Saudis Clear Skies for Israeli Attack On Iran

[bush_cheney2004]

Like I said to you earlier "There are others" America is unaware of all others - other than themselves..that ignoring of reality and the rest of the world brands your whole nation as institutionally ignorant. YOU are no longer important..you only think you are - and thinking something does not make it so - doing something does make it so and you do nothing to promote civilization.

...and that is why you will always be watching the Americans with the tools America has given you. "Doing something" will always be more interesting than doing nothing. Somebody has to be in the peanut gallery.

[Bob]

What happened after World War II was relevantly different than everything before it, and after that it was clear that Israel could hold its own in a stand up fight. The nuclear threat, however, is also very different from everything that came before it. It is not the sort of thing that an ordinary Israeli can fight against. It is a war that can only be fought by a few people with red buttons, and everyone elses participation is limited to life or death.

Also, I thought we were talking about Persian intransigence.

What I'm indicating here is that Jewish life in the region, the entirety of the Middle East, is a story of overcoming adversity. Whether living as second class citizens to the Muslims of the Arab world, or facing hostility and prejudice in the pre-Israel Palestinian mandate from the Palestinian Arabs, the nearly war-per-decade pattern with hostile surrounding countries (both governments and populations) and its internal Arab population as well as the occupied Palestinians. I wasn't isolating the current Iranian threat in my likening of your question to acquiescence to intransigence, but placing this current threat into a greater context of adversity Jews have dealt with and overcome for decades (and in the greater context of other regions, for centuries). Put simply: no, Jews will not bend over to accommodate Arab AND Persian intransigence by abandoning Israel.

[Remiel]

What I'm indicating here is that Jewish life in the region, the entirety of the Middle East, is a story of overcoming adversity.

Even when based in truth, as the Jewish story of overcoming adversity is, stories may lead down the path of foolishness. Consider the stories Palestinians tell, and the power they have in perpetuating their intransigence. When you start basing your policy on adherence to the storyline, however heartwarming it may be, instead of the reality, you are heading down a path fraught with peril.

[Bob]

Even when based in truth, as the Jewish story of overcoming adversity is, stories may lead down the path of foolishness. Consider the stories Palestinians tell, and the power they have in perpetuating their intransigence. When you start basing your policy on adherence to the storyline, however heartwarming it may be, instead of the reality, you are heading down a path fraught with peril.

Now you're talking about something different - policy. You seem to contradict yourself, as in one breath you state that the Jewish people's overcoming historic adversity, particularly in the Middle East, is one of truth. Of course nobody can deny Jewish success in pre-Israel Palestine and the amazing country Israel has become since 1948, with all odds stacked against it, largely resulting from the hostility of its neighbours. In your next breath, though, you seem to suggest that Israel basing a policy on its experience isn't the same as "reality". Which is it, does Israel have a legitimate perception that it faces existential threats from its enemies or not? Moreover, what else but a people's own experiences can a people plan their future through policies? What should Israelis do, formulate a policy based on the perception of history of its enemies?

[WIP]

Who says that Arabs and Jews can't cooperate? Saudi Arabia knows what's in its best interest. So does Jordan. Looks like Plan B (as in BOMB the Iranian nuclear facilities) is coming together nicely.

Yeah, we should all be thrilled about how they are all getting together to start WWIII. Iran, Turkey, Syria vs. Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia....until the other dance partners join in.

We've been hearing about this since your hero decided it would be a good idea to remove Saddam Hussein and install a Shiite government in Iraq. The Saudis and many other Arab states won't say it publicly, but they fear an Iran with nukes because of the power to advance the interests of Shiite minorities in their countries. But the Iranians won't give up their quest for a A-bomb until the Israelis come clean about their nukes.

[Bob]

Yeah, we should all be thrilled about how they are all getting together to start WWIII. Iran, Turkey, Syria vs. Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia....until the other dance partners join in.

We've been hearing about this since your hero decided it would be a good idea to remove Saddam Hussein and install a Shiite government in Iraq. The Saudis and many other Arab states won't say it publicly, but they fear an Iran with nukes because of the power to advance the interests of Shiite minorities in their countries. But the Iranians won't give up their quest for a A-bomb until the Israelis come clean about their nukes.

Perhaps WWII could have been avoided if we simply submitted to Nazi Germany.

[Remiel]

Now you're talking about something different - policy. You seem to contradict yourself, as in one breath you state that the Jewish people's overcoming historic adversity, particularly in the Middle East, is one of truth. Of course nobody can deny Jewish success in pre-Israel Palestine and the amazing country Israel has become since 1948, with all odds stacked against it, largely resulting from the hostility of its neighbours. In your next breath, though, you seem to suggest that Israel basing a policy on its experience isn't the same as "reality". Which is it, does Israel have a legitimate perception that it faces existential threats from its enemies or not? Moreover, what else but a people's own experiences can a people plan their future through policies? What should Israelis do, formulate a policy based on the perception of history of its enemies?

I do not think it is a contradiction. As I said before, Israel's experience with success is with a different kind of warfare. It would be like saying that the success of Israel could have been reliably predicted solely based on their surviving the Holocaust; there may be some correlation, but the reasoning would be FAR too simplistic. It would be like saying that Canada's relative success with mixing cultures would be a reliable predictor of its success with mixing aliens from outer space. However, I could see how the story of multiculturalism would lead people to think just like that.

Like I said in the beginning: Israel probably does face an existensial threat from its enemies, which is exactly the reason why I think it is crazy for them to advocate bringing all the Jews to Israel. History of overcoming adversity be damned. What matters is their future of overcoming adversity.

[naomiglover]

All this cooperation from Arab countries (Saudi, Egypt, Jordan) and the Israeli government still repeats the same old about Arab countries wanting to drive Israel into the sea.

[Bob]

I do not think it is a contradiction. As I said before, Israel's experience with success is with a different kind of warfare. It would be like saying that the success of Israel could have been reliably predicted solely based on their surviving the Holocaust; there may be some correlation, but the reasoning would be FAR too simplistic. It would be like saying that Canada's relative success with mixing cultures would be a reliable predictor of its success with mixing aliens from outer space. However, I could see how the story of multiculturalism would lead people to think just like that.

Like I said in the beginning: Israel probably does face an existensial threat from its enemies, which is exactly the reason why I think it is crazy for them to advocate bringing all the Jews to Israel. History of overcoming adversity be damned. What matters is their future of overcoming adversity.

The Jewish people coming together in Israel has been a big part of overcoming adversity. Israel doesn't try to get every single Jew in the world to make Israel his or her home, either... rather, it opens itself to every Jew who may wish to make Israel his or her home. There's a big difference. It's not as if Israel actively proselytizes to diaspora Jews to the religion of making Aliyah. There's not much of a recruitment program in effect. I'll say it again Jews in Israel, and the strengthening of Jews within Israel is an integral part of the Jewish people overcoming adversity. To suggest that our being in Israel is a threat to us and that we should abandon it is simply absurd.

[Bob]

All this cooperation from Arab countries (Saudi, Egypt, Jordan) and the Israeli government still repeats the same old about Arab countries wanting to drive Israel into the sea.

So let's get this straight, this allegation of Saudi Arabian/Israeli cooperation on this one matter (which has already been denied by Saudi Arabia officially) somehow overrides the endless list of anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli terrorism (not to mention virtually one war per decade between Israel and its hostile neighbours) and rhetoric that we've seen from Muslims and Arabs for over a century? Are you actually suggesting that the hostility of Arabs and Muslims to Jews and Israel is overstated or exaggerated?

Let's be clear, it's not just some in the Israeli government who are very concerned about Israeli and Jewish security at home and abroad resulting from Arab and Muslim incitement (think Saudi Arabia is a safe place for a Jew?), it's Jews and our supporters who take claims against us and Israel seriously, not-to-mention the endless acts of violence and terrorism against us. This threat is not simply imaginary, it's been experienced for over a century.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Bob

[bush_cheney2004]

All this cooperation from Arab countries (Saudi, Egypt, Jordan) and the Israeli government still repeats the same old about Arab countries wanting to drive Israel into the sea.

Some still do wish to drive Israel "into the sea", but that is made more problematic if the Persians nuke them all.

[Argus]

All this cooperation from Arab countries (Saudi, Egypt, Jordan) and the Israeli government still repeats the same old about Arab countries wanting to drive Israel into the sea.

If any Arab nation cooperated with Israel to hit Iran it would be because THEY feared a nuclear armed Iran, not because they gave a damn about Israel's concerns.

I don't think Saudi Arabia is at all comfortable with a nuclear armed Iran. The Iranians might not have threatened to nuke them as they have Israel but they definitely aren't friendly.

[August1991]

Who says that Arabs and Jews can't cooperate? Saudi Arabia knows what's in its best interest. So does Jordan. Looks like Plan B (as in BOMB the Iranian nuclear facilities) is coming together nicely.

I saw that news report, B_C. The evidence for the report is extremely tenuous. A reporter is making leaps of suppositions. For starters, if Israel were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, do you think it would care about Saudi Arabia's opinion?

Despite all the western rhetoric Iran has been one of the least problematic countries in the middle east and has for the most part historically been the victim of the agression of others.

This forum has had its doozies but dre, that is one of the bigger misinformed whoppers.

All this cooperation from Arab countries (Saudi, Egypt, Jordan) and the Israeli government still repeats the same old about Arab countries wanting to drive Israel into the sea.

Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel and recognize its right to exist. Israel has embassies in Amman and Cairo, and Jordan and Egypt have embassies in Tel Aviv. Did you know that Naomi?

Now then, Hamas and Hizballah, financed by Iran, are another story. And true, a change of regime in Jordan or Egypt couls also change their recognition of Israel.

----

To return to the OP, I think we once had a thread on the question of whether the US/Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear plants. I think one idea was Israel would do it (with tacit US support) but only when Iran was about to have an operational nuclear missile. Dunno.

[bush_cheney2004]

I saw that news report, B_C. The evidence for the report is extremely tenuous. A reporter is making leaps of suppositions. For starters, if Israel were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, do you think it would care about Saudi Arabia's opinion?

Yes, as it is much more difficult to penetrate Saudi airspace than in 1981 (Osirak). The Saudis will feign protest, just as before.

[naomiglover]

The Sunnis and Shias have had their battles for centuries. But we all know that the US money that goes to these countries will keep their dictators in check and will buy the friendship with Israel.

I bring it up to remind you about the hypocrisy of the Israeli apologist/propagandist who cry either "they want to drive us into the sea" whenever confronted with valid criticism of Israel.

[Bonam]

I bring it up to remind you about the hypocrisy of the Israeli apologist/propagandist who cry either "they want to drive us into the sea" whenever confronted with valid criticism of Israel.

Some Arab countries have signed peace treaties with Israel out of convenience or to get land back (Egypt and Jordan) and some cooperate with it either due to US coercion or mutual fear of the Iranians. Doesn't mean they (and their people) don't *want* to drive Israel into the Sea, it's just that they recognize that for now it's not the best idea to try. That's pretty much the best Israel can hope for in that part of the world. Arm to the teeth so that sane Arab states realize that attacking would be futile and costly, and hope that as time passes more Arab states achieve sanity.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Bonam

[naomiglover]

Some Arab countries have signed peace treaties with Israel out of convenience or to get land back (Egypt and Jordan) and some cooperate with it either due to US coercion or mutual fear of the Iranians. Doesn't mean they (and their people) don't *want* to drive Israel into the Sea, it's just that they recognize that for now it's not the best idea to try. That's pretty much the best Israel can hope for in that part of the world. Arm to the teeth so that sane Arab states realize that attacking would be futile and costly, and hope that as time passes more Arab states achieve sanity.

Why do that when Israel can just stop violating international law and work with the internationally recognized 1967 border which the PLO officially accepts and Hamas informally accepts?

The threat from the Arab neighbours ended close to 3 decades ago. No one buys it anymore.

Edited June 14, 2010 by naomiglover

[Bonam]

Why do that when Israel can just stop violating international law and work with the internationally recognized 1967 border which the PLO officially accepts and Hamas informally accepts?

Cause that would achieve nothing (it already rarely violates international law, and only in minor ways, and unilaterally pulling out of areas has been shown to be a disaster).

The threat from the Arab neighbours ended close to 3 decades ago. No one buys it anymore.

Yeah, cause there have been no attacks on Israel from any of its Arab neighbours since then. Hamas didn't lob thousands of rockets, suicide bombers didn't come in from the West Bank, Hezbollah didn't abduct and murder Israeli soldiers, Syria isn't providing arms to terrorist groups, Saddam didn't launch scuds at Israel, and Gilad Shalit isn't rotting in a Hamas torture chamber.

Nice alternate universe you have going.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Bonam

[August1991]

But we all know that the US money that goes to these countries will keep their dictators in check and will buy the friendship with Israel.

So Naomi, it is all about the US.

You Americans seem to think everything is about you. And westernized Leftists seem to think the same.

If there's an earthquake in Madagascar, the Americans caused it. So too the Middle East.

----

Well, I disagree. I live in Quebec, Canada where we have serious debates about our existential nation. And I can honestly say, the Americans have nothing to do with the debate - despite this being on their doorstep. To his credit, Jacques Parizeau blamed money and the ethnic vote. (Blaming the Americans and Clinton would have been ludicrous.)

I think locals elsewhere in the world (eg the Middle East) who claim American intervention are taking an easy way out: blame the Americans. In fact (IME), Americans just don't care.

Edited June 14, 2010 by August1991

[naomiglover]

Cause that would achieve nothing (it already rarely violates international law, and only in minor ways, and unilaterally pulling out of areas has been shown to be a disaster).

Really? Rarely?

What do you call the numerous violations that occurred during the Gaza attack which included: "using certain weapons illegally", "using civilians as human shields", "discriminate killing of civilians", "targeting ambulances".

These are not just rumors. These violations have been investigated and verified by professionals like Richard Goldstone, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Yeah, cause there have been no attacks on Israel from any of its Arab neighbours since then. Hamas didn't lob thousands of rockets, suicide bombers didn't come in from the West Bank, Hezbollah didn't abduct and murder Israeli soldiers, Syria isn't providing arms to terrorist groups, and Gilad Shalit isn't rotting in a Hamas torture chamber.

Nice alternate universe you have going.

Rockets and suicide bombings were done by those who are being occupied, not by the neighbouring countries. By the way, why does the capturing of Shalit (which Goldstone has called a war crime), get so much airwaves when there are thousands of Palestinians who have been kidnapped or arrested and are sitting in Israeli prisons with a real or democratic legal process?

[naomiglover]

So Naomi, it is all about the US.

You Americans seem to think everything is about you. And westernized Leftists seem to think the same.

If there's an earthquake in Madagascar, the Americans caused it. So too the Middle East.

What? The US is not paying these countries money? What exactly are you trying to say?

[Bonam]

Rockets and suicide bombings were done by those who are being occupied, not by the neighbouring countries.

Lebanon was being occupied in 2006? Iraq was being occupied in 1990? Nope. You also conveniently ignored the fact that Syria and Iran continue to deliver weapons to terrorists, for use against Israel.

Try to get your facts straight.

By the way, why does the capturing of Shalit (which Goldstone has called a war crime), get so much airwaves when there are thousands of Palestinians who have been kidnapped or arrested and are sitting in Israeli prisons with a real or democratic legal process?

Are you saying he should be ignored? Left to rot? Israel does what it can to keep the issue public and alive, as it should. Same way the American hikers being held in Iran, for example, get a lot of airwaves.

[Bob]

People like naomiglover are a big part of the problem with the entire debate over the Arab-Israeli conflict. According to her, all the blame lies with one party: Israel. How can you have a debate with a person who offers no recognizance of legitimate Israeli and Jewish grievances with its enemies? If she was honest about this issue she'd take up issue with endless problems on the Palestinian and Arab side of this battle. She's concerned about the denial of a "democratic legal process" (a term she just made up on the spot, I think she meant to say "due process", perhaps she think it sounds spiffy) to Palestinians and other Arabs arrested by Israel in the Palestinian territories, but not the denial of any semblance of the rule of law or democracy in Gaza? How about the murdering, arrests, and torture of apostates or suspected "Israeli-collaborators" or political dissidents in Gaza? Nevermind the fact that Israel is essentially at war with Gaza and has no formal peace agreement or mutual recognition between itself and Palestinians (or Lebanon, or Syria) - you can't expect full due process in a state like this. Due process doesn't work in war. The thousands of rockets fired into Israel? The vile hate-speech coming from top of the Hamas leadership all the way down to the common resident? Do I even need to mention the problems of the West Bank or neighbouring Arab dictatorships/regimes? To her, all responsibility for Palestinian actions lies with Israel, as apparently these occupied people can't be expected to do anything right, even if they live under the softest occupation the world has ever seen (greatest degree of autonomy and freedom).

Once you stake out a position that essentially only supports one side, you're doomed to fail in efforts at honesty in this debate. Neither side monopolizes supreme moral superiority. I find myself sometimes guilty of this with respect to supporting Israel, but I do consider myself much more honest (resulting from extensive research) on this issue than 99% of other out there. Am I special? No, it's just the natural consequence of seeking out a wide range of sources of information regarding this conflict (no, Wikipedia doesn't count).

[Bob]

Rockets and suicide bombings were done by those who are being occupied, not by the neighbouring countries. By the way, why does the capturing of Shalit (which Goldstone has called a war crime), get so much airwaves when there are thousands of Palestinians who have been kidnapped or arrested and are sitting in Israeli prisons with a real or democratic legal process?

Read about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. Read about the political and material relationship between Syria and Iran (and to a lesser extent Libya and some other Muslim countries) and Hezbollah, Hamas, and the myriad of other Islamic terrorist groups (perhaps you'd prefer to describe them as resistance fighter or freedom fighters). Gaza does not exist in a vacuum isolated from the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. Nor is it the only belligerent party with respect to Israel. Israel has almost has a major war per decade with its Arab neighbours, including the Palestinians. Occupied Palestinians are hardly the only belligerent Muslims in this drawn-out conflict.

[Bob]

Lebanon was being occupied in 2006? Iraq was being occupied in 1990? Nope. You also conveniently ignored the fact that Syria and Iran continue to deliver weapons to terrorists, for use against Israel.

Try to get your facts straight.

Are you saying he should be ignored? Left to rot? Israel does what it can to keep the issue public and alive, as it should. Same way the American hikers being held in Iran, for example, get a lot of airwaves.

The thing is, Gilad Shalit get NO airwaves. I consume a lot of American and Canadian media, and I've barely ever seen Gilad Shalit mentioned on any news program outside of an obscure reference to him from one of the typical "pro-Israel" token commentators in one of those two-minute "debates". Not sure where naomiglover gets the impression that Gilad Shalit gets a lot of coverage. The exact opposite is true.