Originally posted by Astronomer68
Got to take issue with that comment Subz. Israel may have no moral right to do so, but they have the right of self interest. That doesn't mean they
have the right to commit aggression against Iran. Everything sort of depends upon just how seriously Israel feels their existance may be threatened
by a nuclear armed Iran.
Ahh finally some rationality, thanks Astronomer
There are so many arguments in this thread and probably too many agendas to count. But the big ones surround Iran and a
suspected, and I cant
stress that word enough, nuclear weapons programme. As well as Israel's right to self defence.
Israel objects to Iran becoming a nuclear power because currently Israel holds all the cards in the Middle East. Israel is the dominant military power
in the region and uses this dominance to carry out repeated attrocities against the Palestinians. I dont care if terrorists are attacking Israel, that
does not authourize Israel, as a nation, to become terrorists themselves and fire rockets into crowded refugee camps.
In the Gaza refugee camp of Jebaliya, Israeli aircraft fired two missiles at a car carrying Islamic Jihad militants. Hospital officials said at
least seven people were killed and 15 wounded, four of them critically. Among those killed were four Islamic Jihad members, including Shadi Mohanna,
the group's field commander for northern Gaza.
The missiles struck the white car as it drove through the camp, which was crowded with people walking in the streets after evening prayers at a
mosque. Two charred bodies were pulled from the wrecked vehicle, and shrapnel and blood was scattered over a wide area.
Israeli Missile Kills Seven Palestinians
What would the World's response of been if Britain fired rockets from a helicopter gunship into an Irish hospital that was treating an IRA member?
Would we say, "well the Irish shouldnt of bombed London". No. There would of been outrage because Britain cannot lower itself to the level of
terrorists.
Israel, as a nation, has to break the cycle of violence it is in with the Palestinian terrorists. Abu Mazen is obviously incapable of reigning in the
militants, it probably has something to do with the Palestinian civilians getting lumped in with Israeli reprisals. So, whats the solution to this
problem? Israel should act responsibly and cease their complicity in the cycle of violence and stop responding to Palestinian terrorists with
violence. Then, and only then, can Abu Mazen have a chance of reigning in the militants. But Israel will not do this, if Palestinian terrorists stop
bombing Israel the tables will turn and Israel will become the focus of international scrutiny once more.
The same applies to Israel's rhetoric towards Iran. The Israelis, for all intents and purposes, gave the United States an ultimatum. "Bomb Iran or
we will bomb them for you". Why? Because Israel does not want nuclear equilbrium in the Middle East. If nuclear equilibrium was achieved the Israelis
would no longer be able to strong arm any one. They would be forced to comply with Bush's road map and give the Palestinians a viable state. They
would also have to comply with the original UN agreement and turn over Jerusalem to the UN.
However, Israels current objective is to ruffle the feathers of the Iranian mullahs. Lets be honest, that isnt' a hard task. So they public threaten
to bomb Iran over their suspected nuclear weapons programme. When Iran resorts to their old vitriole of "Death to Israel" the Israelis use that
response as a justification for more pressure on Iran. Hence deflecting attention from the Israeli state and allowing them to continue to not comply
with the road map or the original UN agreement.
In the mind of the Israeli leaders, the threat to Israel's existance has to be maintained. Without it they cannot bargain for anything or ellicit
sympathy. You might think that letting the Iranians have nuclear weapons would be the ultimate threat to Israel, hence why are they objecting to
Iranian nuclear weapons? The truth is that if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons the threat of violence is reduced. Iran wouldnt use nuclear weapons
offensively and the Israelis know it. It would negate Israels arsenal as they would be unable to use nuclear weapons on any Middle Eastern country
because Iran would retalitate.
Iran would never negotiate with Israel but the rest of the Middle East would, free from the threat of Israeli agression.
Forgive the following crude analogy:
Theres a little scrawny kid who wants to use the swing. The swing is being used by a bigger kid. The scrawny kid knows this other kid has a short
temper. So the scrawny kid taunts and prods the other kid until he snaps and lashes out. The bruised scrawny kid, looking all hurt, pathetic and
scared, complains to the teacher who witnessed the whole incident. "That boy punched me *sob*". The teacher then comes down on the other kid like a
tonne of bricks and gives the swing to the scrawny kid.
So long as the scrawny kid continues to prod and poke the other kid into lashing out the teacher will always sympathize with the scrawny kid. Allowing
the scrawny kid to get what ever they wish.
[edit on 27/10/05 by subz]
