Israel must have freedom to act against Iran, Netanyahu says in Russia

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, Spike1938 said:

Israel is now increasingly under influence and control by the ultra orthodox Jews making it less and less democratic. I am an American born into the Jewish culture and am utterly opposed to the aggressive policies of the Netan-yahoo government. I am glad to say that it appears that more and more, especially young, Jews are taking up that position.

Well there is an election coming up there soon and there is a pretty good chance Bibi and his far right/ultra religious coalition is going to soon be booted out of power. 

 

I don't know what you're talking about regarding young Jews. Young Jews from where? Israel or the diaspora? Young Jews in the diaspora have nothing to do with who is PM of Israel. 

[bristolboy]

16 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I kinda doubt you're an expert on said "rights", so making them big decisive statements is mostly hot air.

 

To date, Israel seems to have avoided physical attacks in Iranian territory, focusing instead on Iran's efforts to deploy forces and means nearer to Israel itself. Apparently, for yourself and others, such actions by the Iranians are totally legit, and do not contribute to the region's instability. '

 

 

Really?

Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists

[Sujo]

20 hours ago, sanemax said:

IF  a  preemptive attack stops a nuclear war , then those attacks would cause less violence and aggression

So its ok for iran to get nukes and flatten israel.

 

Less violence and aggression.

[Sujo]

Israel should first allow nuke inspections before it starts demanding anything.

[spidermike007]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't think it's fair to paint Obama as cutting off Israel at the knees. He did nothing of the kind.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Absolute nonsense. Obama pushed back against Israel more than any other president in recent memory. Let me cite just a few areas where Obama resisting ignorant and racist policy being promoted by Israel.

 

Resolution 2334, a reversal of decades of American policy, assists the Palestinians in their diplomatic and legal war against Israel. The fact that this malicious U.N. action has the support of Barack Obama is hardly a surprise. He has expressed scathing contempt for Benjamin Netanyahu, to the point that his administration attempted to intervene in Israel’s election in an effort to defeat the prime minister. But what is going on here goes far beyond conflicting personalities.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/28/obamas_attack_on_israel_132657.html

 

 

Obama has cast a veto, all right: he has vetoed the kind of close relations between Israel and the United States that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush carefully built and maintained. The remaining question is whether Jewish leaders and Democratic politicians who vouched for Obama and defended him for eight years will now tell the truth.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/obamas-disgraceful-and-harmful-legacy-on-israel

 

The first negotiation was with Iran: In November, the United States and five other world powers made an temporary pact with Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decried as a “a historic mistake.”

 

https://time.com/5479/obama-approval-rating-dives-in-israel/

 

Obama himself dismissed Netanyahu's speech as "theater" and slammed his Israeli counterpart for offering "nothing new." And a host of officials offered further criticism, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who called Netanyahu's address "destructive" to the U.S-Israeli relationship.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/13/politics/israel-elections-benjamin-netanyahu-obama/index.html

 

 

[Jingthing]

Foul. I never said he didn't push back. I did say he didn't cut them off at the knees. So I accused you of exaggerating and still do. Of course Obama was unpopular in Israel. But he was very popular among American Jews. Cheers.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sanemax]

13 hours ago, Sujo said:

So its ok for iran to get nukes and flatten israel.

 

Less violence and aggression.

............no , that woulnt be preemptive strike

[sunnyboy2018]

A torrent of invective but meaningless. 

[BestB]

4 hours ago, Sujo said:

Israel should first allow nuke inspections before it starts demanding anything.

Did or does Russia want or ever wanted to inspect it?

[candide]

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Iraq, Syria, libya, Afghanistan have all been neutralized, although they had to keep Iran alive as a real live boogieman

Spot on. I tend think that Israel and Iran somehow need each other as respective bogueymen. Iran needs Israel as a bogueyman in order to get some audience and influence, including outside Shia-populated areas. Israel, as noted, needs Iran as a bogueyman in order to get support from the USA.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, candide said:

Spot on. I tend think that Israel and Iran somehow need each other as respective bogueymen. Iran needs Israel as a bogueyman in order to get some audience and influence, including outside Shia-populated areas. Israel, as noted, needs Iran as a bogueyman in order to get support from the USA.

 

Spot on as in BS, maybe. Not too clear even which "they " the other poster alludes to.

 

Iran didn't feature much in Israeli rhetoric of security assessments, up until the time Iran got heavily invested supporting Hezbollah, and at the same time took up a more aggressive narrative vs. Israel, associated with it's missile program. Iran as bogeyman might apply to Netanyahu's use of it as such. But that aside, there's also the fact that Iran is a threat to Israel - if you or the other poster wish to deny that, go right ahead.

 

I don't think Iran was even directly threatened by Israel prior to making such threats itself.

[candide]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Spot on as in BS, maybe. Not too clear even which "they " the other poster alludes to.

 

Iran didn't feature much in Israeli rhetoric of security assessments, up until the time Iran got heavily invested supporting Hezbollah, and at the same time took up a more aggressive narrative vs. Israel, associated with it's missile program. Iran as bogeyman might apply to Netanyahu's use of it as such. But that aside, there's also the fact that Iran is a threat to Israel - if you or the other poster wish to deny that, go right ahead.

 

I don't think Iran was even directly threatened by Israel prior to making such threats itself.

I agree that it particularly applies to Netanyahu and the political factions that support him. And in Iran, it also particularly concerns the Ayatollahs. I am also not taking a moral posture, rather a 'game theory' type approach. In addition, they may be also useful to each other in attracting negative attention from other players. Let's imagine the Israel issue would be neutralized in some way, would Iran benefit from it? To which country may the negative attention from Sunni people, organisations and countries fully turn then? Alternatively, let's imagine the Iran issue would be neutralized in some way. To which country may the negative attention from Sunni people, organisations and countries fully turn then?

 

Of course, I am not claiming that it is the only one nor the main factor in play among the myriad of factors that may explain the current situation in the ME. 

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, candide said:

I agree that it particularly applies to Netanyahu and the political factions that support him. And in Iran, it also particularly concerns the Ayatollahs. I am also not taking a moral posture, rather a 'game theory' type approach. In addition, they may be also useful to each other in attracting negative attention from other players. Let's imagine the Israel issue would be neutralized in some way, would Iran benefit from it? To which country may the negative attention from Sunni people, organisations and countries fully turn then? Alternatively, let's imagine the Iran issue would be neutralized in some way. To which country may the negative attention from Sunni people, organisations and countries fully turn then?

 

Of course, I am not claiming that it is the only one nor the main factor in play among the myriad of factors that may explain the current situation in the ME. 

 

That's a more reasonable presentation, compared to the previous post (and certainly the post you originally responded to).

 

Hardcore "Iran as bogeyman" is not actually all that pervasive in Israeli politics. More like Netanyahu and his cronies. References by other politicians are for the most part less hysterical. That said - Iran being an actual threat is not generally disputed, even as Netanyahu's constant political spins involving Iran are often acknowledged and criticized. Israeli military and intelligence officials disagreeing with Netanyahu regarding Iran (and other matters) is nothing new.

 

Israel as bogeyman in Iran being "the Ayatollahs" thing? What does that even mean? It's not like all of Iran's religious leaders are of one mind. Iran's Supreme Leader, yes. Hardliners, zealots and cronies - yes. Doubtful it covers the entire spectrum of Iran's political and religious leadership. On the other hand, if to judge according to numerous comments made by military and IRGC higher ups, they are certainly on with the program.

 

External enemies providing a handy distraction for governments and politicians is a common. So is using this observation in attempts to discredit fact based perception of threats for what they are.

 

Iran would always have some this or that Shia group it could play savior to, and this or that Sunni regime to cast as villain. Then there's the USA. If that fails, heretics would do just fine.

 

Israeli governments made do with real/imagined  bogeyman prior to Iran becoming "it". Enough candidates as it is  - Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria or the Palestinians in general.

 

 

[Sujo]

7 hours ago, sanemax said:

............no , that woulnt be preemptive strike

Of course it would. Israel wants the ability to strike. A threat. So iran has every right to do a pre emptive strike.

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Spot on as in BS, maybe. Not too clear even which "they " the other poster alludes to.

 

Iran didn't feature much in Israeli rhetoric of security assessments, up until the time Iran got heavily invested supporting Hezbollah, and at the same time took up a more aggressive narrative vs. Israel, associated with it's missile program. Iran as bogeyman might apply to Netanyahu's use of it as such. But that aside, there's also the fact that Iran is a threat to Israel - if you or the other poster wish to deny that, go right ahead.

 

I don't think Iran was even directly threatened by Israel prior to making such threats itself.

Israel is more of a threat to iran than iran is to israel.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Israel is more of a threat to iran than iran is to israel.

The Iranian regime wants Israel to not exist at all. The Israeli position is not against Iran existing. So I hope you're correct that Israel is much stronger than Iran. They need to be!

[olfu]

This is outrageous!

Small country should have small rights and big country should have big rights.

Like my ex said: if you have small dick you better have big bank account!

And with my luck I failed in both departments.

[BestB]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Israel is more of a threat to iran than iran is to israel.

How is that?

 

Any Israeli armed groups set up on Iranian borders?

 

Any statements made by Israeli PM to wipe Iran from the maps?

 

Any marches or protests in Israel chanting death to Iran?

 

Any Israeli made weapons given to Iranian enemies?

[sanemax]

13 hours ago, Sujo said:

Of course it would. Israel wants the ability to strike. A threat. So iran has every right to do a pre emptive strike.

Israel already has the ability to use nukes on Iran and has had that ability for 40 odd years .

  Israel has nukes just for defensive purposes , not for attack

[muffy]

On 9/13/2019 at 1:41 PM, spidermike007 said:

Israel has no rights whatever, to take pre-emptive strikes against Iran. And should they do so, it could be the end of the nation. Iran could crush Israel. Of course, the US would then be pulled into the war. But since the US has lost every war it has engaged in since WWII (sorry, but Grenada and Panama do not count), and nothing is a given, in that equation. It could also mean the end of America as we know it. It could end up escalating to a completely unforeseen level, quickly. As we know from recent history, the US has no vision and rarely is successful, when it comes to engaging other nations, and nation building. 

 

The US needs to slap down Israel in the strongest way possible, to prevent something like this from happening. Their leadership under Netanyahu is beyond abysmal. 

 The USA lost a war ? You mean they didn't destroy their enemies by nuking them . The USA should have a new policy , no minor wars , Nuke them first .

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, sanemax said:

Israel already has the ability to use nukes on Iran and has had that ability for 40 odd years .

  Israel has nukes just for defensive purposes , not for attack

How do you know they have nukes. Have they told you.

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, BestB said:

How is that?

 

Any Israeli armed groups set up on Iranian borders?

 

Any statements made by Israeli PM to wipe Iran from the maps?

 

Any marches or protests in Israel chanting death to Iran?

 

Any Israeli made weapons given to Iranian enemies?

They dont have to have soldiers there if they have nukes.

 

Israeli PM constantly stating iran is an enemy and pushing US to do its dirty work.

[BestB]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

They dont have to have soldiers there if they have nukes.

 

Israeli PM constantly stating iran is an enemy and pushing US to do its dirty work.

Ok, maybe you can link for me a speech by Israeli PM stating Israel will nuke Iran ?

 

now you say Israel is pushing US to do its dirty work? So you saying all the raids on Iranian basis in Syria is US not Israel ?

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Sujo said:

Of course it would. Israel wants the ability to strike. A threat. So iran has every right to do a pre emptive strike.

 

The World may accept preemptive strikes, I don't think this extends to condoning use of nuclear arms. A conventional strike targeting nuclear arms project is one thing, a nuclear strike aiming to wipe out a whole country is another.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Sujo said:

Israel is more of a threat to iran than iran is to israel.

 

If you say so, it  must be true.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

How do you know they have nukes. Have they told you.

 

Same way I know you're trolling.

If they do not have them - how are they "more of a threat to Iran" than the other way around (as you claimed above)?

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

They dont have to have soldiers there if they have nukes.

 

Israeli PM constantly stating iran is an enemy and pushing US to do its dirty work.

 

Stating that Iran is an enemy is a fact. And the topic is about the Israeli PM seeking more freedom to directly engage Iran. There were numerous attacks carried out by Israel on Iranian forces and proxies.

[sanemax]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

How do you know they have nukes. Have they told you.

Well sort of , I went to Dimona....................and had better not say anymore

[Jack Mountain]

Nothing has changed in 5000 years, even their own God abominate them ...

[BestB]

Just now, Jack Mountain said:

Nothing has changed in 5000 years, even their own God abominate them ...

Do tell more , love to hear it ????