USA & Israel relations - USA and its foreign policy shift

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I'm calling it now. The USA is making a foreign policy shift headed by President Barak Obama. The recent pick of Chuck Hagel to be Defense Secretary cemented my concerns. If you know me, you already know what I think of this. Let me elaborate - The USA is slowly walking away from having Israel as its ally in the middle east and moving towards strengthening its relationship with other regional nations to compensate for that. This move is lead by the idea that the middle-east problem - where the USA is demonized and hated is caused by two things:
1. George Bush administration and its foreign policy
2. The Israel-Palestinian conflict
The first is simply the idea that the last president behind Obama had left the USA's foreign policy in such a mess that now they have to pick up the pieces and build it from scratch. The second is the understanding that the reason why the Arab (and by proxy, the Muslim) world hates the USA is because of its close relationship with Israel and its support for their actions.

Before you jump at me, I will answer your question - "hold on a minute, then why is President Obama considering to prolong USA presence in current war-zones?", and "But president Obama had been green-lighting practices such as drone strikes in other foreign countries, leading the US army to hitting, injuring and killing civilians". How is that different? The ruler only knows what his advisers are telling him. Right now if the USA removes its presence from these zones there is a risk of the groups that were fighting the USA to fill the void. The local forces backed and sometimes trained by the USA could not face against these forces. The sad fact here is that the USA had created much of the movement against it in the first place, and if it leaves the area they will take control.

The USA president had distanced himself from Israel in recent years. The only force pulling him away from what he wants to preform is the USA's congress that has a strong pro-Israel sentiment. The president had pushed on Israel many times to concede (The ten months Judea&Sumeria settlement freeze), had let it suffer a diplomatic beating on the world stage (The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza) and set a precedent that hurts Israel when it comes to the negotiating table with Palestinian leadership ('49 armistice borders + land swaps being the point from which negotiations will start).

What I see here is the future change of US politics towards the Arab and Muslim world. I believe that the USA is now pressuring Israel to concede to their own "peace plan", a plan to impose upon Israel. Treating Iran's nuclear capabilities via sanctions haven't stopped - and probably won't stop Iran from reaching the capacity for nuclear weapons. Since the USA has the capability to destroy these facilities, the US leadership can demand concessions from Israel that would not have been made otherwise. This US leadership headed by President Barak Obama had been the most pro-Palestinian US leadership I can imagine since 1967 (hmm... maybe Carter and his apartheid can challenge Obama for the title).

Other examples to the way the USA treats the Arab and Muslim world are the anti-American protests that erupted seemingly out of nowhere in response for a 'film that depicts the Muslim Prophet Muhammad badly' (The film 'Innocence of Muslims'). This is, in fact, a farce. It was used as a smoke-screen while a series of coordinated attacks on US embassies in several Arab Muslim countries occurred in 11th of September, 9.11. . The shock-waves that happened across the Muslim world following this anti-American sentiment are a result of religious and political figures seizing the day for their own advantage (using the video as a reason for attacking the USA), and the second shock-wave of protests was as a reaction to those original and second protests. Many people were killed.
The USA leadership blamed a film. The president apologized for said film to try and calm spirits. The official reactions of the USA leadership to this included condemnations and empty words.

Am I the only one seeing a pattern here? and... Am I the only one who asks "Am I the only one..." on the internet? (Yes, it was a joke. A preemptive one).

I think you're coming to conclusions through very reductionist thinking. Like claiming that the motives for all of the various thousands of people who engaged in various forms of action, from attacks to protests, throughout several different countries were all a farcical smokescreen and couldn't represent genuine outrage.

Also, Iran isn't reaching for nuclear weapons. It's the consensus of basically every intelligence agency in the western world that not only does Iran not have nuclear weapons and isn't trying to manufacture nuclear weapons. It's why all the talk about Iran that doesn't come from extreme right-wing demagogues always couches it in phrases like "increasing their nuclear capability" because they are doing that, they're increasing their domestic nuclear energy capability which by it's very nature would have some use if they did start up a weapons programme in the future.

Overhead:
I think you're coming to conclusions through very reductionist thinking. Like claiming that the motives for all of the various thousands of people who engaged in various forms of action, from attacks to protests, throughout several different countries were all a farcical smokescreen and couldn't represent genuine outrage.

Also, Iran isn't reaching for nuclear weapons. It's the consensus of basically every intelligence agency in the western world that not only does Iran not have nuclear weapons and isn't trying to manufacture nuclear weapons. It's why all the talk about Iran that doesn't come from extreme right-wing demagogues always couches it in phrases like "increasing their nuclear capability" because they are doing that, they're increasing their domestic nuclear energy capability which by it's very nature would have some use if they did start up a weapons programme in the future.

.
There was outrage. However the nature of the film was unknown to people until someone showed it to them or told them about it. Then after the first two waves of protests ensued in September 11th and 14th, there was the effect that people who heard of said protests and outrage were then aware of the video and later protested it and its content, often without any connection to the actual reason why the first few "protests" started. There were examples of religious and political leaders using this as an excuse for their own gain (Lebanon, for example).

It's not in reach with nuclear weapons but it is developing its capability to create those and working towards that goal. This can be claimed to be strictly for civilian use, as it is claimed by Iran itself. I myself said this, and I quote - "Treating Iran's nuclear capabilities via sanctions haven't stopped - and probably won't stop Iran from reaching the capacity for nuclear weapons.". I think it's valid to say that.

TIR, we are entirely in agreement on this issue. I hope that doesn't scare you. A slim majority of Americans are wary of Iran's possible nuclear capability as well as what implications a collapse of Isreal would have on the world. I personally believe that there is no end to how much ground the Arab world wants to gain against the Isrealis, especially considering the um... "wipe the Jews off the map" comments spewed out on a regular basis by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They don't want peace, they want conquest.

You may not agree with this one though.

Based on what I've researched, the Palestinian (Arab) claim to the land that Isreal occupies is questionable at best. Palestine is derived from "Philistine" which were Greek offshoots, not Arabs. Over the course of the last few thousand years, land was hardly ever occupied by a power dominated by Arabs - only during the Caliphate and Mameluke eras - from the birth of Islam until Ottoman domination. Ottomans ruled the area for hundreds of years... Ottomans who are not Arabs, but Turks.

Then, Britain claimed Palestine as a war trophy from the collapsed Ottoman Empire after WW1, and thus, had a fully legal claim to the land and its use, separating Isreal from Jordan upon dismantling its colonial empire. Considering all this, I just do not buy the argument that the Isrealis are invaders.

It'd be nice if the USA (and everyone else) actually did something concrete to dissuade Israel from creating new settlements. I support Israel's right to defend itself within reason, but all this settling is ridiculous.

Anyway, I doubt the policy will change majorly, I can't see the USA/Israel stop being allies for the foreseeable future.

It does seem like Obama is attempting to drop Israel as much as possible while still being nominally an ally. It's hard to say how much traction he'll have though. Israel has tended to be fairly popular amongst the upper class here, especially with the legislature.

harmonic:
Based on what I've researched, the Palestinian (Arab) claim to the land that Isreal occupies is questionable at best. Palestine is derived from "Philistine" which were Greek offshoots, not Arabs. Over the course of the last few thousand years, land was hardly ever occupied by a power dominated by Arabs - only during the Caliphate and Mameluke eras - from the birth of Islam until Ottoman domination. Ottomans ruled the area for hundreds of years... Ottomans who are not Arabs, but Turks.

Then, Britain claimed Palestine as a war trophy from the collapsed Ottoman Empire after WW1, and thus, had a fully legal claim to the land and its use, separating Isreal from Jordan upon dismantling its colonial empire. Considering all this, I just do not buy the argument that the Isrealis are invaders.

Err, the Israelis are very much so immigrants (or at least most of them), especially compared to the Palestinians. Israel very much has a legal claim though, given that they bought the land there legally, moved in peacefully, etc. Palestinians lost much of their claim to the area when they decided to war and failed to accomplish their objectives, really.

Also, your links don't work, the url is correct, but needs to be pasted in - clicking the url's does nothing.

Xeorm:

Err, the Israelis are very much so immigrants (or at least most of them), especially compared to the Palestinians. Israel very much has a legal claim though, given that they bought the land there legally, moved in peacefully, etc. Palestinians lost much of their claim to the area when they decided to war and failed to accomplish their objectives, really.

I didn't say they weren't immigrants, I said they weren't invaders. Big difference.

harmonic:
TIR, we are entirely in agreement on this issue. I hope that doesn't scare you. A slim majority of Americans are wary of Iran's possible nuclear capability as well as what implications a collapse of Isreal would have on the world. I personally believe that there is no end to how much ground the Arab world wants to gain against the Isrealis, especially considering the um... "wipe the Jews off the map" comments spewed out on a regular basis by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They don't want peace, they want conquest.

You may not agree with this one though.

Based on what I've researched, the Palestinian (Arab) claim to the land that Isreal occupies is questionable at best. Palestine is derived from "Philistine" which were Greek offshoots, not Arabs. Over the course of the last few thousand years, land was hardly ever occupied by a power dominated by Arabs - only during the Caliphate and Mameluke eras - from the birth of Islam until Ottoman domination. Ottomans ruled the area for hundreds of years... Ottomans who are not Arabs, but Turks.

Then, Britain claimed Palestine as a war trophy from the collapsed Ottoman Empire after WW1, and thus, had a fully legal claim to the land and its use, separating Isreal from Jordan upon dismantling its colonial empire. Considering all this, I just do not buy the argument that the Isrealis are invaders.

.
It does scare the shit out of me.
.

Esotera:
It'd be nice if the USA (and everyone else) actually did something concrete to dissuade Israel from creating new settlements. I support Israel's right to defend itself within reason, but all this settling is ridiculous.

Anyway, I doubt the policy will change majorly, I can't see the USA/Israel stop being allies for the foreseeable future.

.
People will disagree with me, but I don't think that the settlements or any 'new settlements' is a main reason for the conflict or the halting of the "Peace Process". Peace process had been halted since 2000 in Camp David with Clinton. What followed after this failure was the second intifada. Saying that the settlements are the cause for this halt in the "peace process" is ignoring the other issues that Israel and the Palestinian leadership could not agree upon, such as Jerusalem, borders, security arrangements, return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, the Jordanian border, etc. Even stopping the building of all settlements over the green line except for Jerusalem (for ten months), as was requested from the USA, a one sided concession from Israel was met with no actual response from Palestinian leadership.

TheIronRuler:

It does scare the shit out of me.

Maybe try to separate me from a template of "Republican" beliefs and/or the fact that you don't like me personally. Most people are a mix/match of beliefs.

You have nothing else to say but that?

TheIronRuler:

Esotera:
It'd be nice if the USA (and everyone else) actually did something concrete to dissuade Israel from creating new settlements. I support Israel's right to defend itself within reason, but all this settling is ridiculous.

Anyway, I doubt the policy will change majorly, I can't see the USA/Israel stop being allies for the foreseeable future.

.
People will disagree with me, but I don't think that the settlements or any 'new settlements' is a main reason for the conflict or the halting of the "Peace Process". Peace process had been halted since 2000 in Camp David with Clinton. What followed after this failure was the second intifada. Saying that the settlements are the cause for this halt in the "peace process" is ignoring the other issues that Israel and the Palestinian leadership could not agree upon, such as Jerusalem, borders, security arrangements, return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, the Jordanian border, etc. Even stopping the building of all settlements over the green line except for Jerusalem, as was requested from the USA, a one sided concession from Israel was met with no actual response from Palestinian leadership.

Whether it has something to do with the peace process or not is irrelevant - the point is that Israel is illegally seizing land and attempting to segregate a population. These actions are not justifiable and need to be denounced with more than just words by the international community, whilst continuing to support Israel's right to exist.

harmonic:
Based on what I've researched, the Palestinian (Arab) claim to the land that Isreal occupies is questionable at best. Palestine is derived from "Philistine" which were Greek offshoots, not Arabs. Over the course of the last few thousand years, land was hardly ever occupied by a power dominated by Arabs - only during the Caliphate and Mameluke eras - from the birth of Islam until Ottoman domination. Ottomans ruled the area for hundreds of years... Ottomans who are not Arabs, but Turks.

Then, Britain claimed Palestine as a war trophy from the collapsed Ottoman Empire after WW1, and thus, had a fully legal claim to the land and its use, separating Isreal from Jordan upon dismantling its colonial empire. Considering all this, I just do not buy the argument that the Isrealis are invaders.

And, of course, when the ruling power changed, all the people who were living there left and were replaced by others, right? The land and peoples may have been conquered throughout history, but the people remained. It was the people who fought with the British and French against the Ottomans. It was the people who sought independence after the Ottomans were defeated. And it was the people that were abused and repressed by European interference.

harmonic:

TheIronRuler:

It does scare the shit out of me.

Maybe try to separate me from a template of "Republican" beliefs and/or the fact that you don't like me personally. Most people are a mix/match of beliefs.

You have nothing else to say but that?

.
I have nothing else to say, really. I could start a whole debate about what you said concerning Palestinians but this isn't the place or the time, and I'm not in the mood.
.

Aris Khandr:

harmonic:
Based on what I've researched, the Palestinian (Arab) claim to the land that Isreal occupies is questionable at best. Palestine is derived from "Philistine" which were Greek offshoots, not Arabs. Over the course of the last few thousand years, land was hardly ever occupied by a power dominated by Arabs - only during the Caliphate and Mameluke eras - from the birth of Islam until Ottoman domination. Ottomans ruled the area for hundreds of years... Ottomans who are not Arabs, but Turks.

Then, Britain claimed Palestine as a war trophy from the collapsed Ottoman Empire after WW1, and thus, had a fully legal claim to the land and its use, separating Isreal from Jordan upon dismantling its colonial empire. Considering all this, I just do not buy the argument that the Isrealis are invaders.

And, of course, when the ruling power changed, all the people who were living there left and were replaced by others, right? The land and peoples may have been conquered throughout history, but the people remained. It was the people who fought with the British and French against the Ottomans. It was the people who sought independence after the Ottomans were defeated. And it was the people that were abused and repressed by European interference.

.
So are you talking about just the Arabs in Palestine or are you talking about all of them? Because for that you had Syria, Jordan and Iraq. Just to add a little thing - yes, they were cut up into little pieces and were made into de-facto colonies, what the hell did you expect? They screwed with the Africans even worse.
.

Esotera:

TheIronRuler:

Esotera:
It'd be nice if the USA (and everyone else) actually did something concrete to dissuade Israel from creating new settlements. I support Israel's right to defend itself within reason, but all this settling is ridiculous.

Anyway, I doubt the policy will change majorly, I can't see the USA/Israel stop being allies for the foreseeable future.

.
People will disagree with me, but I don't think that the settlements or any 'new settlements' is a main reason for the conflict or the halting of the "Peace Process". Peace process had been halted since 2000 in Camp David with Clinton. What followed after this failure was the second intifada. Saying that the settlements are the cause for this halt in the "peace process" is ignoring the other issues that Israel and the Palestinian leadership could not agree upon, such as Jerusalem, borders, security arrangements, return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, the Jordanian border, etc. Even stopping the building of all settlements over the green line except for Jerusalem, as was requested from the USA, a one sided concession from Israel was met with no actual response from Palestinian leadership.

Whether it has something to do with the peace process or not is irrelevant - the point is that Israel is illegally seizing land and attempting to segregate a population. These actions are not justifiable and need to be denounced with more than just words by the international community, whilst continuing to support Israel's right to exist.

.
Ah, you're one of those people. I need to dig up my summary of this from one of the older threads where I explained this situation well, but not now... maybe later.

Aris Khandr:

And, of course, when the ruling power changed, all the people who were living there left and were replaced by others, right? The land and peoples may have been conquered throughout history, but the people remained. It was the people who fought with the British and French against the Ottomans. It was the people who sought independence after the Ottomans were defeated. And it was the people that were abused and repressed by European interference.

And at one point, the people were not Arabs. In fact, most of that land area's civilized history... not Arabs.

TheIronRuler:
There was outrage. However the nature of the film was unknown to people until someone showed it to them or told them about it. Then after the first two waves of protests ensued in September 11th and 14th, there was the effect that people who heard of said protests and outrage were then aware of the video and later protested it and its content, often without any connection to the actual reason why the first few "protests" started. There were examples of religious and political leaders using this as an excuse for their own gain (Lebanon, for example).

Even there, you're being reductionist. Do you not think the decade of US war in the Middle East would also have contributed to these? The drone bombings in Pakistan and other locations? The fact that the USA had supported anti-democratic dictators in these countries for many years. It's also worth noting that the majority of locations where there were protests didn't involve any kind of attack on embassies or similar locations.

But yes, I'm glad you are aware that there was a lot of validity to these protests even if you didn't directly explain it.

It's not in reach with nuclear weapons but it is developing its capability to create those and working towards that goal.

No it's not. It's been specifically stated (for instance by all 10 USA intelligence agencies in an interview before congress where they were required to provide truthful honest answers) that Iran is not working towards creating nukes.

The talk about their 'capability' increasing isn't anything innately threatening or harmful. For instance because they're a NPT signatory, they're granted the unalienable right to pursue peaceful domestic nuclear energy and build up their capacity for this. This is what they're doing. So for instance they have centrifuges which will enrich uranium to about 5% or so or around 19.9% for research reactors and as their domestic nuclear energy program expands they will have more centrifuges.

Now if they did at some point start a nuclear weapons program, more centrifuges is helpful because you need centrifuges for pretty much anything useful to do with nuclear energy - domestic energy or weaponised. But in and of itself, it's meaningless and it in no way indicates that weaponisation is the goal they're working towards, because there are a whole host of nuclear weaponisation specific technologies that they're not working on that they would otherwise need. By your definition the Netherlands is currently expanding it's ability to create nuclear weapons because along with the Uk and Germany it's also increasing it's enrichment capability for it's domestic energy program.

That's why:

This can be claimed to be strictly for civilian use, as it is claimed by Iran itself. I myself said this, and I quote - "Treating Iran's nuclear capabilities via sanctions haven't stopped - and probably won't stop Iran from reaching the capacity for nuclear weapons.". I think it's valid to say that.

Is really not a valid thing to say.

The best you can get while being both truthful and trying to present Iran as a big danger is "Treating Iran's nuclear capabilities via sanctions haven't stopped - and probably won't stop Iran from reaching the capacity of being able to switch up it's enrichment regime and in the space of a few months produce a decent amount of weaponised uranium, which would then sit around doing nothing because they don't have all the other technologies which make nuclear bombs a possibility."

TheIronRuler:
I'm calling it now. The USA is making a foreign policy shift headed by President Barak Obama. The recent pick of Chuck Hagel to be Defense Secretary cemented my concerns. If you know me, you already know what I think of this. Let me elaborate - The USA is slowly walking away from having Israel as its ally in the middle east and moving towards strengthening its relationship with other regional nations to compensate for that. This move is lead by the idea that the middle-east problem - where the USA is demonized and hated is caused by two things:
1. George Bush administration and its foreign policy
2. The Israel-Palestinian conflict
The first is simply the idea that the last president behind Obama had left the USA's foreign policy in such a mess that now they have to pick up the pieces and build it from scratch. The second is the understanding that the reason why the Arab (and by proxy, the Muslim) world hates the USA is because of its close relationship with Israel and its support for their actions.

Before you jump at me, I will answer your question - "hold on a minute, then why is President Obama considering to prolong USA presence in current war-zones?", and "But president Obama had been green-lighting practices such as drone strikes in other foreign countries, leading the US army to hitting, injuring and killing civilians". How is that different? The ruler only knows what his advisers are telling him. Right now if the USA removes its presence from these zones there is a risk of the groups that were fighting the USA to fill the void. The local forces backed and sometimes trained by the USA could not face against these forces. The sad fact here is that the USA had created much of the movement against it in the first place, and if it leaves the area they will take control.

The USA president had distanced himself from Israel in recent years. The only force pulling him away from what he wants to preform is the USA's congress that has a strong pro-Israel sentiment. The president had pushed on Israel many times to concede (The ten months Judea&Sumeria settlement freeze), had let it suffer a diplomatic beating on the world stage (The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza) and set a precedent that hurts Israel when it comes to the negotiating table with Palestinian leadership ('49 armistice borders + land swaps being the point from which negotiations will start).

What I see here is the future change of US politics towards the Arab and Muslim world. I believe that the USA is now pressuring Israel to concede to their own "peace plan", a plan to impose upon Israel. Treating Iran's nuclear capabilities via sanctions haven't stopped - and probably won't stop Iran from reaching the capacity for nuclear weapons. Since the USA has the capability to destroy these facilities, the US leadership can demand concessions from Israel that would not have been made otherwise. This US leadership headed by President Barak Obama had been the most pro-Palestinian US leadership I can imagine since 1967 (hmm... maybe Carter and his apartheid can challenge Obama for the title).

Other examples to the way the USA treats the Arab and Muslim world are the anti-American protests that erupted seemingly out of nowhere in response for a 'film that depicts the Muslim Prophet Muhammad badly' (The film 'Innocence of Muslims'). This is, in fact, a farce. It was used as a smoke-screen while a series of coordinated attacks on US embassies in several Arab Muslim countries occurred in 11th of September, 9.11. . The shock-waves that happened across the Muslim world following this anti-American sentiment are a result of religious and political figures seizing the day for their own advantage (using the video as a reason for attacking the USA), and the second shock-wave of protests was as a reaction to those original and second protests. Many people were killed.
The USA leadership blamed a film. The president apologized for said film to try and calm spirits. The official reactions of the USA leadership to this included condemnations and empty words.

Am I the only one seeing a pattern here? and... Am I the only one who asks "Am I the only one..." on the internet? (Yes, it was a joke. A preemptive one).

I wish this were true but you are wrong on almost all accounts. Obama's administration has been the friendliest to Israel in the countries short history. They have offered the most funding, the most assistance in the form of military aid and technology transfers and, despite what they say to appease the left, have had a pro-Israel voting record in the UN of more than 90%. The few examples of the Administration criticizing Israel are areas where the issues are far to Right leaning to reasonably support and in those cases and all others, the Admin's actions run counter to all criticisms they've ever leveled on the Israeli government.

It's particularly interesting that the best criticism I could find is when Obama actually makes fair statements condemning the Israeli's habit of loading negotiations with conditions favorable only to them and when he talks about the settlements maybe not being a good idea. Even in those cases, like all others, he is pretty much just talking a big talk to appease the left, since he hasn't taken much action to support his claims and everything the administration has done in the dispute between the Palestinians and Israeli's is very Pro-Israel.

It's no coincidence that every piece calling Obama 'the worst for Israel' is from a far right conservative. They are criticizing him for being a 'Liberal' candidate and having to say moderate things to appeal to his base while ignoring his administrations track record. The people who are criticizing Obama for not being Pro-Israel enough generally think that unless you are mercilessly fellating the Israeli government while denouncing everyone else entirely you are not pro-Israel enough. It seems every time the Israeli government get's just a little crazier or more right wing in foreign policy, people think it poignant to point out that the Democratic president is a little hesitant to say he follows while forgetting to point out that he's doing everything in his power to keep the aid flowing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/the-truth-about-obama-and-israel.html?_r=0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/08/emergency-committee-israel/pro-israel-groups-ad-depicts-obama-hagel-iran/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obamas-cynicism-on-israel_b_2217621.html

Overhead:

TheIronRuler:
There was outrage. However the nature of the film was unknown to people until someone showed it to them or told them about it. Then after the first two waves of protests ensued in September 11th and 14th, there was the effect that people who heard of said protests and outrage were then aware of the video and later protested it and its content, often without any connection to the actual reason why the first few "protests" started. There were examples of religious and political leaders using this as an excuse for their own gain (Lebanon, for example).

Even there, you're being reductionist. Do you not think the decade of US war in the Middle East would also have contributed to these? The drone bombings in Pakistan and other locations? The fact that the USA had supported anti-democratic dictators in these countries for many years. It's also worth noting that the majority of locations where there were protests didn't involve any kind of attack on embassies or similar locations.

But yes, I'm glad you are aware that there was a lot of validity to these protests even if you didn't directly explain it.

I didn't mention the reasons for much of the region's dislike or hatred of the USA, I only talked about one reason that sparked this wave of protests and was relevant to the idea I tried to convey. I wanted to talk about how the USA responded to these, and not the shady dealings and borderline crimes it committed there.

It's not in reach with nuclear weapons but it is developing its capability to create those and working towards that goal.

No it's not. It's been specifically stated (for instance by all 10 USA intelligence agencies in an interview before congress where they were required to provide truthful honest answers) that Iran is not working towards creating nukes.

The talk about their 'capability' increasing isn't anything innately threatening or harmful. For instance because they're a NPT signatory, they're granted the unalienable right to pursue peaceful domestic nuclear energy and build up their capacity for this. This is what they're doing. So for instance they have centrifuges which will enrich uranium to about 5% or so or around 19.9% for research reactors and as their domestic nuclear energy program expands they will have more centrifuges.

Now if they did at some point start a nuclear weapons program, more centrifuges is helpful because you need centrifuges for pretty much anything useful to do with nuclear energy - domestic energy or weaponised. But in and of itself, it's meaningless and it in no way indicates that weaponisation is the goal they're working towards, because there are a whole host of nuclear weaponisation specific technologies that they're not working on that they would otherwise need. By your definition the Netherlands is currently expanding it's ability to create nuclear weapons because along with the Uk and Germany it's also increasing it's enrichment capability for it's domestic energy program.

That's why:

This can be claimed to be strictly for civilian use, as it is claimed by Iran itself. I myself said this, and I quote - "Treating Iran's nuclear capabilities via sanctions haven't stopped - and probably won't stop Iran from reaching the capacity for nuclear weapons.". I think it's valid to say that.

Is really not a valid thing to say.

The best you can get while being both truthful and trying to present Iran as a big danger is "Treating Iran's nuclear capabilities via sanctions haven't stopped - and probably won't stop Iran from reaching the capacity of being able to switch up it's enrichment regime and in the space of a few months produce a decent amount of weaponised uranium, which would then sit around doing nothing because they don't have all the other technologies which make nuclear bombs a possibility."

[/quote]
*ehm*
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/unsc_res1737-2006.pdf
This was being dragged along since 2006. Iran failed to face the demands the IAEA set forth as a part of the NPT. This is true since they signed the NPT - "they're granted the unalienable right to pursue peaceful domestic nuclear energy and build up their capacity for this", however the IAEA had brought concerns about their nuclear program and its nature since 2006. This lead them to demand Iran to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and cooperate with the IAEA. This means that your claim doesn't hold up.

TheIronRuler:

I didn't mention the reasons for much of the region's dislike or hatred of the USA, I only talked about one reason that sparked this wave of protests and was relevant to the idea I tried to convey. I wanted to talk about how the USA responded to these, and not the shady dealings and borderline crimes it committed there.

That's correct in the same way that saying the Arab Spring was caused by a guy setting himself on fire. Yes, that was the immediate spark, but it wouldn't have meant jack without all the systematic oppression and lack of democracy that had been ongoing for decades and any analysis which ignores the massive systematic problems is an awful one.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/unsc_res1737-2006.pdf
This was being dragged along since 2006. Iran failed to face the demands the IAEA set forth as a part of the NPT. This is true since they signed the NPT - "they're granted the unalienable right to pursue peaceful domestic nuclear energy and build up their capacity for this", however the IAEA had brought concerns about their nuclear program and its nature since 2006. This lead them to demand Iran to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and cooperate with the IAEA. This means that your claim doesn't hold up.

It's been going on for much longer. Much longer than that.

Iran opened itself up to international inspection and regulation about a decade back. Before that they were involved in research which broke the NPT.

All the sanctions and efforts to curb Iran are justified on decades old actions as well as the fact that they won't agree to unilateral UN demands which it is only able to make because of the breaches from over a decade ago. Since they've opened themself up to IAEA inspection they've essentially passed every inspection with flying colours.

The only two points of contention are

a) A minor wrangle of how early they should have notified the IAEA before once facility opened up. Iran informed the IAEA 6 months before it went operational but the IAEA says it should have been earlier and there's merit to both sides as to who is technically right, but the long and shot of it is it' been inspected and confirmed as a legitimate peaceful site it's just a case of bureaucratic wrongdoing rather than anything legitimately dangerous.

b) That the UN security council basically gave itself unlimited unilateral power to punish Iran and set any new conditions they want for as long as they want because of Iran's NPT breaches from over a decade ago, nevermind their clean record since then. This is something that pretty much no nation would agree to and which Iran hasn't, hence why the focus should be on a bilateral agreement which allows Iran energy security while also putting even more comprehensive inspections in place to assure the western world that there's no possible chance anything untoward is happening, which is what's being pushed for by many academics, neutral nations and Iran itself.

Notsomuch:

TheIronRuler:
I'm calling it now. The USA is making a foreign policy shift headed by President Barak Obama. The recent pick of Chuck Hagel to be Defense Secretary cemented my concerns. If you know me, you already know what I think of this. Let me elaborate - The USA is slowly walking away from having Israel as its ally in the middle east and moving towards strengthening its relationship with other regional nations to compensate for that. This move is lead by the idea that the middle-east problem - where the USA is demonized and hated is caused by two things:
1. George Bush administration and its foreign policy
2. The Israel-Palestinian conflict
The first is simply the idea that the last president behind Obama had left the USA's foreign policy in such a mess that now they have to pick up the pieces and build it from scratch. The second is the understanding that the reason why the Arab (and by proxy, the Muslim) world hates the USA is because of its close relationship with Israel and its support for their actions.

Before you jump at me, I will answer your question - "hold on a minute, then why is President Obama considering to prolong USA presence in current war-zones?", and "But president Obama had been green-lighting practices such as drone strikes in other foreign countries, leading the US army to hitting, injuring and killing civilians". How is that different? The ruler only knows what his advisers are telling him. Right now if the USA removes its presence from these zones there is a risk of the groups that were fighting the USA to fill the void. The local forces backed and sometimes trained by the USA could not face against these forces. The sad fact here is that the USA had created much of the movement against it in the first place, and if it leaves the area they will take control.

The USA president had distanced himself from Israel in recent years. The only force pulling him away from what he wants to preform is the USA's congress that has a strong pro-Israel sentiment. The president had pushed on Israel many times to concede (The ten months Judea&Sumeria settlement freeze), had let it suffer a diplomatic beating on the world stage (The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza) and set a precedent that hurts Israel when it comes to the negotiating table with Palestinian leadership ('49 armistice borders + land swaps being the point from which negotiations will start).

What I see here is the future change of US politics towards the Arab and Muslim world. I believe that the USA is now pressuring Israel to concede to their own "peace plan", a plan to impose upon Israel. Treating Iran's nuclear capabilities via sanctions haven't stopped - and probably won't stop Iran from reaching the capacity for nuclear weapons. Since the USA has the capability to destroy these facilities, the US leadership can demand concessions from Israel that would not have been made otherwise. This US leadership headed by President Barak Obama had been the most pro-Palestinian US leadership I can imagine since 1967 (hmm... maybe Carter and his apartheid can challenge Obama for the title).

Other examples to the way the USA treats the Arab and Muslim world are the anti-American protests that erupted seemingly out of nowhere in response for a 'film that depicts the Muslim Prophet Muhammad badly' (The film 'Innocence of Muslims'). This is, in fact, a farce. It was used as a smoke-screen while a series of coordinated attacks on US embassies in several Arab Muslim countries occurred in 11th of September, 9.11. . The shock-waves that happened across the Muslim world following this anti-American sentiment are a result of religious and political figures seizing the day for their own advantage (using the video as a reason for attacking the USA), and the second shock-wave of protests was as a reaction to those original and second protests. Many people were killed.
The USA leadership blamed a film. The president apologized for said film to try and calm spirits. The official reactions of the USA leadership to this included condemnations and empty words.

Am I the only one seeing a pattern here? and... Am I the only one who asks "Am I the only one..." on the internet? (Yes, it was a joke. A preemptive one).

I wish this were true but you are wrong on almost all accounts. Obama's administration has been the friendliest to Israel in the countries short history. They have offered the most funding, the most assistance in the form of military aid and technology transfers and, despite what they say to appease the left, have had a pro-Israel voting record in the UN of more than 90%. The few examples of the Administration criticizing Israel are areas where the issues are far to Right leaning to reasonably support and in those cases and all others, the Admin's actions run counter to all criticisms they've ever leveled on the Israeli government.

It's particularly interesting that the best criticism I could find is when Obama actually makes fair statements condemning the Israeli's habit of loading negotiations with conditions favorable only to them and when he talks about the settlements maybe not being a good idea. Even in those cases, like all others, he is pretty much just talking a big talk to appease the left, since he hasn't taken much action to support his claims and everything the administration has done in the dispute between the Palestinians and Israeli's is very Pro-Israel.

It's no coincidence that every piece calling Obama 'the worst for Israel' is from a far right conservative. They are criticizing him for being a 'Liberal' candidate and having to say moderate things to appeal to his base while ignoring his administrations track record. The people who are criticizing Obama for not being Pro-Israel enough generally think that unless you are mercilessly fellating the Israeli government while denouncing everyone else entirely you are not pro-Israel enough. It seems every time the Israeli government get's just a little crazier or more right wing in foreign policy, people think it poignant to point out that the Democratic president is a little hesitant to say he follows while forgetting to point out that he's doing everything in his power to keep the aid flowing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/the-truth-about-obama-and-israel.html?_r=0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/08/emergency-committee-israel/pro-israel-groups-ad-depicts-obama-hagel-iran/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obamas-cynicism-on-israel_b_2217621.html

.
Did you read my sources?

It seems like you are not familiar with Israeli politics or you are looking at it through a strange looking glass. You're basically saying that it is Israel's fault and its "right wing" government for its actions and that the USA could not be dragged further to the right. However that is wrong.

You brought me three articles. This will take a while.

First this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/the-truth-about-obama-and-israel.html?_r=0

First claim is military aid and the iron dome program. The iron dome program was signed and financed under Bush. Obama inherited that program. He is not responsible for it, the budget had already been passed. Same goes for the military aid the USA gives to Israel.

Second compares Bush's reaction to Israel's settlement policy to Obama's. I don't understand - the difference being is that Bush threatened overtly, while Obama was not heard on the record threatening Israel?

Third is talking about how Israel's minister of Defense said nice things about the cooperation between Israel and the USA. Why would he say otherwise? This is no real indication of reality.

Fourth is about Israel and the USA supposedly cooperating on the computer virus. Erm... what does the President have to do with it?

Fifth is repeating itself. Again they compare Obama to Bush... Iran wasn't Israel "greatest threat to existence". That's just hype. The gulf war happened, it wasn't a concentrated effort to make the world look away from Iran, which is Iraq's neighbor. The sanctions made on Iran by the USA government were suggested and made by its congress. The Europeans spearheaded the sanctions against Iran, not the other way around.

Sixth, the USA had naval forces in the straights of Hormuz since... ever. Obama wasn't the first to put naval forces there and he won't be the last, it's one of the most important oil sea port access in the world. "all options on the table" meaning that they will stretch this facade out.

Seventh, it's again having an argument by showing that Obama told Israel's PM that "They[the USA] always have their back". Grand. What did the UK and France tell Czechoslovakia in the Munich summit?

Eighth, this is a joke now. The USA did veto the resolution against the settlements but afterwards had its representative make a speech about how evil and illegal it is in the UN security council. It was a bad joke.

Bad article.
.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/08/emergency-committee-israel/pro-israel-groups-ad-depicts-obama-hagel-iran/

Hagel would lean towards more isolationism than ever, but when it comes down to the USA it's just bringing the aggression in the world stage two notches. He did not vote on the Iran sanctions. Obama's words are just... words. His opinions didn't change. He is still a staunch opposition to a military operation in Iran. He's open for "talks". huzzah.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obamas-cynicism-on-israel_b_2217621.html
This is just... bah. An opinion piece.

Right, I'm done. Why don't you go to my sources and debunk them?

Overhead:

TheIronRuler:

I didn't mention the reasons for much of the region's dislike or hatred of the USA, I only talked about one reason that sparked this wave of protests and was relevant to the idea I tried to convey. I wanted to talk about how the USA responded to these, and not the shady dealings and borderline crimes it committed there.

That's correct in the same way that saying the Arab Spring was caused by a guy setting himself on fire. Yes, that was the immediate spark, but it wouldn't have meant jack without all the systematic oppression and lack of democracy that had been ongoing for decades and any analysis which ignores the massive systematic problems is an awful one.

Why the hell do you continue with this argument? Are you trying to make me small? Your comparison doesn't hold up. I did not want to write a four paragraph summary of the reasons why this outbreak of protests happened. Furthermore, the protests weren't just in the Arab world or where the USA had done all of those actions. Protests in other countries by Muslims were made as well, and they weren't caused by those. So please spare me your ink, I don't want to hear it anymore.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/unsc_res1737-2006.pdf
This was being dragged along since 2006. Iran failed to face the demands the IAEA set forth as a part of the NPT. This is true since they signed the NPT - "they're granted the unalienable right to pursue peaceful domestic nuclear energy and build up their capacity for this", however the IAEA had brought concerns about their nuclear program and its nature since 2006. This lead them to demand Iran to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and cooperate with the IAEA. This means that your claim doesn't hold up.

It's been going on for much longer. Much longer than that.

Iran opened itself up to international inspection and regulation about a decade back. Before that they were involved in research which broke the NPT.

All the sanctions and efforts to curb Iran are justified on decades old actions as well as the fact that they won't agree to unilateral UN demands which it is only able to make because of the breaches from over a decade ago. Since they've opened themself up to IAEA inspection they've essentially passed every inspection with flying colours.

The only two points of contention are

a) A minor wrangle of how early they should have notified the IAEA before once facility opened up. Iran informed the IAEA 6 months before it went operational but the IAEA says it should have been earlier and there's merit to both sides as to who is technically right, but the long and shot of it is it' been inspected and confirmed as a legitimate peaceful site it's just a case of bureaucratic wrongdoing rather than anything legitimately dangerous.

b) That the UN security council basically gave itself unlimited unilateral power to punish Iran and set any new conditions they want for as long as they want because of Iran's NPT breaches from over a decade ago, nevermind their clean record since then. This is something that pretty much no nation would agree to and which Iran hasn't, hence why the focus should be on a bilateral agreement which allows Iran energy security while also putting even more comprehensive inspections in place to assure the western world that there's no possible chance anything untoward is happening, which is what's being pushed for by many academics, neutral nations and Iran itself.

.
The first... was in 2002, I think. They changed the clause for when the construction of installations is to be reported to the IAEA. Iran only signed it after it was publicly revealed that it was working on two sites.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-83.pdf
They later suspended that.

• Deeply regretted that the implementation of Iranian voluntary decisions to suspend enrichmentrelated and reprocessing activities, notified to the Agency on 29 December 2003 and
24 February 2004, fell significantly short of the Agency's understanding of the scope of those
commitments and also that Iran had since reversed some of those decisions; stressed that such
suspension would provide the Board with additional confidence in Iran's future activities; and
considered it necessary, to promote confidence, that Iran immediately suspend all enrichment
related activities, including the manufacture or import of centrifuge components, the assembly
and testing of centrifuges and the production of feed material, including through tests or
production at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF), under Agency verification so that this
could be confirmed in the reports requested by the Board in paragraphs 7 and 8 of resolution
GOV/2004/79;

Oh wait a minute, what is this? This "wrangle" occurred in 2003... yet there were more breaches the IAEA saw. Later in 2005 Iran suspended the voluntary agreement they signed with the IAEA concerning said "wrangle".

An agreement was supposed to be reached between Iran and Germany,France,Britain concerning Iran's nuclear research and development. It never came into fruition. After Mahmoud Ahmedinajad was elected you had this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/08/energy.iran

Iran suspended its nuclear enrichment programme in November and began talks with the EU - represented by Britain, France and Germany - aimed at convincing Iran to use imported low-enriched nuclear fuel for its reactors instead.

But reopening the plant means the European negotiating group, known as the EU3, could refer Iran to the UN for possible sanctions.

On Saturday, they called an emergency meeting of the IAEA to try to find a solution to the escalating situation over Iran's nuclear ambitions. The IAEA board will meet in Vienna tomorrow.

The call for an emergency session came the day after the Europeans offered Tehran a package of proposals including trade, political, security and nuclear benefits if Iran agrees to abandon the programme for good.

The package reportedly pledges long-term supplies of nuclear technology, reactors and fuel for a civil nuclear programme. It also vows no military strikes against Iranian targets if Tehran accepts the proposals.

But Iran delivered its formal rejection of the package today, saying it was unacceptable as it denies Iran the right to produce its own nuclear fuel. "The EU proposal was very insulting and humiliating," said Mr Saeedi.

EU officials refused to comment on the possible outcome of tomorrow's meeting, but Iran has been warned several times that it would risk UN sanctions if it rejected the EU proposals.

"We are not going to speculate on the outcome of that meeting," said a Foreign Office spokesman. "However, our position is well known. Were Iran to resume any part of uranium enrichment activity, including at Isfahan, this would be a breach of the Paris agreement signed in 2004."

The Isfahan facility converts raw uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride gas, which can then be used to enrich uranium. Enriched uranium is used in nuclear power plants, or can be further enriched to weapons-grade material.

The Europeans and Washington doubt Iran's claims that it wants to enrich uranium as fuel for nuclear power stations to meet its booming electricity demand, and suspect it of wanting to continue the enrichment process in an effort to produce a nuclear bomb.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf

(e) Recalling also that, as deplored by the Board in its resolution GOV/2003/81, Iran's policy
of concealment has resulted in many breaches of its obligation to comply with its Safeguards
Agreement,
...
(h) Uncertain of Iran's motives in failing to make important declarations over an extended
period of time and in pursuing a policy of concealment up to October 2003,
...
(i) Concerned by continuing gaps in the Agency's understanding of proliferation sensitive
aspects of Iran's nuclear programme,
...
(k) Deploring the fact that Iran has to date failed to heed the call by the Board in its resolution
of 11 August 2005 to re-establish full suspension of all enrichment related activities including
the production of feed material, including through tests or production at the Uranium
Conversion Facility,
...
(l) Also concerned that Iran has to date failed to heed repeated calls to ratify the Additional
Protocol and to reconsider its decision to construct a research reactor moderated by heavy water,
as these measures would have helped build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of
Iran's nuclear programme,
...
1. Finds that Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards
Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of
the Agency's Statute;
...
5. Calls on Iran to observe fully its commitments and to return to the negotiating process that has
made good progress in the last two years;
...

.
Later IAEA's board of governors votes on the issue, and pushed this to the UN, where the sanctions began (from 2006, the first link I gave you).

TheIronRuler:

Why the hell do you continue with this argument? Are you trying to make me small? Your comparison doesn't hold up. I did not want to write a four paragraph summary of the reasons why this outbreak of protests happened. Furthermore, the protests weren't just in the Arab world or where the USA had done all of those actions. Protests in other countries by Muslims were made as well, and they weren't caused by those. So please spare me your ink, I don't want to hear it anymore.

No, you didn't write a four paragraph summary of the reasons. You framed the protests as a farce and a smokescreen. This is clearly wrong. Even if we assumed that in the countries where there were attacks protesters are some homogeneous mass who all came there for the same reason, to obscure attacks on America (Which is unbeleivably wrong), the fact is that more countries had protests and no violence then had protests and violence.

Your point doesn't hold up and I'm bringing that up. Seriously, what did you expect? This is R+P, discussion, debate and disagreement is what happens. if you don't want to continue talking about this topic then I can't force you to, but I maintain that the protests being a smokescreen is inaccurate for reasons of of common sense (Thousands of people all had exactly the same reason for being behind the protests?) and basic evidence (You say the protests were to obscure violence, but entire countries had many protests and no violence). Perhaps you didn't mean for it to be interpreted the way I'm interpreting it, in which case it's not as bad but still pretty bad. Presumably you'd just be pushing being a cover for extremism as the main reason rather than the sole reason for the protests because...???

The first... was in 2002, I think. They changed the clause for when the construction of installations is to be reported to the IAEA. Iran only signed it after it was publicly revealed that it was working on two sites.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-83.pdf
They later suspended that.

The construction of nuclear sites is part of the unregulated activity which took place over a decade ago that I was referring to.

The decade of commitment to the duties set forth in the NPA (but not the UNSC's unilateral demands) started from then onwards, with the technical breach being Fordow which it informed the IAEA of it's construction in September 2009, more than 6 months before it would come online.

At this point we are then meant to argue about whether Iran was in the wrong here.

You, as the attacker of the Iranian nuclear programme, are meant to point out how in 2003 an agreement was put in force which superceded the 6 month limit and meant that they should have given notice of construction as soon as construction started even if that was years before it was due to be complete.

I, as the defender, point out that this change, which required Iranian consent, was brought forward by the IAEA and accepted in principle by Iran but never passed through the Iranian parliament and accepted by force of law and so has never applied seeing as it's a completely voluntary arangement.

You then point out that usually these kinds of changes would not require parliamentary approval, the relevant government body would just agree to them and they would be fully implemented without legislative consent so Iran is obviously making excuses.

I bring up how each nation has their own framework for handling decisions with multinational bodies like the IAEA and if they want to make sure things are passed through their parliament before being put in force, they're able to do so. I'd also point out that Iran is obviously not a typical case of IAEA regulation, it's much higher profile and the parliament has a fair history of involvement and standing behind Iran's domestic nuclear energy program because it considers it a point of national pride. I would also point out that it would be foolish of them to agree reveal nuclear sites while they're especially vulnerable during early construction when Israel has been threatening to bomb Iran's nuclear sites pretty much ever since the revolution.

We would then bicker back and forth to no real conclusion because the information provided on Iran's parliamentry sessions and discussions is patchy at best so there's no way to reference (as far as I know) if this ever was brought up in Iran's parliament and what was said without being in Iran itself and requesting the documents in person from the relevent government buraeu.

Hopefully we can skip all that by pointing out that with Fordow, when they voluntarily revealed it (whether or not you believe it was in the correct timeframe) it was then fully inspected before any enrichment activity took place and has been monitored since according to the IAEA protocols and has been found to be perfectly fine. If you really really insist you can claim they breached an agreement. You can't really claim that the breach mattered or actually caused any problems through.

The same is the case with the two facilities that there was the controversy about more than a decade ago. There wasn't even a real problem with the IAEA not being informed as everyone freely admits that the 6 month deadline was the one in force then for iran, but even if there were the inspectors have been in, set up all the standard safeguarding systems (Inspections, seals, cameras, etc) and has found they're fine and only for domestic nuclear energy.

Like I said, a purely bureaucratic wrangle with no actual importance.

• Deeply regretted that the implementation of Iranian voluntary decisions to suspend enrichmentrelated and reprocessing activities, notified to the Agency on 29 December 2003 and
24 February 2004, fell significantly short of the Agency's understanding of the scope of those
commitments and also that Iran had since reversed some of those decisions; stressed that such
suspension would provide the Board with additional confidence in Iran's future activities; and
considered it necessary, to promote confidence, that Iran immediately suspend all enrichment
related activities, including the manufacture or import of centrifuge components, the assembly
and testing of centrifuges and the production of feed material, including through tests or
production at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF), under Agency verification so that this
could be confirmed in the reports requested by the Board in paragraphs 7 and 8 of resolution
GOV/2004/79;

Oh wait a minute, what is this? This "wrangle" occurred in 2003... yet there were more breaches the IAEA saw. Later in 2005 Iran suspended the voluntary agreement they signed with the IAEA concerning said "wrangle".

An agreement was supposed to be reached between Iran and Germany,France,Britain concerning Iran's nuclear research and development. It never came into fruition. After Mahmoud Ahmedinajad was elected you had this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/08/energy.iran

You're missing out the word voluntary.

From 2003 to about 2005-2006ish Iran voluntarily submitted itself to higher obligations (The Additional protocols) than it legally needed to under the requirements of the NPA. For instance even though under the NPA the IAEA has no right to inspect military facilities, only nuclear ones, Iran still let inspectors onto military facilities.

It was a show of good faith (as well as trying not to get itself invaded seeing as around the time this started the USA was just invading Iraq) so that some kind of agreement could be formed. The USA's offer was for Iran to basically bind itself to these higher standards they were carrying out voluntarily permanently and institute even higher standards than those permanently and iran would lose the benefits of being an NPA signatory, even though those benefits are the only reason for them to involve themselves with meeting these standards. Obviously that is completely stupid and Iran rejected it out of hand as any sane nation would do.

An agreement was supposed to be reached between Iran and Germany,France,Britain concerning Iran's nuclear research and development. It never came into fruition. After Mahmoud Ahmedinajad was elected you had this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/08/energy.iran

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf

Later IAEA's board of governors votes on the issue, and pushed this to the UN, where the sanctions began (from 2006, the first link I gave you).

Yes, all of these are exactly what I was talking about in my post. I'm not sure where the dissent is meant to be.

Overhead:

TheIronRuler:

Why the hell do you continue with this argument? Are you trying to make me small? Your comparison doesn't hold up. I did not want to write a four paragraph summary of the reasons why this outbreak of protests happened. Furthermore, the protests weren't just in the Arab world or where the USA had done all of those actions. Protests in other countries by Muslims were made as well, and they weren't caused by those. So please spare me your ink, I don't want to hear it anymore.

No, you didn't write a four paragraph summary of the reasons. You framed the protests as a farce and a smokescreen. This is clearly wrong. Even if we assumed that in the countries where there were attacks protesters are some homogeneous mass who all came there for the same reason, to obscure attacks on America (Which is unbeleivably wrong), the fact is that more countries had protests and no violence then had protests and violence.

Your point doesn't hold up and I'm bringing that up. Seriously, what did you expect? This is R+P, discussion, debate and disagreement is what happens. if you don't want to continue talking about this topic then I can't force you to, but I maintain that the protests being a smokescreen is inaccurate for reasons of of common sense (Thousands of people all had exactly the same reason for being behind the protests?) and basic evidence (You say the protests were to obscure violence, but entire countries had many protests and no violence). Perhaps you didn't mean for it to be interpreted the way I'm interpreting it, in which case it's not as bad but still pretty bad. Presumably you'd just be pushing being a cover for extremism as the main reason rather than the sole reason for the protests because...???
-snip-

.
Did you read what I wrote in the OP?

I framed the first wave of protests - the ones made in September 11th in a few places as ones that were coordinated attacks, and that the reason for those protests being the film is a farce and a smokescreen. The same ones that stormed American embassies and killed local security and American citizens (and an American ambassador). I did not treat the other protests that followed it the same way. Here is the difference between what I wrote and what you read.

TheIronRuler:

.
Did you read my sources?

It seems like you are not familiar with Israeli politics or you are looking at it through a strange looking glass. You're basically saying that it is Israel's fault and its "right wing" government for its actions and that the USA could not be dragged further to the right. However that is wrong.

You brought me three articles. This will take a while.

They can be dragged. They just don't want to say that because they are a democratic party and are supposed to be liberal or in the least, moderate.

First this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/the-truth-about-obama-and-israel.html?_r=0

First claim is military aid and the iron dome program. The iron dome program was signed and financed under Bush. Obama inherited that program. He is not responsible for it, the budget had already been passed. Same goes for the military aid the USA gives to Israel.

That's just not true. Bush agreed with the pentagon in denying funding to Iron dome. They wanted Israel to use the Phalanx system that the united states had and thought it was unfeasible.

Second compares Bush's reaction to Israel's settlement policy to Obama's. I don't understand - the difference being is that Bush threatened overtly, while Obama was not heard on the record threatening Israel?

I don't know what you're asking since that sounds pretty simple. Were you going to insert a rebuttal here?

Third is talking about how Israel's minister of Defense said nice things about the cooperation between Israel and the USA. Why would he say otherwise? This is no real indication of reality.

That's just conjecture. The facts are on my side, in any case so there is a reason they are saying nice things. A better piece of conjecture would be that the state of the US political climate means Israel can say anything about Obama and he will likely cave, if they had anything to say.

Fourth is about Israel and the USA supposedly cooperating on the computer virus. Erm... what does the President have to do with it?

I get what your saying, I'll just keep this for later.

Fifth is repeating itself. Again they compare Obama to Bush... Iran wasn't Israel "greatest threat to existence". That's just hype. The gulf war happened, it wasn't a concentrated effort to make the world look away from Iran, which is Iraq's neighbor. The sanctions made on Iran by the USA government were suggested and made by its congress. The Europeans spearheaded the sanctions against Iran, not the other way around.

These things go through the president. He can block them if he doesn't like them or if he's the worst thing to happen to Israel.

Eighth, this is a joke now. The USA did veto the resolution against the settlements but afterwards had its representative make a speech about how evil and illegal it is in the UN security council. It was a bad joke.

Are you saying it's a joke that they said one thing and did another? because if you are saying that then I agree. They denounced Israel's settlements but supported them through their actions. That's pretty much what I've been saying and it seems like a pretty big win for the Settlements.

.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/08/emergency-committee-israel/pro-israel-groups-ad-depicts-obama-hagel-iran/

Hagel would lean towards more isolationism than ever, but when it comes down to the USA it's just bringing the aggression in the world stage two notches. He did not vote on the Iran sanctions. Obama's words are just... words. His opinions didn't change. He is still a staunch opposition to a military operation in Iran. He's open for "talks". huzzah.

Well yeah and his actions speak louder than anything which is my point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obamas-cynicism-on-israel_b_2217621.html
This is just... bah. An opinion piece.

Right, I'm done. Why don't you go to my sources and debunk them?

But... I'm glad you're done but your sources are also opinion pieces. This is silly, you're being silly.

TheIronRuler:
.

Esotera:

Whether it has something to do with the peace process or not is irrelevant - the point is that Israel is illegally seizing land and attempting to segregate a population. These actions are not justifiable and need to be denounced with more than just words by the international community, whilst continuing to support Israel's right to exist.

.
Ah, you're one of those people. I need to dig up my summary of this from one of the older threads where I explained this situation well, but not now... maybe later.

I'd be interested to hear any explanation, as I think that this is the majority view in the UK (that Israel's continuing settlements should not be supported). It'd also have to be a pretty damn good argument to change my mind, and not something like "they fired missiles at us first".

Notsomuch:

-snip-
But... I'm glad you're done but your sources are also opinion pieces. This is silly, you're being silly.

.
How is it an opinion piece? Did you even bother reading it or are you so entrenched in your opinion you won't budge?
.

Esotera:

TheIronRuler:
.

Esotera:

Whether it has something to do with the peace process or not is irrelevant - the point is that Israel is illegally seizing land and attempting to segregate a population. These actions are not justifiable and need to be denounced with more than just words by the international community, whilst continuing to support Israel's right to exist.

.
Ah, you're one of those people. I need to dig up my summary of this from one of the older threads where I explained this situation well, but not now... maybe later.

I'd be interested to hear any explanation, as I think that this is the majority view in the UK (that Israel's continuing settlements should not be supported). It'd also have to be a pretty damn good argument to change my mind, and not something like "they fired missiles at us first".

.
Oh, the missiles started in early 2000s. Major settlement activities were in the late 80s.
So do you want to hear where the practice came from and what it was originally intended to be, and how later it was used as a strategy to annex Jerusalem? The practice was lead by a specific public (of civilian settlements), driven by a sense of Patriotism and faith. *shrugs* In the 80s none of the zionist parties in Israel even dreamed of dividing the city, now it's somehow right wing. Times have changed. Oh, about that fourth Geneva convention clause, I was under the impression it applied to signatories, and the territories at the time had no such status... even now, it doesn't have it.

Funny to see someone seriously defending Iran. Now that takes some selective blindness and serious hypocrisy...

Aris Khandr:
And, of course, when the ruling power changed, all the people who were living there left and were replaced by others, right? The land and peoples may have been conquered throughout history, but the people remained. It was the people who fought with the British and French against the Ottomans. It was the people who sought independence after the Ottomans were defeated. And it was the people that were abused and repressed by European interference.

Well, the Palestinians as an ethnic unit didn't really form untill well into the 20th century. It was formulated as a result of pan-arabism. Before that, there weren't really any Palestinians, just various people who lived in the area formerly occupied by the Ottoman Empire, Jews and Muslims alike.

Pan-arabism is in many ways the middle-eastern cousin of fascism in that it emphasized forming a 'one people' who had to rule over a 'fatherland'. It was the same radical nationalism with more than a little racism thrown in. Only by then people started referring to themselves as Palestinians, and already then one of the main points of being Palestinian was not being Jewish, and more often than not, hating Jews. I mean, the first large scale anti-Jewish rioting that I'm aware of dates back to 1920, and you can bet there were tensions a long time before that.

Basically under British administratorship, Trans-Jordan already formed the seeds of the later conflict, and British anti-semitism didn't help either. It was only with the Second World War that stuff suddenly changed. Now suddenly Jews were the enemy of the enemy, and had been cruelly persecuted etc etc. And even then the British rulers of Trans-Jordan were quite content to let anti-semitic violence continue, and Britain even attempted to find excuses to join the Israeli War of Independance on the side of the Arabs if you look at a few affairs from those days.

So basically what happened in those days can be compared to things that happened in many European countries in those days. Like for instance Spain. People of various groups were pretty much living together, but the introduction of new political ideologies divided them and created a conflict.

Esotera:
Whether it has something to do with the peace process or not is irrelevant - the point is that Israel is illegally seizing land and attempting to segregate a population. These actions are not justifiable and need to be denounced with more than just words by the international community, whilst continuing to support Israel's right to exist.

Uh, those actions are both legal and normal. All treaties denouncing annexation of conquered lands speak exclusively about sovereign territory. Land that's part of a sovereign state. Any land outside that is fair game for anyone.
Heck, Iceland (picked for not having any connection to the place) could invade and annex the Gaza strip and according to those treaties, nothing would be wrong according to those treaties and conventions.
Also historically (Georgia, Tibet, etc) annexation and occupation is the accepted way that things work.

Of course you can still question conciously colonising areas also occupied by another hostile group, but in strict terms of legality, it's legal.
Then again, the settlements fall into two categories. One that's pretty much 'just happened to be there', or are a natural extension of urban growth of cities located on or near the border. And the settlements that are clearly meant to claim the West Bank. Ussually those are founded by the colonist movement too.

Gilo, just south of Jerusalem is an example of such a first category settlement. If you look at it, you'd see it's a few hundred metres from the outdated border and there's nothing in between that and the city. Is that a settlement, or just a suburb? With what I know about urban expansion I can't honestly say settlement.

I looked up another example of a 'settlement'. According the 1949 armistice line this village is a settlement. While as you can see, it's one street that's on the other side of the line, while the nearest Palestinian village (you can tell them apart by the chaotic street pattern) lies kilometres to the north.

And have a look at the Israeli village just to the east of what I linked. Is that a settlement?


It's all pretty ambiguous and confusing stuff.

Overhead:
Iran is not working towards creating nukes.

Wasn't the USA taken by surprise when India and Pakistan joined the nuclear weapons club?

I do think the USA is shifting is allegiances in the mid east. It doesn't matter what is right or wrong, but real politic. If Israel is going to be destroyed within the next 10 years, regardless of what the USA does, and I think it will, then the USA does need to get its ducks in a row. And I hope the good people of Israel have time to bug out, get the hell out of there to the safety of more welcoming peoples.

Gorfias:

Overhead:
Iran is not working towards creating nukes.

Wasn't the USA taken by surprise when India and Pakistan joined the nuclear weapons club?

I do think the USA is shifting is allegiances in the mid east. It doesn't matter what is right or wrong, but real politic. If Israel is going to be destroyed within the next 10 years, regardless of what the USA does, and I think it will, then the USA does need to get its ducks in a row.

I hope not, israel has nukes and nuclear submarines with captains who might like the idea of taking the rest of the world with them.

...Israel has the capability to destroy Iran's nuclear program and for some reason the US is pleading with them not to do it? That separates your statement from reality.

" Treating Iran's nuclear capabilities via sanctions haven't stopped - and probably won't stop Iran from reaching the capacity for nuclear weapons. Since the USA has the capability to destroy these facilities, the US leadership can demand concessions from Israel that would not have been made otherwise. "

Now do these economic sanctions have an effect on their Nuclear program? Yes, significantly so but that is just the obvious goal not the actually beneficial one. The Iranian people are tired of the sanctions and their effect on the economy and they'll take it out on ahmad versus pissing off the middle east by bombing them and basically inviting terrorists to use it as a recruiting tool.

I think what really pisses you off is that Obama is telling Israel he stands with... the rest of the world in their belief that Israel has to stop acting like a 3rd world dictatorship when it's a first world democracy with the ability to attack in ways dictatorships wish they could. In fact I think Israel's actions fit a lot with Kim Jung Il.

dmase:
...Israel has the capability to destroy Iran's nuclear program and for some reason the US is pleading with them not to do it? That separates your statement from reality.

" Treating Iran's nuclear capabilities via sanctions haven't stopped - and probably won't stop Iran from reaching the capacity for nuclear weapons. Since the USA has the capability to destroy these facilities, the US leadership can demand concessions from Israel that would not have been made otherwise. "

Now do these economic sanctions have an effect on their Nuclear program? Yes, significantly so but that is just the obvious goal not the actually beneficial one. The Iranian people are tired of the sanctions and their effect on the economy and they'll take it out on ahmad versus pissing off the middle east by bombing them and basically inviting terrorists to use it as a recruiting tool.

I think what really pisses you off is that Obama is telling Israel he stands with... the rest of the world in their belief that Israel has to stop acting like a 3rd world dictatorship when it's a first world democracy with the ability to attack in ways dictatorships wish they could. In fact I think Israel's actions fit a lot with Kim Jung Il.

.
You're saying that the (real) goal of the sanctions is a revolution from within caused by Iran's economic situation?
It's a good idea.

What pisses me off? Suddenly we made this personal somehow? I told you what I think about this in the OP and instead you disregard it, saying that I'm angry that the USA won't side with the Israeli government when it acts "like a 3rd world dictatorship". I'm always annoyed when people talk about how a country should have acted in retrospect, because they had 20-20 hindsight vision. Furthermore, I almost never see people compare these actions to other countries - for example, when I talked with people about Israel excursion into Gaza last year I offered them to compare the work of Israel's army to other armies. Saying that no civilian should have been harmed is being oblivious to the circumstances around this conflict. Being unable to compare how the IDF acted to other modern armies - and later the reactions that surrounded these operations is something people who are against Israel do. "Israel should have acted with more restraint" - But how much restraint is needed? How the hell do us civvies know that Israel's army is at fault here even before any investigations were made? It's the white phosphorous all over again. It's like when the Arab league appealed to the UN to condemn Israel for using munitions with diluted uranium saying it causes radiation poisoning when the actual research concerning this is inconclusive at best, while many other modern armies use such munitions. It's not about what's wrong or illegal or immoral, it's about what we can throw at Israel and its actions hoping something will stick. You don't even need to be right - the very accusation is enough to make people think, and they won't care when the verdict comes around because they already made up their mind. The damage to Israel's image had already been done. I condemn your opinion on this matter and think it is preposterous to compare Israel's actions with the ones of Kim Jung Il. This last sentence just shows how wrong you are in viewing this situation.
.

Gorfias:

Overhead:
Iran is not working towards creating nukes.

Wasn't the USA taken by surprise when India and Pakistan joined the nuclear weapons club?

I do think the USA is shifting is allegiances in the mid east. It doesn't matter what is right or wrong, but real politic. If Israel is going to be destroyed within the next 10 years, regardless of what the USA does, and I think it will, then the USA does need to get its ducks in a row. And I hope the good people of Israel have time to bug out, get the hell out of there to the safety of more welcoming peoples.

.
Can I just say that your doom-saying is seriously disturbing me?

TheIronRuler:

.
How is it an opinion piece? Did you even bother reading it or are you so entrenched in your opinion you won't budge?

Well, you see, it's a few short paragraphs without citations where she gives us an opinion. There aren't really any good points, just light jabs for things he's said, which as I've said before isn't very relevant when his actions are objectively pro-Israel and in no case has he ever been really 'anti-Israel'. I only really said that because substantively, the source you gave and the source you refused are the same. It is why you are being silly.

I'm not entrenched in my opinion, I've just had the luxury of coming into a debate on a side where it's extremely difficult to be wrong. I look up and I see everyone arguing about different things, when the only real question presented is 'Is Obama for Israel'. You might be getting really riled up by the other people because, in my effort to stay on topic, all I'm saying is that Obama has been acting in a way that shows he wants to keep a strong Israeli/American alliance going.

Notsomuch:

TheIronRuler:

.
How is it an opinion piece? Did you even bother reading it or are you so entrenched in your opinion you won't budge?

Well, you see, it's a few short paragraphs without citations where she gives us an opinion. There aren't really any good points, just light jabs for things he's said, which as I've said before isn't very relevant when his actions are objectively pro-Israel and in no case has he ever been really 'anti-Israel'. I only really said that because substantively, the source you gave and the source you refused are the same. It is why you are being silly.

I'm not entrenched in my opinion, I've just had the luxury of coming into a debate on a side where it's extremely difficult to be wrong. I look up and I see everyone arguing about different things, when the only real question presented is 'Is Obama for Israel'. You might be getting really riled up by the other people because, in my effort to stay on topic, all I'm saying is that Obama has been acting in a way that shows he wants to keep a strong Israeli/American alliance going.

.
Notice both links lead to the same place. that's because I'm a moron and I accidentally linked the same article twice.
This is the second one:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/03/obama-makes-the-case-of-an-isr.php
I fixed the OP too.

TheIronRuler:

You're saying that the (real) goal of the sanctions is a revolution from within caused by Iran's economic situation?
It's a good idea.

What pisses me off? Suddenly we made this personal somehow? I told you what I think about this in the OP and instead you disregard it, saying that I'm angry that the USA won't side with the Israeli government when it acts "like a 3rd world dictatorship". I'm always annoyed when people talk about how a country should have acted in retrospect, because they had 20-20 hindsight vision. Furthermore, I almost never see people compare these actions to other countries - for example, when I talked with people about Israel excursion into Gaza last year I offered them to compare the work of Israel's army to other armies. Saying that no civilian should have been harmed is being oblivious to the circumstances around this conflict. Being unable to compare how the IDF acted to other modern armies - and later the reactions that surrounded these operations is something people who are against Israel do. "Israel should have acted with more restraint" - But how much restraint is needed? How the hell do us civvies know that Israel's army is at fault here even before any investigations were made? It's the white phosphorous all over again. It's like when the Arab league appealed to the UN to condemn Israel for using munitions with diluted uranium saying it causes radiation poisoning when the actual research concerning this is inconclusive at best, while many other modern armies use such munitions. It's not about what's wrong or illegal or immoral, it's about what we can throw at Israel and its actions hoping something will stick. You don't even need to be right - the very accusation is enough to make people think, and they won't care when the verdict comes around because they already made up their mind. The damage to Israel's image had already been done. I condemn your opinion on this matter and think it is preposterous to compare Israel's actions with the ones of Kim Jung Il. This last sentence just shows how wrong you are in viewing this situation.

I posted that because I already know your general opinion on everything related to the middle east, it's kind of hard to avoid. Israel shouldn't have had an incursion into gaza I though on made the clear in every one of my posts every written on the subject. Overall is their wartime etiquette any worse than the US? I have no way of judging that but lets say no because that's not the point, the point is where do you wanna fight the battle? On the offensive going into people's homes? Uprooting families and turning an entire area into a ticking time bomb where a civilian massacre is bound to happen(I can't predict the future but everyone can predict what will happen when Israel makes a move, even Israel).

Also when I say acting like a dictatorship I mean completely ignoring the entire worlds sentiment of don't do that, the only difference is when we tell North Korea/Iran to not do that and they do it anyways we fucking put harsh sanctions on them. We don't even threaten Israel with reducing our contributions to their country and that's because Israel is a 1st world democracy with the backing of the west despite the west despising most of their actions.

Now your first thought and i want to say something you have plainly stated before is fine take your aid and go elsewhere Israel will be fine on it's own. If that is what your gonna say here is my response. We can't, our country can't threaten to take money away from you because we have an obligation of some kind to your country which we can't break unless we have 60% of our populace disagreeing with EVERYTHING Israel does. So you can fucking hate Obama for being the least pro-Israel president around but what does that do to your country? Absolutely fucking nothing, you get a wag of the finger along with roughly 3 billion in our money every year, along with preference in our private military industry, and the knowledge that if you where ever invaded if you didn't ground forces you'd get all the tech you needed to fight the aggressors. Obama knows he can't persuade your leaders to do anything except not act in a rash manner, if Obama was as bad as you made him out to be he would have withdrawn funding and denounced the state of Israel for NOT seeking peace.

Edit: look at gorifas's post, those are you supporters in America that aren't jewish.

dmase:

TheIronRuler:

You're saying that the (real) goal of the sanctions is a revolution from within caused by Iran's economic situation?
It's a good idea.

What pisses me off? Suddenly we made this personal somehow? I told you what I think about this in the OP and instead you disregard it, saying that I'm angry that the USA won't side with the Israeli government when it acts "like a 3rd world dictatorship". I'm always annoyed when people talk about how a country should have acted in retrospect, because they had 20-20 hindsight vision. Furthermore, I almost never see people compare these actions to other countries - for example, when I talked with people about Israel excursion into Gaza last year I offered them to compare the work of Israel's army to other armies. Saying that no civilian should have been harmed is being oblivious to the circumstances around this conflict. Being unable to compare how the IDF acted to other modern armies - and later the reactions that surrounded these operations is something people who are against Israel do. "Israel should have acted with more restraint" - But how much restraint is needed? How the hell do us civvies know that Israel's army is at fault here even before any investigations were made? It's the white phosphorous all over again. It's like when the Arab league appealed to the UN to condemn Israel for using munitions with diluted uranium saying it causes radiation poisoning when the actual research concerning this is inconclusive at best, while many other modern armies use such munitions. It's not about what's wrong or illegal or immoral, it's about what we can throw at Israel and its actions hoping something will stick. You don't even need to be right - the very accusation is enough to make people think, and they won't care when the verdict comes around because they already made up their mind. The damage to Israel's image had already been done. I condemn your opinion on this matter and think it is preposterous to compare Israel's actions with the ones of Kim Jung Il. This last sentence just shows how wrong you are in viewing this situation.

I posted that because I already know your general opinion on everything related to the middle east, it's kind of hard to avoid. Israel shouldn't have had an incursion into gaza I though on made the clear in every one of my posts every written on the subject. Overall is their wartime etiquette any worse than the US? I have no way of judging that but lets say no because that's not the point, the point is where do you wanna fight the battle? On the offensive going into people's homes? Uprooting families and turning an entire area into a ticking time bomb where a civilian massacre is bound to happen(I can't predict the future but everyone can predict what will happen when Israel makes a move, even Israel).

Also when I say acting like a dictatorship I mean completely ignoring the entire worlds sentiment of don't do that, the only difference is when we tell North Korea/Iran to not do that and they do it anyways we fucking put harsh sanctions on them. We don't even threaten Israel with reducing our contributions to their country and that's because Israel is a 1st world democracy with the backing of the west despite the west despising most of their actions.

Now your first thought and i want to say something you have plainly stated before is fine take your aid and go elsewhere Israel will be fine on it's own. If that is what your gonna say here is my response. We can't, our country can't threaten to take money away from you because we have an obligation of some kind to your country which we can't break unless we have 60% of our populace disagreeing with EVERYTHING Israel does. So you can fucking hate Obama for being the least pro-Israel president around but what does that do to your country? Absolutely fucking nothing, you get a wag of the finger along with roughly 3 billion in our money every year, along with preference in our private military industry, and the knowledge that if you where ever invaded if you didn't ground forces you'd get all the tech you needed to fight the aggressors. Obama knows he can't persuade your leaders to do anything except not act in a rash manner, if Obama was as bad as you made him out to be he would have withdrawn funding and denounced the state of Israel for NOT seeking peace.

Edit: look at gorifas's post, those are you supporters in America that aren't jewish.

.
"the point is where do you wanna fight the battle? On the offensive going into people's homes? Uprooting families and turning an entire area into a ticking time bomb where a civilian massacre is bound to happen(I can't predict the future but everyone can predict what will happen when Israel makes a move, even Israel)."
-I can say a similar thing about Palestinian rockets targeting Israeli targets and other, now less common, attacks on the Israeli population. Notice that you have appealed to emotion here, your argument is "But I know that the fight shouldn't have been brought to the streets of cities full of people where a mistake is just bound to happen and people will be kiled". The fight had already been brought to the streets long ago. Both the streets of the cities in Gaza Strip and the cities of Israel. This had just been on a much larger scale. Bombings and assassinations occur on the Palestinian side while Bombings and incursions occur on the Israeli side. This have been a war ever since early 2000s when the formal form of attack was a suicide bomber in a bus or a cafe.

How is "the world" one unit now, united together against Israel and its HMDs (Houses of Mass Destruction)?

"Now your first thought and i want to say something you have plainly stated before is fine take your aid and go elsewhere Israel will be fine on it's own." - Err... no? I can't remember saying that. Did I say that?
I don't hate Obama, I fear his future actions. I see this change in the USA's foreign policy and this is what I have been talking about in the OP. Did you address that in your reply? I hate it when this always moves away from the actual topic at hand and goes elsewhere.

Please lets get back on topic or move it to PMs.

TheIronRuler:
snipped

None of that was off topic considering you expressly brought it up in the OP, you on the other hand insist on bring up specific instances like I'm going to argue about what happened during rocket attacks or gaza incursions even though I said It's irrelevant to my point.

And the Israeli state's action do play an important part in this discussion. If you don't understand that then I see where the fundamental problem is here. If Israel acts in a way that the entire world including our current US president sees as harmful to peace in the middle east how can you expect america to stand with you.

Of course that's just my opinion and musings on the situation because it is completely devoid of reality.(yeah I'm saying that about my own words) The US will not do anything to disrupt Israel's goals including giving money to you and promising military aid if Israel was ever invaded. So Obama saying he disagrees with Israel's actions and is talking with head Israeli officials about not doing this or that how is that acting against Israel.

" don't hate Obama, I fear his future actions. I see this change in the USA's foreign policy and this is what I have been talking about in the OP. Did you address that in your reply? I hate it when this always moves away from the actual topic at hand and goes elsewhere."-iron ruler

Yes, yes I did. By saying there would be no change in our foreign policy in regards to israel unless you think America not bombing Iran is such a severe problem. So to break this down you think there will be a change in US position in regards to Israel by the Obama administration, these can include withdrawing funding, denouncing Israel's actions, or perform some kind of action(that honestly I can't even imagine at the moment) to undermine Israel. And what I am saying is there is no indication that the previous three would ever happen, none at all, the recent gaza rocket incident would have been the perfect opportunity for the US to threaten Israel with with holding funding... that didn't happen, no where near it in fact.

So to repeat myself again and answer what should be a question in your op(since you didn't phrase it as a question) Obama will continue to wag hit finger at Israel when the country does things the world thinks are in appropriate but there will be no physical changes AT ALL between our relations.

dmase:

-snip-

.
Thanks of answering that.

I would like to note that the latest Gaza incursion had the backing of Israel's allies both from the USA and Europe. Why should they have condemned it when they allowed Israel to do it? Days before the attack Netanyahu met with dozens of foreign ambassadors and had calls with nation leaders talking about this and preparing them for this incursion. Israel's allies agreed with Israel that action had to be taken and they backed it up against Hamas. I don't understand what reality you're seeing or what condemnations should have been sent this time around. Furthermore, Israel was held on a leash. Its allies insisted that it could not do a ground invasion (Obama, for example), and so they reiterated to the world many times. This Gaza operation was green-lighted by Israel's allies as long as such a ground invasion will not happen, or perhaps the conditions set to allow it weren't met.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here