Israel's premier urges West to reject Iran nuclear deal

[867-5309.]

Source: ABC News

Israel's prime minister urged President Joe Biden and Western powers to call off an emerging nuclear deal with Iran, saying that negotiators are letting Tehran manipulate the talks and that an agreement would reward Israel's enemies.

Yair Lapid called the emerging agreement a “bad deal” and suggested that Biden has failed to honor red lines he had previously promised to set.

“The countries of the West draw a red line, the Iranians ignore it, and the red line moves,” Lapid told reporters at a press conference in Jerusalem. An emerging deal, Lapid said, “does not meet the standards set by President Biden himself: preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear state.”...

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israels-premier-urges-west-reject-iran-nuclear-deal-88788941

[Me.]

1. If Netanyahu Hadn't Interferred In The Firdt PLace This Wouldn't Be An Issue

[Gaugamela]

2. Is this the guy who bombed Gaza because he's up for re-election?

He seems like a neutral voice on the issue.

[Beastly Boy]

3. Refresh my memory please.

There were two "guys" who bombed Gaza recently. One is Lapid, the other is Ziyad al-Nakhalah, the head of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Which one of them is up for re-election? And why would the other guy bomb Gaza?

[Gaugamela]

4. From The Guardian:

Centrist Lapid, the caretaker prime minister, is preparing for elections on 1 November in which he faces pressure from Israel’s right wing to appear tough on terrorism.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/06/israel-bombs-gaza-strip-second-day-pre-emptive-operation-palestine

[Beastly Boy]

5. "Palestinian health authorities report"?

Palestinian health authorities have an egg on their faces as far as their reporting goes. They consistently attribute ALL casualties without distinction, including belligerent combattants, who are legitimate military targets, to Israeli strikes.

Here is one report, more legitimate than Palestinian health authorities, from ABC News, consistent with independent reporting from AP: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/misfired-rockets-killed-dozen-gaza-battle-88112247 At least 14 Gazans killed by PIJ rockets. That is pretty close to civilian deaths attributed to IDF.

And thanks for refreshing my memory about Lapid running for re-election. For a second I feared that hell froze over, and it was the PIJ chief whose leadership was being challenged in an election. BTW, is he still in Iran?

[TeamProg]

6. How many people remember that Israel was AGAINST Obama's Iran / Nuclear deal that

TFG dissolved?

Israel does not seem interested in peace with their neighbors.

[Beastly Boy]

8. Israel seems interested in peace with

UAE, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Sudan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan...

This does not mean I am against a nuclear agreement with Iran. I am just tired of meaningless generalities being casually thrown around.

[TeamProg]

10. Israel has been in conflict with A neighbor for over a century. Peace? n/t

[Beastly Boy]

15. That's some accomplishment, considering Israel was founded in 1948.

And I doubt you would be interested in considering the not so fine distinction between being interested in peace and having no peace.

[TeamProg]

16. I'm sure you know the Israeli conflict with a neighbor that's gone on for over a century.

[Beastly Boy]

17. Sorry, I don't. I can't even fathom how Israel can be in conflict with anyone prior to its existence

[neoconn]

18. That land was taken by several other groups

dating from the BC and beyond. Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Fatimids, Seljuk Turks, Crusaders, Egyptians, Mamelukes, Islamists ..etc

[Beastly Boy]

19. What does Israel have to do with any of this?

Do you now want to blame Israel for the conflicts the Fatimids had with their neighbors on the same territory a thousand years ago? That's even more absurd than blaming Israel for the conflicts the British were part of when they controlled the territory a hundred years ago!

[Me.]

20. And

that speech before Congress. IMHO, Israel has no say now in this matter

[Beastly Boy]

23. Israsel never had a say in this matter

Last edited Thu Aug 25, 2022, 09:25 AM - Edit history (1)

The signatories to the agreement are Germany, France, U.K., China, Russia, and Iran. Only these parties have a say.

But there are many countries, Israel included, that are scared shitless of a nuclear Iran. Besides Israel, they include virtually every Sunni majority Arab state. Being US' top ally in the region, however, Israel is best positioned to speak up on the matter, especially to the US. While the Sunni Arab states remain in the background, Israel's self-interest is addressing their concerns too.

[Me.]

27. Isreal Did Speak Up On The Matter

and this is where we are now

[Beastly Boy]

28. Surely you are not suggesting that Israel needs to be quiet on likely threats to its security!

I took your comment to mean that Israel should not be involved in the negotiations. They never were. Where we are now is the direct consequence of the respective positions taken by the five negotiating parties, no matter the circumstances. That excludes Israel.

If, on the other hand, you meant that Israel should refrain from speaking up on the matter that directly affects its survival as a state and a nation, I strongly disagree.

[Me.]

34. Clearly You & I Do Not Agree On This Matter

it is generally agreed that the previous deal was much better than what is gong on now and Netanyahu was a very vocal voice in wanting to scuttle the deal and the Cons helped him just so PBO would look bad.

[Beastly Boy]

35. Netanyahu may have been a vocal voice, but he didn't scuttle any deals.

It is beyond question that, regardless of how the previous deal compares to the current one, he had absolutely no power to do so. Nothing to agree or disagree about.

[Me.]

36. And I Disagree

and will also end this conversation now

[Beastly Boy]

38. Suit yourself. Seems like ending the conversation after disagreeing with a foregone conclusion is

the right thing to do.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

7. Come on Israel. You're not dealing with Donald Trump anymore.

[TeamProg]

12. +1

[Happy Hoosier]

9. What deal would satisfy Israel, and is such a deal possible?

I have a feeling that nothing actually attainable would be "good enough" for them. If that's the case, we need to assess the matter ourselves, without their advice.

[TeamProg]

11. +1

[JohnSJ]

13. Recognize Israel's right to exist, might be a good start for a two state solution

Regardless, if the Iran deal represents a verifiable agreement, President Biden will go with it

[2naSalit]

21. +1

You can't continually move the goal posts and also expect to tell other nations how and what decisions they should make. I'm growing quite tired of that situation over there and how being the eternal ultra-victim is grounds for causing problems if you don't get your way.

Sound familiar?

When you become that which you claim to be against, what does that say about your real values?

[Beastly Boy]

22. Are you saying that Iran not threatening Israel with

complete and total annihilation and not moving towards the realization of this explicitly articulated and often repeated threat is unattainable?

[Happy Hoosier]

24. No. I'm not.

But I fail to see how NOT having a nuclear deal with Iran helps that problem in any way.

I think that would an immediate choice between a deal an no deal. And a deal is preferable, even in the face of those threats, because Iran with nuclear weapons is a much bigger threat to Israel than Iran without nuclear weapons, regardless of their bluster.

[Beastly Boy]

25. I happen to agree with you on that.

My objection was to your statement that "I have a feeling that nothing actually attainable would be "good enough" for them." It is clear what is "good enough" for Israel, and they never moved their goal post on this issue. The Israeli PM expressed his conviction that the deal the way it stands now is unacceptable to Israel. Nor does it appear acceptable to the majority of the Sunni Arab states, to whom a nuclear Iran is an existential threat as well. You and I happen to disagree. But since I am assuming that the Israeli PM has more information on this matter than I do, my objection to his statement is not categorical at all.

On edit: Having said all that, Lapid has no say in the negotiations. All he can do is vocalize his objections.

[Happy Hoosier]

26. I guess I am more cynical than you.

I don't trust the Israeli government on this matter. To me, their constant occupation in the West Bank and Gaza is a HUGE barrier to peace, and their complete disregard for U.S. opinion on the matter makes me pretty much unconcerned with their opinions on other matters. I sincerely hope that Israel eventually gets a government that is actually interested in a building a sustainable peace.

And the same goes for the Palestinians. They seem equally committed to hateful warmongers on THEIR side.

Not that I trust the Iranians either, but I think moving deal forward is good, so long as it is verifiable. Baby steps. Let's see if we can prevent nuclear war in the Middle East first.

[Beastly Boy]

31. As spectators not directly affected by our judgments, we have the luxury of choosing

who we trust or mistrust. In reality, the Middle East is a region of immense complexity. At this point, the conflict playing out in Palestine is no longer a matter of Israel and the Palestinians. It is a the focus of far wider regional conflict between Shiah and Sunni Muslim factions, which has been a source of tensions and violence in the region for centuries. Both sides use Israel and the Palestinians in their pursuit of gaining dominance in the region. Israel just happens to be a convenient target, and the Palestinians a convenient victim. And, sadly, driven by regional forces beyond their control, they play their respective parts to perfection. In this larger picture, it makes no sense blaming Likud or Hamas, because the tensions between the two, and even the existence of each, are instigated outside of Palestine. As the Shiite Iran bankrolls various militant radicals to destabilize the largely Sunni parts of the Middle East, which includes Israel and Palestine, the Sunni Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are frantically forming alliances with Israel, the only state capable of opposing Iran militarily.

In this crazy whirlwind of turbulent mayhem, I am not ready to make lighthearted judgements on anyone.

[Mosby]

37. One that prevents Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

And restrictions on the development of cruise missles.

Israel has always been a bystander to the international community's efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA of the UN has been trying and often failing at inspections and enforcing UN resolutions about Iran's nuclear program. They have been in violation of UNSC resolutions for decades, including the JCPOA.

Israel's leaders view Iran and it's nuclear aspirations as a true existential threat. They tend to respond militarily to threats like that.

[NickB79]

29. Who's been the only nuclear-armed nation in the Middle East for 50 years now?

Someone refresh my memory.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Pakistan

Oh wait, you said only. So, that would also include Israel. So, I guess Pakistan isn't the only "nuclear-armed nation in the Middle East for 50 years".

[NickB79]

32. Pakistan is recognized as part of Asia

Try again?

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Pakistan is recognized as part of the Middle East by more than a few.

But, perhaps you aren't really interested in all nuclear countries in that region, just one in particular. Shocking.