Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumIsraeli officials think Iran retaliation threat is a bluff, NYT reports
New York Times says some officials think estimates that a strike on Irans nuclear facilities would cause catastrophe are 'partly a bluff,' and that this is accepted at top government levels.
By Haaretz
Israeli officials and academic experts think that Irans threats of retaliation to a possible strike against it are a bluff, the New York Times reported on Friday.
Citing a number of officials and reports, the New York Times said that estimates that a strike on Irans nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic series of events is considered by some to be partly a bluff, and that these estimates are accepted at the top levels of the Israeli government.
The newspaper said it had spoken with eight current and recent top Israeli officials, and that these conversations suggest that since Israel has been demanding the new sanctions, including an oil embargo and seizure of Irans Central Bank assets, it will give the sanctions some months to work; the sanctions are viewed here as probably insufficient; a military attack remains a very real option; and postattack situations are considered less perilous than one in which Iran has nuclear weapons.
One retired official told the New York Times that based on past scenarios including threats from Saddam Hussein to burn half of Israel, and threats from Hezbollah which resulted in limited harm to Israel, If you put all those retaliations together and add in the terrorism of recent years, we are probably facing some multiple of that.
remainder: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-officials-think-iran-retaliation-threat-is-a-bluff-nyt-reports-1.409465
PDJane
(10,103 posts)Israel has been good at believing what was convenient.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)snip* In his opening remarks, the Secretary of Defense restated President Obamas declared position on Irans nuclear ambitions that we have not taken any option off the table. During the question period, however, he offered a long list of reservations against the military option: Some of the targets are very difficult to get at, and even a successful attack would set back the Iranian program by no more than two years. The Iranian regime, now approaching pariah status, would be able to mobilize renewed support at home and abroad. U.S. interests in the Middle East would be subject to retaliation. The fragile economies of the United States and Europe would be gravely disrupted. And worst of all, the ensuing conflagration could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret. Whatever Panettas intention, Israelis heard those remarks as a declaration of his opposition to the use of force against Iran, even if that country was on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. (The administrations reluctance to go along with sanctions against the Central Bank of Irana matter Israelis raised repeatedly during the meetingonly adds to its credibility problem.)
During a break, I button-holed a knowledgeable, highly respected former Israeli official and asked whether he thought that the military option was still on the table for the United States. No, he replied, the United States had shifted to a containment strategy two years ago. Another former official, equally knowledgeable and respected, shook his head in dissent. No, he said, it was one year ago. While I didnt meet all the Israelis in attendance, I talked with quite a few and didnt encounter a differing view. And it was not a hard-line group: Supporters of Prime Minister Netanyahu were in a distinct minority in the Israeli delegation, a fact that occasioned humor on both the Israeli and American sides.
Secretary Panettas speech was far from the only source of Israeli concern. Just last week, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a remarkably frank interview. He said that the United States was convinced that sanctions and diplomatic pressure was the right path to take on Iran, along with the stated intent not to take any options off the table. But, he continued, Im not sure the Israelis share our assessment of that. And because they dont and because to them this is an existential threat
its fair to say that our expectations are different right now.
In December of 2009, Brookings Saban Center for Middle East Policy organized a day-long crisis simulation of an Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear program. (Full disclosure: I was part of the U.S. government team.) At the outset, some participants protested against what they saw as an improbable hypothesis underlying the exercisenamely, that the Israelis would proceed without informing the United States in advance. On the basis of what I heard this weekend, they should consider changing their minds. The more Israel believes that giving the United States advance warning of a strike would trigger American demands to call it off, the less likely it is to provide that warning. When General Dempsey was asked whether he thought Israel would notify the United States in advance of a strike on Iran, he bluntly responded, I dont know.
in full: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/1207_israel_galston.aspx
PDJane
(10,103 posts)Right now, the only 'existential threat' to Israel is their own actions. At some point, whether now or later, Israel will hae to learn to live within its given borders and behave like a good neighbour.
The 'historical' narrative for Israel is based on a work of fiction, and reality must intrude sooner or later.
Response to PDJane (Reply #5)
Mosby This message was self-deleted by its author.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)They conquered the land from someone else, and were conquered in turn. The current 'homeland' is due to a fictional narrative. The record doesn't support the biblical narrative.
I am also going to point out that Syria and Palestine have nothing to do with the settlements; the true Israeli borders should be the 1948 borders. All other borders were redrawn after WII, and those borders deliberately left the Palestinians hanging.
Israel is the bully.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Are they different from the 1967 borders?
google 'the incredible shrinking Palestine'
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Are you talking about the 1947 proposed Partition Plan? That seems to be what the Google source you mention is referencing.
Is that what you would like to see as the borders?
The 1967 borders include conquered territory, and even that was revisionist history. The Geneva convention, to which the US is a signatory, does not allow expansion of territory by military action.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I think we are talking about the same borders.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)(wont even raise oil prices!)
by Matthew Taylor on January 27, 2012
Front page above the fold today at the 'NYT,' stenographer to the Israelis Ethan Bronner reports, "Israel Senses Bluffing in Irans Threats of Retaliation":
Israeli intelligence estimates, backed by academic studies, have cast doubt on the widespread assumption that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic set of events like a regional conflagration, widespread acts of terrorism and sky-high oil prices.
The estimates, which have been largely adopted by the countrys most senior officials, conclude that the threat of Iranian retaliation is partly bluff....
A war is no picnic, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said. But if Israel feels itself forced into action, the retaliation would be bearable, he said. There will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.
For American audiences, the translation is: If Israel attacks Iran, the consequences will be...what? Maybe not an enjoyable picnic, but one where ants invade the egg salad?
Nowhere in the story is there a mention of the anticipatable human and environmental consequences to the Iranian people. Additionally, all of those quoted are Israeli or affiliated with the Israeli government. Where is the balance? Where are the quotes from neutral, international conflict experts from organizations like the International Crisis Group or Transcend? This is one of the worst pieces of war journalism I've ever seen. We need peace journalism, now!
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/quoting-israelis-nyt-front-pager-says-iran-will-take-a-military-strike-lying-down-wont-even-raise-oil-prices.html
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Piece of cake, Israel can just go it alone, it's just a bit of egg salad.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)after the fall out that is. No biggie.
Crazy arrogant bastards.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I'm speechless.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or are they staying mum on the subject?