Yes, I would Danivon. Perhaps that is why many people say the attacks of Sept. 11th are the US's fault.

Well, bbauska, is that what you think? Do you think it's reasonable for others to think it?

And it leads to another question. Say Israel does run out of patience, and bombs the Iranian facilities. Say that tens of thousands die and many more are exposed to fallout.

Who do you think many Muslims will blame for that?

If there was an increase in anti-Israeli violence as a result, or a major terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, would you apply the same logic?

Ray Jay - I understand that the Israeli government and PM have a duty to protect the inhabitants of their land (and technically the c.4m residents of occupied territories). I don't disagree on that. The question is what the best way to do that is. I don't think a unilateral attack on Iran would be a good idea, even for Israel.

Who do you think many Muslims will blame for that?

If Iran has an earthquake many Muslims will blame Israel. Israel is blamed for 9/11, the US-Iraq war, and much of the misery in the Arab world. I am concerned about how Israel is viewed, but it cannot be the overriding concern on an existential issue.

Ray Jay - I understand that the Israeli government and PM have a duty to protect the inhabitants of their land (and technically the c.4m residents of occupied territories). I don't disagree on that. The question is what the best way to do that is. I don't think a unilateral attack on Iran would be a good idea, even for Israel.

For now, the Israelis agree with you.

Ray Jay wrote:

Who do you think many Muslims will blame for that?

If Iran has an earthquake many Muslims will blame Israel.

They've had recent major earthquakes. Can you show me that they blamed Israel for those?

Israel is blamed for 9/11, the US-Iraq war, and much of the misery in the Arab world. I am concerned about how Israel is viewed, but it cannot be the overriding concern on an existential issue.

Sure, but actually launching an attack won't exactly make it easier. Indeed, it may give more people grounds to agree with the 'blame Israel for everything' crowd, and make the existential threat greater and from other quarters.

For now, the Israelis agree with you.

Looks like Bibi wants an early election. How much of his stance is about securing a majority then?

Danivon:

They've had recent major earthquakes. Can you show me that they blamed Israel for those?

There are some comments on website reporting the earthquakes, but they are just a few that blame Israel; I don't know whether they are from Muslims, and in somce cases I can't even tell that they are serious, so although my statement is probably technically accurate, it does contain too much hyperbole for my taste (and yours). (By the way, there are more comments that blame HAARP which is news to me.)

Danivon:

Sure, but actually launching an attack won't exactly make it easier. Indeed, it may give more people grounds to agree with the 'blame Israel for everything' crowd, and make the existential threat greater and from other quarters

.

Even though we are arguing, we don't really disagree. We both believe that what other people and nations think is important, and we both believe that a country has to protect itself if it is threatened by a potential nuclear attack. I think that our real difference is that you view such an attack from Iran as extremely unlikely whereas I see it as a reasonable possibility.

Yes, Danivon. I believe many people bring adversity upon themselves in individual cases. I believe the same thing when it comes to nations. Do I think the Muslim world will have negative feelings if an attack on Iran occurs? Yes, sure. Of course. They are angry already.

When should Israel do anything about a nuclear threat? After Tel Aviv is leveled? At the testing phase? When, in your opinion, should Israel defend itself?

Answer me this please? Why does the Pakistani nation (a Muslin nation), not worry Israel bringing threats of attacks? What is the difference between Pakistan and Iran. Is the difference the bellicosity of Iran making them more of a threat?

I know Danivon is busy with a laptop repair, but when you get a chance, I would like to hear your perspective, Owen.

No rush, of course...

Generally, it's self defence when an attack upon you in imminent. Before that, it's an assault.

Iran would need to test any weapon system before using it. So I see no reason to go before then. It seems that Iranian capabilities are well known to Israeli and Western intelligence, and they would be in a reasonable position to see if a threat is imminent. Until then, a strike is risky.

I know that many Muslims are already angry. But a strike that kills many civilians would make many more of them angrier. Hornets are already angry, but poking stick into a nest in case they sting you is going to guarantee that they do. It's not a zero-sum thing.

There are many differences between Iran and Pakistan. You could also ask what both of those nations are seen as in India, for a start.

I realize that we are off topic here, but I wish the world prevented both Noth Korea and Pakistan from obtaining nukes. These are dangerous regimes and it's a shame that the west was not more vigilant. I don't know enough about the history here, but my understanding is that China enabled Pakistan to obtain nukes, and then key Pakistanis provided NK key information whilst NK operated under the Chinese umbrella.

I believe that Israeli vigilance (political and military) is a gift to the world.

Danivon,
Are you saying that you support foreign spying and intelligence on sovereign soil?

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
Are you saying that you support foreign spying and intelligence on sovereign soil?

Yes. Does that surprise you?

Ray Jay wrote:I believe that Israeli vigilance (political and military) is a gift to the world.

I believe it's still about the next Israeli election, which has just been triggered because Netanyahu realises he won't get an austerity budget through as things stand.

He has a good chance, because Kadima are floundering, Labour are only just coming together and he has a great foreign policy distraction to point to.

No, not really. You are pragmatic that way. Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page there.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I believe that Israeli vigilance (political and military) is a gift to the world.

I believe it's still about the next Israeli election, which has just been triggered because Netanyahu realises he won't get an austerity budget through as things stand.
.

I don't see those two views as mutually exclusive. As with all democracies, Israel has its "mishegas". But when we look back in 5 years, I predict we will all be happy that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and perhaps that awful regime is defeated. In some parallel universe without Netanyahu's hyper vigilance, it would be otherwise for the worse.

I don't see that those are the only two possible worlds.

I won't predict anything, frankly. I hope Iran doesn't develop a usable device. I hope Israel doesn't attack Iran. I hope that if they do there are no reprisals on Israel.

I don't see Bibi as being all that. Frankly, given that there has been opposition from senior Israeli security guys to the idea of a strike, I think he's over-hyping the threat. Talking about it is actually making it less likely to succeed. The 'bomb' picture made it look like he wasn't actually taking it seriously.

I also have a suspicion that he's trying to compete with his brother's memory, playing the hard man for effect.