Quick Question on Iran

[VKhaun]

How does making all of Israel radioactive help their cause? Wouldn't a nuke obliterate all the holy sites and ruin all the land they want to give back to the palestinians? Even if Iran was okay with that part, why is palestine? Surely they want to own the land and take it back, not see it made off limits for a hundred years. Even for extremists something isn't quite right here.

[Valec]

The thing to realize here is that to them, Israel is the evil enemy that absolutely must, at all costs, be destroyed. Not only are they infidels, they are usurpers, taking control of the holy capital, for all intents and purpose. If they are true to their purpose, than however long it takes for the fallout to pass is still worth it. When it clears, the Jews will still be gone.

This is one of the main reasons I side with Israel. No matter how much you disagree with their politics, genocide isn't necessary to make them happy. You can't say the same about their enemies. Nothing short of a second Jewish holocaust(a successful one at that) will ever make them happy.

If genocide is the answer to your problems, you are the bad guy. I see no way of rationalizing it otherwise.

[Sillywilly]

How does making all of Israel radioactive help their cause? Wouldn't a nuke obliterate all the holy sites and ruin all the land they want to give back to the palestinians? Even if Iran was okay with that part, why is palestine? Surely they want to own the land and take it back, not see it made off limits for a hundred years. Even for extremists something isn't quite right here.

I've always thought there was something funny going on in that area, even as far out as WWII Germany. The Jews can't seem to catch a break, if they aren't getting suicide bombed by Muslims they're facing genocide by Germans.

[Valec]

Iran is on a death spiral. They are fucking with all the wrong people at the time where tolerance for this kind of fucking is at a minimum. If Israel doesn't push first, Iran will. If Iran doesn't, we will. There's just no positive outlook for Iran and I feel like they are the only people who don't understand this.

[VKhaun]

Thanks captain obvious and first mate oblivious, but I was really speaking towards the contradiction there.

I get that they want to give the land back to Palestine.
I get that they want to obliterate Israel.
I get that I'm supposed to think they'll nuke Israel the instant they can.

I just don't understand how all three could go together. Are the Palestinians supposed to go live in a radioactive wasteland God is going to protect them? They blatantly state they want to wipe Israel right off the map, so it's not like it's a cover story or exuse for anything, it's just a raw contradiction. I have news articles on google news every weekend saying some Iranian went and said something stupid again about getting rid of Israel and giving it back to the Palestinians, and then the author refferencing their nuclear program as related.

I feel like I'm missing something about it.

[Valec]

Thanks captain obvious and first mate oblivious, but I was really speaking towards the contradiction there.

I get that they want to give the land back to Palestine.
I get that they want to obliterate Israel.
I get that I'm supposed to think they'll nuke Israel the instant they can.

I just don't understand how all three could go together. Are the Palestinians supposed to go live in a radioactive wasteland God is going to protect them? They blatantly state they want to wipe Israel right off the map, so it's not like it's a cover story or exuse for anything, it's just a raw contradiction. I have news articles on google news every weekend saying some Iranian went and said something stupid again about getting rid of Israel and giving it back to the Palestinians, and then the author refferencing their nuclear program as related.

I feel like I'm missing something about it.

Jerusalem will still be holy ground after it's nuked. There just won't be any Jews there anymore.

[Sillywilly]

Thanks captain obvious and first mate oblivious, but I was really speaking towards the contradiction there.

I get that they want to give the land back to Palestine.
I get that they want to obliterate Israel.
I get that I'm supposed to think they'll nuke Israel the instant they can.

I just don't understand how all three could go together. Are the Palestinians supposed to go live in a radioactive wasteland God is going to protect them? They blatantly state they want to wipe Israel right off the map, so it's not like it's a cover story or exuse for anything, it's just a raw contradiction. I have news articles on google news every weekend saying some Iranian went and said something stupid again about getting rid of Israel and giving it back to the Palestinians, and then the author refferencing their nuclear program as related.

I feel like I'm missing something about it.

Well hokey ho dokey.

I think it's pretty obvious what's going to happen. Iran is going to blow Israel all to hell and then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to ride a horse up to the remains of the Dome of the Rock, and he's going to scream in agony: "You finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! God damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

[Sofista]

How does making all of Israel radioactive help their cause? Wouldn't a nuke obliterate all the holy sites and ruin all the land they want to give back to the palestinians? Even if Iran was okay with that part, why is palestine? Surely they want to own the land and take it back, not see it made off limits for a hundred years. Even for extremists something isn't quite right here.

Vkhaun, the point here is rhetoric. Iran dont really want to nuke Israel the second it gets a nuclear bomb. What they really want is to gather muslin support to counter the US plan to change the geopolitics of the region (Saudi Arabia & Iraq).

This wish was reinforced after the invasion of Iraq. For them, the capability to avoid a US lead invasion (by having a nuke) that will Overthrow their gov is of paramount importance.

Although Pakistan has nukes, Iran is much more militant and engaged in the region, so by having one it hopes to be the central axis of "muslin resistance" movement worldwide. thats also the reason why it is probably financing some terrorists groups as well.

Also, saying they want it to wipe out Israel, gives them strength politically with the internal crowd. The Iranian leaders must appease the more radical sectors that make up a good part of their political base. They also want to look as a political counterpoint to Saudi Arabia, seen as sold to the "big man" (USA).

Palestine is a "open wound" that will be bled again and again for political exploitation by those that would want to manipulate the muslin crowd, they are always been seen as the little guy that got trampled by the "judaico-christian" satan

If Iran had the Bomb they would actually do it? Probably not, but If enough pressure is applied sure they could. Ahmadinejad is no fool, I dont think he would do it....their current Ayatollah is no idiot either.

Its possible they get succeeded by more radical people....but they saying what they saying in order to not be replaced....so to some extend they are being extremists so to not be replaced by more radical extremists, makes sense?

Don't forget the recent protests in Iran against the gov (that were violently suppressed), there's a civil society there that's somewhat alive. These silent majority has some say in the ways of the country and can (to some extent at least) balance the more extreme actions (like deploying a nuke with little or no provocation)


Just for the record: I have no sympathy for those bags of shit that constitute the current Iran regime, just giving my 2 cents on the region dynamics.

[Bragi]

VKhaun, your doubts only indicate that you are rational. The reason none of it adds up is because it doesn't.

Sofista is absolutely, 100% correct.

Iran doesn't seriously want to obliterate Israel--that's all just rhetoric. I won't add any more on that front, because Sofista has hit it squarely on the head. I could upload the paper I did for a graduate seminar last year, the fruit of 32 weeks of meticulous research--but it's 30 pages and I doubt anyone would read it. Suffice to say, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, and uses it, it will be our fault. We will have pushed them there through our hubris and aggressiveness.

But let me ask you all a simple question:

If, 60 years ago, we had a democratically-elected government overthrown in a coup orchestrated by a foreign power that put in place a totalitarian police state--how would you feel about that foreign power?

If, for the past 10 years, you watched two of your neighbors be invaded and occupied by that same foreign power--a foreign power that, by the way, has spent the past 30 years trying to overthrow your government--how secure would you feel?

Our military will get their job done, insh'allah--taking away Iran's ability to wage a symmetrical war and removing the current regime from de jure power.

But the occupation... imagine our occupation of Iraq, but in a country that is three times larger, with Afghanistan's terrain, and a population that is fiercely nationalistic and proud of their religious, cultural, and historical heritage. Internal opposition to the regime would virtually collapse overnight and be replaced by a rally around the flag effect on-par with what we experienced following Pearl Harbor--except that they have, as part of their religious and cultural heritage, a duty to fight occupation (the second meaning of jihad--it translates to English simply as "struggle," not "holy war" and its first meaning is a metaphorical struggle against personal iniquity).

It would inflame, yet again, the Muslim world. We wouldn't have the support of the UN, NATO, Russia, or China--just Israel and probably the UK but maybe not and a smattering of other, lesser powers like Australia and Poland (neither of whom particularly care about Iran--Poland is more concerned with a resurgent Russia and Australia cares more about China), none of whom would carry the financial or human burden. It would bleed us dry in terms of blood and treasure and the only people who would come out on top would be the Russians and the god damn Chinese. Victory would defeat us. It would easily be the greatest strategic blunder in a hundred years--the only thing dumber would be invading Russia.

As for just bombing Iran? Well, unlike Iraq, the Iranians have the capability to strike back against Israeli and American interests and territory asymmetrically.

[Draconian]

Meh, Iran is deff a waste of space as far as countries go - but I hate how Israel is painted as the victim and Palestinians get the shaft constantly. Israel is not squeaky clean in this situation by any means. The fact that we support Israel's denial to even discuss a two-state solution is ridiculous. We helped mandate the country of Israel and since then Palestinians have been the real victims in the region. They're the outcasts; they're the unwanted.

The whole region is fucked up but Israel isn't the sole tortured victim that deserves our sympathy in the region.

[Esfires]

Israel isn't the completely clean, no. Nobody is completely clean anywhere in the world. Israel just happens to be the cleanest party in the whole situation.

[Bragi]

I've noticed that some of y'all have referred to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as if he's important.

He's not.

The Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei is the commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran's military, including the Revolutionary Guards, the Army, the Police and the Basij militia. He appoints the fuqaha', "justices" of the Guardian Council (which serves as the country's constitutional court, it also determines who is eligible to run for office, and it certifies election results). He's the supreme judicial authority of the country (so he can overturn decisions made by any court). He has sole authority to declare war and peace, appoints the Chief of Staff of Iran's armed forces, and mediates disputes between branches of the military, as well as the branches of government. He's also the head of the Islamic Republic's state-sponsored radio and television networks.

In other words, nothing important happens in Iran without the Grand Ayatollah's ascent. The last president to seriously threaten his position of authority was Sayyid Mohammad Khatami (whom, if you recall, briefly tried to run against Ahmadinejad in 2009 before dropping-out in favor of Mir-Hossein Mousavi). A lot of people are under the impression that the Grand Ayatollah is a figure-head, like Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom--he's not--the Grand Ayatollah and his office plays an active role in the day-to-day administration of the Islamic Republic.

Edit: Those are the facts. Now comes my theory. Khamenei a rational actor (he's also a motherfucker, but that's beside the point). If Iran has a nuclear weapons program (our own post-9/11 and post-Iraq beefed-up intelligence services don't think they have one), it's only because he figures it's the surest way to prevent a US invasion of his country and his removal from power. (In fact, if Iran did have a nuclear weapons program, it would be in direct defiance of Islamic jurisprudence. Many Islamic jurists, including Khamenei, consider nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction to be haram.)

Under realism, which is far from perfect, the principle goal of states is to survive (this and the anarchic character of the international system are two elements of realism I think are correct most often, the other assumptions realists make are sometimes true; but not "always"). For governments, this means that they continue to be the sovereign power in their geographically-defined area. This is why states repress, and this is why states go to war--in both cases, states insulate themselves from threats to their sovereignty, and in the case of aggressive war, to expand their sovereignty or increase their power resources (so by example, did we invade Iraq to remove a threat to American security, or to secure oil? From a realist perspective, yes to both).

Israel just happens to be the cleanest party in the whole situation.

Not really. It's the only functioning parliamentary democracy in the region--and that's about it (and time will tell if that's true anymore, with Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt still very much TBD).

For starters, back before the nakba, there were several Jewish Palestinian terrorist organizations. The Stern Gang (properly called Lehi) was probably the most vicious, and its remnants today are considered an international terrorist organization by several states, including Israel. The Irgun and Haganah, on the other hand, conducted scores of guerrilla and terrorist attacks against British Mandate offices and personnel (including civilians) as well as Arab Palestinians (Christian, Jew, and Muslim alike)--the Irgun was responsible for the massacre at Deir Yassin (with help from Lehi and the Haganah) during the war in '48 which killed 107 Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children. After independence, the Irgun became the Herut party in 1948 (basically a secular Zionist platform--people who looked at Hitler and thought "what a great idea... if only he wasn't targeting us") and eventually merged with the Likud party in 1988 (PM Benyamin Netanyahu's party) and elements of the Haganah and several other militias/terrorist gangs became the Israeli Defense Force. So if someone ever tells you that terrorism doesn't work, just laugh. Which I'm sure most of y'all already do anyway because none of you are that stupid.

Then there's the Six-Day War in 1968, where Israel launched surprise attacks on Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian forces in order to capture the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. What they really wanted was the Golan Heights for their strategic advantage--you can look pretty far into Syrian and Jordanian territory from the Heights and whoever holds them has a pretty big advantage in any ground war. The Sinai they didn't want because who the fucks needs all that oil-less sand? The West Bank and Gaza they didn't really want either; but have occupied them since because the only thing worse to Zionist and conservative Israelis than giving Israeli-Palestinians equal rights in Israel is a viable Palestinian state (if you think Apartheid is dead you're dead-wrong)--another reason for holding onto the West Bank is control of East Jerusalem, which was another important objective of the Israeli's in '68.

Then there's the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon in 1982. One could argue that they had a legitimate purpose in destroying the Abu Nidal organization (which had been expelled from Jordan about a decade earlier); but they also overthrew the recognized government of Lebanon and replaced it with a majority Christian, pro-Israeli party. A complete government collapse and a few massacres of Palestinian refugees later and the entire enterprise devolved into the clusterfuck we all know today that got good American Marines killed, eighteen years of civil war, and the de facto annexation of southern Lebanon by Syria. Since assholes never seem to learn, Israel invaded Lebanon again in 2006 to destroy Hezbollah and got absolutely wrecked--the result? Hezbollah's political wing is the de jure majority party in Lebanon's parliament. So, Mission Accomplished.

Oh, and let's not forget about the settlements. Israel routinely forcibly evicts Palestinians from their lands in the West Bank and Gaza and then allows Jewish settlers into those areas. Sometimes the IDF carries these evictions out (usually in the name of removing PLO or Hamas terrorists) and simply "fails to stop" settlers from moving in, creating what Israel likes to call "facts on the ground." So whenever there are talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, and the Palestinians want those lands back, the Israelis can sit back and say, "well, the facts on the ground right now are that Israelis live there and do so peaceably." Sometimes its done by groups like Lehi, and the Israeli government looks the other way.

I was invited to attend an AIPAC conference two years ago. AIPAC is the America-Israel Public Affairs Council. Not only did I have to sit through a speech by Rick Perry, in which he talked about how shocked he was to see playgrounds with bunkers (and all I could think was, "at least they have playgrounds--a lot of Palestinian children don't have shoes, or food, or plumbing, or homes..."); but I also heard a room full of Jews applaud when a sitting US congressman said, "we (so Israel and the US are the same country now?) make concession after concession after concession (a rancher walked in at that point looking for his heard of cattle--he had smelled the bullshit from five miles distant), they get their state, and then they move in 4 million Palestinians and we (again, Israel and America are different countries there, chief...) suffer the consequences." I walked out in disgust and told the girl who took me to never, ever, take me to another Klan rally again.

There are also ultra-orthodox Jews who refuse to serve in the IDF--but they're also in favor of aggressive wars with Arab states and the out-right genocide of the Palestinians. In other words: motherfuckers.

Israel is literally that kid who got bullied, and as soon as he grew up, became the biggest bully in the schoolyard. It continually makes me ashamed of my cultural and religious heritage.

There's hope though, younger Israeli's are becoming increasingly fed-up with how conservative and Zionist Israelis treat the Palestinians--the constant aggression and warfare with their neighbors--the fact that their leaders are taking them into disaster with Iran--their status as international pariahs to much of the world. There are aslo scores in the IDF who refuse to be stationed in any of the Occupied Territories. Et cetera.

[Alex Mars]

Let's not forget the King David Hotel bombing, a blatant terrorist attack by the Irgun. Every time I hear some Israeli whine that they do not want to negotiate with terrorists I want to throw up, the country of Israel was founded by terrorists. They did what they felt was required to make a home for their people but they want to be dishonest cunts and claim the moral high ground afterwards.

[VKhaun]

Let's not forget the King David Hotel bombing, a blatant terrorist attack by the Irgun. Every time I hear some Israeli whine that they do not want to negotiate with terrorists I want to throw up, the country of Israel was founded by terrorists. They did what they felt was required to make a home for their people but they want to be dishonest cunts and claim the moral high ground afterwards.

We continue to judge things like what some of our ancestors did with slaves or the Native Americans through our modern and moderate eyes as 'mistakes'. But if you go back farther, the Native Americans and Africans both took slaves and both conquered eachother left and right. I don't care where you go, it used to be someone elses and it was probably faught over, but we are selective of when we bring this up and to what degree.

In a perfect world you could draw a line and say "Okay... enough of that shit.", "We're going to play nice from now on." but in the real world Israel can argue conquering land today based on conquered land yesterday, and their adversaires can argue conquered land yesterday based on conquered land the day before, back to time immemorable. Literally. A quick wiki check says some of the earliest writing known is about fighting in that area.

The only way to draw that line, is to stop focusing on who's taken what in the past and start discouraging violence and encouraging human rights and communication. We didn't ever, as a nation, decide to stop being violent. What we did was get tired of violence entering our lives and call the cops. When the police see two people shooting at eachother today, they do the same thing they did in the old west. They yell "DROP YOUR WEAPONS" and anyone still holding a piece two seconds later gets the shit shot out of them. The media and those with an agenda have always put spin on the outcomes and origins of such events, but the bottom line is always the same. No one wants to live in a place where people shoot at eachother. They want those situations diffused immediately and with minimal risk to other citizens who aren't being violent, and civilian violence limited to situations so dire that the parties involved are willing to put their life in jeopardy to go use that weapon.

I'm GROSSLY simplifying obviously. It's not perfect, but it's the best practical solution. Applied to Israel, I think the U.S. should continue to protect them from annihilation, but we should also be a champion of the people they are hurting with the power we give them. It should be the U.S. that calls out the issues with Israeli 'settlers' taking land and making sure it's given back instead of accepting the 'facts on the ground' and looking the other way.

[Bragi]

You are grossly simplifying it; but that's okay.

However, you are still grossly mistaken in that Israel faces annihilation. It doesn't. It's been militarily capable of defending itself form its neighbors since its inception, and the last time a state attacked Israel was in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, which went badly for the Israeli's in the first few days but they quickly reversed their situation. That was the last time Israelis realistically faced a threat to the survival of their state... forty years ago. Since then, the Arab States have not been able to present a unified front--there are occasional skirmishes between Syria and Israel over the Golan Heights; but that's about it. Arab violence against Israel since 1973 has almost exclusively come from non-state actors--which pose absolutely no threat to the survival of Israel.

The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law of 2002 would have helped, if it still carried the weight of law. AIPAC is one of the largest and most influential lobbies in the country (in fact, I'm pretty sure they're consistently ranked as the most influential, even above other heavyweights like the NRA)--they tend to favor Republican candidates over Democrats for a number of reasons--but they essentially give as many dollars to Democratic incumbents as they do Republicans. When an academic or politician or journalist states or publishes anything critical of Israel, the Anti-Defamation League is quick to cry antisemitism--the Holocaust is shamefully used to excuse and justify Israeli bad behavior. One of the surest ways to make sure you make it absolutely nowhere in academia, politics, or journalism is to criticize or report unfavorably on Israel. The whole situation is sickening.

I used to think the easiest solution was to cut US military aid to Israel--but they'd just turn to the French, Russians, and Chinese for their military hardware.

Now I'm convinced that the solution has to come from within Israel--they're not going to be bested on the battlefield by any of their neighbors, or by Iran. We're never going to hold them to task for their behavior or force a sensible solution to the problem because AIPAC provides financial incentives to politicians of both parties in Congress and the White House to prevent a viable solution. The Anti-Defamation League makes sure that anyone who exposes Israeli misbehavior is run out of whatever position they're in (good, honest, academics and journalists have had their careers ruined for publishing Israel's own documents on atrocities like Deir Yassin). Pro-Palestinian speech is chilled on college campuses (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...719984650.html) and is non-existent in the US press--go outside the US, and you'll see much more balanced coverage.

More to the point, you make a tu quoque argument. Simply because other states have committed this brand of genocide in the past doesn't excuse, nor give Israel, license to do the same. Nor does it shield them from criticism or being held to task by states like the US or France. Especially in an age where we have advanced and widely accepted concepts of things like human rights, and advanced international institutions and law. More to the point, Israel is actively engaging in the type of behavior Europeans engaged-in in the past. Deir Yassin was 75 years ago, but there's a "Deir Yassin" committed by Israel every other week.

One of the other analogies I use when discussing Israel is US treatment of Native Americans before the 20th century. Zionism is their version of Manifest Destiny, and yes, there are Jews and Christians in the US and in Israel that view Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, and the expulsion or extermination of Palestinian Arabs as commanded by God. The second largest group of financial and political support for Israel in the US (after wealthy Jews) comes from evangelical Christians who literally believe that the situation with Israel and in the Greater Middle East is proof that the end times prophesied in Revelation is near. Israelis don't believe this, of course, but they're more than willing to part a fool from his money.

Edit: I just read this article on Foreign Affairs. Again, this recent change in policy trajectory is coming from inside Israel itself. "Following extremist vandalism against the IDF and mainstream settler leaders over the past year, some Israeli generals and government ministers began to label radical settlers as terrorists. ": http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...rrorism-081912

[Sillywilly]

One of the other analogies I use when discussing Israel is US treatment of Native Americans before the 20th century. Zionism is their version of Manifest Destiny, and yes, there are Jews and Christians in the US and in Israel that view Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, and the expulsion or extermination of Palestinian Arabs as commanded by God. The second largest group of financial and political support for Israel in the US (after wealthy Jews) comes from evangelical Christians who literally believe that the situation with Israel and in the Greater Middle East is proof that the end times prophesied in Revelation is near. Israelis don't believe this, of course, but they're more than willing to part a fool from his money.

And lets face it, that single statement right there sums up all the anti-Israel bullshit you'll find on the web from liberals/democrats/atheists, etc that like to bash Israel. As was stated, nobody can actually point a finger at anyone else in the middle east for "invasion" because that land has belonged to all of them at some point. Nobody actually knows who owned it first so there's no point in playing the blame game there.

Anti-Israel sentiment is aimed at them because of their religion and because they are close friends of Christian America. Those Norwegian fuckers at Oslo University even blocked a Harvard Professor from speaking there because he was considered too "Pro-Israel" lol.

Anti-Israel is plain and simple anti Judaism/Christianity with some support from anti-democracy thrown in.. The rest is bullshit excuses to cover up their real agenda/motives.