Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Iran cuts off oil to Britain and Fance
- Thread starter cantthinkofone
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Holy Crap. That's $8.66US a U.S. gallon.
Around me in the UK - Diesel is currently £1.45 a litre. ($2.30). So I guess that's $8.70 per US Gallon.
My days of hammering along in the outside land are probably over with these prices - I've taken to driving much more sedately with the aircon off. Might even invest in a flat cap and a set of driving gloves to complete the transformation.
More time to enjoy the view, and you just might live longer.
If I have planned my time correctly, I just do the speed limit now.
Holy Crap. That's $8.66US a U.S. gallon.
Thats also 70% tax ... Or whatever the figure is; high for sure
----------
I believe Syria has another problem and Irak ?... Nothing to be concerned with respect to unfriendly airspace. Regular logistics might remain a challenge.
That said I still hope for a non-military solution but be realistic enough to know how it end
I very much doubt that China/Russia will get involved (and I think you mean Iran, not Iraq). I mean - why would they? They are not going to risk their own existence over this.
Much more likely is that they are "allowing" the US and/or Israel to do this dirty work. And by "allow" I mean that Russia/China are letting the US/Israel step into a big stinky pile of kaakaa - a pile that they absolutely know has to be stepped in.... but, now they can point at their clean shoes and get the brownie points from the rest of the middle-east.
But I agree.... it's never a good time when the military option is used. sigh.
Some good points, but the Israelis are pretty audacious when it comes to this sort of thing; I would not even rule out the possibility of the Israelis executing a one-way mission if they really thought it would work. I think they are capable of anything.
The only problem with having a history of being audacious, is that your enemies then start anticipating your plans. The Israelis were able to achieve some remarkable coups - when no one actually believed that anyone would do what the Israeli's ended up doing (for instance, flying to Uganda from Israel to free the hostages....) But now.... everyone just sort of assumes that they will do something amazing... and even if you can't figure out how they're going to do it... you take the appropriate counter-measures.
So.... we have to assume that the Iranians have already assumed that somebody (America or Israel) is going to try to bomb the facilities - and have developed some defence against that eventuality. Which the spies have already noted, and have reported. Or at least they have noted what appear to be defences, because even if you can't actually figure out how to defend the facilities - all you have to do is make the other side believe you've developed the defence.
I also don't think that Israel would authorize a one-way trip. It's not how Israel thinks. Perhaps if there was a confirmed imminent launch they might....but there isn't even any confirmation that a nuclear threat exists at this point.
It is entirely possible that Iran is still a decade away from developing anything actually dangerous, and is inviting a pre-emptive strike in order to gain some geo-political advantage. I've read one report that says that the Iranian President is inviting a pre-emptive strike because their job is at risk by religious leaders.
There are veils behind cloaks behind doors inside those hollow Russian dolls. What we know about this situation is just a dim glimmer of what is really happening....
Last edited:
The thing is, it doesn't matter what Iran or anyone expects Israel to do. An Israeli strike would be a surprise attack, but it would take place in a climate where everyone expects Israel to make such a bold, desperate stroke. The Israelis are aware of this. Iran's air defense network is good, but not great. Israel's air force is, pound for pound, the best in the region by a long way. A strike would probably be able to do a lot of damage to critical facilities, albeit with casualties. it could set the Iranians back years, decades even. I highly doubt Israel would use nuclear weapons in such an operation - but if Iran does go nuclear we might see Israel change their nuclear policy and reveal their nuclear capability to a certain extent.
I don't think such a strike is imminent, but it is a very real possibility. At the moment Israel is content to slow the Iranian nuclear planning through espionage and targeted murders, but if the Iranians do reach certain technological thresholds Israel might give them an ultimatum - or, worse, simply strike without warning anyone. The political and military fallout from such a move could be catastrophic for the region - and beyond.
The US, on the other hand, will not be preemptively striking Iran. We have too much to lose by such a move. Cerain politicians may make veiled threats but they are hollow. If we end up with a Santorum or Gingrich as president I would have to revise that opinion.
I don't think such a strike is imminent, but it is a very real possibility. At the moment Israel is content to slow the Iranian nuclear planning through espionage and targeted murders, but if the Iranians do reach certain technological thresholds Israel might give them an ultimatum - or, worse, simply strike without warning anyone. The political and military fallout from such a move could be catastrophic for the region - and beyond.
The US, on the other hand, will not be preemptively striking Iran. We have too much to lose by such a move. Cerain politicians may make veiled threats but they are hollow. If we end up with a Santorum or Gingrich as president I would have to revise that opinion.
Well, it's not really a surprise attack if Iran is anticipating it, is it?
I don't dispute the skill level of the Israeli airforce.... but this kind of a raid puts them at a huge disadvantage. Iran will have all the Israeli airforce fields staked out.... if there is a mass departure of planes, Iranian spies will note this and give the Iranian air defences a hour or more to prepare. The Iranians will be fighting over their own turf.... their planes will have the ability to go into a dogfight with full armament fuel.
In this kind of clash, the Iranian defenders could lose 50 aircraft, not shoot down a single Israeli aircraft - and still "win", if they can prevent the Israelis from bombing the facilities. Heck.. even if the Israelis launch the bombs Iran could still "win" if none of the bombs actually damage anything - either because the bunkers are too well protected or because the bomber wasn't able to line up the bombing run precisely enough.
The Iranians are well enough trained to make any aircraft strike by Israel un-attractive.
So - how does one drop a bunker buster, if not by a traditional aircraft? Either by a very very high plane, with some sort of guided munitions - flying in near space. Or from a ship or submarine in the gulf, perhaps, with cruise missles?
If the US wants to keep its hands clean, then I would suspect that they have allowed the Israelis to look at the plans for one of the big bunker buster bombs - they can always claim it was stolen if they have to. And perhaps one of their carrier groups will just happen to not notice the submarine that tagged along with them as the transited the Strait of Hormuz.
Discussing surprise attacks is all fine and well, but we are still some way away from a military confrontation over Iran's nuclear program -and hopefully will never see one. I fear a unilateral action on the part of Israel, but if they can be kept in check the situation can probably be managed through diplomacy.
People should start getting used to the notion of a nuclear Iran though, because I believe it to be the most likely outcome. Anyone who sees that situation as unacceptable at all costs is not living in reality. Sadly, many Israelis and American conservatives seem to take this position.
A 'surprise attack' is any unannounced strike; at the risk of making this a discussion of semantics I think it's safe to call any strike made without warning or the delivery of an ultimatum a 'surprise attack' - even if the opposition is on guard for such an attack.
I agree with some of your points, nor am I attempting to downplay the extreme difficulty involved in the kind of raid Israel is threatening to make on Iran's nuclear facilities. But such a strike is still plausible, should Israel be rash enough to undertake it. If they feel backed into a corner, either nation is capable of a desperate act.
Also, I still believe that the US will definitely stop short of any kind of preemptive military attack on Iran, or any direct support of an Israeli raid. We have almost nothing to gain by doing so, and much to lose.
People should start getting used to the notion of a nuclear Iran though, because I believe it to be the most likely outcome. Anyone who sees that situation as unacceptable at all costs is not living in reality. Sadly, many Israelis and American conservatives seem to take this position.
Well, it's not really a surprise attack if Iran is anticipating it, is it?
A 'surprise attack' is any unannounced strike; at the risk of making this a discussion of semantics I think it's safe to call any strike made without warning or the delivery of an ultimatum a 'surprise attack' - even if the opposition is on guard for such an attack.
I agree with some of your points, nor am I attempting to downplay the extreme difficulty involved in the kind of raid Israel is threatening to make on Iran's nuclear facilities. But such a strike is still plausible, should Israel be rash enough to undertake it. If they feel backed into a corner, either nation is capable of a desperate act.
Also, I still believe that the US will definitely stop short of any kind of preemptive military attack on Iran, or any direct support of an Israeli raid. We have almost nothing to gain by doing so, and much to lose.
I believe you are right about not being at the brink of a military solution. I think the sabre rattling is more about putting pressure on one faction in Iran to do something about the other faction.
A nuclear Iran is very scary, and different from N. Korea and Pakistan. Iran has publicly stated that it's foe, Israel, should not exist. Usually by implication, and on rare occasions Iran has threatened to use nukes on a 1st strike basis. N. Korea and Pakistan have only threaten to use their nukes as retaliatory weapons. Admittedly N. Korea has threatened to retaliate over trivial issues - but - to the best of my recollection - have never stated that S. Korea has no right to exist, and threatened a 1st strike.
It's not just the US and the US that should be wary of an nuclear Iran.... any of the arab countries could become a target.
Oh, OK.... I think there is a better word for an anticipated surprise attack... I'll offer it up if I think of it. In the mean time....
Agreed. If they feel backed into a corner. But I think that corner has to include an actual clock counting down before they'd try something that rash. I'm much more inclined to think they'll sabotage the missiles (to explode on the launch pad).
Direct support - perhaps not. Deniable support - more likely. Even if Israel launches an attack with absolutely no US involvement or even fore-knowledge ... the US is going to get blamed. Might as well provide deniable support and help the mission be a success (which is good for the American interests).
Is it really in our interests to support such an expensive and erratic ally? I am not so sure. Israel is already nuclear and I don't trust them with such weapons. Just because I trust Iran less doesn't mean Israel's aggression is good for us. I'd rather solve this through diplomacy, even if it means a nuclear Iran. I do not think that preventing Iran's development of nuclear weapons is adequate justification for war.
Last edited:
The problem with the diplomatic angle is that the Iranian regime is playing for time, while also moving all their nuclear facilities under ground as fast as they can.
After their facilities are safely underground they will sit back and give everyone the finger, because they know its game over. From then on Iran will be the middle Easts biggest problem imaginable, with the Saudis following suit and everyone else building nuclear deterrents to match in the region.
Striking their facilities { which one would hope are not in built up areas } would probably be the Israelis best bet. I just hope Obama has played this right, either that or he has already decided he can live with a nuclear iran and is playing the israelis.
I don't know about you, but I am thinking that many more nukes being held in the Middle East has to have consequences for everyone eventually.
This site has some reasonable information on the whole situation.
http://www.debka.com/
After their facilities are safely underground they will sit back and give everyone the finger, because they know its game over. From then on Iran will be the middle Easts biggest problem imaginable, with the Saudis following suit and everyone else building nuclear deterrents to match in the region.
Striking their facilities { which one would hope are not in built up areas } would probably be the Israelis best bet. I just hope Obama has played this right, either that or he has already decided he can live with a nuclear iran and is playing the israelis.
I don't know about you, but I am thinking that many more nukes being held in the Middle East has to have consequences for everyone eventually.
This site has some reasonable information on the whole situation.
http://www.debka.com/
Well, lets see. Israel is the only democracy in the region. The only country in the region that doesn't flog/stone/hang gay sex. The only country that gives women equal rights in secular matters. And the current encroachment into equality rights by the fundamental right will go to an independent Supreme Court. Israel is the only country in the region that believes in giving minority religions equal rights.
Not saying Israel is perfect, but then what country is? So - yes - I think supporting them worthwhile.
Plus - the fact that they have never publicly admitted to having nuclear weapons actually means, imho, that they can be trusted with them. They have never threatened to use them instead of diplomacy. They have never threatened to annihilate another just country because it exists.
I will agree that they have not handled the Palestinian issue well. I'm sure that the Israeli leadership wishes that decisions made 20, 30, and 40 years ago had been different. But.... by the same token, the Palestinians have had several opportunities to have a functional independent nation - and in each case, they (sometimes the government, sometimes the populace, and sometimes the surrounding Arab nations) have mucked it up by allowing (and sometimes encouraging) a) their extremists to start a new terror campaign in Israel; b) using Palestinian territory to launch Arab armies attack Israel; c) by refusing to accept that the Israeli nation even has a right to exist.
I have sympathy for the Palestinians.... and Israel has made mistakes regarding this issue. But why does nobody point a finger at any of the surrounding Arab nations as well. If Gaza under a blockade, then how come the world doesn't ask why Egypt doesn't open its border with Gaza? Why doesn't the world ask the Oil Sheiks to spend a tiny fraction of their wealth on providing aid? Why is it that the largest Arab aid donor to Gaza is Iran? And Iranian aid comes with strings... that the Gaza leadership must continue their campaign against Israel.
So - yes .... I think Israel should be supported.
And the world has better worry about a nuclear Iran. Missiles and planes are not the only delivery method for warheads.
I worte a long reply to you, snberk and to my horror it vanished when I tried to post it. Apologies if this seems brief but I'm on the clock...
Israel is in many ways a modern, progressive nation. However, they still do many quesitonable things. Why do they use the US as a tool to block all efforts at a Palestinian state in the UN? I am sick and tired of lending our veto to them. It's disgusting. I want Palestine to be a state now, immediately, yesterday if possible. I am sick of Israel's excuses. A two-state solution is not the best solution (a single state of Israel-Palestine is the only real solution), but it's probably the only decent one with a chance of success (although I think that Jerusalem should become an explicitly secular city-state of its own, perhaps even governed by the UN). If Isreal has a right to exist (and they do), then Palestine must also exist. NOW.
As for the nuclear question, I think it must be solved diplomatically, and preventing Iran from going nuclear is simply not a sufficient justification for war, period. I am resigned to an increasingly nuclear future. besides, do you really think we can stop Iran if they are determined to go nuclear, if they are really determined? The only reliable way to stop them is to destroy them, and do you think that would be right, or worth the enormous cost in lives, materiel and international credibility?
If Israel drags us into a war, it will make any benefit we gain from our alliance with them worthless as far as I'm concerned.
Israel is in many ways a modern, progressive nation. However, they still do many quesitonable things. Why do they use the US as a tool to block all efforts at a Palestinian state in the UN? I am sick and tired of lending our veto to them. It's disgusting. I want Palestine to be a state now, immediately, yesterday if possible. I am sick of Israel's excuses. A two-state solution is not the best solution (a single state of Israel-Palestine is the only real solution), but it's probably the only decent one with a chance of success (although I think that Jerusalem should become an explicitly secular city-state of its own, perhaps even governed by the UN). If Isreal has a right to exist (and they do), then Palestine must also exist. NOW.
As for the nuclear question, I think it must be solved diplomatically, and preventing Iran from going nuclear is simply not a sufficient justification for war, period. I am resigned to an increasingly nuclear future. besides, do you really think we can stop Iran if they are determined to go nuclear, if they are really determined? The only reliable way to stop them is to destroy them, and do you think that would be right, or worth the enormous cost in lives, materiel and international credibility?
If Israel drags us into a war, it will make any benefit we gain from our alliance with them worthless as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, I've had that happen too.... sucks....
1994. Noble Peace Prize goes to Arafat, Peres, Rabin for - basically negotiating an independent Palestinian State that - among other things - recognized Israel's right to exist. Almost immediately, Palestinian bombers started blowing themselves up - along with Israeli children, youth, and other civilians. The bombers did not target Government buildings, institutions, or the military.... they targeted restaurants, stores, and shopping districts. Imagine bombers targeting Broadway and Fifth Avenue in NYC.
Not surprisingly Israel, in a free and democratic election, voted the more peaceful Peres and Rabin out of office and voted in a right-wing hardline government who vowed to protect civilians.
A couple of other times when Israelis have voted in governments that were willing to negotiate a lasting solution, suicide bombers have again mounted terror campaigns, and Israel gets another right-wing government. Or the Gazans mounted rocket attacks against Israel. Interestingly (but not a new) the news rarely talks about the dozens (sometimes hundreds, at it's worst) rocket attacks - per day - against Israel. But oh boy, should Israel make just one mistake, killing civilians, and the Press is all over them.
I don't blame the majority of Palestinians for the actions of the extremists... on the other hand I give the general population little credit for trying to prevent the extremist's actions either. It doesn't help that when Israel finally withdraws from Gaza, giving the Gazans a viable border (unlike the West Bank) that the 1st thing that happens is that Hamas - an extremist terror group funded by Iran and whose goal is the annihilation of Israel, takes over the strip via a coup and then wins an election that was - more or less - free and fair - essentially sending the message that if the Gaza strip became an independent state it would continue to wage war with Israel - except now Israel could not intercept weapons.
The proposed Palestinian States that the US vetos in the UN have all had conditions attached that Israel can't accept. The biggest is the Palestinian demand to return to Israel. The demographics make this a non-starter for Israel, and the Palestinian leadership know this. Which is why it has only recently been raised seriously... coincidentally when the two sides were once again getting close to reaching a negotiated settlement. Do you see a pattern developing here?
Good. All the Palestinians have to do is agree that Israel has the right to exist, and that they won't allow terror attacks against Israel from their soil. That 1st condition has only just been accepted by Abbas - though later in speech he talked about the day that an independent Palestine would reoccupy all of Israel. And that 2nd condition has never been accepted by the Palestinian leadership.
I just heard an interesting proposal... though it doesn't seem to be getting much traction. That Gaza and the West Bank become "Provinces" in a federated Israel - more on the Canadian model, and not the American model (Canadian provinces have more independence than American States). In this Federation the West Bank and Gaza would have full powers over Health, Education, Water and Sanitation, Labour Conditions, Courts and Policing, etc. What they wouldn't have would be an Army or full diplomatic presence. Though, the Province of Quebec maintains quasi-diplomatic offices in many places. As well at some Aboriginal reserves have quasi-independence within the Canadian system.... so this federated Israel/Palestine might have some legs.
Jerusalem once existed as a UN International city, in 1948. Jordan promptly invaded and occupied it before the UN got there. Under the Jordanians the Jewish Quarter in the old city was destroyed, and the tombstones in the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives used to build floors for the Jordan Army barrack latrines. Jews were not allowed to visit their holy sites, and even Christians had a hard time getting to the Christian sites.... If you had visited Israel, ever, you were not allowed into Jordan. Actually, you were not allowed into any Arab country. Western nation consulates in Cyprus for many years replaced more passports than anywhere else in the world. People would "forget" and go swimming with their passports. Just enough water damage that you needed a new one - not so much water damage that you had to go through the whole application process again.
I agree - but they have to accept Israel's right to exist first.
This is why world leaders age so prematurely. I agree with everything you say, about seeking a peaceful diplomatic solution with Iran. With trying to avoid at all costs a war. But - how do you do all that with a nation that wants to be a bully and who can destroy your way of life. There is no guarantee that Iran's sole target for nuclear weapons is Israel. They could just as easily target any of the oil-fields in the gulf. Either on purpose to suit their regional bullying aims, or accidentally because one of the missiles doesn't get as far as Israel.
I
Israel and Palestine in any combination has to begin with Hamas accepting Israel's existence, and that the return to pre 1967 borders is surely something which will never happen.
I really believe that israel would talk constructively, and candidly with the Palestinians about some sort of agreement, with Iran not hovering in the background and ruining, on purpose any positive moves between the two.
US Afghan bases would also be targeted by the Iranians, which is probably the real reason why there has not been a strike already.
If anyone forces a settlement on Israel { in this environment } it will be doomed to fail. There are still to many parties who want peace, but who also want revenge right after it, and want their revenge more then they want peace.
With Hamas neutered etc then Gaza could rebuild, but when all the cement that arrives is taken by Hamas to rebuild command and control structures then you see the issue.
The end question becomes, do you trust the Iranian regime not to give Al Qaeda etc a dirty bomb? I know I don't, but you can almost guarantee it would end up in Gaza somehow as well.
I really believe that israel would talk constructively, and candidly with the Palestinians about some sort of agreement, with Iran not hovering in the background and ruining, on purpose any positive moves between the two.
US Afghan bases would also be targeted by the Iranians, which is probably the real reason why there has not been a strike already.
If anyone forces a settlement on Israel { in this environment } it will be doomed to fail. There are still to many parties who want peace, but who also want revenge right after it, and want their revenge more then they want peace.
With Hamas neutered etc then Gaza could rebuild, but when all the cement that arrives is taken by Hamas to rebuild command and control structures then you see the issue.
The end question becomes, do you trust the Iranian regime not to give Al Qaeda etc a dirty bomb? I know I don't, but you can almost guarantee it would end up in Gaza somehow as well.
Iran cuts off oil to Britain and Fance
Just heard that 4 refineries in the States are shutting down, and gas will go up by ~15% by the end of April.
Oh, and could you please correct the spelling of France in the thread title.
It's driving me crazy.
Just heard that 4 refineries in the States are shutting down, and gas will go up by ~15% by the end of April.
Oh, and could you please correct the spelling of France in the thread title.
It's driving me crazy.
Just heard that 4 refineries in the States are shutting down, and gas will go up by ~15% by the end of April.
Oh, and could you please correct the spelling of France in the thread title.
It's driving me crazy.
And the refinery at Cherry Point in Washington just had a fire - though it may only affect jet fuel for Seattle and YVR....
An Israeli hard-liner murdered Rabin because of his pursuit of peace. It was not only Palestinain extremism that scuppered opportunities for peace. Both sides have their doves and hawks. Palestine is much more fragmented politically – due, in a large measure, to the efforts of Israel – and it is thus much harder to get them to abide by any agreement.
The ISAF in Afghanistan has had the same problem dealing with the Afghani government. Fractured and weak, cooperation with one organ may count for nothing with another. Israel, on the other hand, has a significant hard line, right-wing movement that could effectively block any practical settlement by imposing unacceptable terms on any major peace agreement, should they get their way. In the end, neither side has really made a good-faith attempt to abide by the terms of the Oslo Accords, but neither has officially repudiated it either.
Israel builds illegal settlements in Palestinian territory, abducts/kills suspected militants (often using the exact same tactics as their foes), invades neighboring countries and has deliberately destroyed, or severely restricted, economic development (and therefore the standard of living) in Palestine. This entire conflict is a series of deadly tit-for-tat.
If the Palestinian Authority could build walls and illegal settlements on Israeli territory, or run armored columns through Israelis streets and demolish Israeli buildings - rather than resorting to bombings and rockets - do you think they would? If Israel were in the reverse position and could not simply overpower Palestinian militants with the IDF would they refrain from resorting to targeted murders, bombings and rocket attacks? I see both sides using the tools available to them in this conflict, and I’m not convinced that either is more or less reprehensible than the other. It is a form of asymmetric warfare. The weaker power uses force multipliers against the stronger, while the stronger attempts to make the weight of its technological superiority prevail against low-tech but stealthy threats.
I will add, however, that Hamas is far too extreme at the moment to be in any way excused for its behavior. However, can Palestinians alone be blamed for the continued extremism of Hamas? Hamas essentially functions as the hardline right-wing of the Palestinian political spectrum. It does not appear (to me) to represent the views of the majority of Palestinians. But Hamas lives off of conflict and hate. And there is plenty of that, mutually expressed.
I personally feel that Israel is usually treated favorably in the American press at the expense of all of her neighbors, but I don’t have any facts at hand to back it up and thus I will restrict myself to calling this my opinion.
I don't think most Palestinians want to ‘annihilate’ Israel. I think most Palestinians are, at the moment, worried about basic day-to-day living above all else. Any party - including Hamas - that can appear to provide a modicum of regularity in their lives is going to get support. If Hamas takes over via a coup and installs a few sewers and gets the electricity flowing a little better, guess what? Many people will support them. Other can be intimidated into following along. They only know the Israelis through contact with columns of Mekava tanks and armored Caterpillar bulldozers, or at armed checkpoints. As long as Israeli attempts to combat Palestinian extremists contribute, or are seen to contribute, to poverty and violence in Palestine, Palesitinians will view Israel and Israeli promises with suspicion. Is this a narrow view of events? Yes, but it is also perfectly understandable given the context. They will remain poor and poorly governed. And poor, uneducated people with little left to lose make wonderful recruits for extremist groups. Like Hamas. And so the cycle continues.
I’m not sure how close both sides really were to an agreement. Both seem willing to behave reasonably well until the next aid payment arrives, after which an incident happens that unravels things.
Moreover, Israel has refused to entertain the idea of basing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, which effectively makes any agreement a non-starter from a Palestinian perspective. Israel acknowledges that they have been occupying territory that does not belong to them since 1967, but they won’t give it back because they need it for security purposes. This is obviously a big obstacle to progress. I suspect that Palestinians, even the majority of Hamas, might be willing to talk seriously if Israel brought up the possibility of recognizing a Palestinan state based on a mutually adjusted version of the pre-1967 borders.
The rocket attacks and other terrorist attacks are inexcusable and abhorrent, but so are the building of walls and illegal settlements by Israelis. As I said before, the Palestinians are too weak militarily to take and hold territory the way the Israelis do, so they naturally have recourse to whatever means they can in order to retaliate. Also, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Israeli politicians have not respected the Oslo Accords any more than Abbas has.
Furthermore, given the fractured state of government in Palestine, is there really any one person or group who can guarantee an end to terrorist attacks, regardless of the concessions offered in return? Power is too diffuse at the moment for that to be possible. Fatah does one thing, Hamas does something else, and even when both agree to something there are small splinter groups who refuse to go along. Israeli preconditions that not one bullet, not one rocket be fired before talks can progress are obviously impracticable and I suspect are made in the certain knowledge that they are unenforceable by the Palestinians themselves.
I’m skeptical, primarily because Palestinians will never allow the Israeli Defense Force to take over their security, regardless of what other concessions might be made. Somehow the military would have to become integrated for the solution to have any chance. I just don't see the IDF ever letting Hamas in - and, under current conditions, with good reason.
A two-state solution is probably the only workable path for the foreseeable future – though, perhaps support could subsequently be drummed up for mutual support, in principle, of a unified Israel-Palestine after the immediate question of Palestinian sovereignty is resolved.
We can’t allow that to prevent us from considering reviving the idea of a neutral Jerusalem. If such an idea were to be mooted again, Jerusalem would have to be administered by a government created by the UN and defended by a rotating UN defense force drawn from all member states. The goal would be to transition the UN government to the local residents as soon as possible, resulting in an explicitly neutral, secular, democratic, multicultural micro-state. The UN would remain responsible for defending the territory indefinitely, though an indigenous police force would be necessary.
Iran knows that the moment they choose to unleash nuclear weapons in any offensive capacity, they will fatally undermine their own political credibility. Not even Russia or China would support them in such a case (North Korea’s presumed continued support would count for nothing). Moreover, such an attack could result in a retaliatory strike from Israel, and the precise consequences of such an exchange are hard to predict, though we can assume they would be dire for the region, and with global repercussions.
By the way, I never said (or at least don’t recall saying) that we should avoid a war at all costs – only that we should exhaust every reasonable alternative before we truly consider a shooting war. The US has not done so in Iraq and Afghanistan, to their own cost. And I truly do not think armed intervention is either necessary or advisable in the case of Iran. Of course, if our hand is forced the choice is made for us. But until that point we should not be anything less than totally diligent in our efforts to secure a nonviolent, preferably amicable or at least equitable solution to the issue, difficult as it is.
Last edited:
We are never going to agree, nor are we going to convince the other of our points of view. Which is fine - because there are no lives on the line (as far as our discussion goes. I will just say that I respect your civil discourse, and that I still disagree with most of your points re: Israel. I've added a couple of rebuttals, below... but can we agree that we have basically hashed this out as far as it will go?
The trick is to trigger a big enough Israeli retaliation (i.e. one that would be seen as so reprehensible the outside world would turn its back on Israel) but that didn't weaken Iran so much that a neighbouring state would then occupy Iran. Iranians are not Arabs, are proud of their heritage, and would find Arab occupation - well, actually worse than Israel's continued existence.
Luckily, I think the Iranian military are realists and are preventing any really stupid attacks on Israel.
So here is my Grand Geo-Political Conspiracy Theory:
Blame China.
China has been a pre-eminent power (and usually the pre-eminent power) on the globe for the past thousands of years.... except for the past couple of centuries. Because we westerners live in the immediate past we really have no notion of the Chinese "destiny". They haven't forgotten however. And they think long term. In my theory/conspiracy Chinese operatives or money are behind many of these conflicts. Conflicts that keep pulling in (primarily) American military interventions.
America beat the USSR by bankrupting the Soviet Union in an arms race (highly simplified, history I realize - but it was a huge factor). The Chinese have gotten the Americans into an race with, well - themselves. Brilliant, really. And scary...
Agree - except that I believe Palestine is fragmented as much by the efforts of the Arab states, who have used Palestinians as their pawns against Israel. Palestinians didn't always hate Israel. I believe that the Palestinian leadership was corrupted by outside money that demanded continued hostilities against Israel. Israeli retaliations impact the general populations, unfortunately.
There are no settlements in Gaza. Shortly after the last of the settlements are removed, the Gazans launch a massive rocket barrage, going from a few rockets a day to dozens or hundreds a day. Launched not at military installations, but at civilian targets. What was Israel supposed to do? Some of those rockets were starting to reach close to her biggest city.
No. Absolutely not. Yassar Arafat made a name for himself by targeting, abducting, and killing school children. Not in groups of 3 or 4 - but entire schools and school busses. Israel does not. Arafat only stopped when his funders were being connected to the massacres of children, and they made him switch his targets to the general civilian population. Gazan rockets still target civilian centres, and not military. Suicide bombers still target civilian shopping and entertain districts and not military bases. Car bombs blow up next to civilian busses, and not military transports.
Absolutely agree.
Maybe not after the coup, but it got complicated when the Gazans then voted Hamas back into power.
I disagree. As one example. During the Gazan barrage, western reporters would call families inside Gaza and we would hear unconfirmed, unsubstantiated claims of the mayhem that had been wreaked on the family. By the same token I watched - twice (two different news organizations) as TV reporters used Gaza as backdrop, and report on "Israeli claims that Gaza is being used to launch rockets" ... and while these reporters are talking you could see rockets being launched. That is not unbiased reporting.
The big sticking point of the 1967 border proposal is that in 1967 the Jewish quarter, including the Judaism's holiest site, would once again be under a potentially hostile nation's control. The last time that happened, the Jewish quarter was levelled and access to holy sites cut-off. Under Israeli jurisdiction muslims have free access to their holy sites.
You have to make the distinction between the West Bank and Gaza. All settlements in Gaza have been removed. Here, I actually agree with you. I think Israel is making a huge mistake by not rewarding the moderate Abbas government of the West Bank. On the other hand, as soon as the 'security' settlements of Gaza had been removed Israel was subjected to a massive rocket barrage. Gaza is far away (relative to Israeli distances) from Israeli cities. However, the rockets used in Gaza would easily reach the majority of Israeli population centres if launched from the West Bank. There is no guarantees that the West Bank would follow the same path as Gaza.... but if you were the PM of Israel would you take that chance?
Hamas has their 1967 borders. There are no Israeli settlements in Gaza. So why aren't they suing for peace? Not only that, why aren't they negotiating with Egypt to open up their common border, bypassing the Israeli blockade? Why aren't the other Arab states sending re-construction materials to Gaza across the Gaza/Egypt land border? Why do the aid groups insist on sending aid to Gaza by water, through the Israeli blockade (knowing it will provoke a negative response, useable as bad PR for Israel)? If they were really interested in helping they would try to send the aid via Egypt.
There used to be several "international cities". A grand and noble goal - but, I believe, always doomed to failure as long as the contributed personnel are primarily loyal to their national government. And since neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis trust the UN, it would have to be an imposed administration.
Actually, Jerusalem is already mostly there. It is secular with Christians, Muslims, and Jews on city council. And it is democratic, since all citizens of Jerusalem vote in elections. It has even been known to stand up to the National government on occasion.
I'm convinced that an attack (nuclear or otherwise) on Israel that provoked a massive Israeli retaliation would actually be acceptable by the Iranian leadership. In fact, even desirable if it lead to a) total isolation for Israel, and b) a survivable retaliatory attack.
The trick is to trigger a big enough Israeli retaliation (i.e. one that would be seen as so reprehensible the outside world would turn its back on Israel) but that didn't weaken Iran so much that a neighbouring state would then occupy Iran. Iranians are not Arabs, are proud of their heritage, and would find Arab occupation - well, actually worse than Israel's continued existence.
Luckily, I think the Iranian military are realists and are preventing any really stupid attacks on Israel.
I agree with what you are saying now, regardless of what may or may not have been understood earlier.
So here is my Grand Geo-Political Conspiracy Theory:
Blame China.
China has been a pre-eminent power (and usually the pre-eminent power) on the globe for the past thousands of years.... except for the past couple of centuries. Because we westerners live in the immediate past we really have no notion of the Chinese "destiny". They haven't forgotten however. And they think long term. In my theory/conspiracy Chinese operatives or money are behind many of these conflicts. Conflicts that keep pulling in (primarily) American military interventions.
America beat the USSR by bankrupting the Soviet Union in an arms race (highly simplified, history I realize - but it was a huge factor). The Chinese have gotten the Americans into an race with, well - themselves. Brilliant, really. And scary...
Fair enough; we can agree to disagree. The primary thrust of my arguments has been that I refuse to frame this conflict as evil, terroristic Palestinian barbarians (supported by the Arab world) seeking with single-minded determination the annihilation of sweet, innocent and democratic Israel, who only defend themselves and never do anything underhanded or with excessive force. Because there are no good guys and bad guys in this fight as far as I'm concerned, just many shades of grey.
Secondly, as far as illegal settlements go, there are still many in the West Bank.
I disagree, but Tom Clancy might want to hear from you. The Chinese are global economic competitors at this point, but I do not believe that they are interested in the kind of hands-on global power projection that the US indulges in. Frankly, I don't think anyone else is interested in that, given how expensive it is. Most other nations see us as compulsive busybodies and that is not the way China prefers to operate.
Countries like Russia and China do have aspirations of becoming regional powers though, and they are both well on their way to achieving that (arguably already have, really). They always oppose internventionism in the UN; how much of this is down to establishing an oppositon to the US versus simply having a different opinion on how to do things is something I can only speculate on. But as far as the Israel/Iran situation goes, China does not place anywhere near the value on Israeli relations that the US does.
But I'm not American....
I happen to agree. Look at my posts and you will see that I have repeatedly blamed the Palestinian leadership, except when the Palestinian population of Gaza voted in Hamas. We have all voted in wrong-headed governments, however, so that blame only goes so far. The Palestinians have been used by the Arab states... I believe that firmly. The Israelis have made lots of mistakes too, some can not be excused.
My point is not that Israel is blameless, but that Israel is somehow labeled the "evil one" in so many discussions. Israel has been, over and over again, put into impossible situations by Arab (and other powers) states. And Israel have screwed up more than once. But they are only human, and they have been confronted with impossible situations. The fact is... if the Arab world wanted to alleviate the suffering the of the Palestinians they could support the entire population with barely a blip in their GDP. Instead Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt have chosen to evict their Palestinian populations - who have only one place to go.... Gaza and the West Bank. No other country in the world.... Arab or otherwise is taking Palestinians refugees in any significant numbers. Israel is making things worse in the West Bank... I'll admit that.
Yes, there are... but none in Gaza... so why don't the Palestinians there get about creating a nation? Why don't they open the border with Egypt to create a viable economy? Because their leaders see more benefit in using the Palestinian people as cannon fodder. So what can Israel do? How do you deal with an entity who wants to kill your population?
I don't either. However, they are interested in having a free rein in their traditional sphere of influence... which includes Taiwan. They got Macau and Hong Kong back - after a century of waiting. Once the American influence in SE Asia is pruned back China will be happy to go merrily along. It's not that they want to project their power further afield... it's that they can't abide another power limiting their own power. I think they'd be happy with two or three global powers (them being one) that were roughly equal.
I did say (to paraphrase) "pre-eminent or one of the pre-eminent powers." China was a major - if isolated from the west - power during the Roman empire and the Moorish empires. After those empires fell, and before the European empires China was the pre-eminent power... but that was just because Europe had succumbed to the Black Plague, not because China was out conquering much. China has not actually show much interest (in the past) of conquering the world.... they just really like bossing around their corner of it.
There is some evidence, though far from confirmed, that a Chinese Ruler in the 1300s (or perhaps 1400s iirc) sent a massive armada out to explore the world. They circumnavigated the globe - and found nothing of interest... so they burned the fleet and continued their lives. Certainly there are Aboriginal oral histories (and archeology) in my part of the world that might confirm this story. But so far there has been no definitive proof one way or the other.