Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by noah way, Jul 21, 2011.
CIA veteran: Israel to attack Iran in fall
Oh yes mr Rosenberg.
Let me sum up mr rosenberg's opinions over the last few years. Israel is the mother of all evil and must be destroyed. Anti UN, Anti US, anti israel and sometimes, I believe anti reality. Kind of like the glenn beck of the middle east. I think this is the 2nd? time the evil child eating west will attack the modest, hard working, honest, and completely peaceful palestinians, iran, sudia arbia, and assorted muslim nations in the fall, I swear he said the same thing last year. Ok, it is not that bad, he is not glen beck, but let us look at some of his major titles.
Mission impossible: Keeping Israel happy
Congress to Palestinians: Drop dead
It's Netanyahu who is delegitimising Israel
And of course my favorite
It's a plutocracy, stupid
Interesting commentary on how the US government bows to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel (hard line) policies.
Another interesting commentary, this one about political collusion between the US and Israel, a position backed by decades of US vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions against Israel.
Israel labels "any criticism as an attack", just like The Republican Party and Fox News. Also questions the occupation of Palestine and the legality of Israel's naval blockade.
Talk about stating the obvious: "a widely corrupt US political system which is based on wealth-driven interests". Do you really think this is NOT accurate?
Ad hominem attacks on Rosenberg are immaterial. Can we get back to the issue raised, the alleged forecast of an Israeli attack on Iran?
Zero chance of it happening. You have to look at two things here, who is saying something and what is being said. There is a very wide gap of creditability between a news commentators, ie glen beck and rosenberg, and news makers, ie president obama.
The problem here is simple. It is called talking to the edge, cold wars, offer zero room for reason or reality. Of course israel is going to attack iran, because it is the best way to talk a population to the edge. Of course iran is going to attack israel, it is the best way to talk a population to the edge. Both populations have spent soo much time blaming each other for their own problems, at some point they started believing what they where saying. A cold war, or war of words if you will, is the best way to keep a population afraid and subservient.
If israel was going to attack iran last year was the time to do it, before the nuclear facilities where completed, if they attack now, it is very possible for them to create a nuclear crisis. Cold wars are fought with innuendo and third party lies.
Former State Department spokesman: Israel will not attack Iran anytime soon - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
According to P.J. Crowley, a news maker, there is zero chance of this happening.
Now lets us look at the history of this news, I am only going to go back about 10 years.
feb 2002, some "expert" says israel is going to attacking iran.
aug 2004 see above
oct 2006 see above
jul 2007 see above
jul 2008 see above
apr 2009 see above
aug 2010 see above
sept 2010 see above
jan 2011 see above
You want me to do iran attack israel? Honestly, you have to really look at who is saying what, before you listen to what they are saying.
This is not about keeping populations "afraid and subservient". In Israel, a majority wants peace while the government acts with contempt for public opinion (sounds like the US, doesn't it?).
This is all about power (and money), mostly in the form of control of strategic resources. Iran has the world's third largest oil reserves, and no discussion about Iran can take place without taking that into consideration.
With multiple hot wars and revolutions breaking out across the Middle East, there has never been a more opportune time to attack Iran. Israel first, of course, on a false provocation, then firmly backed by the US.
Between the Arab world in disarray and Iran's standing in the region there would be no unified or significant Arab response to such a move. Also better to do this before China can build a competitive military (we have ten carrier battle groups, they almost have one carrier).
With a massive US military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, multiple US carrier fleets on station, major US air bases dotted across the entire region, and a voracious corporate thirst for resources and income from military misadventure, an attack on Iran seems to be a no-brainer.
DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security
All that's needed is to raise the debt ceiling ...
I don't doubt the possibility of an attack on Iran by Israel and others in the near future. I think the situation in the Middle East is going to continue to degrade to the point where virtually every country in the region is at war someone. I believe that there's a real possibility that we could be in the early stages of World War III, we'll look back and say that 9/11 was the tipping point.
Is this accurate? I certainly don't know much about Israeli politics or opinions but didn't they just have an election in 2009 where the center right and extreme right won a pretty large percentage?
What exactly is "a majority"? They are either the majority or the minority.
Israeli poll: Netanyahu should accept Obama's peace deal
Poll: 71.5% Israelis favor peace talks
Israeli Public's Support for Dismantling Most Settlements Has Risen to a Five-Year High
This poll looks highly suspect to me because of of the relatively small sample size that includes an undisclosed number of "immigrants and Arab Israelis".
This seems more straightforward but it is nothing new.
"High support for talks along with pessimism about their outcome has characterized public opinion since the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993."
I find it quite interesting that if this has been the case for the last 20 years, then why would the Israeli's vote for such a large percentage of right and extreme right partys' in the last major election? You would think if the public truly wanted peace, they would have elected officials they knew would have completely dismantled West Bank settlements and brokered a new deal.
"Over half of the Israeli public favors renewed construction in the West Bank after the settlement freeze ends in September, claiming that "continuing the freeze means capitulation to the Americans and the Palestinians.""
This seems like quite the contradictory statistic. On one had you have almost 75% that want peace talks but over 50% of people want to continue expanding in a highly disputed area. I would think if peace really wanted to be achieved this percentage would be a lot lower.
This article is quite a bit more interesting because it shows the complete misconception of the public views and the settler views. Something like this may alter people's answers on a survey by an unacceptable margin of error.
The better question that should be asked to the public is how much would they be willing to give up for this peace they all seem to want. Of course the public wants peace. Who wants rockets randomly shot at their cities and suicide bombs blowing up buses?
Having a background in statistics I know how easily polls and surveys are manipulated into showing what someone wants you to believe or only having "soft" choices for highly complex situations. I have absolutely no doubt that around 75% of Israels want peace (I'm positive there will always be a small percentage of hard-liners that will never support peace talks). I just think you would get quite the variation in opinion if you factored in what would be required to get that peace.
You hit on an interesting side issue in all this, persim. If 75% of Israelis want peace, then 25% don't. But the minority seems to be running things.
I have come to think that perhaps the peace loving amongst us can never be very influential on a policy making level for the reason that they're not driven as relentlessly as those who have grudges and who want to destroy rather than co-exist.
While that is a possibility, I think it is a lot more blurred (yes Moto pun intended) than that. It's probably something closer to the US public where you have about 25% on the extreme left and right, with around 50% in a very shaded grey middle area. Within that shaded grey there are all types of varying opinions on how this peace should be accomplished.
This is why I am very skeptical of polls that show extremely large percentages of people that want peace talks. I'm pretty sure if you polled the entire world and asked the question "Would you like to engage in talks for world peace", you would get an extremely high percentage of people who say yes. But as soon as you add conditions to that question, your answers will start to become less clear.
Israel has really being heading to the right... Netenyahuh is gonna get a lot more people killed. There's a significant majority that wants peace (The left wing parties are supporting the peace plan), but the right keep rejecting any solution and the public is supporting them
I still can't shake the notion that, with few exceptions, it is the most relentless, crazy people who rise to policy making power over time, while the average citizen in any nation just wants to be left alone to take care of their family and do their work irrespective of political agendas being shouted by their leaders.
The thing is, I think, that many feel the only way they can be safely left alone is by the extreme measures of the Israeli government...
Maybe.. heck, this logic now seems like a snake eating its own tail. They want peace so they elect warmongers to protect them.