• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran

SquareMelon

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
248
Reaction score
147
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Had Yasser Arafat accepted President Clinton's bridging proposal, the Palestinians would have gained 97% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip. Israeli settlements would have been removed from the territory given to the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat did not.

Arafat did not accept the Clinton proposal as is but did not reject it. The PA wanted to negotiate more hoping for a better deal. After camp david, the negotiations continued in Taba. Israel offer was better than the one in camp david. The two parties were making progress. The negotiations stopped because of the Israeli elections and then Barak losing. Sharon, the newly elected PM stopped the negotiations and the process was halted.

In a May 17, 2002, NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF wrote: Is Arafat Capable Of Peace?

It is clear that in July 2000 at Camp David, Mr. Barak and President Clinton suggested a courageous, path-breaking peace plan permitting a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem. But, equally clearly, it still would have left the Palestinian state shorn of at least 9 percent of the West Bank, crippled by the loss of water and good land, and (even in the best version) nearly divided by an Israeli annexation running east from Jerusalem. It is reasonable to question whether it would have created a viable state. The notion that the failure of Camp David was completely Mr. Arafat's fault arose when President Clinton publicly said as much, partly in an effort to boost Mr. Barak's re-election prospects.

''The mistake was to put all the blame on Arafat, not only because he did not deserve it,'' said Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli negotiator. ''Maybe he deserved part and maybe it is true that the Palestinians did not initiate ideas, but it was a tactical mistake to put all the blame on one side.'

Talks continued at Taba, Egypt, and by all accounts made considerable progress. Mr. Ben-Ami says the Israelis even kept a helicopter standing by to rush the Palestinian negotiators to Gaza in case a deal was reached.

''Progress was made at the Taba talks,'' Mr. Arafat said this week, and he referred to the joint statement on Jan. 27, 2001, when the negotiations were suspended because of the imminent Israeli election. In the statement, the two sides declared that they ''have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged'' after the election. But (mostly because of Palestinian violence) Ariel Sharon won, and is unwilling even to consider such a deal.

But the common view in the West that Mr. Arafat flatly rejected a reasonable peace deal, and that it is thus pointless to attempt a strategy of negotiation, is a myth.

The Moratinos Document, outlined the progress and noted th position of both parties at the time.
IMRA - Thursday, February 14, 2002 Text: "Moratinos Document"- The peace that nearly was at Taba
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
First off, it was a general comment. I have heard many people break out the sovereignty argument when defending Israel. I have heard many of those same people defend the removal of the Iraqi government and occupation of Iraq. I find that to be rather ironic. These things are true whether or not you personally fall into the category.

Secondly, it's not that war isn't justifiable (this is a rather large leap in logic here as well. I don't think you really considered my words before jumping on the attack). It's that this particular one was not. To understand that base of what sovereignty is, one could not accept the Iraq war as justifiable. Iraq was a sovereign nation which in no way threatened the sovereignty of the United States. Thus, when we go in on an undeclared war and remove the government of a sovereign state; that is infringement of the sovereignty of that land. War is sometimes justifiable, and can be perfectly within the lines of sovereignty. But I think your little response there proved my point. Some don't take it for the whole of what it is. Rather they'll use the term and use sovereignty to defend some positions, but will conveniently sweep it under the rug for other arguments.

As for my head being on straight, it is. I know well the concepts of soveriegnty and argue on the side of it oft.

Its so cute when people toss out the word "sovereignty" left and right as though its some universal objective standard and is free from subjective interpretation. :lol:
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
85,142
Reaction score
54,719
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
What "things" are true? That "many people break out the sovereignty argument" and "many of those same people defend the removal of the Iraqi government and occupation of Iraq"?

Okay, no argument from me...all sorts of people say all sorts of things.

I just don't see the irony that you expressed qhen directly addressing my comment.

But I had clarified that it was a general comment. General comments are comments on trends, not any particular individual. That's why I said that those were true regardless of whether or not you personally fall into the category. I do find irony in people who try to use sovereignty as a defense in some situations and support in full the Iraq war.

Opinions vary, of course.

Of course. Though I think proper response is one in which is a response to threat against our own sovereignty.

In your opinion.

And in fact. They had nothing to do with 9/11. They had no capacity to hit the United States, nor did they demonstrate any desire to do so. The government itself was of no threat to the United States. And until it could actually threaten our soveriegnty, there is nothing we can rightfully do to threaten or infringe upon theirs.

That it was declared would have mattered at all I this analysis? Of course not. Congress authorized this war, period.[.quote]

The difference between declared was and undeclared war is huge. And I don't see anything else in the Constitution which enables the calling of military usage on foreign soil other than the ability to declare war which was given to Congress. Congress authorized it under a system which was never placed by We the People, it was placed by government itself. But there was a reason we put in restrictions and oversight, that wasn't supposed to be removed.

Any war constitutes an infringement of a nation's sovereignty. Whether it is declared or otherwise and whether the nation attacked constitutes a threat or otherwise. No matter the circumstances, the introduction of foreign troops over another's border constitutes a violation of sovereignty.

Just wars can be fought as response to one's own soveriegnty being threatened, infringed upon, or revoked. The stasis is that no one infringes upon the sovereignty of another, but once one does it is reasonable for those whom have incurred the infringement to fight off the aggressor.

Huh? Whether a war is justifiable is pointless relative to whether a nation's sovereignty has been violated. Despite a declaration of war, Japan's sovereignty was violated when the US bombed Japanese cities.

Which was a response to their infringement upon our own soveriegnty. See? Seriously, I wasn't masking anything here. This is a clear argument, you had to have known what I meant if you were reading and considering my words.

My "little" response? :roll:

What? You can make smarmy comments and it's ok, but I can't? Is that what you're really going to advocate here?

My response conveyed my point. That I believe that you can advocate strong control of your own borders as required by a nation's sovereignty and advocate for war in some instances. There is no irony.

Again, as stated before it was a general comment. One most certain can control one's own boarder. And if the sovereignty of the State is threatened, they can certainly make argument for war. It is when one tries to use this sovereignty argument to justify one but doesn't understand the reciprocal. You can't just run into any sovereign nation you want and overthrow the government; not justly. Sovereign means sovereign, Iraq was sovereign too. They were free to do as they liked, to control their boarders as well. So you have to have justification for removal of sovereign government. What was the justification in Iraq? How was our sovereignty threatened in any way? There was zero chance of Iraq being able to actually attack the US.

Citing a sovereign's obligation and responsibility for its borders has nothing to do with one's position justifying war.

Now, had I argued that a nation's borders are not to be violated under any circumstances then argued that the US has a right to violate those borders at will, you'd have a point.

As I said, general comment. It was well clarified last post. I don't know if you skip over sentences I write just so you can respond; but it's really right there. I said I find the sovereignty argument ironic for those whom whole heartily support the Iraq war. That is true. It has no consequence or bearing on you personally falling into the category. Get it?

If your head was on straight you wouldn't have attributed some bogus irony to my comments.

If you had read what I wrote, I doubt we would be having this current conversation.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I strongly believe Iran must not be permitted to develop or attain nuclear weapons. Such a development would fundamentally alter the region's balance of power and pose a mortal threat to vital U.S. allies and interests in the region.

That's not the key problem. Iranian nuclear weapons will spark Saudi Arabia to get nuclear weapons as well as the smaller states including Jordan not to mention Turkey. The problem of an arms racing starting because Iran has a weapon is a much, much bigger threat then Iran solely having a weapon. Imagine every country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons and unstable governments. It's Pakistan all over. Yikes.

Israel is a tiny country, so the threat posed by Iran would adversely impact Israel in a disproportionate fashion.

Except that Israel has an estimated 200 nukes. That's well more then what Iran could produce. And 200 nukes is way more then necessary to turn Iran into a giant radioactive glass sheet. Both of them are about equivalent in capacity to annihilate each other based on their relative disproportionate size.

In addition, Iran could use its nuclear umbrella to encourage increased terrorist activity by Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations, as well as to bolster radical political movements that could undermine the prospects for success from what diplomacy is currently taking place.

How so? To do that would require a first use policy and threats to use weapons. That directly places Iran in a mutual threat to its existence. Would Iran trade Tehran to increase Hamas's power? Not likely.

Other states would also be inclined to try to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.

That is the key problem.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's not the key problem. Iranian nuclear weapons will spark Saudi Arabia to get nuclear weapons as well as the smaller states including Jordan not to mention Turkey. The problem of an arms racing starting because Iran has a weapon is a much, much bigger threat then Iran solely having a weapon. Imagine every country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons and unstable governments. It's Pakistan all over. Yikes.
Suddenly a missile shield sounds like a good idea. Imagine that.

Obviously it won't stop the donkey-cart scenario. Nonetheless, bullet proof vests don't stop every type of weapon either, yet they are proven to increase ones survivability.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Suddenly a missile shield sounds like a good idea.

No, not really. Their missiles won't be flying at us. More likely at each other. Or being delivered some other way. Bombers are often how poor countries send their weapons.

Obviously it won't stop the donkey-cart scenario. Nonetheless, bullet proof vests don't stop every type of weapon either, yet they are proven to increase ones survivability.

One should invest in such protection when likely to face such a threat. Likewise, one would be foolish to spend that kind of money on a defense that is highly unlikely to be tested and leave the door open to the most likely method of attack. It's like putting in bullet proof glass in your house windows and leaving the front door wide open. Huh.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
No, not really. Their missiles won't be flying at us. More likely at each other. Or being delivered some other way. Bombers are often how poor countries send their weapons.



One should invest in such protection when likely to face such a threat. Likewise, one would be foolish to spend that kind of money on a defense that is highly unlikely to be tested and leave the door open to the most likely method of attack. It's like putting in bullet proof glass in your house windows and leaving the front door wide open. Huh.

We will leave it here and agree to disagree to avoid derailing the thread anymore than I have.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The issue is more of proliferation then actual delivery by states. No one was really worried about Pakistan attacking any of the first world. What people are scared pantless is that its weapons are going to be stolen by terrorists and used against the first world. Increasing the number of Middle Eastern regimes that have nukes is a surefire way to raise the staistical chance this will inevitably happen.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
The issue is more of proliferation then actual delivery by states. No one was really worried about Pakistan attacking any of the first world. What people are scared pantless is that its weapons are going to be stolen by terrorists and used against the first world. Increasing the number of Middle Eastern regimes that have nukes is a surefire way to raise the staistical chance this will inevitably happen.

I'd say proliferation is pretty bad too. It greatly increases the chance of use. Even if we are not the target, if a-bombs start getting tossed around it has great potential to royally **** our environment and ecosystem. If H-bombs start dropping things will be exponentially worse.
 

Richard Nixon

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
473
Reaction score
129
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You read them. Particularly the memoirs of Clinton, Madeline Albright, Dennis Ross etc. They all agree that Palestine squandered a golden opportunity.

No offence, but the US delegations are hardly ever unbiashed. Jewish society has a lot of control of the US electorate and the terms laid down have never EVER been balanced. US vetoes resolutions against Israel constantly. The actions of EU nations and THEIR memoirs are a more balanced report.

Egypt and the EU jointly administer the Rafah Crossing. Egypt unilaterally closed the border when Hamas seized power in Gaza. As a matter of fact, many Palestinians stranded in Egypt were granted conveyance through Israel to re-enter Gaza on the Israeli side.

When the EU monitors can get there. And they haven't 'unilaterally' closed it, as is shown by their opening of the border to allow people through.

I personally do not agree with the settlements.

But you agree with the occupation?

These are among the items being negotiated at the present. At this time, I think the only viable solution is a land swap.

They've been negotiated before. They're always being negotiated. They're NEVER followed. Israel would lose far too much in a land swap and it knows it.

As with any nation, Israel has every right to regulate the movement of people and material within and through Israel proper.

Not when that causes a humanitarian crisis like the blockade is now. Israel can't expect Palestinian support when it treats citizens as ratings on a checkpoint mechanism. And you can't really say their right to regulate 'their borders' when they aren't even theirs in the first place. They haven't respected the borders of the Arab world or their independence.

Rockets fired from Gaza struck Sderot the very day after the withdrawal.

I know. Both sides are as bad as each other, I just happen to support the Arab cause more, just not in its violent, illogical method it uses like, yes, like firing rockets into Sderot.

Last month, the government of Israel forbade any new settlement construction.

NEW settlements. It doesn't stop them expanding current ones. Peres used this tactic.

No additional settlement homes will be built in the West Bank. Israel has released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, but Cpl. Shavit still remains in captivity. With the mediation of Turkey, Israel and Syria are negotiating the Golan Heights. Israel and Abbas are and have been engaged in settlement negotiations.

And yet thousands of more uncharged political prisoners still rot in Israeli prisons. Some are tortured legally. And settlements will be built. It's always the case. There is talks, promises and agreements but both sides break the agreement.

Do you imagine it easy to untangle and resolve 60 years of strife and acrimony? This will take time and no doubt require concessions by both antagonists.

Not at all. I just think that one side had its land taken away wrongfully and were further abused, whilst the other has gained a nation as 'compensation', gained good land and more homes. There's a fundamentally unbalanced nature to these talks. According to UN resolutions and the majority of world opinion agree with me.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,230
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
No offence, but the US delegations are hardly ever unbiashed. Jewish society has a lot of control of the US electorate and the terms laid down have never EVER been balanced. US vetoes resolutions against Israel constantly. The actions of EU nations and THEIR memoirs are a more balanced report.
No offense, but both sides agreed on US mediation.

When the EU monitors can get there. And they haven't 'unilaterally' closed it, as is shown by their opening of the border to allow people through.
Are you denying that Egypt closed Rafah after the Hamas coup? Are you denying that Egypt repaired the barrier wall?

But you agree with the occupation?
Without a mutual comprehensive settlement and in view that rockets are still fired into Israel... yes. No nation would put up with that.

They've been negotiated before. They're always being negotiated. They're NEVER followed. Israel would lose far too much in a land swap and it knows it.
Some concessions on each side will be painful.

Not when that causes a humanitarian crisis like the blockade is now. Israel can't expect Palestinian support when it treats citizens as ratings on a checkpoint mechanism. And you can't really say their right to regulate 'their borders' when they aren't even theirs in the first place. They haven't respected the borders of the Arab world or their independence.
Elect a terrorist government... you reap the consequences.

I know. Both sides are as bad as each other, I just happen to support the Arab cause more, just not in its violent, illogical method it uses like, yes, like firing rockets into Sderot.
Neither side is squeeky clean. That would be unrealistic after 60 years of strife and acrimony.

NEW settlements. It doesn't stop them expanding current ones. Peres used this tactic.
As I always say, an agreement would settle this issue with finality.

And yet thousands of more uncharged political prisoners still rot in Israeli prisons. Some are tortured legally.
The Israel Supreme Court and the Israel High Court both forbade prisoner torture in 2000. Is prison nice? Nope. But no one is getting waterboarded.

And settlements will be built. It's always the case. There is talks, promises and agreements but both sides break the agreement.
I agree. It's a cycle that must be terminated.

Not at all. I just think that one side had its land taken away wrongfully and were further abused, whilst the other has gained a nation as 'compensation', gained good land and more homes.
UNSCOP came to the conclusion that a binational entity would not work. The UN then voted affirmatively on partition. The Palestinians certainly didn't help their cause by boycotting the UNSCOP fact-finding commission

There's a fundamentally unbalanced nature to these talks.
Of course the Palestinians are at a political/military disadvantage. But a good portion of this inferior position lays directly at the feet of Palestinian leadership. Their historical political misunderstandings and military blunders are quantum.

According to UN resolutions and the majority of world opinion agree with me.
Lol. You conveniently ignore the huge Arab/Muslim voting block in the UN. This amalgamation puts Israel - the only Jewish state in the world - at a distinct and gross disadvantage. World opinion? I would say the median opinion is that both peoples have been mutually aggressive and unilaterally unmovable.
 

Richard Nixon

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
473
Reaction score
129
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No offense, but both sides agreed on US mediation.

During the Oslo accords the Palestians weren't even given their own delegation. They were a sub-section of the Jordanians. It was only at Camp David - which failed - that talks took place and even then there was only Arafat, someone chosen to lead not by the Palestinian people but by Israel and the US. You only have to read the texts to know that it's heavily biased in favour of Israel.

Are you denying that Egypt closed Rafah after the Hamas coup? Are you denying that Egypt repaired the barrier wall?

Do you see me denying it? Are you denying that Egypt have opened the border to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza? Are you denying that when Hamas blew open the fence that Egypt let them flood through a lot longer than Israel thinks it should have?

Without a mutual comprehensive settlement and in view that rockets are still fired into Israel... yes. No nation would put up with that.

Were these rockets fired BEFORE the occupation? If I'm correct, I'm to believe that the first Palestinian militants came around wayyyy after the occupation.

Some concessions on each side will be painful.

Too true. The problem is that neither are willing to follow the principles set forward during the peace talks.

Elect a terrorist government... you reap the consequences.

The people voted them in. Democratic government. And I'd say Israel's stance towards the Palestinians is essentially a more powerful form of terrorism. Do we forget the massacare in Jenin or the bombing of a UN building which killed dozens of civilians in Southern-Lebanon? What about the sanctioned torture of people who are admittedly uncharged and thus innocent? Sure, Hamas are extremists to the teeth and ideally wouldn't be in power, but look at both sides of the story.

As I always say, an agreement would settle this issue with finality.

Here's hoping it isn't far off.

The Israel Supreme Court and the Israel High Court both forbade prisoner torture in 2000. Is prison nice? Nope. But no one is getting waterboarded.

They're still sanctioned to use 'moderate physical' and strong psychologial pressure which is, I believe, what they use to desctibe Guantanamo. Human Rights groups have been up in arms over this.

UNSCOP came to the conclusion that a binational entity would not work. The UN then voted affirmatively on partition. The Palestinians certainly didn't help their cause by boycotting the UNSCOP fact-finding commission

Why would they? It basically allocated a large portion of land to a minority of people who did little to deserve a state in the first place. And there was no clear world-opinion on a the partition plan. 40% of the UN either abstained or voted against the measure. That is not affirmative. This, to me, confers a lot of doubt. And, yes, they didn't help themselves by boycotting.

Of course the Palestinians are at a political/military disadvantage. But a good portion of this inferior position lays directly at the feet of Palestinian leadership. Their historical political misunderstandings and military blunders are quantum.

How can you have peace talks between two entities when one is considered of more worth than other? The Madrid talks weren't even respected enough to be followed through with and the most important peace talks in the process didn't even allow a uniquely Palestinian delegation.

Lol. You conveniently ignore the huge Arab/Muslim voting block in the UN. This amalgamation puts Israel - the only Jewish state in the world - at a distinct and gross disadvantage. World opinion? I would say the median opinion is that both peoples have been mutually aggressive and unilaterally unmovable.

Most of the resolutions passed against Israel have been signed, in the majority, by European nations. And according to UN resolutions it is Israel who has been most aggressive in its military and settlement policies. Nobody denies the abrasive attitude of the middle-east, either.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,230
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
During the Oslo accords the Palestians weren't even given their own delegation. They were a sub-section of the Jordanians. It was only at Camp David - which failed - that talks took place and even then there was only Arafat, someone chosen to lead not by the Palestinian people but by Israel and the US. You only have to read the texts to know that it's heavily biased in favour of Israel.
The US and Israel selected Arafat to lead the PLO? You can't possibly be serious :rofl

Do you see me denying it? Are you denying that Egypt have opened the border to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza? Are you denying that when Hamas blew open the fence that Egypt let them flood through a lot longer than Israel thinks it should have?
The point was - and as I explained to you - Israel does not control the Rafah border crossing.

Were these rockets fired BEFORE the occupation? If I'm correct, I'm to believe that the first Palestinian militants came around wayyyy after the occupation.
Rockets were even fired the day AFTER Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. That should tell you something.

The people voted them in. Democratic government. And I'd say Israel's stance towards the Palestinians is essentially a more powerful form of terrorism. Do we forget the massacare in Jenin or the bombing of a UN building which killed dozens of civilians in Southern-Lebanon? What about the sanctioned torture of people who are admittedly uncharged and thus innocent? Sure, Hamas are extremists to the teeth and ideally wouldn't be in power, but look at both sides of the story.
I do. I've always said that neither side is squeeky clean.

They're still sanctioned to use 'moderate physical' and strong psychologial pressure which is, I believe, what they use to desctibe Guantanamo. Human Rights groups have been up in arms over this.
I have no problem with the techniques now in use.

Why would they? It basically allocated a large portion of land to a minority of people who did little to deserve a state in the first place. And there was no clear world-opinion on a the partition plan. 40% of the UN either abstained or voted against the measure. That is not affirmative. This, to me, confers a lot of doubt. And, yes, they didn't help themselves by boycotting.
The UN voted positive for partition. There is no doubt on this whatsoever.
 
Top Bottom