Middle East Politics

@Amir

You work for Haaretz's sports, right?
I'd heard a lot that the paper was in bad shape, but their website is still good!
 
berbatrick said:
@Amir

You work for Haaretz's sports, right?
I'd heard a lot that the paper was in bad shape, but their website is still good!
Click to expand...

Cheers mate, we do our best. Despite everything - yeah, financially it hasn't been great for a while now, cutback after cutback - I'm certain we're the best paper in Israel.
 
Fearless said:
You're one nuke away from being nothing all over again. Iran's intentions and incursions have no time for gently strummed acoustic guitars that are candle lit on Tel Aviv beach.
Click to expand...
No one is nuking Israel. You can fearmonger on Iran all you want but they're not as stupid as to sign their own suicide warrant. I'd be more concerned about the jihadist extremists across the border.

The whole 'survival' argument bears no weight when you're the strongest, nuclear equipped military powerhouse in the region with the world's most powerful nation and sole superpower as your guardian. This isn't 1948.
 
Kaos said:
No one is nuking Israel. You can fearmonger on Iran all you want but they're not as stupid as to sign their own suicide warrant. I'd be more concerned about the jihadist extremists across the border.

The whole 'survival' argument bears no weight when you're the strongest, nuclear equipped military powerhouse in the region with the world's most powerful nation and sole superpower as your guardian. This isn't 1948.
Click to expand...
It does, depending on what it is that's specifically argued for. The virulence of antisemitism around the world, and in the ME in particular, warrants that one Jewish state, as well as its local military superiority. If Israel gets significantly weaker in that regard, the threat will rise, it's as simple as that.

Doesn't mean this particular Jewish state bill (that kicked off this discussion) has to be supported as a consequence. I can't judge from the outside, but lean strongly towards the non-tribalistic options by default, until convinced otherwise. From what I can make out, I don't like the Israeli right's general agenda at all. But the notion Israel will be untouchable even for the forseeable future is naive at best.
 
Synco said:
It does, depending on what it is that's specifically argued for. The virulence of antisemitism around the world, and in the ME in particular, warrants that one Jewish state, as well as its local military superiority. If Israel gets significantly weaker in that regard, the threat will rise, it's as simple as that.

Doesn't mean this particular Jewish state bill (that kicked off this discussion) has to be supported as a consequence. I can't judge from the outside, but lean strongly towards the non-tribalistic options by default, until convinced otherwise. From what I can make out, I don't like the Israeli right's general agenda at all. But the notion Israel will be untouchable even for the forseeable future is naive at best.
Click to expand...

Its no more under threat than any other country in the region. In fact Iran, which has been labelled as their doomsday menace, faces a disproportionately higher level of threat considering they're in the crosshairs of the world's most powerful and belligerent nation one which has utterly destroyed countries in the region through regime change and who also happens to be Israel's most loyal ally. In fact, almost every neighbouring Arab state is more fixated with neutering Iran than it is Israel. Let's be honest, the only nation facing a semi-feasible threat to its existence at the moment is North Korea, and by proxy South Korea.

And yes, no country can bank on being untouchable in the foreseeable future. Who knows - the EU may collapse and Europe may again descend into continental wars, climate change may exacerbate tensions and generate unprecedented animosity amongst unlikely foes. It doesn't mean that a country has carte blanche to do "whatever it takes" under the guise of survival. In fact, that logic would ironically dignify an Iranian nuclear program as they'd argue that a nuclear deterrent would be what it takes to guarantee its security, considering what they've seen happen to other nearby nations blighted by US foreign interventions.
 
Kaos said:
Its no more under threat than any other country in the region. In fact Iran, which has been labelled as their doomsday menace, faces a disproportionately higher level of threat considering they're in the crosshairs of the world's most powerful and belligerent nation one which has utterly destroyed countries in the region through regime change and who also happens to be Israel's most loyal ally. In fact, almost every neighbouring Arab state is more fixated with neutering Iran than it is Israel. Let's be honest, the only nation facing a semi-feasible threat to its existence at the moment is North Korea, and by proxy South Korea.

And yes, no country can bank on being untouchable in the foreseeable future. Who knows - the EU may collapse and Europe may again descend into continental wars, climate change may exacerbate tensions and generate unprecedented animosity amongst unlikely foes. It doesn't mean that a country has carte blanche to do "whatever it takes" under the guise of survival. In fact, that logic would ironically dignify an Iranian nuclear program as they'd argue that a nuclear deterrent would be what it takes to guarantee its security, considering what they've seen happen to other nearby nations blighted by US foreign interventions.
Click to expand...
Your argument only works because you didn't address the main point in my post:
Synco said:
The virulence of antisemitism around the world, and in the ME in particular, warrants that one Jewish state, as well as its local military superiority. If Israel gets significantly weaker in that regard, the threat will rise, it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
In general, the hostility towards Iran is of a different nature than the one towards Israel. What perhaps comes close is the genocidal hatred of Sunni fanatics for Shias, and that warrants any necessary self-defense as well. Beyond that, to the best of my knowledge, Iranians as people are not the target of whatever threat there is for the state apparatus, Jews are. When it comes to Iran, a hypothetical political course change could defuse much of the hostility (exception see above), like Russia nowadays doesn't face the same threat as the USSR. This cannot be said of Israel. That's the difference between political conflict (as brutal as that often is) and an ideology that puts its targets outside of humanity.
 
Last edited:
Synco said:
Your argument only works because you didn't address the main point in my post:

In general, the hostility towards Iran is of a different nature than the one towards Israel. What perhaps comes close is the genocidal hatred of Sunni fanatics for Shias, and that warrants any necessary self-defense as well. Beyond that, to the best of my knowledge, Iranians as people are not the target of whatever threat there is for the state apparatus, Jews are. When it comes to Iran, a hypothetical political course change could defuse much of the hostility (exception see above), like Russia nowadays doesn't face the same threat as the USSR. This cannot be said of Israel. That's the difference between political conflict (as brutal as that often is) and an ideology that puts its targets outside of humanity.
Click to expand...

It's going to get far worse before any better, extreme right parties many of them with Nazi backgrounds are again gaining a foothold in many western countries. Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria etc etc etc. They wont aim their hate at race anymore but "culture" "being different". I watched a WW2 documentary just the other day, the Nazi propaganda had video showing Jewish prisoners they had taken in Russia marching to the death camps and the narrator speaking how their "race" and culture was tainting the correct and pure nations of Europe. I actually got the shivers because it isn't far off from the shit spewed in parliaments around the world today. It's scary to think what world is waiting for my children.
 
Last edited:
Amir said:
Not at all. No more than the average american fearing a North Korean strike.
Click to expand...

Jewish Israelis conducted in March 2012 by Prof. Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs sought answers to the following questions:

  1. How do Israeli citizens understand the Iranian threat?
  2. Is the use of force the only way to stop Iran’s nuclear plans?
  3. How do the U.S. and Israel compare in their abilities to prevent a nuclear Iran?
  • An overwhelming majority of Israelis believe that the Iranian nuclear threat constitutes an existential threat to the State of Israel and that the only way to stop Iran’s nuclearization is by a military attack.
  • Two-thirds of Israelis (65%) think the price Israel would have to pay for living under the shadow of the Iranian nuclear bomb is higher than the price it would pay for attacking Iran’s nuclear capability.
  • 60% agree that the only way to stop Iran’s nuclear program is by a military attack; 66% believe in the IDF’s ability to damage Iran’s nuclear program substantially.
  • 63% believe that the price the Israeli home front will pay if the United States attacks Iran is similar to the price it will pay if Israel does so
  • A 60% majority agree with the statement that the only way to stop Iran’s nuclearization is by a military attack.
The survey reveals that a substantial majority of Israelis (60%-36%) believe that the United States will act militarily against Iran if the sanctions do not suffice to stop it from nuclearizing. While a huge majority (80%-9%) of Israelis agree that the American military is capable of damaging Iran’s nuclear program substantially, Israeli citizens’ level of belief in the IDF is very high: a very sizable majority (66%-29%) believes that the IDF, too, has the ability to considerably damage Iran’s nuclear program.

Respondents were asked to assess the “relative price” Israel would have to pay in two situations: in the case of the U.S. attacking Iran vs. Israel deciding to do so by itself; and in the case of living under the shadow of an Iranian nuclear bomb vs. attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

While 30% do not agree with the statement that it is preferable for Israel if the U.S. acts, a majority of 62%-30% agree that if the U.S. acts to stop Iran, the price for Israel will be lower than if Israel acts alone. At the same time, 63% (vs. 29%) believe that if the U.S. mounts an attack on Iran, the price for the Israeli home front from Iranian missiles will be similar to the price Israel will have to pay for an Israeli operation against Iran.

Two-thirds (65%-27%) believe that the price Israel would have to pay for living in the shadow of an Iranian nuclear bomb is higher than the price it would pay for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Notably, 56% of the women, compared to 73% of the men, agree that the price Israel would pay for living with an Iranian nuclear bomb would be higher than the price for attacking.

The survey looked at the implications of an Iranian nuclear bomb by asking: do Israelis agree with the statement that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it will use them against Israel, b) do they agree with the statement that the Iranian threat constitutes an existential threat to Israel, and c) do they think that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, the Palestinians and Hizbullah will grow more belligerent toward Israel? A majority of 61% (vs. 34%) agree that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it will use them against Israel. An even larger majority (of 77% vs. 21%) agree that the Iranian threat constitutes an existential threat to Israel. A similar majority of 75% (vs. 21%) think that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, the Palestinians and Hizbullah will grow more belligerent toward Israel.
 
From February 1958:

 
@Fearless All due respect to the research, there's a big difference between what people say when asked a specific question to how they conduct their everyday lives. Iran or an Irani nuke is not a subject that plays a part in people's lives here, and it isn't a regular topic of discussion. And while it may have played a bigger part in the media in 2012, it hasn't been since the agreement with Iran.

I actually talked to some friends tonight about being asked about this and they were surprised people thought it may be a hot topic that affects us.
 
Why is the US attacking Russian personnel in Syria? Very bad move. This displays bad judgement. The situation needs to be de-escalated as soon as possible.

This is all because of people like Jared Kushner. Iran has done nothing wrong in terms of terrorism and funding groups like al qaeda and ISIS. The US needs to not be so belligerent with Iran. Iran also needs to stop trying to attack Israel.

The real enemy here is Erdogan and his crazy rhetoric and escalating the conflict with the Kurds. If NATO had any spine, they'd chuck Turkey out.

The conflict is getting worrying for innocent people.
 
Nikhil said:
Why is the US attacking Russian personnel in Syria? Very bad move. This displays bad judgement. The situation needs to be de-escalated as soon as possible.

This is all because of people like Jared Kushner. Iran has done nothing wrong in terms of terrorism and funding groups like al qaeda and ISIS. The US needs to not be so belligerent with Iran. Iran also needs to stop trying to attack Israel.

The real enemy here is Erdogan and his crazy rhetoric and escalating the conflict with the Kurds. If NATO had any spine, they'd chuck Turkey out.

The conflict is getting worrying for innocent people.
Click to expand...

Wum?
 
Nikhil said:
Why is the US attacking Russian personnel in Syria? Very bad move. This displays bad judgement. The situation needs to be de-escalated as soon as possible.

This is all because of people like Jared Kushner. Iran has done nothing wrong in terms of terrorism and funding groups like al qaeda and ISIS. The US needs to not be so belligerent with Iran. Iran also needs to stop trying to attack Israel.

The real enemy here is Erdogan and his crazy rhetoric and escalating the conflict with the Kurds. If NATO had any spine, they'd chuck Turkey out.

The conflict is getting worrying for innocent people.
Click to expand...

We should send Tulsi Gabbard to the front lines to sort things out.
 
fcbforever said:
Wum?
Click to expand...

Most definitely not. You think the US were right in targetting those Russian defence contractors? The important thing is to defeat IS and knock back the Turks, the ones who are escalating the conflict.

Raoul said:
We should send Tulsi Gabbard to the front lines to sort things out.
Click to expand...

She would do an amazing job. Would be great experience for when she becomes SoS and then President. :cool:

Jared Kushner holding those meeting with the Saudis without Tillerson and anyone from the Foreign Office. :lol:
 
Nikhil said:
Most definitely not. You think the US were right in targetting those Russian defence contractors? The important thing is to defeat IS and knock back the Turks, the ones who are escalating the conflict.



She would do an amazing job. Would be great experience for when she becomes SoS and then President. :cool:

Jared Kushner holding those meeting with the Saudis without Tillerson and anyone from the Foreign Office. :lol:
Click to expand...

You kinda have a wrong impression about the reasons Russia is fighting there. Hint: it’s almost certainly not ISIL.
 
If this is true then Assad and his backers have played this one beautifully:

 
If he wanted to make it really eloquent he should have bought along his bomb picture

58345340bibi_bomb.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.