Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mr Hyena**

They could have gone back to their European countries of origin, which is where the Holocaust victims came from in the first place.

And then the same thing would happen all over again. European countries aren't exactly the best places to be sending them back to, right after what said countries did to them.

**Harriticus**

dogma wrote:

So "undeveloped" countries are given a free ride to do whatever they want? Lol horray for double standards!

So you're arguing that nations that are undeveloped are in a similar situation to nations that are developed by virtue of both being nations?

I mean, its an argument that you can make, but it hasn't help up historically in terms of international relations.

Of course, development level isn't really relevant here, the question is one of regional power and military capability.

**biccat**

Harriticus wrote:So "undeveloped" countries are given a free ride to do whatever they want? Lol horray for double standards!

Welcome to any discussion on Israel on the internet.

dogma wrote:They aren't war with Hamas. Even they don't make that claim. They have in the past, the most recent case being the Gaza War, but that ended some time ago.

They're in a unilateral cease-fire with Hamas. This means that Hamas is still at war with Israel, but Israel isn't fighting back. Mainly due to the PR nightmare that was Operation Cast Lead (or, as I prefer to call it, killing terrorists).

dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
The Pope has already expressed strong support for the Israeli Muslims to secede. Given that a lot of the anger about Israel is their supposed ill-treatment of Muslims, I expect the Papacy will side with the Persians.

I don't see how the first leads to the second. Its one thing to declare support support for Palestinian statehood, and another to support an Iranian attack on Israel.

Almost all support for Palestinians is grounded in opposition to Israel. Look at this own thread. The concept of Palestinian statehood isn't borne out of self-determination, but rather the "oppression" of Palestinians by the Israelis.

Ergo, one can conclude that someone who supports Palestinian statehood is opposed to Israeli sovereignty.

**WarOne**

biccat wrote:Ergo, one can conclude that someone who supports Palestinian statehood is opposed to Israeli sovereignty.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/23/israelis-largely-support-palestinian-state

It is the exact spot where the new sovereign state was declared. But the year was 1948 and the state was Israel.

Now new officers in the Israeli army are brought to Independence Hall on Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv as part of their education in the history of the Jewish state.

On the day before Mahmoud Abbas was expected to launch his bid for a Palestinian state, guide Amir Rimon 28, was lecturing a group of young soldiers under one of Rothschild's broad ficus trees.

"We come [here] to remind ourselves of the values on which our state was founded," he said. The Declaration of Independence, read by David Ben-Gurion 63 years ago, said Palestinians would be equals in the fledgling country.

"I think we need to recognise a Palestinian state. Many of the soldiers agree with me – it's 50-50," Rimon added. A recent poll conducted by the Hebrew University found that 70% of Israelis believe that if the UN votes in favour of a Palestinian state, Israel should accept the decision. This is not the position of the Israeli government.

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists there can be no peace if the Palestinians follow a unilateral path at the UN. On Wednesday, President Obama threw his weight behind this position.

But on Rothschild Boulevard, alternative Israeli voices are being raised. More than 80 prominent Israeli intellectuals gathered outside Independence Hall on Thursday. They were led by author Sefi Rachlevski, to declare their support for a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders.

"We will have an affect because we represent the real Jewish Zionist heritage and what we're saying is obvious: Palestine, you don't need our permission to have a state. Negotiations on its borders can follow," said Rachlevski.

Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer was among signatories to the declaration. He argued that the establishment of two independent neighbouring states was the only solution, and that it is an outcome that would be supported by the majority of Israelis.

But he warned it would be met with an armed rebellion by the rightwing, nationalist orthodox minority: "The fear I have of is not so much that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will march to the 1967 borders. I am afraid of the violent orthodox who have openly established a separate entity [in settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory]. They pose the real danger to Israel."

As the intellectuals launched their protest at Independence Hall, at the opposite end of Rothschild, a few dozen tents and a thriving herb garden were all that remained of Israel's summer of demos. This was the hub of a nationwide call for change that rallied thousands of Israelis.

Palestinian activists note that this unprecedented protest conspicuously ignored the occupation. It proved too divisive an issue for organisers to press upon.

Protest leader Dror Shalom, 35, insisted criticism of the occupation was implicit in their challenge to Netanyahu's rightwing government. The majority of people who protested in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, he said, would extend their calls for justice to Palestinians.

Shalom said: "Palestine is a country and it has been for years. We know where the Palestinian state will be, which is where it is now. We will have to evacuate a few thousand Israelis and that's it."

Shalom believed the majority of Israelis accept a Palestinian state is inevitable, whether it is declared unilaterally or reached through negotiations. Like Bauer, he identified the obstacle as Israel's powerful, nationalist religious lobby and its disproportionate influence over Netanyahu's rightwing government.

He added: "We love Israel and are worried about the direction it is headed. It was our intention at the last big protest to revise Israel's Declaration of Independence."

• This article was amended on 23 September 2011 to correct a mistake in the fifth paragraph - we had attributed a quote to Abbas which was incorrect. The words were spoken by Rimon, the tour guide.

**AustonT**

Pacific wrote:I'm pretty sure Israel has already carried out bombing raids against suspected nuclear-weapon building sites in the past. Specifically, one which involved 70 aircraft (to give some idea of scale), mostly F18's so it must have been quite recent. It coincided with the failure of most of Iran's anti-aircarft capability at exactly the same time, along the route the aircraft were arriving by, which was obviously the result of espionage and/or Israeli special ops. Can't remember where I read it sadly, can anyone else corroborate that story?

I can't directly deny your statement, but I believe Iran and Israel have never fought in open conflict and have in the 80's IIRC cooperated in military operations and hardware development.
You may he referring to operation Opera which was about a dozen airplanes that bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility. That was quite a stretch at the time, those fighters very nearly didn't make it home. Syria wasn't exactly impressive distance wise. I reiterate to make it to Iran, Israel needs support on the ground from another nation, or a secret temporary operation on tue ground like operation Eagle Claw (maybe US-Iran failed hostage rescue under Carter).

**Bastion of Mediocrity**

I'm not totally up on my international politics, but it certainly looks like the Europeans are far more anti-Israel than the Americans. Can anyone explain why Western Europeans are more sympathetic to the Palestinian Arabs than the Isreali Jews?

Also the white supremist poster (Squirrel something?), seemed to apply the Aryan (sp?) doctrine to the Palestinians. Are the anti-zionists saying that Palestinians are Aryan? Or is it just another form of anti-semitism?

**RatBot**

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote: Or is it just another form of anti-semitism?

This.

It's not that white supremacists love the Arab Muslim Palestinians. It's that they really, really, really hate Jews and honestly believe they control everything.

One can be anti-Zionist without being an anti-Semite, I suppose, but in this case that's not what's going on.

**Lone Cat**

I don't understood why at least two members here justify Iran's attitude as being Jew haters? to be honest the "Nations of Israel" is an ancient ones. and Romans messed it up (Propping a bad arabian imposer named "Herod" to rule over jews... i don't know how do Muslim views Herod and does he has arabian name? but every christians believe that he is a foul heathen and worships Olympians instead of "The True God") and made 'em "a race without a land". and it remained this way for millenia and thus. everyone believe they have, and deserves no land to live. and many even goes as far as they are all evil race. such attitude had been plagued everywhere in the world. Including here in Thailand (especially during the 1997 depression, George Soros, whom he is an american Jew. is a bad example. yes he's greed. but what HE had done to our econimics (as we believe) had made many of our folks viewd Jews as evil nation, some even goes as far as justifying Nazism and Fascism as the right thing)

First. the Opympian-worshipping Romans messed the whole thing up. then Byzantian tyranny (I believe they're one of the most repressing theologic empire ever, i've heard that they hunt down every Muslims living there and burn 'em alive in frot of an ecclessium. and thus invoking wars from muslim brothers, i dunno. the history seems to say that Ottomans are more tolerant than Byzantians, also I think much of Balkans bloodbaths stems on Byzantine policy and they did alot of massacre, p'rhaps this is reasons why many of balkan nations sided with turks when they laid siege the Constantinople). and next Ottomans (whom still don't grant Jews a self-governing nation, the only thing they grant Jews are shelter and rights to trade, but still better than contemporary europeans). and Also in the same time. Papacy and its goons (Holy Roman Empire, including Charles V's Spain). and Czarist Russia (The "Priory of Zion" book was written in Russia but it has a simple politics motivations and not intended to spread worldwide). and also the Bourbons (Maybe many modern french still hate them since they've grown up with literatures promoting the importance of the revolution and principles of democracy).

Romans screwed the whole thing first. the worst mistakes they did is what the world called 'Anti-Terrorism' campaign. things when they responsed to Sicarii insurgency/freedom fightings. renamed it Lower Syria and declared the jews "A barbarian race without origins" (and plus, grants Arabians more rights over the former Jew lands)

OK What will you justify the Olympian Romans?

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I'm not totally up on my international politics, but it certainly looks like the Europeans are far more anti-Israel than the Americans. Can anyone explain why Western Europeans are more sympathetic to the Palestinian Arabs than the Isreali Jews?

?

possible two reasons are.
- underground Nazi movements plagued throughout europe. (they also listed arabians as a foul race too in some case).
- Roman heritage. much of western europe was once belonged to Rome, and y'know. Romans never like Jews. even after the whole empire converted to Christianity. they never returns the loot from "The Second Temple" back to Israel (now the booty is presumably lost, dunno if it's still in Vatican?). while Romans conquered europe with swords. they've more or less 'tame' the wild northern europeans living inside their spans of empire.

**Andrew1975**

Before the Biblical Great flood, there was a great civilisation that spanned across the globe. Today they are known as "Atlantians" but in truth, they were Aryan. Long ago, the planet was visited by Aliens. I do not know what happened next, no one does. (It's what Hitler was looking for, partly) But they interbred with the Primitive Humans, or enhanced their DNA with their own. Perhaps they were stranded and were forced to, to preserve what was left of them. Perhaps they decided to help our planet and thus the universe by seeding sentient life. It matters not. What does matter is those humans who were enhanced did better than everyone else. They were the Aryans. The most advanced and evolved form of human. Hindu Religion and the Swastika are based on the Aryans. The Swastika being a star alignment, at the center of which were where the aliens came from.

With the Alien Technology they created vast cities, conquered the world. Then POW. A glacier cracked and released much water, causing global sea levels rise (the biblical flood found in most religions) wiping out most of the Aryans and their cities. What was left can be found all over the world. The Great pyramid and Sphinx, Shangri La, the City in Antarctica. All these "mysteries" of the ancient world are remnants of a glorious civilisation.

Scattered and lost, the remaining Aryans settled down and forgot most of their past. Focusing more on surviving than recording history. After a few generations, they were but a faded memory.

This is the truth the Zionists do not want you to believe. By thinking of yourself as onto a God, you remove their power.By believe that our history is in the stars and not in the religious texts, you sap their strengths. This is why Nazism is hated the most. For helping the Children Of The Stars learn their identity...

That's like some wacked out Scientology gak.

Iran needs to learn to play nice. If it takes Israel dropping bombs to keep them in line I don't have an issue with it. It's better than forcing the U.S. to do it. Iran has shown repeatedly that it is a force of chaos in the world and does not deserve nuclear capabilities.

As for the JOOZ. Well it's hard to say exactly why so many people dislike them. They really do seam pretty cursed throughout history though, acquiring enemies the way some people acquire nicknames. It may have something to do with their close knit society, this seams to be their greatest strength, but it also appears to alienate them a lot. It is odd that such a minority population seams to have so much global influence and power, and many people fear that and or are jealous of it. I put forward my hypothesis, it's really just a residual effect of everybody hating lawyers

To say Americans dislike Jews less than Europeans is a misnomer, there are plenty of people that hate them here with a passion and blame them for all the worlds ills. I mean they have to blame someone right? In general though you are right, your average American doesn't even see Jews as anything different, it may be because in general Jews here are just regular Americans.

Besides if I hated Jewish people I couldn't watch movies or TV. I like movies and TV. But as the crazy squirrel said maybe movies and TV have brainedwashed me into believing that the JOOZ are just people and not some mythical creature here to swallow my soul.

Maybe Borat is right! Or maybe Borat was an attempt by the JOOZ to make me think Jew haters are ignorant. Is Sacha Noam Baron Cohen just a tool of the evil Jewish overloards?????? The plot thickens. I is Cornfuzeled.

Civilian individuals working voluntarily for a military program. No different then killing a "civilian" government official, something the West does regularly in its wars. Civilian can mean either noncombatant or someone not professionally in a military, in the Nuclear scientists case this is the latter.

I'll let clerks answer that one.
"You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault."

Israel needs a stiff lesson just like a any bully. Iranians are fairly backward but they are a developing country, Israel has no such excuse.

It seams to me that Israel is the one always getting threatened and bullied just for standing up for itself.

**Relapse**

The main thing this thread has convinced me of is the need to put Secret Squirrel on my ignore list.
It's rare I see such blind hatred from someone.

**Blitza da warboy**

Here's the way I am currently seeing things:

1. Israel believes that Iran has some nuclear weapons being developed so that they can attack Israel. (and possibly hurt the other countries beside it.)

2. Israel scared of their safety are preparing, not actually attacking to defend themselves aggressively

3. People are taking the side of Iran because...ummm...hmmm?

Then again, me being Jewish may put me at a bias for being Jewish and thus not being able to understand Iran.

**Andrew1975**

Then again, me being Jewish may put me at a bias for being Jewish and thus not being able to understand Iran.

Look they are even infiltrating this very site! They are everywhere spreading their propaganda oooooh noooooos!

**Blitza da warboy**

Andrew1975 wrote:

Then again, me being Jewish may put me at a bias for being Jewish and thus not being able to understand Iran.

Look they are even infiltrating this very site! They are everywhere spreading their propaganda oooooh noooooos!

You ARE going to play with those dreidels. And you ARE going to like it.

Oy. :p

Edited due to er... accidentally suggestive themes.

**Relapse**

Dreidal dreidal dreidal, I made it out of clay. When it's dry and ready, with dreidal I will play...

**Andrew1975**

You ARE going to play with those dreidels. And you ARE going to like it.

Wait ......Isn't the Jews plan to subjugate me? Not convert me.

Tricksy JOOZ I not falling for it

Is it still a dreidel if I make it out of Green stuff?

**Blitza da warboy**

most dreidels are made of plastic, not clay. So if you make one out of greenstuff it still is a dreidel.

Hell i remember making a parody of the dreidel song saying that its made out of gum and when I tried to spin it it stuck onto the ground.

**dogma**

Mr Hyena wrote:
And then the same thing would happen all over again. European countries aren't exactly the best places to be sending them back to, right after what said countries did to them.

By said countries, do you mean "Germany"?

**Andrew1975**

Blitza da warboy wrote:most dreidels are made of plastic, not clay. So if you make one out of greenstuff it still is a dreidel.

Hell i remember making a parody of the dreidel song saying that its made out of gum and when I tried to spin it it stuck onto the ground.

But ..........they song says clay. Is you a fur rel JOOZ or one of dem faksy ones jst tryin to gt wrk in hollywood?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
And then the same thing would happen all over again. European countries aren't exactly the best places to be sending them back to, right after what said countries did to them.

By said countries, do you mean "Germany"?

Well I think he is talking about how in general Jews had been persecuted (is this too strong? Should I say made to feel unwelcome?) in Europe, well most of the world where there were Jews actually, which is why they needed their own land.

**Relapse**

dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
And then the same thing would happen all over again. European countries aren't exactly the best places to be sending them back to, right after what said countries did to them.

By said countries, do you mean "Germany"?

The French weren't too kind to the Jews, either.

**Blitza da warboy**

@ Andrew 1975: Let's just say I'm in it mostly for the Hanukkah presents

A bit more closely related to the topic: let's just say that pretty much all the countries weren't too kind to the Jews back then. Not just France, Poland, and Germany, but pretty much any country really. It's not the country that is anti semetic, its the laws and its enforcement.

**Andrew1975**

Blitza da warboy wrote:@ Andrew 1975: Let's just say I'm in it mostly for the Hanukkah presents

How stereotypical of you, I knew it!

Spoiler:

**Blitza da warboy**

Pretty sure the winky face show's that you were sarcastic...

**Andrew1975**

Yeah, but seeing the topic I know the MODquisition is watching and it's better to be safe than sorry. I know anytime Jew and Nazi are used in the same thread there is a klaxon that goes off in the MODs room.

**dogma**

Harriticus wrote:
I'm arguing equality among states, all states should be held to the same standard and certain ethnic groups shouldn't be held to a higher standard then others.

Why should all states be held to the same standard? We certainly don't treat them all the same, not in practice, nor could we even if we wanted to. An unstable Pakistan is going to be a point of major US interest, while no one will care about an unstable Liberia. And if the Liberian government that it really wanted to destroy Israel, it probably wouldn't even make front page news. Iran does it, and it generally does.

We don't hold states to standards, we consider them as it is expedient to do so.

Harriticus wrote:
You're basically arguing that Israel should be held to a higher standard because it's more "developed" then those savage Iranians. It's borderline racism.

That's actually not what I'm arguing, but please feel free to put words in my mouth.

Harriticus wrote:
And again, Iran is hardly "undeveloped" as a country and isn't even Third World in its standard of living.

Notice how I said "...development isn't really relevant here."?

Harriticus wrote:
Civilian individuals working voluntarily for a military program. No different then killing a "civilian" government official, something the West does regularly in its wars. Civilian can mean either noncombatant or someone not professionally in a military, in the Nuclear scientists case this is the latter.

Working for a military program does not make one a member of the military, nor is killing a civilian under military employ similar to killing a politician that likely controls the military.

Harriticus wrote:
At the same time, in response to 7,000 rockets being fired at Israel from Gaza Israel has declared Gaza an "enemy entity", the closest thing they have to an official state of war.

Its not analogous to a state of war, it has more in common with the US list of terrorist organizations, or calling a particular country a "rogue state".

biccat wrote:
Almost all support for Palestinians is grounded in opposition to Israel. Look at this own thread. The concept of Palestinian statehood isn't borne out of self-determination, but rather the "oppression" of Palestinians by the Israelis.

Ergo, one can conclude that someone who supports Palestinian statehood is opposed to Israeli sovereignty.

That doesn't follow. Being opposed to Israeli treatment of Palestinians does not indicate that someone is opposed to Israeli sovereignty. Further, even if we accept that almost all support for Palestine is ground in opposition to Israeli sovereignty, or even just vaguely Israel, we still can't conclude that a person who supports Palestinian statehood necessarily opposes Israeli sovereignty.

However, it is interesting to note that the concept of Jewish self-determination (read: statehood) was born out of the oppression of the Jews during the early 20th century, with the Holocaust being the final straw. The push for one is generally connected to the perceived existence of the other.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
The French weren't too kind to the Jews, either.

No one in Europe was, but then neither was anyone in the Middle East.

My point is that "The Jews needed somewhere to go." isn't really supported by the notion that Europe, collectively, would refuse to have them.

**Andrew1975**

Why should all states be held to the same standard? We certainly don't treat them all the same, not in practice, nor could we even if we wanted to. An unstable Pakistan is going to be a point of major US interest, while no one will care about an unstable Liberia. And if the Liberian government that it really wanted to destroy Israel, it probably wouldn't even make front page news. Iran does it, and it generally does.

We don't hold states to standards, we consider them as it is expedient to do so.

If Liberia was trying to get Nukes, I'm sure there would be an effort to prevent this. Basically Nuclear programs are a reward for playing ball and being stable (not that some have not gotten through the cracks), something Iran has shown little interest in doing.

Working for a military program does not make one a member of the military, nor is killing a civilian under military employ similar to killing a politician that likely controls the military.

No, but it makes them a viable military target. Maybe not a legal one. But does that really matter?

**Relapse**

I see your point. I think a good analogy might be someone living in a house where a parent, spouse, etc. has a cycle of abuse/gee I'm sorry happening culminating in a horrific beating leaving the victim almost dead.
Any offers to go back to the house to live are definitly not as attractive as getting a place of their own.

**Andrew1975**

Yeah I don't know how logical it was to really put Israel smack dab in the middle of the area where they are generally hated the most. I would have given them Utah, or at least let them fight it out with the Mormons.

**Relapse**

If you're a believer in that sort of thing, as I am, you could say it's prophecy coming to fruition.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
If Liberia was trying to get Nukes, I'm sure there would be an effort to prevent this. Basically Nuclear programs are a reward for playing ball and being stable (not that some have not gotten through the cracks), something Iran has shown little interest in doing.

That's sort of a catch-22, though. There isn't much incentive for a nuclear program if you're going to play ball (stability isn't necessarily important).

In the present world nations develop nuclear programs because they're able, and want, to do so; regardless of what any Western nation is after.

Andrew1975 wrote:
No, but it makes them a viable military target. Maybe not a legal one. But does that really matter?

Not really, but then the West does seem to like its civilian/military barrier. Its never really meant much, but I'll bet people would have been less upset about 3000 soldiers dying to a terrorist strike in Iraq, or any other military base, than they were about 9/11.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah I don't know how logical it was to really put Israel smack dab in the middle of the area where they are generally hated the most. I would have given them Utah, or at least let them fight it out with the Mormons.

If I remember right, other sites in Australia were considered, though not seriously.

Prior to settling on the final solution as enacted, the Nazis even considered sending them all to Madagascar. Though I imagine that would been less "Jewish Homeland, hooray!" and more Amistad.

**Andrew1975**

That's sort of a catch-22, though. There isn't much incentive for a nuclear program if you're going to play ball (stability isn't necessarily important).

In the present world nations develop nuclear programs because they're able, and want, to do so; regardless of what any Western nation is after.

Well Iran says it wants Nuclear programs for peaceful reasons. I wasn't referring only to nuclear weapons programs. So if you play ball you can have your nuclear program. Stability isn't necessarily important, but it is a big consideration. If you are unstable the world worries about who will eventually get your programs, therefor they don't want you to have them.

Iran wants to and is able to, but they are paying a pretty hefty price for it. Now of course that is only more of an incentive to have one though.

Not really, but then the West does seem to like its civilian/military barrier. Its never really meant much, but I'll bet people would have been less upset about 3000 soldiers dying to a terrorist strike in Iraq, or any other military base, than they were about 9/11.

Would we be so upset if 3000 military contractors (Blackwater) got killed though? People do put themselves at risk. I'm sure the US would freak if say Iran put a hit on one of our scientists. But it's an understandable tactic. This kind of thing happened during the cold war and we didn't hear to much about it.

We were not too happy about Beirut. Granted it wasn't the reaction that 911 got. But 911 was an attack on completely random people on US territory, unaffiliated with the military unless you count the twin towers as financial support for a military industrial complex......Which the terrorists did, but most US citizens do not. Of course if all they hit was the pentagon we would still have been pissed.

If I remember right, other sites in Australia were considered, though not seriously.

I still say Utah makes more sense. It would have been a gain for the US instead of the current situation where Israel is a constant drain for us in both a monetary and political sense.