General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I didn't say that either. Lets get the issues clarified. Israel is not surrounded by a ring of enemies out to destroy it,

Yeah, actually... it kinda is.

Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Egypt (may or may not be under control of the Muslim Brotherhood).

I'm surprised you don't know this.

 

[Virus]

If there's no ring, there's apparently no issue. Don't you get it?

Ha. Yeah it's only a hemisphere of terror with Egypt's status as a belligerent to be determined.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Its possible, but would require the US and possibly NATO forces to be includes due to the immense distances between all the possible nuclear facilities and the required amount of bunker busters and heavy munitions required to get the job done.

This isn't as simple as the strike against Osirak.

This is definitely not the same as Osirak, but as far as US involvement in an attack on Iran is concerned, it really depends. The US would definitely be very reluctant to putting troops in Iran due to their overly stretched military, tight fiscal situation, and their desire to not jeopardize their relationship with Russia. It is very unlikely that the UN or NATO would participate either. Some of the scenarios looking at this situation don't have the US attacking with Israel right away, or even at all.

The Brookings Institute prepared a simulation of the possible effects of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities that was summarized by the New York times.

David Sanger gave his personal view of the results of the Brookings simulation which simulates Israel unilaterally attacking Iran (although in a real life situation the US would definitely know of an attack, they just would not approve it).

A REPORTER'S OBSERVATIONS

1. By attacking without Washington's advance knowledge, Israel had the benefits of surprise and momentum - not only over the Iranians, but over its American allies - and for the first day or two, ran circles around White House crisis managers.

2. The battle quickly sucked in the whole region - and Washington. Arab leaders who might have quietly applauded an attack against Iran had to worry about the reaction in their streets. The war shifted to defending Saudi oil facilities, and Iran's use of proxies meant that other regional players quickly became involved.

3. You can bomb facilities, but you can't bomb knowledge. Iran had not only scattered its facilities, but had also scattered its scientific and engineering leadership, in hopes of rebuilding after an attack.

4. No one won, and the United States and Israel measured success differently. In Washington, officials believed setting the Iranian program back only a few years was not worth the huge cost. In Israel, even a few years delay seemed worth the cost, and the Israelis argued that it could further undercut a fragile regime and perhaps speed its demise.

The US might join in on an Israeli attack on Iran, or it might not. The end results would not be in either Country's interests, and so the most advantageous move for the US might be to just let Israel go in alone and work to clean up the situation afterwards.

If the US chose to not join in on the attack, than it would be able to assert a lot more influence in other parts of the Middle East, it's bases might not be targeted by Iranian missile strikes (which Iran might do anyways to maintain a strategic reserve of missiles), it would be able to clean up the situation more to its liking, it would not be the focus of major condemnation and scorn by those at the UN and around the world, it would still be able to have some ability to maintain sanctions against Iran, and it would better serve its interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Yemen, and Pakistan.

Whether the US would join in on an attack on Iran or not, the action would still result in a net loss for both Countries.

- Even in the best scenario, Iran's nuclear program would only be delayed by a few years. As Sanger pointed out, "you can bomb facilities, but you can't bomb knowledge." Iran has been preparing for just this type of strike, and would start rebuilding right away.

- Iran has been waiting, and indeed almost deliberately goading Israel into attacking so they can use it for their own purposes. If Israel did attack, many barriers in Iran towards pursuing their wider ambitions would be removed.

- Most of the barriers that Iran previously had to building a nuclear bomb would be eroded or removed by the attack. Iran would use the event to show that the development of nuclear weapons would be required for their protection due to the "aggressive attacks" from Israel.

- Sanctions on Iran would be harder to carry out, and the attack instead could prompt a move in the UN for sanctions on Israel (and unilateral sanctions on Israel/the US if the US vetoed it).

- Iran would have more freedom to crack down on pro-democracy and other groups that would pose a threat to the Theocratic government structure.

- Iran might use the event to attack Israeli supported Kurdish bases in Iraq.

Both Syria and Iraq were involved in proxy warfare long before Iran came into the picture, training, financing, and arming terrorist groups from within their countries. Syria even before Iraq with their involvement with Palestinian fedaheen against not only Israel, but in Lebanon and Jordan.

Iran's missiles are derivatives of Scuds, the same which the Iraq's had in their arsenal at the time the Osirak reactor strike in '81, in addition to a number of short and medium range unguided missiles. The main difference is that Iraq had the capability to fit chemical and biological agents to these missiles, which Syria, as far as we know, has had some issues doing the same (Report: Dozens dead in Syrian chemical weapons experiment), albeit who knows how far they've come since then. Since the Osirak strike, Iran has made strides in their capabilities in local missile production and advancements over the technology given to them by N. Korea, including clandestine research and tests on miniturizing nuclear warheads and mounting them on these missiles. There's additional evidence that there has been additional medium to long range missiles transferred to Hezbollah from Syria as well, even more so due to the turmoil seen against the Assad regime.

FYI, these missiles can reach Eilat, Israel's southern-most tip, not just Tel Aviv. An attack on Iran's nuclear sites, dozens which are potential targets distributed throughout Iran, would have a multi-prong reaction from Hezbollah and Syria in addition to incursions along the Israel-Egypt-Gaza border and the West bank.

Coming from someone who resides in Tel Aviv, I hope this attack will never occur since the repercussions would be immense. Sure, not doing anything would be significantly worse, but Israel should continue its attacks along the cyber-route and low-level attacks against scientists and the facilities themselves from within Iran as it has been doing for quite some time now.

IMO, Iran won't use its massive ballistic arsenal since that is its only real deterrent...

I brought up Tel Aviv, because an attack on Iran would cause it to become a primary target, they would target other cities, but Tel Aviv would be the first on the list. After Iran launched their missiles, Hezbollah would launch rockets for weeks, or months, or longer.

The situation with Syria would also get more dangerous and difficult. Syria would almost certainly not attack Israel directly, but they might let Palestinian groups launch attacks on Israel from their territories, or increase their efforts to send arms to Hamas. Syria would use the opportunity to focus on an external issue rather than their own domestic problems.

Whatever the death toll would be for Israel, the economic toll from constant shelter use would likely be a lot more unsustainable.

 

[a_unique_person]

Opinion polls have already shown that Egyptians want to keep the peace treaty. Jordan is still an ally. The occupied territories...people can resent being occupied.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Opinion polls have already shown that Egyptians want to keep the peace treaty. Jordan is still an ally. The occupied territories...people can resent being occupied.

They are still surrounded by Countries that hate them, and I am not sure that I would call Jordan an "ally."

All the more reason for the Israelis to tell Netanyahu to get serious about a real peace process for their own long term security.

A peace deal with the Palestinians to establish their own State is the best way to neutralize Countries like Iran from using the situation for their own political propaganda purposes.

 

[dtugg]

Palestine doesn't want peace. They want to kill Jews.

 

[Virus]

The occupied territories...people can resent being occupied.

Gaza is not occupied. The West Bank has autonomy under the PA. Hezbollah are not occupied. Iran is not occupied.

Which proves that hatred of Israel stems from something else.

 

[DC]

Gaza is not occupied. The West Bank has autonomy under the PA. Hezbollah are not occupied. Iran is not occupied.

Which proves that hatred of Israel stems from something else.

Yes and ex slaves directly stopped hating ex slave owners once slavery was outlawed.

the real world is not as simple as you seem to belief.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Palestine doesn't want peace. They want to kill Jews.

SOME Palestinians, you are definitely not speaking about all Palestinians.

Most Palestinians want Peace, most Israelis want peace.

They just need to tell their leaders to get off their high horses, stop their political posturing, and get it done.

 

[Virus]

Yes and ex slaves directly stopped hating ex slave owners once slavery was outlawed.

the real world is not as simple as you seem to belief.

The Arab states started it DC. None of them were occupied. The PLO was started before the Six Day War. They were not occupied at the time. The Six Day War was started by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. They weren't occupied.

Iran, the major sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, is not and never has been occupied.

Got you.

You're going to have to come up with a horrendous grievance to explain why Iran hates Israel so much if you want your thesis to be viable.

Go for it. It should be good.

 

[DC]

Palestine doesn't want peace. They want to kill Jews.

he public opinion poll conducted by Jerusalem Media & Communication Center (JMCC) showed an increase in the ratio of Palestinians who oppose military operations as an appropriate response under the current political conditions from 38.1% in January 2009 to 51.8% this April. Accordingly, the ratio of Palestinians who support military operations decreased from 53.3% in January 2009 to 37.1% in April 2011.

http://www.jmcc.org/documentsandmaps.aspx?id=827

 

[DC]

The Arab states started it DC. None of them were occupied. The PLO was started before the Six Day War. They were not occupied at the time. The Six Day War was started by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. They weren't occupied.

Iran, the major sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, is not and never has been occupied.

Got you.

the problem started long before any Arab state atacked Israel.

 

[a_unique_person]

Most Palestinians want Peace, most Israelis want peace.

.

I've been saying that all along. I think most of the people there are over it all, and just want it to end. Their lives on both sides will be better with this over and done with.

 

[Virus]

the problem started long before any Arab state atacked Israel.

So you admit they attacked Israel?

Do you also admit the states that attacked it weren't occupied?

Do you also admit that Iran, who fights a proxy war with Israel has never been occupied?

 

[DC]

So you admit they attacked Israel?

Do you also admit the states that attacked it weren't occupied?

Do you also admit that Iran, who fights a proxy war with Israel has never been occupied?

So you admit the problem started before any atack?

 

[dtugg]

Only one in three Palestinians in Gaza/West Bank want a two state solution. 73% agree with 'hadith' quoted in Hamas Charter about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=229493

If this doesn't reflect reality for whatever reason, Palestinians should stop electing genocidal "freedom fighters" as their government.

 

[Virus]

If this doesn't reflect reality for whatever reason, Palestinians should stop electing genocidal "freedom fighters" as their government.

Well to be fair, there's not likely to be any more elections since they seem to trigger civil war.

 

[Virus]

So you admit the problem started before any atack?

I note that you have an aversion to giving a straight answer.

 

[DC]

I note that you have an aversion to giving a straight answer.

irrelevant questions to what i have said. SO do you admit that the problem started before any one atacked Israel?

 

[Virus]

What problem?