Support NeoGAF

[commedieu]

What did israel do to mordechai vanunu?

 

[noshten]

Now, this is rich.

Nope, it's the historical facts of the matter there is not a single state in the Middle East demonized as much as Iran despite the Iran threat not materializing over the last 200 years into a conflict which they perpetrated.

Let me link as to the reason there is an Iran deal in the first place:

Much of the criticism of the Iran nuclear deal has focused on the fact that it is entirely limited to the nuclear issue, which leaves Iran a free hand — and new resources — to continue policies that have angered regional and international players. There is no denying that if Iran plays its hands well and uses the next decade to build its economic and political potential, its regional influence is likely to expand, as is its capacity to do the sort of things that have angered Israel and Gulf Arab states.

The deal’s biggest critic may be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it “a historic mistake.” The irony is that the urgency with which the Obama administration pursued a nuclear deal was itself a product of Israeli actions. For Netanyahu, the deal was a good example of “be careful what you wish for.”

A little reminder is helpful here. To his credit, President Barack Obama succeeded early in his first term to get international support for sanctioning Iran — one critical reason for Iran’s willingness to take the negotiations more seriously. There have been deliberate and sustained efforts to continue pressuring Iran on multiple levels, including its behavior outside the nuclear issue.

Netanyahu preferred U.S military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, over Israeli ones, from the outset. His calculus was that the key fear that could drive the U.S. debate to support military strikes on Iran was the timeline of Iran’s nuclear program — not Tehran’s support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Netanyahu exaggerated the imminent nuclear threat as much as possible. Remember how many times, over the years, he cited Iran as being only six months away from a bomb? He gave the impression that Israel was prepared to take matters into its own hands by striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, even without U.S. backing. Initially, however, most analysts, including U.S. officials, believed he was simply bluffing.

There were many reasons why the United States didn’t take Netanyahu’s early threats seriously. For one, Israel’s capacity for sustained long-distance military operations remained limited. More important, even substantial U.S. strikes were seen to have the capacity only to delay Iran’s nuclear program — not stop it.

Israel would then have also had to worry about Iranian and Hezbollah retaliation, as well as eventually dealing with a nuclear Iran. The focus on Iran was also seen as partly intended to shift attention from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where Netanyahu faced much international pressure.

But something happened in the lead-up to the 2012 U.S. presidential elections. The Israeli pressure on the Obama administration to take action substantially increased.

At first, it was hard to know if this was merely a political play. It was no secret that Netanyahu preferred the Republican nominee for president, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. His pressure on Obama was seen to be playing into the Republicans’ hands. But there was far more to the story than politics.

The Israelis took steps in 2012 that portrayed as credible their threat to attack Iran – and inevitably drawing the United States into the fight. We don’t know much about the specifics, but reports revealed hints that the Obama administration was growing increasingly alarmed by Israel’s actions. The Netanyahu government was spending billions of dollars on a military buildup, as well as consolidating military cooperation with Azerbaijan near Iran’s northern borders.

Not until a year later were there whispered suggestions — including one from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert — that Netanyahu had spent billions to make his threats look more credible to Washington rather than for serious military preparation.

What is clear is that the Israeli moves were taken seriously by the Obama administration, which shifted its assessment in 2012 as more high-level U.S. officials began to take the Israeli threat to attack as credible.

Even aside from the coming presidential elections in November, the prospect was seen as disastrous for Obama. He was not going to allow himself to be dragged into another messy war in the Middle East with no end in sight. Only the Iran issue had the potential to do so, even after his re-election. And Obama also understood that the war would have been even worse for Israel.

How would war have been good for Israel? The Jewish state would have been, for the first time, at war with a Persian civilization (since all Iranians would likely have unified against the enemy) that would inevitably develop nuclear weapons anyway. It would have seemed that the United States was deliberately dragged into war on behalf of Israel — undermining the Israeli-U.S. relationship. How in the world is that good for Israel?

So a nuclear deal that would avoid war — and make it less likely to result in an Iranian bomb than war — became the Obama administration’s priority. It went into full diplomatic gear and worked on multiple tracks. The administration did everything it could to make it happen before Obama left office.

Which also meant the focus of the deal had to ignore nonnuclear issues because that would have opened a Pandora’s Box by making an early agreement almost impossible. Besides, this was not merely a U.S.-Iranian negotiation but one that involved five other countries, not to mention messy American and Iranian domestic politics.

Sure, there were other incentives along the way. The rise of Islamic State, for example, created common interests. Iran had leverage for involvement in troubled areas where U.S. influence was limited: Syria and Iraq. Some may also have seen strategic leverage to be gained with two longtime U.S. allies that can be hard to influence: Israel and Saudi Arabia.

But these were benefits that came after the fact. What truly focused U.S. priorities was that Israel made it clear to the White House in 2011-12 that Washington could otherwise be dragged into a war it could not control. One that would likely have devastating effects on both the United States and Israel. Thus started Obama’s urgent search for a nuclear deal.

In clinching the deal with Iran, Obama has, above all, succeeded in averting a disastrous war that would not have prevented Tehran from acquiring nukes. And it was Netanyahu who made sure Obama thought war was on the horizon.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...iran-deal-goes-to-israels-benjamin-netanyahu/

 

[RustyNails]

Israel and Iran will never attack each other or engage in full scale war. They need each other to boogeyman their population. However, the defense minister is still a PoS for saying he's ok with ISIS running around chopping peoples heads off. Hey as long as they dont touch us we dont care lol

 

[SliceSabre]

From his perspective, which is the military defense of Israel and nothing else, he sees two groups who want to destroy Israel; but only one group has conventional military power. So his statement is not really controversial.

Yup, that's exactly how I read it.

The statement is only shocking if you don't bother to use two brain cells to figure out where he's coming from.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Nope, it's the historical facts of the matter there is not a single state in the Middle East demonized as much as Iran despite the Iran threat not materializing over the last 200 years into a conflict which they perpetrated.

Let me link as to the reason there is an Iran deal in the first place:



http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...iran-deal-goes-to-israels-benjamin-netanyahu/

So you just have to create a terrorist/asymmetrical warfare organization to attack other countries to keep the pacifist label?

 

[commedieu]

Yup, that's exactly how I read it.

The statement is only shocking if you don't bother to use two brain cells to figure out where he's coming from.

The statement that Israel is insane About Iran isn't shocking. Bibi flat out lies about them all the time. Its more asinine to state as if it would ever be a reality. And considering what isis is doing, it's just meaningless fluff to state.

As long as the USA keeps funding Israelis defenses, nothing is going to happen to them.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Full article here: http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-i-would-prefer-islamic-state-to-iran-in-syria/

Jesus, this is why I can't ever see peace in that region

 

[noshten]

So you just have to create a terrorist/asymmetrical warfare organization to attack other countries to keep the pacifist label?

You realize that the invent of support terrorism organization came after the revolution, which in turn was caused due to meddling of the US into Iran's internal affairs. So in essence Iran supporting terrorism started from US support terrorism/dictators within Iran

 

[Gianna31]

Are you saying that Israel finances terrorism against Iran because that is simply not the case.

How would you know.

 

[Giant Panda]

You realize that the invent of support terrorism organization came after the revolution, which in turn was caused due to meddling of the US into Iran's internal affairs. So in essence Iran supporting terrorism started from US support terrorism/dictators within Iran

So everyone harmed by Hamas and Hezbollah was asking for it? Sounds like you're making excuses to deny Iran any responsibility. It is laughable to say Iran has been pacifist since 1979.

 

[JustSomeone]

Yes a country with basically 200 years of history in pacifism is the biggest threat to Israel.
Not the actual real threat of a region in chaos, not the threat of the US government not supporting every single action Israel takes both internally or externally, not the threat of imminent environmental crisis due to water shortages in the region. Big bad Iran, funding those pesky Palestinian terrorist groups.

The biggest threat to the existence of Israel is the far right politicians running the country

I don't know if Iran is any kind of threat to Israel, but I don't think that a country that denies basic human rights from its own citizens can be called pacifist.

 

[Anion]

Of course he does:

Islamic state is killing Muslims and setting them back in time. Essentially putting the region back a few hundred years of progress

Iran, modern, highly educated and trying to create stability within borders.

Of course they hate Iran and approve of is

 

[Dai101]

But good lord that is some dumb comments to make from a government official.

Nah. This is just wednesday in israel. Then again, usually is some racist or bigoted one.

 

[The Albatross]

Yes a country with basically 200 years of history in pacifism is the biggest threat to Israel.
Not the actual real threat of a region in chaos, not the threat of the US government not supporting every single action Israel takes both internally or externally, not the threat of imminent environmental crisis due to water shortages in the region. Big bad Iran, funding those pesky Palestinian terrorist groups.

The biggest threat to the existence of Israel is the far right politicians running the country

This post is so irrelevant it's hard to respond.

If asked about ISIS and Iran, why would the Iraeli Defense Minister talk about water shortages in the region or far right politicians, or the US' support of Israel...?

You sound like a Republican wing nut who gets mad that "Obama didn't talk about terrorism" when he's having a press conference about global warming.

 

[pgtl_10]

So you just have to create a terrorist/asymmetrical warfare organization to attack other countries to keep the pacifist label?

Pretty much how the US operates.

 

[Iorv3th]

Why would you have to choose between either of them?

 

[Sulik2]

From his perspective, which is the military defense of Israel and nothing else, he sees two groups who want to destroy Israel; but only one group has conventional military power. So his statement is not really controversial.

Bingo, slap this in the OP.

 

[pgtl_10]

The Israel defense force is strong these days.

From a civilian perspective, I'll take a stable over a chaotic Isis. Especially since Isis made clear their ambitions.

Israel is just salty that the Iran situation ended in what they deem a failure

 

[commedieu]

The Israel defense force is strong these days.

From a civilian perspective, I'll take a stable over a chaotic Isis. Especially since Isis made clear their ambitions.

Israel is just salty that the Iran situation ended in what they deem a failure

Exactly. The rest of the world saw through their bullshit. Iran isn't a threat in 2016 to israel. Just bruised egos talkin dat hubris.

Even If they were, boom, the USA has israels back and funds their military. 5billion dollars worth. Non issues all around the table.

 

[Ovid]

1. Introducing a cyber program to stop the development of a nuclear weapons program is not terrorism.

2. A state carrying out an assassination of a state controlled nuclear scientist is also not terrorism.

Are you really going to compare those two acts with a bomb detonating on a crowded bus in the middle of Jerusalem?

EDIT:

This isn't semantics, terrorism is the willful targeting of innocent civilians by an outside actor/group usually to affect some sort of political will/change. Military scientists working on a secret weapons program would not count as innocent civilians.

Well, according to Palestinians, the development of settlements is an ongoing act of terrorism.

The international community doesn't recognize Israel's occupation of the West Bank.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

No winners here.

 

[Lamel]

I can see why he would say that, it's easier for Israel to handle ISIS near them than a full military like Iran's. Still kind of a shite thing to say because preferring a group of maniacs killing innocent civilians is just wrong.

In the grand scheme of things, Israel has done and said more controversial stuff, this isn't really anything surprising.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

Seems logical to me. IS may be amongst the most primitive and violent people on the planet, but surely Iran would have to be more capable and a bigger threat to Israel.

Iran, modern, highly educated and trying to create stability within borders.

Modern? The Iranian government publically hang gay people from cherry pickers. My friend went there to play in a football tournament and one of the females travelling with the team was harassed by the local authorities for not having a male family member escort her around. I have also read women cant study certain subjects at Universities and that their husbands can legally stop them from working or travelling altogether. Still, at least they can potentially study in some capacity. I suppose that modern for the Middle East, but still primitive by Western standards.
I did once see Christopher Hitchens say that we would "live to see great things from Iran", because he thought the country had a lot of young people who werent religious fanatics. If Iran can evolve beyond their religious BS, maybe his words will prove to be true? I can only hope.

 

[orochi91]

This minister clearly doesn't give a fuck about the civilians that would suffer under a perpetual ISIS government.

The Israel defense force is strong these days.

From a civilian perspective, I'll take a stable over a chaotic Isis. Especially since Isis made clear their ambitions.

Israel is just salty that the Iran situation ended in what they deem a failure

I can see why he would say that, a violent example of Saudi ultra conservative political Islam in Syria, is something to point to when you're busy oppressing a majority Muslim population and need more excuses.

Iran is no threat to Israel. ISIS is little threat to Israel, and this guy doesn't care at all about Syrians, who would much rather not have to deal with ISIS.

+1

Well said.

 

[danwarb]

I can see why he would say that, a violent example of Saudi ultra conservative political Islam in Syria, is something to point to when you're busy oppressing a majority Muslim population and need more excuses.

Iran is no threat to Israel. ISIS is little threat to Israel, and this guy doesn't care at all about Syrians, who would much rather not have to deal with ISIS.

 

[Espada]

Yup, for someone concerned with his nation's defense he would much rather than region be filled with unstable, backwards, failed states than stable ones. It's a pretty heartless thing to say, though.

 

[Syriel]

From his perspective, which is the military defense of Israel and nothing else, he sees two groups who want to destroy Israel; but only one group has conventional military power. So his statement is not really controversial.

If I had to compete in Olympic ice hockey I'd rather go up against the French team than the Canadian team. The same logic applies here (no offense to the French players but you get my point).

Pretty much what they said. From Israel's perspective, Iran has been a constant threat (and has called for the destruction of Israel more than once) and Hezbollah is seen as an Iranian actor.

From a purely self-centered military view, the comment makes sense. ISIS is weak, disorganized and doesn't have nearly the power or finances of Iran. ISIS hasn't mounted a single attack on Israel.

If it's a matter of military strength, of course a military man would rather go up against ISIS than Iran.

That's like Russia saying it would rather fight Ukraine's military than NATO. It's about as controversial an opinion as saying the sky is blue.

Almost all legal definitions of terrorism do not mention anything about innocent civilians. For instance both the attack on the USS Cole and the 1983 Beirut Marines barracks bombing were classed by the US as an act of terrorism.

In the UK, the legal definition (as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000)

In the US Title 18 of the US code defines it as

The proposed UN comprehensive convention on International Terrorism proposes the following definition.

Israeli assassination of noncombatants (Iranian nuclear scientists) would fall under each of those definitions. Now you might argue that Israeli action is understandable or far more targeted and limited in scope than Iran financing of terrorist groups and that's fine, but by most definitions blowing up folk in the middle of a street to enact governmental change in policy IS terrorism.

According to those definitions, nearly every war in recorded history was terrorism.

Israel and Iran will never attack each other or engage in full scale war. They need each other to boogeyman their population. However, the defense minister is still a PoS for saying he's ok with ISIS running around chopping peoples heads off. Hey as long as they dont touch us we dont care lol

This minister clearly doesn't give a fuck about the civilians that would suffer under a perpetual ISIS government.

This sentiment is true of most countries and especially the military.

They will ALWAYS put their own first.

 

[Joni]

It is understandable. It is a lot easier to sell Islamic State as a bad guy over Iran when the latter one tries to act sensible. You have to attack Palestine to make sure there is no IS. That is a lot harder if there is no IS.

 

[gutter_trash]

can we stop sending money to Israel and stop doing business with Saudi Arabia?

as long as the west continues to give Saudi Arabia a free pass, this shit will continue.

Best to is to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia just like Iran.

 

[orochi91]

can we stop sending money to Israel and stop doing business with Saudi Arabia?

as long as the west continues to give Saudi Arabia a free pass, this shit will continue.

Best to is to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia just like Iran.

And Israel for their illegal settlements/occupation and treatment of Palestinians.

Might as well go for the trifecta