News Will Israel back us if we attack Iran?

[mathwonk]

as for italy i was vissiting a friend there one year with my children and my son asked who invented the car so i said henry ford. but we looed in the french larousse encylcopedia and saw that a frenchman built the first car in the 18th century.

then for fun we looked in the itlian encyclopedia and saw that i think it was galileo or somebody actually designed the first car much earlier before th3e french guy built it.

anyway it was very enlightening to a person steeped in our chauvinistic and very young wet behind the ears culture in the US.

I give thanks every so often to italy for many wonderful thigns, but maybe that is because I have been there many times and loved it from the beginning.

 

[Astronuc]

Some in G.O.P. Say Iran Threat Is Played Down
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/washington/24intel.html

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: August 24, 2006

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 — Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.

Some policy makers have accused intelligence agencies of playing down Iran’s role in Hezbollah’s recent attacks against Israel and overestimating the time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

The complaints, expressed privately in recent weeks, surfaced in a Congressional report about Iran released Wednesday. They echo the tensions that divided the administration and the Central Intelligence Agency during the prelude to the war in Iraq.

The criticisms reflect the views of some officials inside the White House and the Pentagon who advocated going to war with Iraq and now are pressing for confronting Iran directly over its nuclear program and ties to terrorism, say officials with knowledge of the debate.

The dissonance is surfacing just as the intelligence agencies are overhauling their procedures to prevent a repeat of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate — the faulty assessment that in part set the United States on the path to war with Iraq.

It would seem that some in Congress are itching for a fight or perhaps an issue. It is worrisome when politicians' personal agendas depart from reality, and the bases for critical decisions are erroneous beliefs and not facts. For the most part, the intelligence agencies seem to be doing their work.

 

[kyleb]

It would seem that some in Congress are itching for a fight or perhaps an issue.

Congress certainly isn't showing any interest in working towards peace resolution, and our Administration clearly has other ideas.

For the most part, the intelligence agencies seem to doing their work.

But the intelligence agencies work has a nasty habit of getting in the way of the work many other people want to do.

 

[devil-fire]

Do you guys think that Israel would assist us if America and our allies attack Iran? Because as I look at it, Iran, not Palestine, is Israels greatest threat.

definatly in an intelligence capacity. if CIA dosn't know where all iran's uranium enrichment facilitys are, you can bet the mossad (the israeli intelligence agency) sure does. as for planes and troops i would definatly say no. the arab countrys in the ME really don't like anyone who assosiates with zionists and they would be a lot more difficult to work with if israel was directly helping an effort by the usa to attack an arab state. even though the usa doesn't seem to care a whole lot about their relations with ME states, there isn't enough military support israel would be willing to give for the usa to trash can any plans to cooperate with ME countrys in the near future.

Some in G.O.P. Say Iran Threat Is Played Down
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/washington/24intel.html

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: August 24, 2006

It would seem that some in Congress are itching for a fight or perhaps an issue. It is worrisome when politicians' personal agendas depart from reality, and the bases for critical decisions are erroneous beliefs and not facts. For the most part, the intelligence agencies seem to be doing their work.

i think its surprising...no, not surprising but disapointing that policy makers are complaining about what an intelligence agency isn't finding, thus proving their policys are baseless. the problem is that if the people funding the CIA think the CIA is a useless organization and that it doesn't deserve funding, then you can bet the CIA people are going to find a way to "find" whatever the hell they need to to stay in the good graces of their sponsers. a country isn't any kind of useful democracy like this since people are making choices under misleading information.

 

[TuviaDaCat]

Did u miss the news? Iraq was firing skud missels at Israel and they didnt retaliate! Isreal wouldn't join any war, they have enough of there own problems, plus they arent stupid enough to do that IMHO.

there are rumurs about attacking syria. syria is bound to iran, and they sound a lot of threats lately on israel.
my guess is that is the US will attack iran, israel will start attacking syria on the same time.

about israel helping to attack iran, i donno, we can't just pass such long terrain away from home, though we could aid with planes.
but it would probably be like in the first war golf, arab countries wouldn't like us in the fight...

 

[moose]

The hope among some people is that Israel will attack Iran without us having to do anything...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The hope among some people is that Israel will attack Iran without us having to do anything...

Do you mean they hope Israel will attack so the US won't have to come up with a reason? Or that Israel will attack them and the US won't have to be involved? The latter would seem a bit silly since Iraq would be right in the cross fire with US troops stationed there. I think, as suicidal as it may sound, that Iran couldn't resist targeting US forces in attempt to get them involved and perhaps by proxy get other nations involved on it's behalf aswell.

 

[Yonoz]

The hope among some people is that Israel will attack Iran without us having to do anything...

The hope among some people here is that the US will attack Iran without us having to do anything...

 

[TuviaDaCat]

emmmm... people... did u not hear than ahmadinajad threats to emmm whipe israel?

so, let's see, a fanatic goverment, a religious fanatic goverment, wants to have a nuke, well, wether they want to use it or not, I am sure that it would not have legitimate use. they start showing off their toys down in the south east, that's a thing facist countries do.
i once thought that iran is different, but i donno now, when still woman are garbadge, and gay people are being strangled.

and to those who asked why israel denies having a nuke, well let's say that we don't say that we have a nuke, but also we don't say that we don't have a nuke =)
now seriusly, its bad for politics to say that you do have a nuke.
one last thing, besides geermany and england, europ pretty much does stupid things. i don't say that they are on the same side with terror, like somone stupidly said in this thread, but i would say that they return to what they were before WWII, pacifist.
war is bad, no doubt, but one must know when it is the invetable.
for example, europe pushed israel to stop the war in the north. and now, the ceasefire gives time for them to recharge their guns. so practicly, they made a future war, and that will repeat itself, unless they let the job be done. and trust me, it will rise again as long as iran exist in its current form, and europ will continue to be against war of any kind.
terror should be dealt with force, and iran should be dealt with force, it has always been this way, when one calls for other's death, there is no place for negotiation.
eh, and one last last last thing, there was some messege above that people focus too much on the middle east, that's true... people die from starvation and gangs in africa by millions, and still the media invests a lot of time on a small war that took less than 1000 people...

 

[devil-fire]

The hope among some people is that Israel will attack Iran without us having to do anything...

i don't think there is any way israel will let iran have a nuclear weapon. israel bombed the iraq nuclear facility before it became operational because there was a concern about nuclear weapons, this however is a different situation since the facilitys are already operational, they may be under ground and they are in urban areas. in iraq the facility was distroyed with vary few (any?) casualties because there was no nuclear fallout and no collateral damage to consider. in iran it would take vary heavy bombing, would result in heavy fallout and a lot of colateral damage.

because of this i think attacking the facilitys is truly a last resort for israel, unlike in iraq, but even so i don't think israel will allow iran to become nuclear armed

 

[kyleb]

emmmm... people... did u not hear than ahmadinajad threats to emmm whipe israel?

Could you please site an example?

 

[Gokul43201]

The most well-circulated reference is from the controversial (if only from the myriad interpretations of the words used) speech in the "World without Zionism" conference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

A translation by Nazila Fathi of the NY Times:

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.

Differing translations:

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]

To add to the confusion, there is this response from a Palestinian.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator and member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, stated: "Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments. What we need to be talking about is adding the state of Palestine to the map, and not wiping Israel from the map."

And from the Iranian Ambassador:

In April 2006, Iran's ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad's position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:[16]

BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?

SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.

But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.

 

[Anttech]

one last thing, besides geermany and england, europ pretty much does stupid things. i don't say that they are on the same side with terror, like somone stupidly said in this thread, but i would say that they return to what they were before WWII, pacifist.
war is bad, no doubt, but one must know when it is the invetable.
for example, europe pushed israel to stop the war in the north. and now, the ceasefire gives time for them to recharge their guns. so practicly, they made a future war, and that will repeat itself, unless they let the job be done. and trust me, it will rise again as long as iran exist in its current form, and europ will continue to be against war of any kind.
terror should be dealt with force, and iran should be dealt with force, it has always been this way, when one calls for other's death, there is no place for negotiation.

LOL... Europe before ww2 were pacifist?

* 500 BC - 449 BC Greco-Persian Wars
* 431 BC - 404 BC Peloponnesian War
* 395 BC - 387 BC Corinthian War
* 390 BC - 387 BC Celtic invasion in Rome
* 371 BC Battle of Leuctra
* 362 BC Battle of Mantinea
* 343 BC - 341 BC First Samnite War
* 334 BC - 323 BC Wars of Alexander the Great
* 327 BC - 304 BC Second Samnite War
* 323 BC - 280 BC Wars of the Diadochi
* 298 BC - 290 BC Third Samnite War
* 264 BC - 241 BC First Punic War
* 218 BC - 202 BC Second Punic War
* 215 BC - 205 BC First Macedonian War
* 200 BC - 196 BC Second Macedonian War
* 171 BC - 168 BC Third Macedonian War
* 149 BC - 146 BC Third Punic War
* 146 BC Battle of Corinth
* 136 BC - 71 BC Roman Servile Wars

* 136 BC - 132 BC First Servile War
* 104 BC - 100 BC Second Servile War
* 73 BC - 71 BC Third Servile War

* 1066 Norman Conquest
* 1337 - 1453 Hundred Years' War
* 1455 - 1485 Wars of the Roses
* 1496 - 1499 Russo-Swedish War, 1496-1499
* 1522 - 1559 Habsburg-Valois Wars
* 1554 - 1557 Russo-Swedish War, 1554-1557
* 1558 - 1583 Livonian War
* 1568 - 1648 Eighty Years' War
* 1590 - 1595 Russo-Swedish War, 1590-1595
* 1594 - 1603 Nine Years War (Ireland)
* 1610 - 1617 Ingrian War
* 1618 - 1648 Thirty Years' War
* 1641 - 1649 Wars of Castro
* 1642 - 1651 English Civil War
* 1656 - 1658 Russo-Swedish War, 1656-1658
* 1667 - 1668 War of Devolution
* 1667 - 1683 Great Turkish War
* 1688 - 1691 Williamite war in Ireland
* 1700 - 1721 Great Northern War
* 1701 - 1713 War of the Spanish Succession
* 1733 - 1738 War of the Polish Succession
* 1739 - 1740 War of Jenkin's Ear
* 1740 - 1748 War of Austrian Succession
* 1741 - 1743 Russo-Swedish War, 1741-1743
* 1756 - 1763 Seven Years' War
* 1788 - 1790 Russo-Swedish War, 1788-1790
* 1789 - 1799 French Revolution
* 1798 Irish Rebellion of 1798
* 1792 - 1815 Napoleonic Wars
* 1808 - 1809 Finnish War
* 1848 - 1866 Italian Independence wars

* 1848 - 1849 First Italian Independence War
* 1859 - 1859 Austro-Sardinian War|Second Italian Independence War
* 1866 - 1866 Third Italian Independence War

* 1854 - 1856 Crimean War
* 1866 - 1866 Austro-Prussian War
* 1870 - 1871 Franco-Prussian War
* 1877 - 1878 Russo-Turkish War, 1877-78
* 1893 - 1896 Cod War of 1893
* 1897 - 1897 First Greco-Turkish War
* 1912 - 1913 Balkan Wars
* 1914 - 1918 World War I
* 1916 Easter Rising
* 1917 - 1920 Estonian Liberation War
* 1918 - 1919 Czechoslovakia-Hungary War
* 1918 Finnish Civil War
* 1918 - 1920 Russian Civil War
* 1919 - 1921 Irish War of Independence
* 1922 - 1923 Irish Civil War
* 1936 - 1939 Spanish Civil War
* 1939 - 1945 World War II
* 1958 First Cod War
* 1972 - 1973 Second Cod War
* 1974 - 1974 Turkish Invasion of Cyprus
* 1975 - 1976 Third Cod War
* 1994 - 1996 First Chechen War
* 1991 War in Slovenia
* 1991 - 1995 Croatian War of Independence
* 1992 - 1995 Bosnian War
* 1996 - 1999 Kosovo War
* 1999 - present Second Chechen War
* 2001 Conflict in Macedonia
* 2001 Conflict in Southern Serbia

yeah REALLLY pacifist!

 

[Tzemach]

I have been watching the middle-east conflicts for some time and it is surprising how many of the events are coincidently similar to Biblical prophecies. This has been becoming more evident with each event since the formation of Israel. The one that might be described as difinitive will be when the "armies of the world" (ie a multi-national force) face off with another force near Har Megiddo (Armageddon) in Northern Israel.

If Iran/Syria try to make good on their threat to eliminate Israel and the UN forces try to stop them, I for one will start to get very worried.

 

[Yonoz]

i don't think there is any way israel will let iran have a nuclear weapon. israel bombed the iraq nuclear facility before it became operational because there was a concern about nuclear weapons, this however is a different situation since the facilitys are already operational, they may be under ground and they are in urban areas. in iraq the facility was distroyed with vary few (any?) casualties because there was no nuclear fallout and no collateral damage to consider. in iran it would take vary heavy bombing, would result in heavy fallout and a lot of colateral damage.

because of this i think attacking the facilitys is truly a last resort for israel, unlike in iraq, but even so i don't think israel will allow iran to become nuclear armed

The reasons I think Israel refrains from attacking Iran are:
1) the leadership does not want to inflame the middle east. Iran holds quite a few hanging swords: Hizbullah have some types of weapons they have saved as reserve for such a time, Syria can be easily encouraged to conduct some form of limited military operation that will require general recruitment and retaliation by the IDF, Iran has a record of terrorist attacks in uninvolved countries, shared border with Iraq etc.
2) they believed there was time for diplomacy,
3) the IAF will have a hard time accomplishing such a mission unaided. The projected losses from such an operation would be quite high.

 

[kyleb]

The most well-circulated reference is from the controversial (if only from the myriad interpretations of the words used) speech in the "World without Zionism" conference.

Varying translations aside; in the quote and throughout his whole speech he is clearly talking about and end to Zionism, not Israel. There is a huge difference while the latter is a horrible thing to suggest, the former is the view he is expressing and it is a view held by much of the free world as well including a small but growning number of post-Zionist Israelis.

 

[kyleb]

... Iran has a record of terrorist attacks in uninvolved countries...

I just did some digging on my own to try and figure out what you might be alluding to here, but I came up empty. So I am still curious; what attacks are you referring to?

 

[Yonoz]

I just did some digging on my own to try and figure out what you might be alluding to here, but I came up empty. So I am still curious; what attacks are you referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_Bombing" .

 

[Yonoz]

Varying translations aside; in the quote and throughout his whole speech he is clearly talking about and end to Zionism, not Israel. There is a huge difference while the latter is a horrible thing to suggest, the former is the view he is expressing and it is a view held by much of the free world as well including a small but growning number of post-Zionist Israelis.

The dark times we live in.
From Herzog's speech:

The re-establishment of Jewish independence in Israel, after centuries of struggle to overcome foreign conquest and exile, is a vindication of the fundamental concepts of the equality of nations and of self-determination. To question the Jewish people's right to national existence and freedom is not only to deny to the Jewish people the right accorded to every other people on this globe, but it is also to deny the central precepts of the United Nations.


As a former Foreign Minister of Israel, Abba Eban, has written:
Zionism is nothing more - but also nothing less - than the Jewish people's sense of origin and destination in the land linked eternally with its name. It is also the instrument whereby the Jewish nation seeks an authentic fulfillment of itself. And the drama is enacted in the region in which the Arab nation has realized its sovereignty in twenty states comprising a hundred million people in 4.5 million square miles, with vast resources. The issue therefore is not whether the world will come to terms with Arab nationalism. The question is at what point Arab nationalism, with its prodigious glut of advantage, wealth and opportunity, will come to terms with the modest but equal rights of another Middle Eastern nation to pursue its life in security and peace.

 

[kyleb]

Herzog's speech puts pleasant terms to Israel's commandeering and occupation of land, but it does nothing to validate the continuation of that ideology.

And no wonder I was confused as to what you meant by "Iran has a record of terrorist attacks in uninvolved countries"; when I looked for what you meant by I didn't think to include 12-16 year old unsolved attacks that might have been done with Iranian backing.

 

[TuviaDaCat]

LOL... Europe before ww2 were pacifist?


yeah REALLLY pacifist!

dude, don't play stupid, i meant after WWI and before WWII, europe was the most cruel place in the world many times. but i was talking about the pacifism that delayed counter attacking the germans while they were conquering frenzy...

 

[Yonoz]

Herzog's speech puts pleasant terms to Israel's commandeering and occupation of land, but it does nothing to validate the continuation of that ideology.

Yeah, Zionism is hard to grasp. Try again.

And no wonder I was confused as to what you meant by "Iran has a record of terrorist attacks in uninvolved countries"; when I looked for what you meant by I didn't think to include 12-16 year old unsolved attacks that might have been done with Iranian backing.

In May 1998, Moshen Rabbani, (the Cultural Attache in the Iranian Embassy in Argentina until December 1997) was detained in Germany, and the Argentine government expelled seven Iranian diplomats from the country, stating that it had "convincing proof" of Iranian involvement in the bombing.

I guess those seven diplomats were expelled because the Argentinians felt pissing Iran off.

 

[Anttech]

dude, don't play stupid, i meant after WWI and before WWII, europe was the most cruel place in the world many times. but i was talking about the pacifism that delayed counter attacking the germans while they were conquering frenzy...

I wasnt playing stupid, I was goin on what you said! After the great war, Europe were not pacifist, the 'allies' were also hit hard, and were also regrouping. Yes there were mistakes made,but it was not due to pacifism...

 

[kyleb]

I guess those seven diplomats were expelled because the Argentinians felt pissing Iran off.

Care to quote the next two sentences after what you just quoted there?

 

[TuviaDaCat]

I wasnt playing stupid, I was goin on what you said! After the great war, Europe were not pacifist, the 'allies' were also hit hard, and were also regrouping. Yes there were mistakes made,but it was not due to pacifism...

nope, europ wasnt even rearming that time if my memory does not betray me.the war was a decision of the last moment, europ did not arm with the first nazi move, the armed when at war mostly.
i can understand th reason for pacifism, the price of wwI was very high, and to repeat such a thing is not easy at all, yet if europ react in the right moment much less would have died that time...
germany concluded austria to its borders, and then conquered by force terrains aroud poland, and then poland itself.
while at that time in western europe people were walking in the street with sign calling for pacifism.i remember how cherchill, before he was the prime minister, was talking about the horrors that are about to come, but he was totally ignored.

the russians made a deal with hitler, stalin thought that he would just be left alone.

france's pants fell right when they heard the first gun.

switzerland had its banks, and seemed to be well taking care of the nazi money.

and so goes for some other countries who helped a lot with production, my memory is not much capable then ill stop hereso well, let's see, most of europ pacifying,russia tries to avoid taking any side, america and england(less) want to agress the facist country...emmm jews being threated to death... hmmm that reminds me something, but i can't put my finger on it...

though i would not say that it is obviusly the same, its pretty much different, the circumstances are different, but there is a similarity, which should be an alert to us all..

 

[Anttech]

you are getting your facts mixed up. Britain was 'appeasing' or attempting to appease the Nazi's. They were NOT pacifying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_Hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

 

[TuviaDaCat]

you are getting your facts mixed up. Britain was 'appeasing' or attempting to appease the Nazi's. They were NOT pacifying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_Hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

yea seems like i was wrong about england, th appesing is crap, but they were arming aready in 29, with high budjets.

though about churchill:
"Soon, though, his attention was drawn to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the dangers of Germany's rearmament. For a time he was a lone voice calling on Britain to strengthen itself to counter the belligerence of Germany. [2] Churchill was a fierce critic of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler, leading the wing of the Conservative Party that opposed the Munich Agreement which Chamberlain famously declared to mean "peace in our time". [3] He was also an outspoken supporter of King Edward VIII during the Abdication Crisis, leading to some speculation that he might be appointed Prime Minister if the King refused to take Baldwin's advice and consequently the government resigned. However, this did not happen, and Churchill found himself politically isolated and bruised for some time after this."