. (Iran 77 million+ Israel 8 million +)
And bombing them would actually force Iran to build a bomb out of self defense since Israel has nuclear weapons and no way to actually defeat Iran militarily without using nuclear weapons.
It is a pity that neither nation has humanitarian leaders.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Yet the people just want peace in both countries.
Backwoodsrider
(764 posts)Israel, right or wrong has been hitting the occupied territories within its borders and other ME countries pretty hard for the last 60 years but that cant last. Everything comes to and end and now Israel has to try and get along with its neighbors, they can no longer be the bully. The US population is figuring out China is the big ME oil buyer they should be worried about that oil, not the US. US population from the whitehouse on down want us to get out of the Middle East and let them do whatever.
PS Israel was all about the Iraq war because they said they dreamed of Iraq being a beacon for democracy and free trade, plus when there is a war in the middle east Israel was allowed to hit back at the Arabians even harder because we are at war dammit anything goes!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That seems to be what you are suggesting here. Correct me if I am mistaken.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)He doesn't exist in a vacuum. He was put there because the majority of people in Israel want him there.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Hard to speak about what the majority of Israelis want without living there. I know many of their scholars have come out today and said it's a good agreement.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You are the one who cast this clown as "Israel", now anyone who agrees with you is likely to be portrayed by you as anti-semitic. Gee I've seen this script before.
herding cats
(19,558 posts)They are, that's why the agreement requires it, and it requires them to give up the vast majority of their centrifuges. This agreement greatly decreases the risk of the anti Israel sect of Iran gaining nuclear weapons anytime soon. Without a need to go to war against Iran.
A highly monitored and extensively scaled back nuclear program, and a prevention of a possible war with Iran. Both of these are good for the Israeli people. In the end this deal isn't what Netanyahu or Ali Khamenei would have wished for, but neither of them are thinking about the quality of life for their populations 10, 20, 30 years down the road either.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I've had enough of America acting as a proxy army for the conservative Israelis. They treat us like a big, dumb body guard, and now they are picking a fight they expect US to spend yet more blood and treasure on, not to mention countless more civilian casualties in Iran.
If there is any chance of peaceful resolution to this issue, it is our DUTY to pursue it.
If Israel thinks they need to pursue another course, then they can do it on their own, and without out money.
I have the greatest sympathy for those Israelis who truly desire peace.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)He is of the belief that there should not be an Israel.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Pretty much every weapon in the Hamas arsenal has been provided them by Iran.
Iranian officials say they have armed Hamas for fight with Israel
Iran is prepared to support the Palestinian resistance with weapons and technology transfers, Jafari said, and makes no distinction between Shiite and Sunni factions of the embattled populations under Israeli blockade.
"The Zionist regime [of Israel] will collapse soon as a result of the unity among Shia and Sunni Muslims and we are ready for that day," Jafari said.
Mohsen Rezaei, another former guard commander who is now a senior advisor to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tehran had already provided Hamas with missile-building technology being used in fighting against Israel Defense Forces in the Gaza Strip.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-gaza-hamas-iran-20140804-story.html
B Calm
(28,762 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)No wonder they were dancing in the streets. Netanyahu threatens air strikes against Iran all the time and has been screaming to the world that Iran is trying to get nukes for over 20 years. They still don't have that bomb.
Iran has not attacked Israel. Not once. Their rhetoric was just as bad as Netanyahu's. But they have stopped with the bombastic rhetoric and started making deals. Israel's Netanyahu is still warmongering to this day. Israel gets bombs from us, Hamas get's bombs from elsewhere. Just as bad if not worse since Iran has not been at war for many years. Israel has just finished killing over a thousand civilians. Who should we be more receptive to? The people making an agreement with us or the people who want to stop a deal and mess with our foreign policy and continue the warmongering?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The fact that Israel has often used US-made weaponry is not lost on people.
In fact, much of the animosity directed towards the US from that part of the world stems from its relationship with Israel - just as much of the animosity towards Iran from Israel stems from its relationship with Hamas and Hezbollah.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Seems like they bring more problems to us than they help us solve. I think America should worry about ourselves primarily. If Israel and her leaders are just going to continue campaigning AGAINST our president and his foreign policy, we should just cut her off. Save us plenty of trouble at the UN. All those nasty accusations from Netanyahu are never going to end until we give Israel exactly what she wants - a war with Iran, with our soldiers fighting it. No. No thanks, Israel. If the average Israeli has a problem with the peace deal, they can go it alone in fighting Iran. The USA will never fight that fight.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)But seriously, he actually put himself there. He has chosen the path of isolation. I don't like that their citizenry doesn't feel safe, but then again, that same citizenry is who just put a toxic, poisonous leader back into office. So there's that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)is better than not. Still makes no sense.
In spite of the rhetoric they came to the table and made agreements. Which is more than mere words.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Funny the majority of US and Isreali scholars think the deal is a good one.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/18/snap-poll-is-the-iran-deal-good-for-your-countrys-national-security/
"Of the 151 Israeli scholars polled, 47 responded, yielding a slightly higher response rate. While U.S. scholars of international relations believe that relations between the United States and Israel are increasingly strained, both U.S. and Israeli scholars generally agree that a nuclear deal with Iran is good for their countries.While U.S. scholars of international relations believe that relations between the United States and Israel are increasingly strained, both U.S. and Israeli scholars generally agree that a nuclear deal with Iran is good for their countries."
So GEE...we have the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and a majority of Israeli scholars in agreement that the deal is a good one! But you know, internet posters are SO MUCH more an expert on the subject.
So sad to watch the Bibi meltdown...but I guess it is to be expected.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am just saying that I can understand why some Israelis might be concerned.
Even some of the scholars in the survey you provided expressed such concerns.
Rex
(65,616 posts)think Bibi is a RWing war hawk. I too can understand, but there is no way I believe for one second Iran is going to nuke Israel. It would be the end of Iran as we know it. The country would be destroyed in record time.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Averting a war that would kill hundreds of thousands and halting Iranian nuclear weapons work? Those are good things that only hawks and their patsies wouldn't be thrilled with.
The trade-off is allowing Iran to trade again with the rest of the world. I suppose some competitors--and arms dealers--might look askance. I'm sure the'll be able to incite other wars elsewhere.
I hope they'll at least enjoy the peace we are willing to the next generation.
spanone
(135,795 posts)
Pisces
(5,599 posts)about Iran and the Palestinians. I think both have said things to their right wing base that they don't mean , but feel
like they must say it.
All should be celebrating peace.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)
malaise
(268,735 posts)and right now the Palestinians face more threats from Israel than Israel has ever faced from Iran.
The largest number of Palestinians killed since 1967 were killed last year by the war criminal Bibi.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts) Ageless Democrat
(80 posts)UNRWA and UNHRC are run by Hamas, and so they could move their missiles in the school and hospitals to maximize their casualities from Israel.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)If the goal is to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons, that has been achieved. Why would Israel want Iran to have nuclear weapons?
The quote is a reason for their not being keen on Iran, not for opposing the nuclear agreement. The only way it makes sense for the Israeli right--it's not all of Israel--is if they are pissed off they can't have the war they wanted.
Iran is not run by a dictator. You spew a lot of shit, and among that shit is your conflation of all Israelis with the warmongering right.
This is a peace agreement. People who oppose peace will oppose the agreement. 'That has nothing to do with hateful rhetoric, which will exists independent of the treaty. Clearly some on the right are upset that it's going to be harder to go to war with Iran Too fucking bad. War isn't a positive good, and opposing peace treaties is despicable.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Are you for real?
Have you never heard of the Supreme Leader?
The rest of what you've written here is similarly uninformed.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)I have heard of the Supreme Leader. He is not the entirely of the Iranian state. There is a considerable level of local representative government in Iran. Regardless, the structure of the Iranian state isn't a justification for war. That has no bearing on anything other than your rather weak attempts to present Israel as superior to Iran. Sadly, you champion the worst elements within Israel to make that assertion, which is among the reasons your post fails.
What is so uninformed about the rest of my post? That all Israelis are not right wing? The election results and editorials in Israeli newspapers show that I am right on that point. It is you who equates of all Israel with the Likud and the sociopath that is Netanyahu.
That Iran is rabidly anti-Israel and anti-semitic is clear. How does it help Israel for Iran to have nuclear weapons? What is remotely rational about opposing a treaty that stops them from doing that?
It sucks Bibi and his defenders didn't get the war they so badly wanted. Cry me a fucking river.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Scrabbleddie
(67 posts)Homeland security will forevermore be a priority for our nations.
Rationale, decency, even facts are of little consequence.
The presstitutes will manufacture enough consent/fear.
The lobbyists never-ending war is the thing to be concerned about.
question everything
(47,446 posts)The 'framework' agreement reached in Lausanne between world powers and Iran appears to be a good deal. But we must be wary of appearances – too many key issues still remain unresolved.
The pace in which the sanctions on Iran would be lifted is one example, while the future of the enriched uranium stock that Tehran already possesses is another example in a series of serious questions. However, the agreement presented on Thursday night by President Barack Obama, by Secretary of State John Kerry, and by Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif, was surprisingly detailed
(snip)
If the inspection of the agreement's key points is carried out as presented to the public on Thursday evening, Iran will face an enormous challenge if it were to attempt cheating the agreement. But, if the framework presented becomes the final agreement, including its technical addendum, even Israel could learn to live with it. As President Obama said, the current deal prevents Iran from developing enough fissile material for an explosive device or a nuclear bomb – for at least 10 years. If Tehran chooses to violate the deal, it will take them more than a year to gather enough enriched material for a single nuclear device.
We could not have achieved a better outcome even if Israel, the United States, and other countries had carried out military strikes on the nuclear sites in Iran. Even if the attack had been successful, the delay caused to the Iranian nuclear weapon program would have been shorter than 10 years.
Thus, it appears, it was a good deal.
(snip)
We can find more faults and more benefits, but even those in the corridors of power in Jerusalem will have to admit that this was a better deal than was expected.
(snip)
Obama tried to preempt the coming disagreement by promising to call Prime Minister Netanyahu on Thursday night, sending his national security team to assure the Israeli leader, and dangling even more military aid for the Jewish State. Put simply, Obama is offering an olive branch to Netanyahu in an attempt to cooperate on the design of the final agreement over the next three months.
The Israeli government should warmly embrace the offer without batting an eye.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4643999,00.html
.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)Legitimate reasons would warrant a pre-emptive self-defense attack, would it not?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)From such logistical questions as what country they could fly over, how effective strikes would be, incomplete knowledge of the location of facilities, to broader geopolitical concerns like potential blowback from neighboring states, complete international isolation, permanently damaging relations with the US, and on and on and on.
still_one
(92,063 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If nuclear weapons is what they fear, then this is a no brainer.
If a lost opportunity for war is what they fear, then I can understand why they might not be thrilled.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)ann---
(1,933 posts)Israel thinks. This was a negotiation involving more countries than the U.S. and Iran.
If they don't like, then let Israel go to war with Iran and leave the U.S. to try
diplomacy instead of war.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)There is Israeli support for the MEK, one of several Israeli-backed groups conducting terror attacks in Iran.
And 200 nuclear warheads.
And Bibi's threats to bomb Iran.
And the daily injustice done to Palestinians, including the 5 million in the diaspora.
But, hey, tweeting is more dangerous.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...that they're "concerned" that massive progress towards PREVENTING Iran from getting Nukes has been made. if they're so worried about Iran this deal is the best possible outcome they could have wished for.
Please do explain what's in any way "understandable" about that, because your OP didn't really over it.
Unless, of course, their concern isn't actually about any threat Iran poses but rather a concern over not getting a chance to get the US military to go blow up another one of their regional rivals for them instead while they cheer and gloat over it.
randome
(34,845 posts)So there's that. Amazing how difficult it is for some -impossible, apparently- to see the ongoing conflict of hatred in an objective manner.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
still_one
(92,063 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)It's too bad Netanyahu isn't the statesman that Obama and Khamenei are. If the point of the conflict is to see who blinks first, well, Iran just did and they are the stronger for it. Israel loses by Iran making a unilateral decision like this.
Netanyahu could have gone down in history as a hero. Instead, he is what he's always been: a whiny little loser.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
still_one
(92,063 posts)the radicals in Egypt assassinated Sadat.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Arafat, and the Assad family all failed to achieve--eliminating the Jewish-majority state.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)apartheid-era South Africa. What a legacy.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)He is an inflamed boil on the buttocks of the world, of the same kind as DicKKK and the Little Chimperor. A tyrannical little egomaniac.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)There's just no way around it.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts) Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Maybe stick to I/P.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)of community college. The free ice cream is too free?
I think what some Iranians say about Israel is odious, but just like Israel, you can't say all of the people are a reflection of their leaders. And Khamenei isn't the sole ruler of Iran.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Yes, he is.
Certainly much moreso than Netanyahu.
In any case, I can point you to surveys of Iranians and their opinions of Israel and the vast majority are in agreement with the Supreme Leader's views as expressed in the tweet above.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)That was working.
No, Iran has elections too. Just because you don't like their country doesn't mean you get to decide who really runs it.
Much more than Netanyahu? You're a riot. He was just reelected despite being down in the polls by whipping up anti-Arab fears. He certainly reflects a large swath of present societal opinions.
Iranians elected a moderate reformer as President in their last election.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)kept hearing about how we couldn't deal with Iran when it's being lead by a madman like Ahmadinejad. Now that President Rouhani has replaced Ahmadinejad, we keep hearing how the presidency doesn't matter and it's all up to Khameini. I guess the president of Iran only matters when they're despicable?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)
Obama playing the GOP like a mad fiddler! NPP earned and earned.
Who was it that got OBL again...yep. NPP earned and earned.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Their fears are NOT unfounded. No one can ignore a neighbor who calls for one's death. Americans know what can happen.
Israel is not the only target of the religious extremists or demagogues of Iran, the Ayatollahs have blood on their hands since they took over. Much of that blood is Iranian.
Some of it is on our hands.
The terms of the framework Obama and others set on Iran are the harshest ever set for any nation. Anything that goes wrong, the agreement says, Iran will 'be default' be judged and then sanctioned - many even military action will be taken:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110228400
Sorry for the swipe at Netanyahu if you supported him. I don't live there. But TOD and TPV have an analysis of the agreement and as Obama details it in the video at the link, it's harsh. He has also said precisely what I believe you are trying to convey here, that we don't trust Iran for precisely the reasons you give. I'm sure many who voted for Netanyaho voted for him out of a sense of self-defense and not hatred of Palestinians.
I hope that secularists in Israel will take some heart in that and not fall for those who would terrify them if there truly is a way out of the morass they have been for so long. This kind of rhetoric is a demonization of many peoples just before a strike is made.
Not all hearts in those nations agree with the extremists in either:
I've seen other videos of Israelis and Palestinians trying the one on one approach, main;y by those who have lost their family members to terror and bombings, etc. to get peace in the region. I guess they are in the ranks of the Israeli left.
Of course the MIC media that infects virtually every nation doesn't give their views air time. Instead, the propagandists monopolize media with fear and hatred. And I'm not even talking about the people who live in the war zones.
AFAIK, Israel has been in a constant state of war from agreements ending, made twenty years before as the Ottoman Empire collapsed, but Jews had been returning since 1881, but really, they sought to return since they were run out by the Romans:
Zionism and the British mandate
The first wave of modern Jewish migration to Ottoman-ruled Palestine, known as the First Aliyah, began in 1881, as Jews fled pogroms in Eastern Europe.[100] Although the Zionist movement already existed in practice, Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl is credited with founding political Zionism,[101] a movement which sought to establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, by elevating the Jewish Question to the international plane.[102] In 1896, Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The State of the Jews), offering his vision of a future Jewish state; the following year he presided over the first World Zionist Congress.[103]
The Second Aliyah (1904–14), began after the Kishinev pogrom; some 40,000 Jews settled in Palestine, although nearly half of them left eventually.[100] Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews,[104] although the Second Aliyah included socialist groups who established the kibbutz movement.[105] During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, that stated that Britain intended for the creation of a Jewish homeland within the Palestinian Mandate.[106][107]
The Jewish Legion, a group primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted, in 1918, in the British conquest of Palestine.[108] Arab opposition to British rule and Jewish immigration led to the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of a Jewish militia known as the Haganah (meaning "The Defense" in Hebrew), from which the Irgun and Lehi, or Stern Gang, paramilitary groups later split off.[109] In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine under terms similar to the Balfour Declaration.[110] The population of the area at this time was predominantly Arab and Muslim, with Jews accounting for about 11%,[111] Christians 9.5%.[112]
The Third (1919–23) and Fourth Aliyahs (1924–29) brought an additional 100,000 Jews to Palestine.[100]
Finally, the rise of Nazism and the increasing persecution of Jews in the 1930s led to the Fifth Aliyah, with an influx of a quarter of a million Jews. This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 in which the British killed 5,032 Arabs and wounded 14,760,[113] and resulting in over ten percent of the adult male Palestinian Arab population killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled.[114] The British introduced restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine with the White Paper of 1939. With countries around the world turning away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, a clandestine movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine.[100] By the end of World War II, the Jewish population of Palestine had increased to 33% of the total population.
Israeli Independence:
In 1947, the British government announced it would withdraw from Mandatory Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.
On 15 May 1947, the General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations resolved that a committee, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), be created "to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine".[118] In the Report of the Committee dated 3 September 1947 to the UN General Assembly,[119] the majority of the Committee in Chapter VI proposed a plan to replace the British Mandate with "an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem ... the last to be under an International Trusteeship System".[120] On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II).[121] The Plan attached to the resolution was essentially that proposed by the majority of the Committee in the Report of 3 September 1947.
The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan. The Arab League and Arab Higher Committee of Palestine rejected it, and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition.
On the following day, the 1 December 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets.[124] The Jews were initially on the defensive as civil war broke out, but gradually moved onto the offensive.[125] The Palestinian Arab economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled.[126]
On 14 May 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel".[127][128] The only reference in the text of the Declaration to the borders of the new state is the use of the term, Eretz-Israel...[129]
The following day, the armies of four Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq—entered what had been British Mandatory Palestine, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War;[131][132] Contingents from Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Sudan joined the war.[133][134] The apparent purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state at inception, and some Arab leaders talked about driving the Jews into the sea.[135][136][137] According to Benny Morris, Jews felt that the invading Arab armies aimed to slaughter the Jews.[138] The Arab league stated that the invasion was to restore law and order and to prevent further bloodshed.[139]
After a year of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were established.[140] Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. The United Nations estimated that more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled by or fled from advancing Israeli forces during the conflict—what would became known in Arabic as the Nakba ("catastrophe"
...[141]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
Of course, none of this is news to you, I'm just posting it for reference. Researching this from a secular view, I came to the conclusion that the creation of Israel as it now exists was not just imperialism on the side of the British, but what happened as great empires rise and fall. I'm not sure of the adjective great in application to any empire, but it's rather foolish to deny the centuries of caliphates which were empires in the area.
I suspect Israelis live and breathe the reality of empires that once existed there, and those trying to restore themselves such as the Daesh are doing now. Jews are a minority in that part of the world. When I say they have been a constant state of war, it is not as slander on either side. But a statement of fact. They have never really been accepted, just a look at the Wikipedia entries, which are most likely the weakest as they can be edited, show everything is disputed.
There is fear on all sides and unjust ideologies and religious extremism at work in the region. And Iran's wild statements - which I will emphasize again are from religious RWNJs that drone on constantly and hopefully not held by thinking people in general - give a distorted view. IMO.
Israel has adopted, rightly or wrongly, a fortress mentality because of this. And Netanyahu was reelected from the fears of Israelis combined with horrific experiences, both there and elsewhere. The pain keeps building.
I really want this deal to suceed, and I believe that it will help to liberalize Iranian thinking. It will not be all that pleasant as the voices of hate are very strong and well-practiced.
Thanks for posting this thread. I don't have time to read the other posts, these are merely my thoughts to you, oberliner. I wish the people of the region wisdom to find a better path.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I do hope that the deal succeeds and helps to liberalize Iranian thinking.
The problem is that while a good percentage of Iranians are indeed relatively secular, they are still subject to the whims of the Supreme Leader. Not very long ago there was some movement in Iran protesting said leadership but it didn't seem to gain any traction.
whathehell
(29,037 posts)We've spent enough of ours.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Hopefully it would lead to a brighter future for everyone in the middle east and around the world.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Stupid.
still_one
(92,063 posts)Oh wait we already did that.
Hmmmmmmm, but we sure showed Saddam he can't threaten us didn't we? Doesn't matter if there were no WMDs and millions died
Since we have already done Iraq, and encouraged an 8 year war between Iraq and Iran, I guess it is between North Korea and Iran, tough decision
Personally I think Kim Jongs threat to the U.S. Are more dramatic, but of course I am talking about threats made to the U.S.
Actually I really sympathize with those that want a more agressive stand against Iran, like war for instance, that I strongly encourage them to join a military that feels the same way, or if they are too old the least they can do is push their children or relatives to join and fight.
I also would like those wise asses from Havard and Yale who conceived that we overthrow the Democratically elected government of Iran in 1953, to join the "fight"
Their analysis of the situation has been consistent. Yes, consistently wrong, but that is beyond the point
We had an opportunity during the Cuban missile crisis to nuke away. Esteemed folks like Curtis E Lemay wanted that first strike so badly, but no, Kennedy through various intermediaries worked to defuse the situation. Missed opportunity I am sure some would say.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)The poor dears.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Where would the United States be without their friend Israel to tell them they are fat and explain that Americans need to pick up the check for lunch since it is making the US so FAT?
Israel, is like, so clued in. They are the ones that are keeping the US in the cool kids club!
Without Israel, the US would just be some gnarly country over there with a lot of resources that they aren't using for Israel!
OMG. You just don't know how uncool the US is, and how awesome Bibi, Israel and the Likud are. Tom Cotton is a sex symbol for trying to derail the nuclear negotiations, AND, he got $900,000 from AIPAC!
Oh my god!!
I'm dying over here!! Cannot breathe!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)back-stabbing Yahus and the people that defend them that *I* cannot breathe.
Bad mouth us in one breath, then complain that we aren't decking the other teams running back on the field, getting fouled and ejected from the game, all so the punter can have his moment of fame in the penalty.
We MUST be the disloyal players on the team because we don't want the entire team to lose just so the punter looks good!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The thing that I use to console myself is this. It's not working this time. Barely anybody on the left is falling for it and the right is insane. I think we have reached a point where Israeli influence in American politics will begin to subside.
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)But he could have declared war without nukes. A ground war. An invasion. It hasn't happened. I understand how frightening it must be to have a neighboring country's leader hate another country. But it's not unheard of in the world, and people have survived it without war.
