Israel/Palestine discussion

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:12 am UTC

Maurog wrote:Honestly, I don't see how. "Gee Willikers, they bombed our nuclear facility. Fast, let's oppress some women!"

I believe the point is that a strike will induce a "rally to the flag" effect, weakening those opposed to those in power. Since those in power are against those liberalization movements, the end result would be to slow down or significantly undermine those movements. One of the best ways to quell discontent is to have an enemy to direct the people against; this is made even easier in the case of the enemy actually attacking you.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby LaserGuy » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:19 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:We're getting a bit off-track. The core of the issue is that Iran is attacking Israel and is now getting a substantially more powerful weapon with which to attack them, and Israel can't abide that. I'm learning not to make my arguments too complicated because, when they are, there are a million little nitpicks that we look into for hours without actually getting anywhere.


The problem is that the "core of the issue" that you are describing is based on a faulty premise, namely that Iran actually has any interest in doing serious harm to Israel, and is willing to do so at the expense of essentially its entire civilian population. This has not been established. Until you can provide some evidence to support that claim, I don't see any reason to consider Iran a threat to Israel.

Maurog wrote:Honestly, I don't see how. "Gee Willikers, they bombed our nuclear facility. Fast, let's oppress some women!"


There are few things better than an external threat to galvanize a population in support of their government.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yurell » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:46 am UTC

Maurog wrote:Honestly, I don't see how. "Gee Willikers, they bombed our nuclear facility. Fast, let's oppress some women!"


The US placing Iran in the Axis of Evil made the reformist government collapse and put Ahmadinejad in power. Why would a military strike against them have less an effect? As others have pointed out, the fastest way to get a population to rally to the support of its leaders is an actual attack.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Panonadin
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:13 am UTC
Location: Frying Pan
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Panonadin » Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:32 am UTC

It's interesting to read a lot of these "debates" without a strong opinion to either side. Entertaining actually.

I feel this way.
I don't.
Well here is why I feel this way.
That is a stupid reason.
Well here are some facts to back up why I came to feel this way about the situation.
Still a stupid reason, check out these debate tactics I got off wikipedia.
I don't understand why you think my reason is stupid, can you explain?
I already told you that your reason is stupid. I don't need to say it everytime.
But?
But nothing.

OT. I read today that Iran sailed a destroyer and a supply ship through the canal. It adds up to dick waving if you ask me but they say it's on the way to Syria. Would suck to do something shady in an attempt to provoke an attack from one of the CVBG's in the area. We all know tensions are high and some of them are just sitting with itchy trigger fingers.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:09 pm UTC

Torchship, Israel can't sacrifice its short term security for... well anything. You talk about Israel's short term security as though it's something that can be exchanged for something else, but it isn't. Israel can't take a nuke just so that the region remains more stable. Part of the problem in this thread is that none of you place any value on Israel's need to defend itself.

LaserGuy: Iran has already done serious harm to Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas. There is no question of whether Iran wants to harm Israel, they're already doing it. I see no reason why Israel should let them get the means to do it better. It's not up to Israel to hope Iran won't use those means.

Yurell, I've provided you with the evidence several times in this past page alone. I'm not going to waste my time meeting your arbitrary and unnecessary standard of evidence, what I've given you is sufficient to prove myself correct.

Ghostbear, I have not once insulted you. I never made an attack on your character, at any point.

Another general point: as it is necessary for Israel to defend itself, the negative consequences of an Israeli strike can be blamed solely on Iran. Israel's hand is being forced, thus so long as Israel takes the minimum necessary action to defend itself (which a military strike constitutes), then any negative consequences of that action can be blamed on Iran.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yurell » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:13 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Yurell, I've provided you with the evidence several times in this past page alone. I'm not going to waste my time meeting your arbitrary and unnecessary standard of evidence, what I've given you is sufficient to prove myself correct.


Fuck you then. You're a liar (even in this very post), you're a hypocrite and you've done each of those too many times, so now you're foed. You called a friend of mine a liar, you called people I respect a liar, you called people I dislike a liar, and when asked to provide a single piece of evidence for this, you refused.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:19 pm UTC

For the record, I did not call anybody here a liar. I just did a ctrl-f on all my posts for "liar" and it didn't come up once in this conversation.

EDIT: I also did a search for "lie" and "lying". So not only did I not call anybody a liar, I also didn't say that a person had lied, told a lie, or was lying.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Torchship
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Torchship » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Torchship, Israel can't sacrifice its short term security for... well anything. You talk about Israel's short term security as though it's something that can be exchanged for something else, but it isn't. Israel can't take a nuke just so that the region remains more stable. Part of the problem in this thread is that none of you place any value on Israel's need to defend itself.


Israel is not being asked to take a nuke, Israel is being asked to take the infinitesimal chance of taking a nuke, which is an entirely different concept. I have no idea why you are apparently incapable of keeping these two trivially simple ideas separate. Asking Israel to take a one-in-a-thousand or a one-in-ten-thousand risk for the sake of its own ultimate survival and the good of the region is not unreasonable. What other option is there; should Israel continue exploding its neighbours for the next fifty years, then be utterly annihilated in the ensuing war? How is that preferable to taking a series of small risks now?

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:29 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Ghostbear, I have not once insulted you. I never made an attack on your character, at any point.

You have insulted me, by actually refusing to discuss most of my points- you merely kept parroting on about how you already addressed that, and told me to read the thread. I said I had read the thread, and that I did not feel you had addressed any of this issues adequately, and asked that if you really felt you had addressed any of those issues already, to provide proof- link to and requote them. You did not do that, and instead continued to insist on saying "I already addressed this". I asked you politely to stop doing that, and yet you kept doing it. By insisting on telling me that to re-read the thread after saying I did not feel you had addressed anything sufficiently in the past, you insinuated that I am either a liar, incompetent, stupid, or not worth addressing: all of those are insulting. You have been insufferably rude to me in this discussion, and I have only continued to attempt to get a civil discussion out of you because I believe there is an actual sliver of hope that you might be made to understand how you are being rude and to stop it.

So again, go back to this post of yours*, and in every instance where you said "I already addressed this" replace it with one of the following:
1. A link to those prior arguments that addresses them, with a quote of the specific part you feel is relevant.
2. An apology for insinuating that I am a liar.
3. A statement admitting you are not actually interested in discussing anything with me.

Truthfully, I would like an apology for the rude off handed way you dismissed my arguments regardless, but if you provide the first I will be content to be willing to continue attempting to discuss with you, because then I can tell you why I did not think those re-linked and quoted sections are sufficient. Statements of "I already dealt with this" are not useful for conducting discussion, especially when, when asked for proof of that, you refuse to provide it. It is impossible to discuss something with someone who refuses to discuss it with you.

* You had been doing it for several pages, but I feel that post is a good starting point, especially since it is immediately following this post of mine, with this relevant quote:
Spoiler:
Ghostbear wrote:All I've seen you say is "they claim their purpose is to commit genocide, and Iran gave them rockets". If you gave a better argument, link to it or just requote it instead of merely saying it exists. You can say you've already explained it before, but obviously you have not done so to a satisfactory level if people keep bringing the points up. If you still think you have, then requote yourself- I have not see a better argument from you on this matter, and I am not at all satisfied with "they totally said they want to commit genocide", because, as I have said however many times, they have not backed up that rhetoric with action in any appreciable amount.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:36 pm UTC

First, you're reading implications into what I've said that aren't there. I don't propose to know the reason why you aren't responding to my arguments. You could be stupid, you could be dishonest, you may not have noticed them, you could have forgotten them, I really don't know and I don't care because it's not actually relevant.

Second, even if I had been ignoring your arguments (and I don't think I have been), that doesn't constitute an insult. And insult is a personal attack, and I have not attacked your character, just your arguments.

Third, I'm not going to search for links and quotes for my arguments anymore. I've rehashed my arguments on demand in this thread for a quite a while and I don't see a reason to continue, so I'm not putting any more effort into my argument than is necessary to prove myself correct. And to prove myself correct I only need to state my reasons once. If you want to bring up a point that's already been refuted here, I don't need to explain again why it's been refuted: you should know. And if you don't know, that's not my problem.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:50 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:First, you're reading implications into what I've said that aren't there. I don't propose to know the reason why you aren't responding to my arguments. You could be stupid, you could be dishonest, you may not have noticed them, you could have forgotten them, I really don't know and I don't care because it's not actually relevant.

When I say I have noticed them, and you continue to tell me to read the thread, you are directly implying that I did not, which indicates that you think I am a liar, because it means I did not speak truthfully.

sourmìlk wrote:Second, even if I had been ignoring your arguments (and I don't think I have been), that doesn't constitute an insult. And insult is a personal attack, and I have not attacked your character, just your arguments.

Insult, verb: Speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse

You are not treating me with respect, and by doing so, you are being insulting. You can insult someone without directly attacking them.

sourmìlk wrote:I've rehashed my arguments on demand in this thread for a quite a while and I don't see a reason to continue, so I'm not putting any more effort into my argument than is necessary to prove myself correct.

I'm not asking you to rehash them, I'm asking you to prove that they exist at all. Isn't part of a discussion to provide evidence and proof when asked? You have insinuated that I am a liar, you have refused to accommodate two simple requests (to provide actual arguments other than "I already addressed this", and to provide evidence of you already addressing it); so how is this for a reason? To show some respect to me, as a fellow poster. Right now, all you are doing is insisting that proof exists, and then refusing to provide it. Do you not see just how fucking dickish that is? Seriously, if you have proof, show people that that proof exists when they ask you for it. If you don't have proof, stop saying you do.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Hawknc » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:54 pm UTC

Since everyone has now completely digressed from the topic and we aren't even discussing Israel/Palestine at this point, I'm temporarily locking the thread for a day or so to give everyone a chance to cool off. When we come back, stay on-topic and respectful. If you can't manage both of those, don't post.

User avatar
Panonadin
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:13 am UTC
Location: Frying Pan
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Panonadin » Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:18 am UTC

I guess this has a bit to do with Syria as well, but it's Iran making the threat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/world ... ifies.html

My favorite part of the article is the quote "In case of any U.S. strategic mistake in Syria, there is a possibility that Iran, Russia and a number of other countries will give a crushing response to the U.S.,” said Mr. Ebrahimi"

There are 2 (and a possible 3rd on the way) Carrier groups in the immediate area. I guess it really depends on your personal definition of a "crushing response".

Why can't we all just get along?
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yurell » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:55 am UTC

Because there are a bunch of fanatics that claim an inherent right to pieces of land regardless of who's on it (this goes for that bunch of countries, not just Israel) and that we care more for the rights of a nation than those of the people comprising that nation (so long as their dictators are pleasing a power, of course).
So basically racism & nationalism.

Of course, there are other causes (such as resources etc.), but these seem to be the ones under contention at the moment.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:18 am UTC

Panonadin wrote:There are 2 (and a possible 3rd on the way) Carrier groups in the immediate area. I guess it really depends on your personal definition of a "crushing response".

Russia can be a big nuisance in other ways- I believe they control many of our supply lines to Afghanistan. Just closing those down would put a lot of pressure on the US and its allies. They also supply much of the natural energy for eastern Europe- while they have a good reputation for not fucking around with that, they still have the option of doing so to put a squeeze on some of our allies, to punish them for working with the US. Russia has also been historically (I don't know how much this applies to the modern era) one of the other major arms suppliers beyond the US- they could sell make some friendly arms deals with nations we see as rivals. There's a lot Russia- not even having looked at who the "other countries" are- can do to trouble other nations without being at all bothered or involved with a CBG.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Diadem » Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:07 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:They also supply much of the natural energy for eastern Europe- while they have a good reputation for not fucking around with that, they still have the option of doing so to put a squeeze on some of our allies, to punish them for working with the US.

There is no way Russia is going to risk the carefully maintained status quo in Eastern Europe over something the US does. Eastern Europe is far too important for Russia. They enjoy fucking with Eastern Europe, but only to expand their influence there. And even then they are careful not to upset the EU too much (And the EU, on her turn, is careful not to upset Russia too much).

Also, on a more general point: Putin is suffering from dwindling popularity. Starting a war can often be a good way to ensure reelection. But an unpopular war in a far-away country that none cares about and is clearly only a dick-measuring contest between presidents, that is more likely than not to backfire pretty badly.

So when it comes to Syria, I doubt Russia will really put its foot down. At least not on its own. Together with China is another story.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:35 am UTC

Diadem wrote:There is no way Russia is going to risk the carefully maintained status quo in Eastern Europe over something the US does. Eastern Europe is far too important for Russia. They enjoy fucking with Eastern Europe, but only to expand their influence there. And even then they are careful not to upset the EU too much (And the EU, on her turn, is careful not to upset Russia too much).

Right, but the idea was that just because there are carriers in the area doesn't mean that Russia lacks ways to put some pressure on the US. I doubt they'd do anything significant to fuck with eastern Europe, specifically because of what you've mentioned (and I did allude to that in my post), but they don't need to ruin that situation to put some pressure on them either; they can do lots of minor inconveniences that, while aggravating, aren't enough to force anyone to seriously look at new options.

I can't possibly imagine Russia declaring war over this, but that doesn't mean they can't make things uncomfortable for us in other ways, such as by limiting our ability to resupply in Afghanistan. That's all I was saying- Russia does have some possible (non-war) bite to back up its bark, even if it might choose to not use it, those options do exist.

User avatar
Panonadin
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:13 am UTC
Location: Frying Pan
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Panonadin » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:11 am UTC

When I read " a crushing blow" I didn't think they meant hurting our economy or disrupting trade. I assumed they meant using their little destroyers and frigates to attack our CBGs.

I guess it could be meant in more ways than one. Sorry for the over sight.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:05 am UTC

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17116588]Bad, Iran! Bad![/url]

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:51 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Bad, Iran! Bad!


Sigh... I'm just going to repeat what I said earlier:

That's why preemptive war is such a terrible policy: Because it recommends a violent option into situations where violence might be avoided entirely. The best way to resolve this situation, and to resolve it in the long term, is not through threats and blackmail and violence, but through normalizing relations between the West, Israel and Iran. First, because violence plays to an authoritarian regime's strengths, while openness and prosperity play to its weaknesses. Second, because if good relations between the players are restored, it won't matter whether or not Iran gets nuclear weapons, because they will have no incentive to use them.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:30 am UTC

That really is stupid. Iran has nonviolent options open to it. I sort of agree with LaserGuy: preemptive war is a terrible policy when there are means beside violence for resolving a conflict. Iran has access to those means. Iran actually has the power (and responsibility) to work towards normalizing relations.
Last edited by sourmìlk on Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:31 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yurell » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:31 am UTC

*Sighs* That's a gigantic screw-up on Iran's part ... their entire position is precariously balanced upon the notion that they'll only act in self defence. This is only going to make Israel more inclined to do something stupid.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:32 am UTC

It's not stupid if it's necessary (although the fact that it's necessary can be stupid). But I don't think anybody believed that Iran was only going to act in self-defense (aside from those on these fora). Clearly American intelligence and Mossad believed that Iran would act aggressively. Of course, the question is moot in that Iran constantly attacks Israel already.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:06 pm UTC

I think the only clear answer now is if Azerbaijan declares that if it believes either Iran or Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike against the other or their allies, that it will have to pre-emptively strike Russia. Yep. Solves everything.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sardia » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:12 pm UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/world ... ?ref=world
I wonder if Israel would offer, and any nation would accept Israel's humanitarian aid to help deal with the inevitable flood of refugees to come out of the Syrian civil war.
The increase in tensions between Iran and Israel is coinciding with the deterioration of Syria. Do you think Iran would exacerbate tensions in order to buy time for Assad's forces to crush the civil war? Iran heavily funds Syria, which they use to supply themselves with weapons from Russia. With the majority of the security forces loyal, paid, and well armed; how is the regime going to fall? Isn't it more likely that Assad will crush the rebellion?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:53 pm UTC

I don't know if it's in Israel's interest to assist the rebellion in Syria because I'm not sure what stance the protestors hold regarding Israel, but I'd imagine it's probably in Israel's favour. At least, compared to Assad. But yeah, unless we see Libya style military intervention in Syria (and I don't think we will), then I find it likely that Assad will violently crush the rebellion. The Syrian government has shown its willingness to kill tens of thousands of its own citizens to crush rebellions.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:53 pm UTC

Thought I'd post this article as some food for thought vis-a-vis Iran. It's a bit lengthy, but it discusses two issues that I think are pretty important:

-There is evidence to suggest that Iran has no mastered gas centrifuge technology. This technology will mean that the prospect of a military exercise against Iran will ultimately be fruitless, if not unproductive, because Iran has, or will very soon have, the capacity to build facilities that can enrich weapons grade uranium that are virtually undetectable to any surveillance technology available. Worse, a strike would likely drive the enrichment process further underground, greatly reducing our ability to monitor Iran's progress.

A gas centrifuge plant capable of making one nuclear weapon per year could be housed in a high-school gymnasium, powered by a diesel generator, and would not need more than a single canister of uranium feed material to make a bomb. It would emit less heat per square foot than a typical warehouse or grocery store and so would be invisible to infrared-sensing satellites; it would give off no chemical signatures; and it would not produce electromagnetic signals that could be detected beyond the fence-line of the facility. To this day, there remains no technical way to discover a clandestine centrifuge plant.


-A gradual bilateral de-escalation is possible. An element that may work in favour of this, if played correctly, is that the Iranian elections are going to be held next year. If the Iranian people are being hurt by the sanctions (which they are), then providing a framework for allowing them to be gradually removed could be extremely politically palatable, especially for opposition groups who presumably hate us less than the current government. If played wrong, of course, it could strengthen Ahmadinejad and increase tensions. Part of this may involve providing Iran with some civilian nuclear technology or fuel (eg. for medical isotopes or nuclear power) that could be closely monitored by the IAEA.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:00 pm UTC

Unfortunately, a deescalation would involve Iran, and I don't think they're willing to do that. And although a strike on the nuclear facilities would force Iran to make future ones more secure, it still buys more time than no action at all. Hopefully a few years at least. Hopefully the elections happen and succeed in changing something before that's necessary.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:19 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Unfortunately, a deescalation would involve Iran, and I don't think they're willing to do that. And although a strike on the nuclear facilities would force Iran to make future ones more secure, it still buys more time than no action at all. Hopefully a few years at least. Hopefully the elections happen and succeed in changing something before that's necessary.


A deescalation would involve both sides. Neither side can back down unilaterally without losing face. Iran has already made some overtures suggesting that they might be willing to talk. Again, in the long term, buying time is not a good solution, particularly if it leaves us in a worse situation than before we attacked. From the same article:

Here’s the bottom line: an Israeli attack unites Iran in fury, locks in the Islamic Republic for a generation, cements the Syrian regime, radicalizes the Arab world at a moment of delicate transition, ignites Hezbollah on the Lebanese border, boosts Hamas, endangers U.S. troops in the region, sparks terrorism, propels oil skyward, triggers a possible regional war, offers a lifeline to Iran just as Europe is about to stop buying its oil, adds a Persian to the Arab vendetta against Israel, and may at best set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions a couple of years.


If I were being really ambitious, I would say that the endgame--some years down the road, in all likelihood--would be to put together a deal for nuclear demilitarization of the Middle East, including Israel, and, hopefully, Pakistan and India. The current situation will almost invariably push other states in the region toward thinking about nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia has already indicated that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, that they will as well, and, they seem to suggest that they could do so quite quickly. It's believed that Pakistan might well sell them some outright, since Saudi financed much of their nuclear program, for example. Turkey would almost certainly follow suit, and countries like Egypt and Syria would no doubt feel the temptation as well. If the current nuclear states are willing to disarm their nuclear capability and others not pursue it, this might be the best of all possible worlds.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

It's up to the escalator to initiate a deescalation. So, yes, a deescalation requires both sides, but it particularly requires Iran. If Iran doesn't indicate that it's good to deescalate, then Israel can't out of pure self-defense.

I recognize the consequences of an Israeli strike and I suppose it isn't a "good" solution, but it may be the only solution. Submitting to the will of Iran while Iran is attacking Israel is a worse solution.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:39 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:It's up to the escalator to initiate a deescalation. So, yes, a deescalation requires both sides, but it particularly requires Iran. If Iran doesn't indicate that it's good to deescalate, then Israel can't out of pure self-defense.


Well, yes. That's why I said both sides need to deescalate, because both sides are escalating. Again, the key here is lots of small steps, rather than a couple large ones. If both sides can find that there is actually some benefit to progress, then they'll continue to do so. Saying "Iran must immediately stop enrichment and allow for inspections of their nuclear facilities or else we're going to bomb the country back to the Stone Age" is not going to work. Negotiation requires give and take from both sides.

sourmìlk wrote:I recognize the consequences of an Israeli strike and I suppose it isn't a "good" solution, but it may be the only solution. Submitting to the will of Iran while Iran is attacking Israel is a worse solution.


Iran is not currently attacking Israel. In the very most generous interpretation, they are threatening to.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sardia » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:46 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:It's up to the escalator to initiate a deescalation. So, yes, a deescalation requires both sides, but it particularly requires Iran. If Iran doesn't indicate that it's good to deescalate, then Israel can't out of pure self-defense.

I recognize the consequences of an Israeli strike and I suppose it isn't a "good" solution, but it may be the only solution. Submitting to the will of Iran while Iran is attacking Israel is a worse solution.

It's up to the countries involved in the dispute to decide if they want to ease tensions, not you. Still, I agree it'll be hard for both sides to trust each other. Maybe if they both send divisions across the middle east, and kill each other. A good 10,000 or so soldiers dead on each side might persuade the doves to come out.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:08 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/world/middleeast/israel-both-hopeful-and-fearful-about-unrest-in-syria.html?ref=world
I wonder if Israel would offer, and any nation would accept Israel's humanitarian aid to help deal with the inevitable flood of refugees to come out of the Syrian civil war.


There is exactly one snowball's chance in hell that Osrael will accept refugees in any significant number from any country in the world for any reason they might have fled, unless the refugees or their maternaly grandmothers were Jewish, of course.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:05 am UTC

Well Syria in particular has traditionally been hostile to Israel. So I don't see a problem with a country not accepting refugees from a country they're at war with, and I don't see a problem with largely accepting refugees whose status you were created to resolve.

LaserGuy wrote:Well, yes. That's why I said both sides need to deescalate, because both sides are escalating. Again, the key here is lots of small steps, rather than a couple large ones. If both sides can find that there is actually some benefit to progress, then they'll continue to do so. Saying "Iran must immediately stop enrichment and allow for inspections of their nuclear facilities or else we're going to bomb the country back to the Stone Age" is not going to work. Negotiation requires give and take from both sides.

I think Israel clearly recognizes the benefits of progress, but it has no means of achieving that progress. And as I've said, an actual military strike (a targeted one, not bombing back to the Stone Age) isn't an ideal solution, but for Israel it appears to be the only one. This isn't a prisoner's dilemma where both sides have to escalate even though that's not the preferable action. Iran is fully capable of initiating a deescalation.

Iran is not currently attacking Israel. In the very most generous interpretation, they are threatening to.

That's not true. Hezbollah and Hamas are Iranian proxies.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Torchship
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Torchship » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:20 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:That's not true. Hezbollah and Hamas are Iranian proxies.


By that logic, the West has also been attacking Iran since the 2003 war because of their support for the PMoI. In fact, the West's support for the PMoI is largely the cause of the current debacle; Iran offered to open their nuclear program for inspection and withdraw support for Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for the West's aid in disbanding the PMoI. The offer was refused, and look where we are now. I think LaserGuy's point about the guilt of everyone is extremely valid here; everyone has committed so many atrocities against everyone else's civilians that there are no 'aggressors' or 'defenders' any more.

In related news, it looks like any Israeli strike is going to have to be huge in magnitude and tantamount to a declaration of war. Israel is going to need about 100 planes to perform the operation and only possesses about 125 modern aircraft. Any operation could potentially take weeks to finish the job (as opposed to the overnight strikes that Israel was able to perform previously), and it isn't guaranteed that Israel has the logistics support to actually support an operation for that long. It would be impossible for Iran to ignore a several day or week long strike and war would be pretty much inevitable. Here's to hoping that Israel isn't criminally stupid enough to try anything, because another major war in the Middle East is something that no-one wants.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:23 am UTC

Wow, that article makes it sound like any Israeli advocating an airstrike is really advocating national suicide. Heck, if they really go through with it, they're going to have to rely on either the mercy of Iran or their nuclear arsenal just to avoid going on the defensive.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:47 am UTC

Torchship wrote:
By that logic, the West has also been attacking Iran since the 2003 war because of their support for the PMoI. In fact, the West's support for the PMoI is largely the cause of the current debacle; Iran offered to open their nuclear program for inspection and withdraw support for Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for the West's aid in disbanding the PMoI. The offer was refused, and look where we are now. I think LaserGuy's point about the guilt of everyone is extremely valid here; everyone has committed so many atrocities against everyone else's civilians that there are no 'aggressors' or 'defenders' any more.

From what I can tell, the PMoI may be supported by the US but is not, ultimately, a proxy, and neither is it currently engaging in terrorist attacks against Iranian civilians. Iran is the only party here consistently initiating hostilities, it is the only party with the power to initiate a deescalation: its status as the aggressor is clear

In related news, it looks like any Israeli strike is going to have to be huge in magnitude and tantamount to a declaration of war. Israel is going to need about 100 planes to perform the operation and only possesses about 125 modern aircraft. Any operation could potentially take weeks to finish the job (as opposed to the overnight strikes that Israel was able to perform previously), and it isn't guaranteed that Israel has the logistics support to actually support an operation for that long. It would be impossible for Iran to ignore a several day or week long strike and war would be pretty much inevitable. Here's to hoping that Israel isn't criminally stupid enough to try anything, because another major war in the Middle East is something that no-one wants.

Yeah, this is going to be a bit of a bigger job than I realized. But I don't see how launching a strike is criminally stupid: it could quite well be necessary. One of the points I hear made often that's simply wrong is that Israel would have to fly over unfriendly airspace. The Arabs are absolutely in support of Israeli actions against Iran, going so far as to let Israel establish listening posts in their countries to let Israel spy on Iran.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:51 am UTC

You did catch the part where Israel at worst loses their air force and Iran at worst has their programmed delayed a few years? This could easily turn into Israel's Pearl Harbor.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:54 am UTC

Once you start going for numbers of 100 planes, I think the chance of something going wrong somewhere is going go up considerably. It seems like a huge risk for Israel, and if things go poorly it could very well leave them in a much worse position to defend themselves. Plus, going by the article, the majority of their strikecraft are F-15s and F-16s, which don't have any stealth technology in them. Over a 2,000 mile route (especially since that route is almost entirely over land), I'd think they'd have a good risk at being discovered.

Also, even if this does work, when Iran replaces the lost facilities, what's stopping them from locating them at the other end of Iran? It looks like if they placed them there, it'd give Israel a 3,500-4000 mile round trip instead.

Also aslo:
The Article wrote:Nonetheless, [US] defense officials say it would still be tough to penetrate Iran’s deepest facilities with existing American bombs and so are enhancing an existing 30,000-pound “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” that was specifically designed for Iran and North Korea.

That's one fucking huge bomb.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:00 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Torchship wrote:
By that logic, the West has also been attacking Iran since the 2003 war because of their support for the PMoI. In fact, the West's support for the PMoI is largely the cause of the current debacle; Iran offered to open their nuclear program for inspection and withdraw support for Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for the West's aid in disbanding the PMoI. The offer was refused, and look where we are now. I think LaserGuy's point about the guilt of everyone is extremely valid here; everyone has committed so many atrocities against everyone else's civilians that there are no 'aggressors' or 'defenders' any more.


From what I can tell, the PMoI may be supported by the US but is not, ultimately, a proxy, and neither is it currently engaging in terrorist attacks against Iranian civilians. Iran is the only party here consistently initiating hostilities, it is the only party with the power to initiate a deescalation: its status as the aggressor is clear


Are Hezbollah and Hamas currently engaging in terrorist attacks against Israel? I haven't heard anything to suggest that anything significant has been happening on that front in some time.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests