Israelis 'rehearse Iran attack'

2»

Comments

  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    _outlaw wrote:
    I was actually talking to Seymour Hersh the other day and he's 100% sure that Iran will be bombed before Bush is out of office, so to hear someone like him say that, I was kinda freaked out. Now, I must say that I'm pretty much agreeing with him...

    You were talking to Seymour Hersh? Where?
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    Byrnzie wrote:
    You were talking to Seymour Hersh? Where?
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=286144
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    reborncareerist wrote:
    My honest view is that the U.S. should criticize Israel around Palestine issue (e.g., ongoing settlement expansion, continued refusal to withdraw to pre-1967 borders) before they should criticize re. an attack on Iran. I actually have few problems with the notion of a pinpoint strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, ala Iraq 1981.

    Michael Neumann:

    '...America would be far better off on the other side of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It would instantly gain the warm friendship of Arab oil producers and obtain far more valuable allies in the war on terror: not only the goverments of the entire Muslim world, but a good portion of the Muslim fundamentalist movement. The war on terror, which seems so unwinnable, might well be won at nominal cost, and quickly. Perhaps, the most likely scenario would simply involve an embargo on Israel. Sponsored by the U.S in cooperation with the United Nations. There is a chance that Israel would prove intransigent; it has great military resources and could probably buy the materials it needs through sales of military technology. If this happens, Israel might have to be made the object of the kind of coalition forged against Iraq in the first Gulf war. Of course, against Israel the coalition would be far broader and stronger, including all the countries of the former Soviet Union, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and many others. And though Israel is quite strong enough to persist in it's policis without U.S support, it could not stand up to such a coalition. Israel would be forced to follow it's own best interests and make peace.
    Perhaps most important, switching sides would revitalize America's foundering efforts at non-proliferation. There are two man reasons why other countries resist these efforts: fear of American attack, and the outrageous exemption of Israel from non-proliferation initiatives. It is simply absurd to suppose that any serious effort to stem the development of nuclear weapons can proceed in the absence of any attempt to disarm Israel, which is estimated to possess between 200 and 500 nuclear warheads. Having launched it's own satellites, it clearly has the capacity to hit targets anywhere in the world, and it possesses cruise missiles that have hit targets 950 miles away. Until it is forced either to disarm or to establish good relations with it's neighbours, the pace of proliferation will simply increase. On the other hand, U.S efforts to neutralize the Israeli nuclear threat would win support for non-proliferation efforts from Pakistan and Iran. In these circumstances, in a radically different political environment, the problem of North Korea would no longer seem intractable. Meanwhile, the U.S contents itself with hollow victories such as Libya's recent gesture, the nuclear disarmament of a country that never had nuclear weapons in the first place.
    In short, one has only to conceive the end of the U.S-Israel alliance to be overwhelmed with the benefits of such a move - very likely, even to Israel itself. That once-beneficial alliance, a legacy of the Cold War, has turned poisonous to America's security and it's future.'
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Michael Neumann:

    '...America would be far better off on the other side of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It would instantly gain the warm friendship of Arab oil producers and obtain far more valuable allies in the war on terror: not only the goverments of the entire Muslim world, but a good portion of the Muslim fundamentalist movement. The war on terror, which seems so unwinnable, might well be won at nominal cost, and quickly. Perhaps, the most likely scenario would simply involve an embargo on Israel. Sponsored by the U.S in cooperation with the United Nations. There is a chance that Israel would prove intransigent; it has great military resources and could probably buy the materials it needs through sales of military technology. If this happens, Israel might have to be made the object of the kind of coalition forged against Iraq in the first Gulf war. Of course, against Israel the coalition would be far broader and stronger, including all the countries of the former Soviet Union, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and many others. And though Israel is quite strong enough to persist in it's policis without U.S support, it could not stand up to such a coalition. Israel would be forced to follow it's own best interests and make peace.
    Perhaps most important, switching sides would revitalize America's foundering efforts at non-proliferation. There are two man reasons why other countries resist these efforts: fear of American attack, and the outrageous exemption of Israel from non-proliferation initiatives. It is simply absurd to suppose that any serious effort to stem the development of nuclear weapons can proceed in the absence of any attempt to disarm Israel, which is estimated to possess between 200 and 500 nuclear warheads. Having launched it's own satellites, it clearly has the capacity to hit targets anywhere in the world, and it possesses cruise missiles that have hit targets 950 miles away. Until it is forced either to disarm or to establish good relations with it's neighbours, the pace of proliferation will simply increase. On the other hand, U.S efforts to neutralize the Israeli nuclear threat would win support for non-proliferation efforts from Pakistan and Iran. In these circumstances, in a radically different political environment, the problem of North Korea would no longer seem intractable. Meanwhile, the U.S contents itself with hollow victories such as Libya's recent gesture, the nuclear disarmament of a country that never had nuclear weapons in the first place.
    In short, one has only to conceive the end of the U.S-Israel alliance to be overwhelmed with the benefits of such a move - very likely, even to Israel itself. That once-beneficial alliance, a legacy of the Cold War, has turned poisonous to America's security and it's future.'

    This is actually quite interesting, although there is no way Israel would require a military response in the form of some gigantic coalition ... Israel is a democracy, and militarism aside, is not run by someone like Saddam Hussein. Israel would bow to U.S. demands to create a Palestinian state, before force would become necessary. I'd like to hear more of his logic re. how exactly a good portion of the Islamic fundamentalist movement would somehow cozy up to the U.S. as a direct result of a move against Israel. Is he suggesting that most of the "Great Satan"-type bullshit these people spout is largely related to the issue of Israel? I HIGHLY doubt that to be the case. Quite frankly, Islamic fundamentalism is not an altruistic movement. They do not oppose Western interests simply because they pity Palestine. The US switching sides might bring many moderates in the Arab world on board, but the fundamentalists have other axes to grind besides Israel.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    reborncareerist wrote:
    This is actually quite interesting, although there is no way Israel would require a military response in the form of some gigantic coalition ... Israel is a democracy, and militarism aside, is not run by someone like Saddam Hussein. Israel would bow to U.S. demands to create a Palestinian state, before force would become necessary. I'd like to hear more of his logic re. how exactly a good portion of the Islamic fundamentalist movement would somehow cozy up to the U.S. as a direct result of a move against Israel. Is he suggesting that most of the "Great Satan"-type bullshit these people spout is largely related to the issue of Israel? I HIGHLY doubt that to be the case. Quite frankly, Islamic fundamentalism is not an altruistic movement. They do not oppose Western interests simply because they pity Palestine. The US switching sides might bring many moderates in the Arab world on board, but the fundamentalists have other axes to grind besides Israel.
    I believe a poll done a few years ago showed that most Arabs are angry at the US and the West for its support of Israel.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    Israel is a democracy like Turkey is a democracy.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    _outlaw wrote:
    I believe a poll done a few years ago showed that most Arabs are angry at the US and the West for its support of Israel.

    As the main or sole reason, though? And if this is the case, are they angry because of the Palestinian's plight, or because of bigotry/and-or getting their arses whupped a few times?

    I see your point, and agree that the U.S.'s (unconditional) support of Israel poses a problem. I don't see it as the only problem, though.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    If we are to believe that Osama is behind most of the terrorist attacks that have happened recently we should investigate why he is so pissed off. At the top of the list is US support for Israeli terrorism. Right behind it is the stationing of US troops near Islam's holiest site, Mecca. Iraq...and on..
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Commy wrote:
    If we are to believe that Osama is behind most of the terrorist attacks that have happened recently we should investigate why he is so pissed off. At the top of the list is US support for Israeli terrorism. Right behind it is the stationing of US troops near Islam's holiest site, Mecca. Iraq...and on..

    Do you really think Osama's biggest beef has to do with Israel? I don't know ...
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Do you really think Osama's biggest beef has to do with Israel? I don't know ...
    yeah I don't think anyone knows.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    reborncareerist wrote:
    This is actually quite interesting, although there is no way Israel would require a military response in the form of some gigantic coalition ... Israel is a democracy, and militarism aside, is not run by someone like Saddam Hussein. Israel would bow to U.S. demands to create a Palestinian state, before force would become necessary. I'd like to hear more of his logic re. how exactly a good portion of the Islamic fundamentalist movement would somehow cozy up to the U.S. as a direct result of a move against Israel. Is he suggesting that most of the "Great Satan"-type bullshit these people spout is largely related to the issue of Israel? I HIGHLY doubt that to be the case. Quite frankly, Islamic fundamentalism is not an altruistic movement. They do not oppose Western interests simply because they pity Palestine. The US switching sides might bring many moderates in the Arab world on board, but the fundamentalists have other axes to grind besides Israel.

    Firstly, what fundamentalists in charge of a country do you have in mind exactly?
    Secondly, I doubt it would solve all of the problems in the middle East overnight, but It would go a long way towards doing so.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    reborncareerist wrote:
    As the main or sole reason, though? And if this is the case, are they angry because of the Palestinian's plight, or because of bigotry/and-or getting their arses whupped a few times?
    Yes, the main reason, aside from US intervention in that region for the past 50 years.

    As for whether or not it's for the Palestinians' plight or not, I'd assume it is.
    I see your point, and agree that the U.S.'s (unconditional) support of Israel poses a problem. I don't see it as the only problem, though.
    It's definitely one of the bigger problems, though... Unfortunately, the US has fucked with that region so much that Middle Easterners have a lot to be angry at.

Categories