Netanyahu Calls On World To Halt Iran's March Of Conquest And Terror

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Actually it broke down on the right of return. Arafat I suppose wanted to keep adding to his millions so had no real interest in a peace agreement..

I wouldn't take Dershovitzs word on it.

They've since dropped the demand for the right of return. For some strange reason, theres still no deal.

jank wrote: »

He should have followed the Irish example, swallow pride, accept partition, take an oath to the King in order to start running your own state..

This presumes honesty of intention on the Israeli side, something undermined by its constant expansion.

jank wrote: »

Unless you favour invading Israel or regime change in Israel, only they as in the Knesset voted in democratically by Israeli citizens can sign an agreement with the Palestinians. So yes, it is in their hands. Sorry but thats the way of it.

Sanctions, boycotts and whatever nessecary. If it was good enough to end apartheid, its good enough to end Israeli colonialism.

Just a little Samba

jank wrote: »

Iran are already a regional power but if they want to be reliant on energy exports then they may have missed the boat on that one with oil prices collapsing and will in the medium to short term anyway never be as high as they were according to most analysts.



Best thing Iran could do it get rid of their ruling clergy, open up the economy to market forces and liberalise the country socially. Stop killing gays would be a good start in that aspect.

Remember that time Iran had a democratically elected government being well run by a popular president. That was great, I wonder what happened to that...

Nice oil price graph all the same

You do realise that graph ignores current economic sanctions as well as the fact that Iran is sitting on 15% of the planets proven natural gas reserve, don't you?

Remove the sanctions (roll on June 30th) and add natural gas exports and the graph is now meaningless.

Whataboutery at it's absolute finest by the way, you're great at that.

Next.

Just a little Samba

Nodin wrote: »

Sanctions, boycotts and whatever nessecary. If it was good enough to end apartheid, its good enough to end Israeli colonialism.

I can see this being the straw that breaks the camels back to be honest.

I reckon we are potentially only months away from a large scale campaign of non-violent civil disobedience. If this happens and Israel react in their usual manner the PR war is over with them. They are already losing the support of young Jewish Americans on college campuses. The leader of their student lobby group and president of UCLA student union wrote a long open letter about his dismay at the election result and Bibi's comments about never allowing the creation of a Palestinian state in which he basically says the mask has slipped and himself and his companions can no longer blindly support Israeli actions.


But again, how about those nukes?

Just a little Samba

jank wrote: »

And again, in reference to the Middle East much bigger fish to fry than this issue.

Every. Single. One. of your posts comes down to this.

"WHAT ABOUT THEM AND THOSE GUYS?!?!"

No actual contribution just deflection, half truths and whataboutery.

Edgarfrndly

jank wrote: »

Ignore all the peace accords, Camp David and so on where Arafat walked out after being offered a state with 92% of the West Bank.

It would behoove you to actually study what occurred during the talks and why they failed. This is not what happened, not even remotely close. Jeremy Pressman wrote a great paper on this very topic, I would encourage you to read it.

The 91% claim is only valid if you agree with Israel's definition of Palestinian territory, and not objective international standards of what is accepted as Palestinian territory. Pressman comments on that very issue in his paper:

Jeremy Pressman wrote:

Three factors made Israel’s territorial offer less forthcoming than it initially appeared. First, the 91 percent land offer was based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, but this differs by approximately 5 percentage points from the Palestinian definition. Palestinians use a total area of 5,854 square kilometers. Israel, however, omits the area known as No Man’s Land (50 sq. km near Latrun),41 post-1967 East Jerusalem (71 sq. km), and the territorial waters of the Dead Sea (195 sq. km), which reduces the total to 5,538 sq. km. Thus, an Israeli offer of 91 percent (of 5,538 sq. km) of the West Bank translates into only 86 percent from the Palestinian perspective.

Second, at Camp David, key details related to the exchange of land were left unresolved. In principle, both Israel and the Palestinians agreed to land swaps whereby the Palestinians would get some territory from pre-1967 Israel in exchange for Israeli annexation of some land in the West Bank. In practice, Israel offered only the equivalent of 1 percent of the West Bank in exchange for its annexation of 9 percent.

There were many other issues at hand - like the quality of land the Palestinians would receive in the swap (which was not of comparable value to what they would give up in the West Bank).

No objective commentator would agree with the offer being given to the Palestinians as "fair".

jank

Nodin wrote: »

I wouldn't take Dershovitzs word on it.

They've since dropped the demand for the right of return. For some strange reason, theres still no deal.

Levin then, do you take his word on it? Anyway, the deal that was on the table is gone, that is the way with negotiations, which proves my point. They were offered a state but declined. If you don't take an offer then you can't cry about it later when you want it back. No one to blame there but the Palestinian leadership with their corrupt billions in swiss bank accounts.

Nodin wrote: »

This presumes honesty of intention on the Israeli side, something undermined by its constant expansion.

By all intents in purposes it was Arafat who reneged on the deal. You do not believe Bill Clinton so in this respect? You take the word of a corrupt terrorist who weaselled away 1 Billion for himself and his wife but do not believe Bill Clinton?

Nodin wrote: »

Sanctions, boycotts and whatever nessecary. If it was good enough to end apartheid, its good enough to end Israeli colonialism.

Whatever necessary? Lol, thats hilarious. I can see the placards already
"Invade Israel to end apartheid" right next to "Stop Western bombing of ISIS"
You could not make this up. You are free of course to organise support for this military action.

Ineffective boycotts is all you have got. If you want to be fair, you will need to boycott all that cheap Russian gas you get that keeps you warm in Winter and all those cheap Chinese goods you buy in shops.. fair is fair

However all said and done, I suppose killing all the Jews in Israel is one way to end apartheid. Whatever is necessary eh? How far would you go.

Nodin

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I can see this being the straw that breaks the camels back to be honest.

I reckon we are potentially only months away from a large scale campaign of non-violent civil disobedience. If this happens and Israel react in their usual manner the PR war is over with them. They are already losing the support of young Jewish Americans on college campuses. The leader of their student lobby group and president of UCLA student union wrote a long open letter about his dismay at the election result and Bibi's comments about never allowing the creation of a Palestinian state in which he basically says the mask has slipped and himself and his companions can no longer blindly support Israeli actions.


But again, how about those nukes?

I disagree with your timeline there, as I'd say its far too optimistic. Years left yet, but you can see the traction building.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

They've since dropped (..................)you go.

It's hard to answer that post, given its content. Suffice to say that Edgar has kindly dealt with your remarks on peace negotiations.

I find your hostility to sanctions and boycott somewhat strange.

Just a little Samba

Nodin wrote: »

I disagree with your timeline there, as I'd say its far too optimistic. Years left yet, but you can see the traction building.

I say potentially because I believe if Bibi ramps up settlement expansion and "outpost" building as well as moving more Palestinians out of Jerusalem, I could see the locals getting a little riled.


And with the Palestinian membership of the ICC coming into effect at the start of next month I expect to see the old collective punishment tactics being increased in the West Bank to "pay back" the Palestinians for having the "cheek" to use the law to their favour.

jank

Just a little Samba wrote: »

You do realise that graph ignores current economic sanctions as well as the fact that Iran is sitting on 15% of the planets proven natural gas reserve, don't you?

Remove the sanctions (roll on June 30th) and add natural gas exports and the graph is now meaningless.

Of course. Macro economic environments change all the time. I was just alluding to your false premise that oil and gas could be the sole saviour of Iran's economy by doing a Russia on it when in fact they will need a lot more than that given they missed the boat of high energy prices. Those prices won't be back for decades if ever if analysts are to be believed.

The Saudi's see the writing on the wall, hence their fight for market share of the oil market rather then keeping the price high. Shale oil and gas will keep a lid on prices.

As regards oil reserves, well Venezuela has more and their economy is in the toilet (bread queues anyone?) so its really meaningless in the short to medium term.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

It's hard to answer that post, given its content. Suffice to say that Edgar has kindly dealt with your remarks on peace negotiations.

I find your hostility to sanctions and boycott somewhat strange.

I find it hard to think you would support "whatever necessary" in order to achieve what you want. You therefore support a blank cheque including the use of invasion or regime change to achieve your aims? That will teach em'.

Sanctions are NEVER going to happen, I am just realistic in that respect.
On boycotts if you go down that road then you have a moral duty to be consistent and boycott all goods from Russia and China as well. Otherwise one is just being a hypocrite. Never-mind that you cannot use any device with an Intel chip or any VOIP technology among 1,000's of other goods.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

I find it hard to think you would support "whatever necessary" in order to achieve what you want. You therefore support a blank cheque including the use of invasion or regime change to achieve your aims? That will teach em'..

It was good enough to end other evil enterprises, so I've no objection per se.

jank wrote: »

Sanctions are NEVER going to happen, I am just realistic in that respect.
..............

It looked that way for a long time with Apartheid SA as well.

end of the road

jank wrote: »

This is not a dictation of domestic policy. Germany were still free to give asylum but would know that it could or would come at a cost. Dictating generally means, well dictating. What happened above (even if it did happen, post a link perhaps as I never heard that) is just strong arm diplomacy. If realpolitik offends you then you are in the wrong forum.

it was a round about way of saying "do what we want or else" that my friend is dictation

end of the road

jank wrote: »

Ah, so convenient. Ignore the 100 years history of the region where Jews just wanted to carve out a small state for itself, which has been opposed every single time and every single step by their Muslim neighbours and has been attacked twice.... Lets ignore that the Arabs ignored the 1947 UN declaration, the Balfour declaration etc...

Lets just ignore all that seeing as this is the root cause of why the Palestinians are stateless. Nevermind the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordon nor any other Muslim neighbours offered statehood to the Palestinians when they occupied the West Bank and Gaza respectively prior to 1967. Ignore all the peace accords, Camp David and so on where Arafat walked out after being offered a state with 92% of the West Bank



There are millions of Palestinians stateless and its all Israel's fault. Got it!



Ah, so now you want to talk history.... so which is it? Ignore the inconvenient history and pick and chose your version of events? Ignore everything from 1917 to 1967 and only concentrate only on 1967 onwards... Sorry but it doesn't work like that.

Again, they were offered a deal in 2000 and Arafat walked...
Didn't they find over $1 Billion in secret bank accounts belonging to Arafat? What a great guy!

If the Palestinians were offered that deal today, they would bite the hand of Bibi. This is what happens went you elect bad leaders to make decisions on your behalf. The upper echelons of the PLO will be OK, they have their corrupt millions to keep them going. I feel sorry for the average Palestinians.

The Israeli voters themselves hold the key to giving statehood to the Palestinians. That may not be fair in your eyes but nothing you can do can change that try as you might. It is funny though. The West Bank was never occupied when the Kingdom of Jordon occupied it. Now that Israel control it its 'occupied'.

And again, in reference to the Middle East much bigger fish to fry than this issue.

much bigger fish to fry then slaughtering raping pillaging and so on in the name of religion? got it. no, i'm afraid if this deal was offered today nobody would bite anyones hands off. its all the teritory stolen in 1967, thats what the palestinians are entitled to. removing israels power and leaving them out in the cold until they comply and go back within their borders and stop behaving like isis would get results. only the US could do it but they only care about themselves

end of the road

jank wrote: »

Actually it broke down on the right of return. Arafat I suppose wanted to keep adding to his millions so had no real interest in a peace agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Aftermath


He should have followed the Irish example, swallow pride, accept partition, take an oath to the King in order to start running your own state.



I addressed it. The Palestinians had many chances for a state of their own (see above) but each time dropped the ball. Now they have to live with the consequences until the Israeli voters trust them to deliver peace.

Unless you favour invading Israel or regime change in Israel, only they as in the Knesset voted in democratically by Israeli citizens can sign an agreement with the Palestinians. So yes, it is in their hands. Sorry but thats the way of it.

the palestinians can't offer any peace. only israel can do so by stopping the slaughtering raping stealing and pillaging of palestinian land. then there will be a chance for a deal which is israel going back inside their pre 1967 borders. if the US forced them to do that it would be even better but thats unlikely

end of the road

Just a little Samba wrote: »

But again, how about those nukes?

i know little about them, but surely there is some form of software in them? surely there is a form of remote access to set them off? if america could hack in and disable them some way then they can do nothing. of course thats rather science fiction and unlikely but its an interesting thought to ponder

jank

Nodin wrote: »

It was good enough to end other evil enterprises, so I've no objection per se.

Yet, I suppose you were against the invasion of Iraq in 2003. :roll eyes:
Would you support or not object to invading Iran or Saudi seeing of those regimes are far far worse than Israel?

Nodin wrote: »

It looked that way for a long time with Apartheid SA as well.

Completely different scenarios and region. It surprises me how naive people are with this, clinging onto false hope rather then look at objective facts. Somewhat religious if you ask me.

jank

End of the Road, you seem to be unfamiliar with the independant facts of the conflict so I will leave it there.

end of the road

jank wrote: »

End of the Road, you seem to be unfamiliar with the independant facts of the conflict so I will leave it there.

actually, i am very familiar with it all. but i'm not going to agree with you

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Yet, I suppose you were against the invasion of Iraq in 2003. :roll eyes:
Would you support or not object to invading Iran or Saudi seeing of those regimes are far far worse than Israel?.

Neither Iran or Saudi are colonising outside their borders. I supported the Iraq war of 1990.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Neither Iran or Saudi are colonising outside their borders. I supported the Iraq war of 1990.

So you conviently pick and choose, much like you pick and choose what rights people should or should not have based on your pre-existent bias.

Mod: see Janks post below

Ardillaun

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/netanyahu-enters-never-never-land/2015/03/05/2f279c3c-c372-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

Netanyahu can push Congress around all he likes - it's not going to affect the other nations in this deal. And if the US does scupper the deal, any resulting sanctions will be partial at best.

Ardillaun

Arnon Milchan attended Netanyahu's speech to Congress. This Arnon Milchan:

http://www.businessinsider.com/arnon-milchan-and-israels-nuke-program-2013-11

The evidence against him includes his own words. So, while the US was preaching non-proliferation around the world, it was playing down the illegal export of nuclear components. Normally, such a person would stay clear of the target country for the rest of his days but Milchan and Netanyahu, another suspect in this operation BTW and a US passport holder at the time, make no effort to hide their meetings in America. There's some sort of message being sent here and it's not a pretty one for Americans.

smurgen

Ardillaun wrote: »

Arnon Milchan attended Netanyahu's speech to Congress. This Arnon Milchan:

http://www.businessinsider.com/arnon-milchan-and-israels-nuke-program-2013-11

The evidence against him includes his own words. So, while the US was preaching non-proliferation around the world, it was playing down the illegal export of nuclear components. Normally, such a person would stay clear of the target country for the rest of his days but Milchan and Netanyahu, another suspect in this operation BTW and a US passport holder at the time, make no effort to hide their meetings in America. There's some sort of message being sent here and it's not a pretty one for Americans.

I don't understand why a bigger song and dance is being made of all of this.people ask why Israel is being singled out for so much attention but when you look at some of the stuff going on in public there never mind some of the shady details emerging it's very,very worrying.even people who have a hatred of America and Israel can see that the likes of nethanyathu are dangerous for Israeli and US citizens interest.the guy is a rogue leader from what I can see.he doesn't look diplomatic or reasonable. I'd dread to have to work with a guy like him in a professional setting.id say he's even more unreasonable than another lunatic like putin for example which is saying something.

BuilderPlumber

smurgen wrote: »

I don't understand why a bigger song and dance is being made of all of this.people ask why Israel is being singled out for so much attention but when you look at some of the stuff going on in public there never mind some of the shady details emerging it's very,very worrying.even people who have a hatred of America and Israel can see that the likes of nethanyathu are dangerous for Israeli and US citizens interest.the guy is a rogue leader from what I can see.he doesn't look diplomatic or reasonable. I'd dread to have to work with a guy like him in a professional setting.id say he's even more unreasonable than another lunatic like putin for example which is saying something.

Netanyahu and other 'rogue leaders' are a symptom of the cause which is undying support from a superpower (in this case, from the USA: he may have poor relations with Obama but he has strong supporters in the US who look after him).

Israel has been allowed to wage wars on weak enemies and often use fascist force. Imagine if this was done by ANY OTHER country outside of the superpowers? Look at what happened to Milosevic and his Bosnian Serb allies after their wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. Look at how Saddam became enemy no. 1 after he invaded Kuwait. Contrast this with treatment of Israel after it wages wars against Palestinians and Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah are deemed 'terrorist groups' whereas the KLA (Kosovo) 'freedom fighters'!!

With such treatment, guys like Netanyahu get bolder and bolder. He knows he can get away with things and starts pushing the boundaries. But his predecessor Olmert was no better. Why? Because he was once again above the law.

BuilderPlumber

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Remember that time Iran had a democratically elected government being well run by a popular president. That was great, I wonder what happened to that...

Nice oil price graph all the same

You do realise that graph ignores current economic sanctions as well as the fact that Iran is sitting on 15% of the planets proven natural gas reserve, don't you?

Remove the sanctions (roll on June 30th) and add natural gas exports and the graph is now meaningless.

Whataboutery at it's absolute finest by the way, you're great at that.

Next.

It cannot be denied that many countries in the Middle East have been very poorly governed. But I am well aware of why this is so!!

Looking at Iran: at present, Iran has a moderate and enlightened president and have many members of government who want to move things along. This was also the intention of Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mohammed Khatami and even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a weird way. Every time though someone like Bush or Netanyahu scuffled past moves by Iran to improve. The Mossadeq government was the same. Even the Shah by 1979. 1979 was then unsure but the Iran-Iraq war was engineered to keep both occupied.

Why? Because Iran has resources and could become a very rich superpower. The sanctions, constant threats, strategic interests of superpowers, etc. have all caused massive problems to Iran and have more often than not caused all the negative things we see and read about.

Ditto for all the others too. Basically, the West or other superpowers don't care as long as they get their oil and as long as none of them get even close to rivalling the powers that be!!

jank

jank wrote: »

So you conviently pick and choose, much like you pick and choose what rights people should or should not have based on your pre-existent bias.

I apologise to the poster in question (Nodin) for my accusation of bias and take it back. Apologises as well to the mods who are trying their best to create a minimum standard of debate in the main politics forum.

Playboy

jank wrote: »

Never-mind that you cannot use any device with an Intel chip or any VOIP technology among 1,000's of other goods.

You dont think companies like Intel would be quick to move operations out of Israel if there were targeted international sanctions? The BDS campaign is already causing some to revise their strategy in relation to Israel. Sanctions are the only thing that will force the hand of the Israeli government to negotiate.

BuilderPlumber

Icepick wrote: »

Bringing down the fascist religious regime in Tehran would be great new for most Iranians and the rest of the world.
Hopefully, after Khamenei dies, the revolution won't be brutally stopped.

I do think that Khamenei is becoming recognised as an obvious liability in Iran. Iranians I met always apologise about him and said he was an embarrassment to Iran. Unlike Hassan Rouhani and other educated people, Khamenei seems to remain inexperienced and shows poor judgement despite he being in power since 1981. He seems to be clueless, naive, stupid and consistently shows poor judgement.

Ahmadinejad was accused of this in his first few years as president but even he learned as he went along unlike Khamenei who still gets himself into hot water and causes problems.

To me, fellows like Khamenei wallow in alcohol (which he publically frowns on) all day while inspecting his camel farm where his robes are made. He pretends to be a learned priest and then gives an odd speech and then goes back to his debauched life while his people starve. The time has come for this guy to be gone. 1979's revolution was supposedly about ending monarchy but yet Iran has had 2 kings who were also the top priests in the country as well as being head of the army since that time.

This is the kind of poor judgement he makes. Releasing this drivel at this time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3183527/Iran-s-ayatollah-publishes-416-page-guide-destroying-Israel-rails-against-U-S-Great-Satan-despite-nuclear-deal.html

Yes, the recent activities of Israel and Bush era America make it easy to hate these places. But it does not sound right coming from a man who claims to be a top priest to be expressing any kind of hatred. Also, his words are being used to inspire the likes of ISIS who are Iran's real enemies. Khamenei speaks out against ISIS but yet does not realise that his manic depression-inspired speeches often made under the influence of (alcohol and opium based) 'medicine' are being copied by Iran's Sunni extremist enemies.

I hope when Khamenei dies, something better takes over and there is a peaceful transition from monarchy to a real republic. Hassan Rouhani's government is well-meaning and has achieved a lot for Iran. Khamenei's bogman mentality and his unintelligent writings could unravel progress made.

Netanyahu is another troublemaker who also deserves to be gone. His warmongering attitude only serves to give hardliners a more powerful role in Iran and elsewhere. A proper solution to Palestine is needed that does not involve a fascist religious dictatorship or an Apartheid style Israeli controlled 2 class system.