General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[DC]

What conditions do you think that Palestine would accept? And most importantly, are these conditions even remotely reasonable?

i don't know, last time i checked they were not even able to come to an agreement on the conditions for negotiations.

 

[dtugg]

i don't know, last time i checked they were not even able to come to an agreement on the conditions for negotiations.

That's their problem. If they don't want to continue being "oppressed" by Israel, they have to come up with reasonable conditions.

 

[HoverBoarder]

As is the story with many parts of this crisis, the danger here is how the many people who are supportive of such an attack are behaving dangerously unrealistically. An attack would not weaken Iran, and it would needlessly kill A LOT of Innocent Israelis, Americans, Iraqis, Palestinians, and Iranians.

Feel free to eloborate why.

By the way, my following response also pertains to your question.

The short answer to your question is that it would not hinder Iran's ability to get nuclear weapons, only accelerate it, and it would also give Iran the ability to pursue its wider ambitions in the region while damaging Israel.

It would be a lose for Israel, and a win for Iran. Which is exactly why Iran has been trying to goad Israel into just that kind of attack.

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).


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.

 

[DC]

That's their problem. If they don't want to continue being "oppressed" by Israel, they have to come up with reasonable conditions.

demanding a construction stop for settlements during the negotiations was not reasonable?

 

[dtugg]

demanding a construction stop for settlements during the negotiations was not reasonable?

You said yourself that they were unable to even come up with terms amongst themselves for the negotiations. So what reason does Israel have to give them anything?

 

[DC]

You said yourself that they were unable to even come up with terms amongst themselves for the negotiations. So what reason does Israel have to give them anything?

no i meant the negotiating parties. Palestina and Israel.

 

[bikerdruid]

You said yourself that they were unable to even come up with terms amongst themselves for the negotiations. So what reason does Israel have to give them anything?

netanyahoo has said he is in favour of a two state solution.
he just refuses to stop expansion, or give up any land.
i would say that he is beginning from an unacceptable point.

 

[dtugg]

no i meant the negotiating parties. Palestina and Israel.

OK, then you didn't answer my initial questions. What conditions do you think think that Palestine would accept as a solution? Are these reasonable conditions? Stating that Israel and Palestine couldn't come to an agreement does not answer the question.

Stopping settlement builds during negotiations might be a reasonable request. I don't know too much about that to answer.

 

[dtugg]

netanyahoo has said he is in favour of a two state solution.
he just refuses to stop expansion, or give up any land.
i would say that he is beginning from an unacceptable point.

And the "freedom fighters" in charge of the Palestinian government state in their charter that they want to genocide the Jews. I would say that they are beginning from a much more unacceptable point. Palestine has nobody to blame but themselves. Franky, I think they are lucky that Israel doesn't just take over the West Bank and Gaza.

 

[DC]

OK, then you didn't answer my initial questions. What conditions do you think think that Palestine would accept as a solution? Are these reasonable conditions? Stating that Israel and Palestine couldn't come to an agreement does not answer the question.

Stopping settlement builds during negotiations might be a reasonable request. I don't know too much about that to answer.

i said i don't know. they should negotiate the conditions of a peace treaty and creation of a Palestinian state in direct talks.

 

[DC]

they are lucky that Israel doesn't just take over the West Bank and Gaza.

Israelis and Palestinians can be happy Israel is not doing that.

 

[dtugg]

i said i don't know. they should negotiate the conditions of a peace treaty and creation of a Palestinian state in direct talks.

I see no point in having talks if the genocidal "freedom fighters" in charge of Palestine have no interest in making reasonable concessions. And I have seen no evidence that they are willing to do that.

 

[DC]

I see no point in having talks if the genocidal "freedom fighters" in charge of Palestine have no interest in making reasonable concessions. And I have seen no evidence that they are willing to do that.

the problem is both sides are not ready to make reasonable concessions.

 

[dtugg]

the problem is both sides are not ready to make reasonable concessions.

I think that if genocidal savages were not in charge of Palestine, Israel would be more inclined to make concessions. But the Palestinian people have spoken.

 

[DC]

I think that if genocidal savages were not in charge of Palestine, Israel would be more inclined to make concessions. But the Palestinian people have spoken.

yeah keeping erecting settlements makes so much sense to get long lasting peace and does a superb job in convincing Palestinains the Israelis don't want all of the west bank.

 

[dtugg]

yeah keeping erecting settlements makes so much sense to get long lasting peace and does a superb job in convincing Palestinains the Israelis don't want all of the west bank.

Yeah, because that is the equivalent of calling for genocide.

 

[DC]

Yeah, because that is the equivalent of calling for genocide.

 

[applecorped]

 

[Virus]

yeah keeping erecting settlements makes so much sense to get long lasting peace and does a superb job in convincing Palestinains the Israelis don't want all of the west bank.

There haven't been any new settlements established since the early 90's.

 

[applecorped]

There haven't been any new settlements established since the early 90's.

True, but there hasn't been any genocide since the 40's.