War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

[Dayuhan]

IMO, where criticism of Israel does become anti-Semitic is where:

a.) Israel is held to a unique, differing and/or higher contemporary or historical standards of conduct than other nations - such as the US.

or b.) Israel's right to exist is considered illegitimate, by virtue of it being a/the Jewish state. - thus a state existing in the same time and place, but being Christian and/or Muslim (eg: Lebanon) would be considered legitimate.

... and not OT, IMO, since it is highly relevant to the nature of the Iran's foreign policy, the source of the problem.

Well, if it's not OT...

Israel's entire claim to statehood rests on the assumption of uniqueness: is there another modern case of a population of recent immigrants appropriating an area and imposing a statehood unacceptable to the pre-existing population? Granting, of course, that the Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc all did the same thing, but under the standards of the day that was acceptable behaviour. I'm not sure anyone else could have got away with it in the mid 20th century, a time when the general trend was running in the opposite direction. The notion of a "historical claim" would have been seen as preposterous if not for the connection between Jewish history and the Christian mythology of the Western powers: who else could have demanded and received international support for the restoration of a state that had not existed for many centuries?

The argument against Israel's legitimacy is not a consequence of the state's Jewishness, but of its imposition by force against the wishes the pre-existing population. It's hardly unique to Israel; essentially the same argument was used to challenge the legitimacy of Rhodesia, white-ruled South Africa, etc...

[Fuchs]

Iran's leadership en banq has embraced anti-Semitism in general and with this administration Holocaust-denial in particular as state policy.

The standard counter-argument to this allegation is that the Jewish minority in Iraq lives quite well and obviously refuses to emigrate despite Israeli offers.

It may be a too complex attitude, and "antisemitism" may be a poor and inadequate description for it.

There are many voices in the West that accuse Iran's government of antisemitism, but I keep my doubts about that because it fits poorly to some of its behaviour (see the minority) and doesn't appear to be the only possible explanation. Anti-Zionism works fine as explanation as well.

And it doesn't help that Israel is in defiance of a U.N resolution that's about the equal of a UN resolution that demanded Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait.

Western hypocrisy in regard to the Near/Mid east conflicts doesn't help either.



This is all quite important because Western sources of conflict blocking a lasting non-violent conflict solution just as are their motives.

The difference between Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism is also important because one could be solved quickly by political concessions while the other could at best be solved by slow and steady erosion over generations.


Know your enemy.
And don't be satisfied with prejudices.

[William F. Owen]

is there another modern case of a population of recent immigrants appropriating an area and imposing a statehood unacceptable to the pre-existing population? Granting, of course, that the Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc all did the same thing, but under the standards of the day that was acceptable behaviour.

So under the standards of behaviour of a given time, when were European colonists ever subjected to industrial state sanctioned annihilation by a de-facto colonial power?
... that's the only reason Holocaust denial exists. - to delegitimise Israel's right to exist.

Now you can argue that the Palestine Mandate was not an ideal location for the Jewish Homeland, but where was the one place on earth constantly inhabited by Jews since written records began? - albeit as a minority for a long while.

The argument against Israel's legitimacy is not a consequence of the state's Jewishness, but of its imposition by force against the wishes the pre-existing population.

Sorry, but a substantial proportion of anti-Israel arguments are founded on precisely that issue.
Israel is a demonstrably secular State whose primary reason for existence is the protection of ethnic and religious Jews (and anyone under their protection) from anywhere on the planet. - Zion.

A great deal of rubbish is talked about Zionism. At it's heart and even across other cultures and in some popular culture, it's meaning is "last safe place."

Fully confess to not being a fair broker on this one, - a bit like Americans being pro-American.

[Fuchs]

Maybe I'm alone, but I don't see the state of Israel being justified by the Holocaust. I see it justified by the majority opinion of its inhabitants.

The conflict as I see it is about its extension beyond internationally accepted borders. It gotta follow the UN resolution. Maybe it needs some guarantee powers for its real borders just as Belgium got in I think 1838.
Imagine USA, France, UK, Turkey, Russia and India guaranteeing Israel's internationally recognized borders against any aggressor - including nuclear umbrellas.
There would be no more justification for an occupation of the Golan heights - peace with Syria would be possible.

The whole affair in the Near/Mid East is a conflict among sinners in my opinion. No side is free of blame, and it's no wonder that they looked and look at the military as power tool in the struggle.

The region needs to cool down - that requires suitable political actions - and it needs time to heal. But you cannot heal wounds that are still full of blades without pulling them out.

Israel is in a hopeless position in the long term (three generations at most) unless it arranges itself with its neighbours.
Hawkish propaganda and policies waste time that's needed for long-term measures. The Israeli intelligence has warned about Iranian nukes as a short-term threat for at least 18 years now. That does not help. There was no significant conflict between Israel and Iran in the early 90's.
You don't secure your country by hawkish actions that add to its list of foes.

I consider the Iranian threat as hyped-up, and did so for a long time.

[Steve Blair]

This thread is starting to wander into familiar territory, and may have exceeded its useful life span.

[William F. Owen]

This thread is starting to wander into familiar territory, and may have exceeded its useful life span.

Very much concur.

[Valin]

How else could they do it? Missiles are too inaccurate without going nuclear, and land forces are certainly not able to hit it. The centrifuges at Natanz are under something like 25ft of soil and concrete, so cruise missiles and such are out. The only thing that could work would be sequenced penetrators carried by a pretty big strike package. It isn't an assumption, there isn't any other way it could be carried out really.

I'm thinking Mosad. Just asking a simple question

[Ken White]

This thread is starting to wander into familiar territory, and may have exceeded its useful life span.

Though I will note I provided one of the few sensible comments on this type of thread.

[Dayuhan]

So under the standards of behaviour of a given time, when were European colonists ever subjected to industrial state sanctioned annihilation by a de-facto colonial power?
... that's the only reason Holocaust denial exists. - to delegitimise Israel's right to exist.

By this logic, should not the Native Americans, the Roma, and quite a number of others be entitled to a State?

Now you can argue that the Palestine Mandate was not an ideal location for the Jewish Homeland, but where was the one place on earth constantly inhabited by Jews since written records began? - albeit as a minority for a long while.

Israel is a demonstrably secular State whose primary reason for existence is the protection of ethnic and religious Jews (and anyone under their protection) from anywhere on the planet. - Zion.

A great deal of rubbish is talked about Zionism. At it's heart and even across other cultures and in some popular culture, it's meaning is "last safe place."

Clearly there is no necessary connection between constant inhabitation and safety. The real "last safe place" for the Jews seems to be the US, where Jews are more numerous, prosperous, and secure than they are in Israel.

No further comment.

[Presley Cannady]

Though I will note I provided one of the few sensible comments on this type of thread.

I'll also note that I started this thread after third happy hour last week.

By this logic, should not the Native Americans, the Roma, and quite a number of others be entitled to a State?

Yes, and it's called New Jersy.

[Presley Cannady]

How else could they do it? Missiles are too inaccurate without going nuclear, and land forces are certainly not able to hit it. The centrifuges at Natanz are under something like 25ft of soil and concrete, so cruise missiles and such are out. The only thing that could work would be sequenced penetrators carried by a pretty big strike package. It isn't an assumption, there isn't any other way it could be carried out really.

I don't know. A 50 m CEP is pretty damned accurate, and you don't exactly have to put just one missile on the target. Likewise, 25 ft of of soil and concrete eventually has to give way to the rule: anything worth shooting is worth shooting as many times as it takes to put down.

[Fuchs]

This thread is starting to wander into familiar territory, and may have exceeded its useful life span.

The problem is that grand strategy is superior to political strategy which is superior to military strategy, operations, tactics.

It's misleading to discuss something on one level while ignoring the higher levels. The conclusions may very well be wrong ones.

I think that justifies to wander off to higher level discussions even if the topic is really about a detail. This happens usually if there's no consensus about the higher level decisions.


I understand that from a forum moderation point of view - with a delicate topic environment - it's preferable to stick to a detail topic, but that's a systemic mistake.

[William F. Owen]

By this logic, should not the Native Americans, the Roma, and quite a number of others be entitled to a State?

May be, but it's irrelevant. The Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, was unique in nature and scale and proved beyond doubt that Europe was not a safe place for Jews to live. Somewhere safe had to be found.

You may disagree with that, but it was a widely held view in 1946, and had been held by many Zionists since the Dreyfus Affair in France, and the open anti-semitism of the French Right Wing - and many other nations, in the 1870's.

Clearly there is no necessary connection between constant inhabitation and safety.

Agreed. However if you want to pick a place to settle a people, it may as well be where they originally came from. - and not criminally stupid places like Uganda and Madagascar - which some suggested.

The real "last safe place" for the Jews seems to be the US, where Jews are more numerous, prosperous, and secure than they are in Israel.

Well that maybe your opinion. It's not the 2,000 year old idea ingrained in the vast majority of the Israelis.

[Steve Blair]

I understand that from a forum moderation point of view - with a delicate topic environment - it's preferable to stick to a detail topic, but that's a systemic mistake.

In your opinion, perhaps. But this isn't a political forum..and the endless loop that this thread is starting down is one that we prefer to avoid. Thread closed.

[davidbfpo]

There have been discussions before on the prospects of a strike on Iranian nuclear weapons facilities in two threads (maybe more): http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...read.php?t=436 (closed) and another after a NIE was published:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=4491

For reasons I do not fully follow the issue has re-surfaced and I've been reading two excellent threads on the KOW blogsite starting with: http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/2009...uldnt-bomb-ira and today: http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/2009...ith-destiny/n/

For readers update.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Fuchs (again) for this item on a suspected false report on Iranian nuclear work in The Times of London on 14/12/09: http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....documents.html

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Cryptome for locating this Swedish Defence Research Agency report 'The Israeli Threat An Analysis of the Consequences of an Israeli Strike on Iranian Nuclear Facilities' by Sam Gardiner, Colonel, USAF (Retired):

The conclusion starts with:

The situation has a quality of inevitability about it. It has the feel of Europe prior to World War I..(gap) The core question in the report is: If Israel were to decide that it had no choice but to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, what would be the consequences?
(later)...Although there are some leverage points for the United States on Israel to prevent Israel from striking Iran, they are limited. Most of the leverage would be in the form of punishment and not prevention. If events continue to unfold, an Israeli strike on Iran can be expected. The United States is put at a disadvantage if it waits until after an Israeli strike to deploy air and naval forces into the region. United States interests are damaged less if it moves forward with a combined Israel-U.S. operation and if initial targeting by the forces of the two countries is on both military capabilities and the nuclear sites...

Link: http://www.foi.se/upload/nyheter/201...d%20omslag.pdf

This report is a companion piece to an earlier Swedish report in 2008 and the link to that is:http://www.foi.se/FOI/templates/Publ...&sort=ar%20DES

[Rex Brynen]

In the last few months there have been several think tank-based crisis simulations of the effects of an Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear facilities (all links via PaxSims):

• more on the Brookings Iran simulation
• INSS Iran simulation
• and, yes, ANOTHER Iran nuclear simulation… (Carnegie Endowment)
• another Iran simulation (INSS)
• Walt on the Harvard Iran simulation
• Harvard KSG Iran simulation

At this point, they'll soon be running simulations of Iran simulations.

[davidbfpo]

Puzzled that this subject has come up again, nevertheless Professor Paul Rogers has written this comment and points at a new UK think tank report.

Opens with:

An Israeli assault on Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and personnel would be far more extensive than many realise. The prospect that it will happen in the next few months is increasing....The voices in Washington calling for a military strike on Iranian nuclear plants are growing in number and strength.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-ro...fallout-of-war

The report:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...ct_and_effects

[huskerguy7]

I did not see the Council on Foreign Relation's simulation/prediction posted on here, so I decided to add it.

An observation: Notice how some simulations call for the bombing of 2 facilities and some call for the bombing of 3.