News Uncovering the Influence of the Pro-Israel Lobby on Mainstream News Coverage

[Perham]

why should we fight? if we shouldn't, why we are fighting each other?
in your opinion, in what circumstances will Iran and US trust each other, and help each other in common problems and issues? why we have such a dark picture of Iran in US and US in Iran? can't we solve old problems?

 

[Astronuc]

why should we fight? if we shouldn't, why we are fighting each other?
in your opinion, in what circumstances will Iran and US trust each other, and help each other in common problems and issues? why we have such a dark picture of Iran in US and US in Iran? can't we solve old problems?

One could write a book, and in fact many people have, on such questions.

Basically there is a competition for control and influence in the world, and the political and economic leaderships of both country are acting in belligerent manners.

Certainly leaders like Bush and Ahmadenijad and there coarse rhetoric inflame the situation.

One could go back to the 1950's and the Anglo-American lead coup that toppled the Iranian government and democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

It would help if Iran was more democratic, and it would help if the US was more democratic and had responsible political leadership.

The role of Islam in the political system is problematic for the secular west, especially when some fundamentalists are calling for violent action (jihad) against the west.

Then there is the historical conflict between Shii and Sunni, which must be resolved peacefully - but is that possible.

And then there is the issue of Israel and Palestine, which must also be resolved peacefully, but how?

 

[mjsd]

why should we fight? if we shouldn't, why we are fighting each other?
in your opinion, in what circumstances will Iran and US trust each other, and help each other in common problems and issues?

Astronuc has highlighted some of the key issues.

but I would like to add that conflicts in the world is inevitable as long as there are
jealousy, hate and greed...etc.

as far as the Iran vs US situation, now Bush is using the word "World War 3"... oh my god!

why we have such a dark picture of Iran in US and US in Iran? can't we solve old problems?

why those two disagree with each other and indeed other problems in the world? it all traces back to one word... religion
(if you don't agree with my assessment, well... I would like to hear your side of the story)

cheers

 

[kach22i]

I've kind of gotten over the large crowds of people shouting feverously with fist thrusting in the air.....

DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO AMERICA

I want to give them all a big hug now.

Bush and Ahmadenijad both make me sick. Why can't we all just get along?

 

[russ_watters]

You want to hug someone who is chanting "death to america"?!? Good luck with that!

 

[mjsd]

the problem is the people who USE religions, not religions themselves.

I think you 've got what I was saying...

religion is a very powerful force, that's why Communism does not tolerate it. Religion can be good in many aspects of life but when ppl disagree it can be deadly as well. Over centuries, it was (and still is) an impetus for ppl to hate each other. All groups wish to continue to speard their powers/influence (for goods or not) so that they can continue to exist. But inevitably, different groups (as they grow) will eventually interact and conflict may then arise.

for many ppl, their moral ideals (what is right/wrong) come from their religion, and often moral ideals or what they meant by "justice" dictate their actions (whether they are "controlled"/brainwashed by powerful religious leaders or not).

 

[wildman]

! more than 10 thousand American soldiers died in Iraq, more in Vietnam and other recent wars. who's responsible for these lives? how could you vote these vampires to become presidents?!

Actually the number of American deaths in Iraq is close to 4000 and 50000 Americans died in Vietnam. It will be a while before the Iraq equals Vietnam.

However the questions about the vampires is a good one. Just remember Hitler was voted in.

 

[EnumaElish]

who's responsible for these lives? how could you vote these vampires to become presidents?!

Iran was a side to the bloodiest, longest war in some time which was very bloody and really long. Tens of thousands perished; including Iranian child soldiers who should have been in school but were sent to invade Iraqi minefields. If you have double standards, be honest and say so. If you don't, then face the implications of your statement.

 

[mjsd]

Actually the number of American deaths in Iraq is close to 4000 and 50000 Americans died in Vietnam. It will be a while before the Iraq equals Vietnam.

we have to also realize that due to technological and medical advancement, war casualities would be a lot lower now than in the past. having said that, each human lives should be valued and not treated as mere numbers... so whether it is 300 or 3000, we should not, for any moment, think that it is OK or BETTER to have 300 instead of 3000 kills, otherwise, we are really implying that a small loss of lives is acceptable.

 

[Astronuc]

jealousy, hate and greed...etc.

Certainly those are key problems, and always have been.

it all traces back to one word... religion
(if you don't agree with my assessment, well... I would like to hear your side of the story)

It's not so much religion as a corruption of religion, which includes hypocrisy.


What is it about religion? Well religion is about people - lots of them. And with multitudes of people comes the temptation to 'control' those people, or at least influence them, for personal gain, or vanity (egotism).

Looking at the religious and political leaders who espouse violence, there is not much of a difference, and those who promote violence use their religosity as a facade, and that includes Ahmadenijad and Bush.

 

[russ_watters]

However the questions about the vampires is a good one. Just remember Hitler was voted in.

That's kinda misleading since Hitler siezed power far beyond what was given to him when elected.

 

[-RA-]

Until Israel can come to an agreement with its neighbours and stop just accusing everyone of being evil terrorists there will be no middle ground with US - Iran relations becasue the US pretty much does Israels bidding in middle eastern issues. The whole nuclear issue is a fallacy, even if Iran launched ten nukes tomorrow they would not get half way to the US before intercepted, and Iran and its entire population would be annexed back to the stone age by Israel and the US within minutes. Ahmedinijad is an idiot, but he's not completely stupid.

Thats the other issue, Irans hate for israel is just as much as Israels hate for Iran. If those two countries don't resolve their differences soon i fear we will be seeing nuckear srikes on Iran from Israel, which isn't going to do world stability much good.

 

[Art]

That's kinda misleading since Hitler siezed power far beyond what was given to him when elected.

I'm curious exactly what powers did Hitler seize that weren't handed to him on foot of a vote??

 

[kach22i]

RETORIC... we are full of it, I'll look in the mirror if you do.

..............

"So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons. "I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously,"

~ President George W. Bush

...............

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In dealing with this threat, no option can be taken off the table."

~ Senator Hillary Clinton
...............

The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

~ Senator Barack Obama
.................

Diplomacy, Not War, With Iran
By Bill Richardson
Saturday, February 24, 2007; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301595.html

Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate.....

A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. We need tough, direct negotiations, not just with Iran but also with our allies, especially Russia, to get them to support us in presenting Iran with credible carrots and sticks.

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don't. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership.

Click the link to read the whole Washington Post article authored by Bill Richardson .

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/home

There is a difference......Bill Richardson in 2008.

 

[EnumaElish]

Until Israel can come to an agreement with its neighbours and stop just accusing everyone of being evil terrorists there will be no middle ground with US - Iran relations becasue the US pretty much does Israels bidding in middle eastern issues. The whole nuclear issue is a fallacy, even if Iran launched ten nukes tomorrow they would not get half way to the US before intercepted, and Iran and its entire population would be annexed back to the stone age by Israel and the US within minutes. Ahmedinijad is an idiot, but he's not completely stupid.

So what's stopping Iran from denouncing violence against Israel? Could it be because being the champions of jihad is the Iranian government's major chance of long-term survival, domestically? Otherwise, why would Iran be trying so hard to outdo Prophet Mohammad's ("peace upon him") people as international champions of Islam?

 

[drankin]

I heard an interview of a Mr (insert Iranian name here), some former dignitary, and he says that the young adults of Iran are on the verge of a revolution. All they need is a catalyst in the form of moral support from the US, nothing more, and Iran will change itself from within. The old ways of Iranian dictatorship and hardline religion are going away. The new generation over there, thanks to education and worldwide communication, are ready to run the show.

Interesting if this is true. It would explain Bush's recent democracy pep talk towards the Iranian people in his speech.

Things could rock over there without much involvement from the US if this is accurate.

 

[-RA-]

That is the problem, If any action is taken against Iran we will end up in another non existent WMD situation, and we will find out actually Iran was not making a bomb (like they have maintained all along).

The only reason that Iran might want a bomb in the first place is becasue we have sold Israel hundreds of nuclear warheads in the past, and Iran feels threatened by Israel. Ahmedinijad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, the closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Barely a day goes by that one can avoid reading or hearing yet another Israeli, American or British warhawk regurgitate the broken record that Iran's President Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," framed in the ridiculous context that Israelis are being targeted for a second holocaust (when in reality only Israel has the capability to do that to Iran, not Iran to Israel).

To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people. Neither side really wants that.

Edit; I read this today in which an official close to Cheyney suggests that an Israeli attack on Iran is part of the wider middle eastern plan; http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66157 i don't think that would do world stability any good considering russias position on Iran.

 

[Yonoz]

and who said we don't have democracy here?!

The Supreme Leader appoints the 6 mullahs of the Guardian Council as well as the head of the judicial system, who nominates the remaining 6 members of the Council. Thus the Supreme Leader has both direct and indirect control over the Council that [EDIT] elects and removes [/EDIT] him. The Council of Guardians also disqualifies candidates to both elected bodies, and they have repeatedly done so when they perceived reformists as obtaining too much power.

this is not fair. what you're getting from your medias are almost lies to make Iran another big enemy for your people, to make them pay they're taxes, and keep away their thoughts from the problems in your country that will someday project themselves to your eyes.
all they want is power, and they're getting it by the evilest way possible. they're hiding truth and give lies instead of truth to world people.

One can say the exact same about the Iranian leadership.

 

[Yonoz]

The only reason that Iran might want a bomb in the first place is becasue we have sold Israel hundreds of nuclear warheads in the past, and Iran feels threatened by Israel.

Israel never procured nuclear material or knowledge from the US.

Ahmedinijad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, the closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Oh, that makes it okay then.

 

[-RA-]

Oh, that makes it okay then.

no, i am just pointing out that contrary to popular opinion Ahmedinijad does not hate Israeli's, he is always very specific that it is Zionism that he opposes. And since Zionism is basically a rascist ideology, i think that he is entitled to not like Israels Zionist regime. The idea that Iran would attack Israel unprovoked is stupid, Before Iran had a chance Israel (and the US, UK, etc) would destroy it ten times over within minutes.

Most of the slightly provocative statements Ahmedinijad makes are only made so he can keep his popular support with the people, and statements like that do very well to keep oil prices very high, as every time the risk of war increases, so does the price of oil.
The middle east is a very complex situation, but it does seem that most of the middle eastern issues have one common factor; Israel.

 

[Art]

The Supreme Leader appoints the 6 mullahs of the Guardian Council as well as the head of the judicial system, who nominates the remaining 6 members of the Council. Thus the Supreme Leader has both direct and indirect control over the Council that [EDIT] elects and removes [/EDIT] him. The Council of Guardians also disqualifies candidates to both elected bodies, and they have repeatedly done so when they perceived reformists as obtaining too much power.


One can say the exact same about the Iranian leadership.

It seems they used the US system as a model then? Presidential appointment of unelected officials and ratification by a party political congress.

 

[Art]

Israel never procured nuclear material or knowledge from the US.

lol Hmm as a statement of fact this is true but it doesn't tell the real story. You should really have spelled out that Israel did indeed receive nuclear secrets and material from the US - just not legally.

Although the French supplied the original reactor, most of the fuel and the know-how with some help from the British, Israel did illegally obtain enriched uranium in 1965 from NUMEC Corporation in the US and in 1985 Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO, was indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel.

Then of course in a long list of Israeli spies operating in the US there was Jonathon Pollard who alone amongst many such spies is reckoned to have passed on 800,000 pages of confidential information to Israel.

btw do you not find it slightly duplicitous that Iran should be threatened with destruction on the basis of it's nuclear program and it's suspected non-compliance with the IAEA with Israel leading the call to arms whilst Israel has always point blank refused to let the IAEA have so much as a sniff of it's own nuclear program.

 

[asd1249jf]

here's the answer to all

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[Astronuc]

I think he's crazy . . .

Cheney is psychopathic!

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I'm curious exactly what powers did Hitler seize that weren't handed to him on foot of a vote??

He was appointed chancellor based on political pressure and by his party and SA murdering political opponents, at which point he began subversively consolidating powers into his cabinet, dissolving parliament etc. For example Hitler's government seized legislative powers via the enabling act. Then when president Hindenberg died, Hitler's cabinet legislatively supressed new presidential elections and proclaimed Hitler to be the new Fuhrer of Germany. Hitler wasn't ever actually voted in, that's the thing. As is his personal philosophy, his entire rise to supreme power was dictatorially seized.

 

[EnumaElish]

I think he's crazy or just drunk! he is just humiliating everyone! he doesn't even answer one question reasonably.

That's a comical spoof, not an actual interview.

If it's going to be a war, surely it's going to be a hard long bloody hell.

You mean, Muslims blowing up each other?

 

[EnumaElish]

if US going to attack Iran, Russia going to defense Iran

You wish. Russia has signaled the extent it is willing to put out for Iran in the recent Caspian nations conference. They signed an agreement stipulating that no Caspian country will allow third-party powers to stage an attack on any other Caspian nation from within its borders. That's the farthest Russia will be willing to go.

I think Russia is all too happy that "freedom fighters" are tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq against the Western forces and they don't have the capability to fight Russians in Chechnya.

 

[Art]

He was appointed chancellor based on political pressure and by his party and SA murdering political opponents, at which point he began subversively consolidating powers into his cabinet, dissolving parliament etc. For example Hitler's government seized legislative powers via the enabling act. Then when president Hindenberg died, Hitler's cabinet legislatively supressed new presidential elections and proclaimed Hitler to be the new Fuhrer of Germany. Hitler wasn't ever actually voted in, that's the thing. As is his personal philosophy, his entire rise to supreme power was dictatorially seized.

The Enabling Act, from which Hitler derived his power, was voted on by the Reichstag and passed by a large majority after which it was signed into law by President Paul von Hindenburg all quite legally.

Saying Hitler seized power is not just wrong but it also misses the crucial point. He created a climate of fear and used this fear to take power legally to further his own agenda on the basis of providing security.

This serves as a stark warning of what happens when people trade freedom for security.

 

[mjsd]

This serves as a stark warning of what happens when people trade freedom for security.

very true... and before one knows it, suddenly one has effective become a police state just like those as seen in a dictatorship.

 

[kach22i]

very true... and before one knows it, suddenly one has effective become a police state just like those as seen in a dictatorship.

Has anyone read some of the executive orders Bush has signed?

Scary stuff...almost as scary to think of Hillary with these same powers.

 

[Yonoz]

nd since Zionism is basically a rascist ideology, i think that he is entitled to not like Israels Zionist regime.

Zionism is not a racist ideology.

 

[Yonoz]

as a statement of fact this is true but it doesn't tell the real story.

Forgive me, I forgot you don't let facts get in the way of your reality.

btw do you not find it slightly duplicitous that Iran should be threatened with destruction on the basis of it's nuclear program and it's suspected non-compliance with the IAEA with Israel leading the call to arms whilst Israel has always point blank refused to let the IAEA have so much as a sniff of it's own nuclear program.

Who's threatening Iran with destruction?

 

[Art]

Forgive me, I forgot you don't let facts get in the way of your reality.

No answers so you resort to an ad-hominem attack instead

Who's threatening Iran with destruction?

The US and Israel - example

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

And

Israel will eventually 'have to attack Iran'

Israeli lawmaker Effi Eitam last week said it has become clear in light of the failure of international diplomatic efforts that Israeli will eventually have no choice but to launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israel National News quoted Eitam as stating during a gathering in the Samarian town of Beit El that "Israel has the right and the ability to defend itself and that day is around the corner."

Eitam went on to say he is confident the United States will support Israel in any military action it deems necessary for the survival of the Jewish state and the Zionist dream.

Use google and you will find 1000's of other references to Israeli and US threats to attack Iran. None of which require a deliberate mis-translation to make their message clear as was done with the comments by Ahmadinejad.

Btw Still waiting to hear your justification for the dual standards re nuclear inspections.

 

[Art]

Zionism is not a racist ideology.

According to UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 it is.

DETERMINES that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

 

[Yonoz]

According to UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 it is.

You mean the resolution that was passed on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, and was revoked by resolution 4686?

 

[Yonoz]

And Use google and you will find 1000's of other references to Israeli and US threats to attack Iran. None of which require a deliberate mis-translation to make their message clear as was done with the comments by Ahmadinejad.

Wow, 1000's of references to a google search on such rarely used keywords as "Israel", "Iran", "attack" and "nuclear"...
So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.

Btw Still waiting to hear your justification for the dual standards re nuclear inspections.

I believe the best justification was given by yourself in that previous post - you demonstrated very well how the UN and its agencies are dominated by the circa-50-strong Muslim body in the GA.

 

[Art]

Are you seriously claiming Israel does not operate an apartheid regime? Would you like me to provide examples?

 

[Art]

Wow, 1000's of references to a google search on such rarely used keywords as "Israel", "Iran", "attack" and "nuclear"...
So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.

lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.

Other attack plans threatened include a massive bombing campaign of all Iran's military and infrastructure leading to the same level of destruction as seen in Iraq which I think most people would agree equalled pretty much total destruction.

I believe the best justification was given by yourself in that previous post - you demonstrated very well how the UN and its agencies are dominated by the circa-50-strong Muslim body in the GA.

More twisted logic. Why insist Iran comply with the IAEA if you don't trust them yourselves??

 

[EnumaElish]

So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.

Yonoz -- I am not saying that Israel has planned or is planning this; but you seem to own up to it.

Even a limited tactical nuclear first strike will take the world to a whole new level of "acceptable and fair"; and I suspect "deep down" the mainstream Israeli public would understand this sentiment -- and logic.

 

[kach22i]

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

I would hope that the USA has similar plans in the ready.

Nothing wrong with being ready.

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz -- I am not saying that Israel has planned or is planning this; but you seem to own up to it.

Even a limited tactical nuclear first strike will take the world to a whole new level of "acceptable and fair"; and I suspect "deep down" the mainstream Israeli public would understand this sentiment -- and logic.

When this report came out there was a brief public discussion about it but that died down fairly quickly. We have a lot on our minds these days.

 

[Yonoz]

Are you seriously claiming Israel does not operate an apartheid regime? Would you like me to provide examples?

You'd better open up a different thread, as that would be taking us completely off-topic.

 

[Yonoz]

lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.

No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.

Other attack plans threatened include a massive bombing campaign of all Iran's military and infrastructure leading to the same level of destruction as seen in Iraq which I think most people would agree equalled pretty much total destruction.

The destruction of the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programmes did nothing to their stability, let alone destroy them. Hopefully Iran will do no more than have Hizballah and Hamas attempt to start another proxy war for them, perhaps attack an Israeli target oversees a la the Buenos Aires bombings, and increase the flames in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they do anything silly such as attacking allied targets directly, I would expect the current US administration to reciprocate with a powerful fire effort but little or no maneuver effort, mainly aimed at eroding the Iranian administration's power base. But again, that would be in reaction to an Iranian counterattack, not because of the Iranian nuclear programme.

More twisted logic. Why insist Iran comply with the IAEA if you don't trust them yourselves??

The IAEA is simply the easiest way out of this mess, for everyone.

 

[mjsd]

No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and

what balance of powers in the Middle East are you talking about? Isn't Irsarel (with US backing) by far the "strongest" at the moment?

Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.

seriously, at which point after WW2 do u think that Israel was on the brink of extinction?

 

[Yonoz]

what balance of powers in the Middle East are you talking about? Isn't Irsarel (with US backing) by far the "strongest" at the moment?

Careful, that sort of thinking that led to the occupation of Iraq.
Israel is very small both geographically and demographically, with a population of 7 million. Its military is ranked 33rd in size, while those of Egypt (population 88 million) and Syria (population 20 million) are ranked 11th and 16th. Egypt is also backed by the US and Europe and has extensive manufacturing abilities, including an Abrams tank production facility. Egypt also has chemical weapons ability and experience. Syria is heavily armed by Russia with state of the art anti-tank and surface to air missiles, and has an advanced surface to surface missile program, on top of its existing arsenal which is one of the largest in the Middle East, and is tightly coupled with its chemical weapons programme. The Golan Heights are the most densely fortified region in the world, and any conflict there would be too costly for either side to initiate.
... And these are just two of israel's closest neighbours. Saudi Arabia has a large and well-supplied military (25th). Iran has the largest military in the ME (8th), an extensive domestic military industry, very advanced surface to surface missile programmes and manufacturing, and is supplied by Russia with some the latest AA and anti-tank systems. Turkey is a full NATO member, and its military is 9th in size.
There's much more to the Middle East than Israel. I won't go detail all the ethnic disputes - there's too many, and the west is getting a crash course on the balance of powers in the Middle East (and what happens when it is disturbed), complete with live demonstrations and pyrotechnics.

seriously, at which point after WW2 do u think that Israel was on the brink of extinction?

During the Yom-Kippur war.

 

[Art]

During the Yom-Kippur war.

Can you show anything to justify your claim that the destruction of Israel was a goal of the Yom-Kippur war? Or that it was in anyway possible? All the literature related to this war shows the Arab goals were limited to regaining territories seized by Israel in 1967 following Israel's rejection of peace talks offered by Sadat through UN intermediary Gunnar Jarring. Israel responded that it would not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967 lines as required by UN Security Council Resolution 242 and so Sadat publicly warned Israel it would go to war if necessary to regain it's lands.

The Syrians and Egyptians could only operate under the umbrella cover of the fixed SAM positions provided by the Russians and so territorial gains of Israeli land was an impossibility as if the Arab forces advanced beyond their air protection zone they were open to annihilation from the Israeli air-force.

 

[Yonoz]

Can you show anything to justify your claim that the destruction of Israel was a goal of the Yom-Kippur war?

When did I claim that?

Or that it was in anyway possible?

Syrian tanks stopped on the fence of the Regimental HQ in Nafah, and on the El-Al ridge, the southern tip of the Golan Heights. There was nothing between them and Tel-Aviv.
Between the 15,000-strong Egyptian armies and Tel-Aviv stood two divisions.

 

[Art]

When did I claim that?

When you claimed Israel was on the brink of extinction. Seeing as how this wasn't a goal of the Arab armies and since they were incapable of pursuing such a goal even if they wished how do you translate this into being on the brink of destruction?

Syrian tanks stopped on the fence of the Regimental HQ in Nafah, and on the El-Al ridge, the southern tip of the Golan Heights. There was nothing between them and Tel-Aviv.
Between the 15,000-strong Egyptian armies and Tel-Aviv stood two divisions.

As already pointed out the Arabs couldn't advance past the cover of their SAM sites. In fact when Egypt tried to advance to relieve pressure on the Syrians they were flattened.

 

[Yonoz]

When you claimed Israel was on the brink of extinction. Seeing as how this wasn't a goal of the Arab armies and since they were incapable of pursuing such a goal even if they wished how do you translate this into being on the brink of destruction?

Goal does not necessarily equal outcome, especially when wars are concerned.

As already pointed out the Arabs couldn't advance past the cover of their SAM sites. In fact when Egypt tried to advance to relieve pressure on the Syrians they were flattened.

If you're referring to the attack of October 14 - that attack was too late (or too early) and terribly planned.
The reasons for the Egyptian and Syrian militaries' halt is the subject of many theories. The Soviets had armed them with the highly mobile SA-6 platform, and there are ways of advancing an AA umbrella safely - the systems are designed for it. One can go on for hours about such things. One thing is for certain - even the IAF could not have stopped both armies. Without the US airlift operation Israel would have quite simply run out of ammunition.

 

[mjsd]

Goal does not necessarily equal outcome, especially when wars are concerned.

NOW, perhaps that's one of the major sticking point! I glad that you seem to have realized it. not so long ago the claim was that

No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.

so the impression one gets from this is that Israel is seen as "responisble" (whereas Iran is not for whatever reasons) with its WMDs because Israel had been pushed to the limit and still refused to use their WMDs.

however, the idea that goals do not equate to outcomes in wars, implies that the above claim does not have much substance. This is because, from the complexity of wars, one cannot say whether it was rationality, hypocrisy, morality or ... etc. that triggered the actions/inactions we see during the Yom-Kippur war. As a result, it didn't really demonstrate whether Israel can be trusted not to use its WMDs in the future at all. All those events were telling us was that on that occasion for whatever reasons (that we probably shall never really know the truth of), Israel did not use WMDs (thank god!). But it did not add to/substract from the argument whether Israel can be or cannot be trusted.

I believe the "twisted logic" Art was referring to previously simply means that one cannot make a convincing argument and call oneself "correct" when one gloss over the details when it suits one, while only go into the essentials when it enhances one's point of view.

Iran may have a bad image but that doesn't automatically means Israel has a good image either. It is inconclusive.