Quick Q&A – What is Israel’s problem with a Nuclear Iran?

Ever since I started this blog, I’ve never written once about the Iranian issue. It’s one that is very complex and honestly, while Israel is the country most associated with anti-Nuclear Iran news, it is not an issue that is exculsive to Israel. But now, 2 weeks since the IAEA report about Iran, I figured maybe it’s time to lay it out – simple, flat and avoid the complexities. At least attempt it.

The following are a few “brief” answers to the core issues regarding Iran and its’ nuclear program. If you have more questions I haven’t addressed here, I’d be more than happy to answer them in the comments and add them to the post.

Here we go –

Which countries have nuclear weapons today?

United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Africa. Only the first five listed have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

According to countless reports around the world, Israel also has nuclear bombs.

Iran claims it is no moving towards a nuclear weapon, just nuclear energy, isn’t it?

Iran also claims it has free elections and absolutely no gay people — shall I continue?

The IAEA report heavily relies on many (and various) intelligence agencies that suggest otherwise.

What are the threats a nuclear Iran posses NOT to Israel?

Iran poses many threats to many countries – Israel is certainly not the only (or the first) who is in danger, though it is the one being heard most loudly on this subject.

First and foremost, the Iranian regime seems to hold to a believe that Iran is not limited to its’ current borders, but is entitled to the entire Persian Gulf. Many countries, such as Iraq and Bahrain, fear an attack from Iran. This is also a religious matter – a war between Sunni and Shiite, but goes much further than that. The fear is with nuclear weapons, Iran would not hesitate to attack its’ neighbors in an attempt to seize control over the Gulf area (where still currently many NATO soldiers are deployed), knowing that many countries would fear retaliation due to the possibility of a nuclear war.

Moreover, there’s a growing fear that the fear of a nuclear Iran would in fact ignite a nuclear race in the Middle East, which is the equivelant of lighting a match in a room filled with gas. The number of countries holding nuclear weapons would double, the instability would increase to unimaginable levels and chances for peace and calm in the area could very well be no longer possible. Many countries have already attempted to move towards nuclear energy in the past and were faced with pressure by the Western world recoginizing the instability ahead (close to home, some of these countries  are Jordan, Egypt and Hezbollah-ruled Lebanon. Syria’s nuclear powers were destoryed in 2007, supposedly by Israel).

Even further, there’s is a fear from what more Iran will allow itself to do (past possible attacks and attempts to conquer the Gulf area), such as the threats towards Europe. Iran’s missiles can now reach deep into Eastern Europe and could very well reach past Germany in the not-so-distant future. Iran’s declared contempt towards Western lifestyle and capatalism is no secret. Even without that, having Iran place missile battries that could fire at any second to the heart of Paris, Berlin, Brussels etc is a risk no many care to take, giving the behaviour of the Iranian regime.

And what are the threats to Israel itself?

First of all, the Iranian regime does not miss an opportunity to talk about what the call The need to wipe Israel off the map. They continually call Israel by the name of the zionist regime (and zionist dogs, devils etc) and refuse to call by its’ name, acknowledge its’ existence. Just today, an Iranian official said he hoped for an Israeli attack so Iran could have the chance to finally “throw Israel to the trashcan of history” — would you be comfortable having an ally that talks like that obtaining means of mass destruction?

Today, Iran funds many terror organizations working against Israel and mainly to hurt, harm and kill its’ citizens. Israel is faced with endless barraged of rockets fired upon it for almost 11 years now and it all comes from Iranian money. It was a major funder of Hamas until the uprising in Syria and it still funding over a dozen terror organizations in the Gaza Strip as well as Hezbollah – a terror organization with perhaps more weapons and soldiers than the Labanese army itself, which today almost completely de-facto rules the parliment of Lebanon, turning it in to a dummy state control by puppet master Ahmadinejad.

In 2002, while The Second Intifida was happening and suicide bombers were killing people on a weekly (sometimes daily) basis, Israeli army caught a ship, named Karin A, loaded with weapons on its’ way to the terrorists from Iran at sea. In 2006, Israeli Navy caught a ship, Franco, with large amounts of weapons headed to Hezabollah. The latest capture known was in March of 2011 when the ship Victoria was captured and was found loaded with weapons hidden by humanatarian supplies, meant to be taken by foot to Gaza from the port.

With so much money, effort and time the Iranian regime spends arming terrorists who aim to kill and injure as many Israeli people – soldiers and civilians alike – as possible, Imagine what a nuclear Iran would allow itself to do? With what weapons it might allow itself to arm these terrorists?

If [supposedly] Israel has nuclear weapons, why can’t others?

See above — Iran is openly calling for the destruction of Israel and is constantly arming terrorists with weapons turned against Israel. Many countries fear a nuclear Iran, Wikileaks leaks proved that, but most of the immediate-threat countries cannot speak up because there’s a silence norm (almsot conspiracy) among Muslim and Arab countries. Many countries are afraid but rely on Israel to do the dirty work for them – another reason why they would never speak up.

What measures have been taken against Iran’s nuclear program already?

The Western world has called for talks to find a solution to allow Iran to have nuclear plants for peaceful purporses with the proper measurement taken to promise it won’t be used for a military purposes as well. Iran has rejects most of these talks and have used them to stall. Two years ago, it even ended the talks by signing a deal with Turkey and Brazil that will enrich uranium on Turkey’s soil rather than its’ own — in much larger quantaties that the West was willing to accept in the aforementioned talks.

There have numerous reports of viruses developed by Israel and the United States that have been targeting Iran’s nuclear plants. Iran itself has admitted its’ plants were attacked and its’ program has been slowed down and have blamed Israel and the United States for the attack.

Aren’t sanctions helpful?

Not really. It may be that the sanctions so far have not been hard enough to yield results, but the truth is Iran is still moving fast towards in nuclear plans and not slowing down really. The sanctions have been painful, no doubt, but it mostly took its’ toll on the civilian population, most of which already suffering to begin with by the regime that’s controling them. In one of the most unfree societies in the world (an accomplishment all in its own), and with the amounts of torture and killings inflicted by the regime and its’ authorities, many don’t have the chance and the opportunity to fight for their rights, as well as jobs, the economy and lifting of sanctions.

With its’ economy still deteriorating by the sanctions and more sanctions forced upon it, the Iranian regime still spends so much money on military plans, nuclear programs and funding of terror organizations. I can’t imagine there’s a satisfying amount left for the wellbeing of the Iranian people (though again – their wellbeing never seemed to be an issue for the regime).

So what… a military action is the only option?

Israel has a saying – “Always keep all options on the table.” A military operation is one of them. I cannot speak (because I do not really know) what the consequences and effiency an attack can have, but all options are on the table.

Just as with his speech before the US Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu always says that If you make sure the military option is placed on the table, you’d less likely need to use it. He hoped the deterance of such operation, just like the one Israel took before with Iraq in 1981 (and suppodely again with Syria in 2007), would be enough. Ironically, though, what many leaders around the world are doing is quiet the opposite – they’re revoking the military option time and time again, giving Iran the greener light to proceed in the meantime, and perhaps making the military operation they so oppose much more needed (unlike Israel’s stand that the more real it seems, the less likely it is to be used).

Seriously – Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon?

Honestly, I don’t really believe Iran having a nuclear weapon would mean it shall use it. But it will allow itself so much more, and will acquire psychological deterance… today it only sends “conventional” weapons to terrorists. Who will dare attack it tomorrow when it starts sending chemical weapons (such as mustard gas) to Hezbollah and the other terrorists it funds today and that today shoot blindly and proudly into civilian populations? Moreover, how much deterance will those terror groups get? How much power? That is the true danger of a nuclear armed Iran.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Quick Q&A – What is Israel’s problem with a Nuclear Iran?”

  1. Raaj Says:

    Hi Ori, good to be back here. 🙂 Yeah, I have been reading a lot about Iran and its nuclear ambitions in the press here. I had some questions and this post addresses some of my doubts. I still have some queries. Ori …”if” Israel decides to take out Iran’s nuclear capability wouldn’t the Middle East once again become unstable and extremely volatile? And in case Iran already has secretly acquired/created a nuclear weapon, wouldn’t that be extremely dangerous for all the people in the Middle East. Especially in case Iran decides to use them? That would be a human genocide.

    Plus, if Israel does make pre-emptive strikes against Iran, most of the Arab countries would probably rally behind Iran and protest to appease the Muslims, even though they might secretly be happy at having someone else do their job for them. Then, you also have Russia, which might remain non-committal yet angry. Maybe China too. All this makes for a long and confusing tension issues in the Middle East.

    My point is, is there no way that Iran could be encouraged to dismantle their nuke plans and get them to a discussion which could lead to removal of existing sanctions? Or, has Israel tried this approach and failed?

    • Ori Lentzitzky Says:

      Hi, Raaj, thanks for your follow ups, they’re good, I might even add them to the post later on.

      Yes, there are more downfalls to a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear plants. At this point, it might not be that efficient and might not hurt the nuclear plan by that much and Israel might face global critism, isolation and a unified Muslim world against it (even though, most would be glad Israel did this). The same concerns Israel faced before attacking the nuclear plants of Iraq in 1981, and at the end – everyone were more than happy that when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Saddam Hussaim did not have nuclear weapons. But Iran is a different story, I agree.

      Most intelligent agencies, as well as the Iranian opposition, believe Iran hasn’t achieved it yet but is not that far from it.

      Iran’s nuclear plan has been in motion for a decade now, even more. Many measures have been attempted against it. True, sanctions have been less than truly helpful because of China and Russia’s disagreement for hard sanctions, especially because of their heavy commerce of oil with them (also, I’ve heard Iran threatens to fund the Chechnya Underground terrorists, but it’s not substanial so I could be wrong). There have been rounds of peace talks between the West and Iran, which were only used to stall an attack but further along the plan. There have been countless attempts. It seems that the West has started to accept the fact that Iran would be nuclear, out of sheer exhustion of handling it.

      In some cases, this could actually be compared in some instances to the treatment of Nazi Germany before 1939 – The world then scarred by World War I, perfers to let Germany do whatever and have Czechoslovkia in 1938, hoping it’ll be enough and not really putting up much of a fight. Now, the world is scarred by Iraq to truly handle the real nuclear plan of Iran. In turn, Iran has used it to further along its’ plan.

      It seems the only measure that worked so far are hacker attacks by worms and other virsus on Iran’s nuclear plan, which are attributed to Israel and the United States. It managed to stall, but no more. Peace talks and sanctions have led nowhere. I personally don’t believe there’s a way to dismantle Iran and an airstrike at this point, after the world waited so long, would not be that successful. Moreover, Iran has based many of its’ legions all around Israel (Gaza, Lebanon) and they are ready to attack on command.

      The dangers of a nuclear Iran are very real. The prospect of stopping the nuclear plan, in any measure, today seem less and less real.

      I do want to stress one thing – I don’t really believe Iran having a nuclear weapon would mean it shall use it. But it will allow itself so much more, and will acquire psychological deterance… today it only sends “conventional” weapons to terrorists. Who will dare attack it tomorrow when it starts sending chemical weapons (such as mustard gas) to Hezbollah and the other terrorists shoot blindly and proudly into civilian populations? Moreover, how much deterance will those terror groups get? How much power? That is the true danger of a nuclear Iran.

  2. Raaj Says:

    That made a lot of sense Ori. I think Iran’s biggest problem is the Ayatollah. Sometimes, it feels like that guy Ahmedinejad is helpless and just a puppet head of state. The root cause of the problem seems to be the Ayatollah who is still clinging to power and trying to throw his weight around with his radical thoughts.

  3. Martin Says:

    This whole article was an interesting read, though not very well written. It was interesting based solely on the fact that your ability to combine opinion and fact is supreme, but the opinion is a very sympathetic one toward what is sometimes still considered an illegal state (Israel), and a derogatory one toward the Muslim countries which, through the words you use, connotes a deep feeling of hatred towards the Muslim people in general. Maybe I’m wrong, but I, like you, am entitled to my opinion. And being neither a Muslim nor a Jew, I take an objective perspective on things.

    This article would have been much better to read if you had edited out all the crap that made it a critique, and left the facts clearly visible instead of enticing the reader to share your opinion. Indeed, several points (which I will proceed to point out) angered me based on the blatant ignorance of Israeli atrocities, whilst highlighting those carried out by Muslims, thus implying that Israeli action, however atrocious, is sanctioned.

    “Today, Iran funds many terror organizations working against Israel and mainly to hurt, harm and kill its’ citizens. Israel is faced with endless barraged of rockets fired upon it for almost 11 years now and it all comes from Iranian money. It was a major funder of Hamas until the uprising in Syria and it still funding over a dozen terror organizations in the Gaza Strip as well as Hezbollah – a terror organization with perhaps more weapons and soldiers than the Labanese army itself, which today almost completely de-facto rules the parliment of Lebanon, turning it in to a dummy state control by puppet master Ahmadinejad.”

    Israel was not content with the land it had, and has been trying to increase its borders (and in a lot cases has succeeded) for more than 11 years. Let us not forget the image of the Arab throwing a stone and the Israeli firing a gun. Israel has killed thousands of people in its attempt to increase its borders, many of them civilian women and children. These various terror organisations, as you say that are trying to kill and harm Israeli citizens are doing so as a direct result of Israeli action. Remember also, that whilst Iranian money may have been funding these attacks, Israel has the force of America on its side, and this has been the case through the murders of masses of women and children, including Western civilians (Israeli air strike on a UN building in January 2010). It is important for you as an Israeli to remember that your country is essentially weak without America. And you are of no strategic value to America whatsoever. It is only because of the Obama administration that this attack on Iran has not already been carried out, and the fact that they do not condone it (because any attack would be illegal in international law – Israel would not be acting in self-defence, and the UN Security Council have not authorised it. Pre-emptive strikes against a country in fear of a hypothetical attack, are illegitimate)

    “Iran is openly calling for the destruction of Israel and is constantly arming terrorists with weapons turned against Israel. Many countries fear a nuclear Iran, Wikileaks leaks proved that, but most of the immediate-threat countries cannot speak up because there’s a silence norm (almsot conspiracy) among Muslim and Arab countries. Many countries are afraid but rely on Israel to do the dirty work for them – another reason why they would never speak up.”

    I agree that Israel is not afraid of getting its hands dirty. Of course it carried out its attacks in 2010 (though George W Bush was still president) and it also attacked the Turkish flotilla (on no sound intelligence whatsoever). But to say that it is carrying out the dirty work of other countries is preposterous. These countries that you speak of are much stronger and much more powerful than Israel. See above – as a country without America as an ally, you are meaningless (strategically, I mean. I intend no personal offence). Politically speaking, there is a danger of Muslim countries uniting against Israel if it were to attack one. But Israel will proceed with any action it wants to on its own accord, BECAUSE of its ally, not for it as you imply.

    “With its’ economy still deteriorating by the sanctions and more sanctions forced upon it, the Iranian regime still spends so much money on military plans, nuclear programs and funding of terror organizations. I can’t imagine there’s a satisfying amount left for the wellbeing of the Iranian people (though again – their wellbeing never seemed to be an issue for the regime)”

    This infuriated me the most, based on the fact that you mention a regime. Jews and Muslims (Israelis and Arabs) are living in Israel even today. Some have been there for generations. Yet Arabs families are being evicted from their homes in East Jerusalem so that Jews can move in. And the Mayor of Jerusalem has said that this was because he wanted Jews all over. Now the humorous part of your paragraph is that you say Iran doesnt care about its citizens’ wellbeing. Arabs that have lived in Israel for generations are citizens of Israel. Why is it that you have no problem mocking the Iranian regime, but ignore the fact that Israel has a regime that degrades Muslims?

    As well as food for thought, these are also examples of how your essay could have been more interesting if it had lost the padding that is unecessary and irrelevant.

    The conclusion is that Israel will indeed be at more risk than it is now, but no more than South Korea is of attack by North Korea, and no more risk than any country is of any nuclear power

    • Ori Lentzitzky Says:

      I have written you a reply in a post, though I don’t really think you should read it. Your words and accusation make it clear to who you truly are, and which side you’re comftorable taking, and which facts you’re happy to ignore.

      I’m sure you think you’re not a blindful hater of Israel, but your comment spewed more venom, half-truths and ridiculous accusations that tell barely half the story (in the best of your accusations) and reveal your true colors.

      I know I have no prospect of getting you to understand that Israel is in a constant conflict with more than one side, or to even consider that what you so believe is true might be something a bit different, and I’m sure you got a complete wrong impression of me.

      I’m trying to reach those who are not set in their minds and are intersted in some kind of dialogue. You are clearly not one of them.

      I wish you well,
      Ori

      • Martin Says:

        Thank you for replying. In response:

        “I’m sure you think you’re not a blindful hater of Israel, but your comment spewed more venom, half-truths and ridiculous accusations that tell barely half the story (in the best of your accusations) and reveal your true colors”

        How ironic that, once again, you can pick this out in the words/actions of another. This is exactly what your essay did of other countries in the Middle East, the Gulf, and Muslims in general, spew venom and tell half-truths. I am not a blindful hater of Israel, sir. I have taken no side. My comments were highlighting the fact that you have taken a side and show no open-mindedness, or objectivity. My post was encouraging you to not be blind of Israeli arrogance, despite being Israeli (again this is meant in a political sense, not a racial or offensive manner).

        “I know I have no prospect of getting you to understand that Israel is in a constant conflict with more than one side, or to even consider that what you so believe is true might be something a bit different, and I’m sure you got a complete wrong impression of me.”

        I understand that Israel is in constant conflict with more than one side, indeed the majority of the Middle East! I apologise however, that I cannot respond to the part of your sentence following this statement as I did not understand it. Maybe you could elaborate?

        “I’m trying to reach those who are not set in their minds and are intersted in some kind of dialogue. You are clearly not one of them.”

        I am taking an objective view on matters. I am very interested in dialogue, and have a lot to say on this particular issue. However, my comment was meant merely as advice on bettering the way you wrote your article so that you could indeed reach those you intend to. I would have written my response privately had I the facility.

        I apologise for any offence caused, this is purely a political debate and I did not mean to cause personal conflict.

        Best,
        Martin

      • Ori Lentzitzky Says:

        Honestly, as I’ve wrote I’m not interested in continuing this debate, because while you hide behind nice words, the truth is your view is bias and you have already taken a side (your stuberness that you haven’t shows me that I have no chance but to open your eyes). I see that because you:
        A. mention that there are countries today, 64 years after Israel’s establishment, that don’t recognize it. This is nothing more than a pointless observation (as I’ve mentioned in my reply, there are many countries around the world that don’t recognize many other countries besides Israel. I doubt that while having a case against these countries [US, UK and more] you’ll argue that as well).
        B. You have simply determined and stated a fact (which is a lie) that Israel is committing massacares. FALSE! Though the reality is far from ideal, that absentmidnedly lie of yours is nothing more than venom spewed and shows me that you have a preset opinion you have no desire to change.
        C. You deterine that Israel “attacked the Turkish flotilla (on no sound intelligence whatsoever)” – once again that is a personal predetermined opinion.

        And this is only a handful. While you hide behind nice words, and you might even believe what you’re writing and that you’re impartial, nothing could be further from the truth.

        As an Israeli, I know very well what goes on. I also know the full extent of what goes on, and I witness the protests each Friday and hear the cries, as well as follow many of the court cases about specific situations. Which is why I know more about this conflict, and about both its’ sides, than you so careless determine because it’s easy for you (again, as you’ve already crossed the line to a bias viewer of the conflict).

        Even though I have no desire in continuing this dialgue, I do owe you a response – My wording was wrong because I was writing fast, I meant that Israel’s conflict with the Palestinian has more than one side and more than one narative, you’re simply open and willing to one and one only. Second, Israel is NOT in conflict with the entire Middle East – Israel has called for peace time and time again, but the Muslim and Arab nations are the ones who refuse it. When Israel was formed, they refused to recognize and accept it. The Arab League passed a resolution that no country is to have any connection with Israel, and almost ousted Egypt when it signed its’ peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Today this resolution has been revoked, but it the stupid blind hatred for Israel has remain, even though it has absolutely no basis or logic (It’s one of those cases where a fued begins and keeps going until you don’t know why it started but you refuse to be the first one to give in). There are many reasons for it (some of it goes back to the UN resolution in 1947 that established Israel, some of it lie in the Soviet Union’s using the Israeli-Arab conflict as backdoor for it’s conflict and cold war with the US… as I’ve mentioned, this is very complex and for you just gesture your hand and simplify it to fit your own personal view is more than ridicolous, and again shows your true colors).

  4. Martin Says:

    Your response amuses me for many reasons. Firstly, this is a debate, and an exercise between gentlemen. You have now, twice, personally attacked me and my opinion because it is not in tune with yours, thus showing yourself to be incapable of gentlemanly exchange. Whilst I do not intend to stoop as low as you, I will respond in kind. Secondly, your control over the English language is dreadful. I could barely understand some of the things you said, but will nevertheless address them in sequence.

    “Honestly, as I’ve wrote I’m not interested in continuing this debate, because while you hide behind nice words, the truth is your view is bias and you have already taken a side (your stuberness that you haven’t shows me that I have no chance but to open your eyes).”

    The words I have used are not ‘nice’. They are words of respect. They are words – ‘I intend to cause no personal or racial offence’ – that indicate that I am not intending to cause you any personal harm. It is a civilised thing to do, to ensure that your exchange does not stray off topic. You, however, continue to attack me and stray away from the issue. You say that I am stubborn yet you do not know me personally, and proceed to make your judgment despite my telling you several times that I am open to a change in perspective if you will give me a reasoned argument. You have not done this. In fact, everything you have said skirts around the issue and despite saying you will not be able to open my eyes, you have not even attempted to address anything that could.

    “A. mention that there are countries today, 64 years after Israel’s establishment, that don’t recognize it. This is nothing more than a pointless observation (as I’ve mentioned in my reply, there are many countries around the world that don’t recognize many other countries besides Israel. I doubt that while having a case against these countries [US, UK and more] you’ll argue that as well).”

    I will admit first of all that I actually do not understand the point you are making here. However, the one point that does shine through, I will respond to. It is not a pointless observation, it is a statement that you have taken out of context of the paragraph. My suggestion is either that you learn a little more about the art of debate and how to approach certain issues and statements, or grasp a firmer handle on the English language to understand exactly what was conveyed.

    “B. You have simply determined and stated a fact (which is a lie) that Israel is committing massacares. FALSE! Though the reality is far from ideal, that absentmidnedly lie of yours is nothing more than venom spewed and shows me that you have a preset opinion you have no desire to change”

    For your own reference, the use of capital letters does not give more weight to your argument. Nevertheless, despite your statement that I have no desire to change (because you know me so well of course), you make this point with no evidence to back it up. I gave you two example earlier of my assertion and would be very happy to give you more. But because of YOUR bias, you will reject them. I can only take you to the water, little donkey. It is you that must drink.

    “C. You deterine that Israel “attacked the Turkish flotilla (on no sound intelligence whatsoever)” – once again that is a personal predetermined opinion”

    This is not an opinion. It is a fact, otherwise it would not have become a UN issue. If this is false, or my assertion is wrong, then please once again, give me evidence to the contrary.

    “And this is only a handful. While you hide behind nice words, and you might even believe what you’re writing and that you’re impartial, nothing could be further from the truth.”

    Again, you clearly know this because a. you know me so well or b. your English is abysmal. c. you have no control over the exercise of debate, and you are unable to take an impartial view on anything. I am going to guess B and C.

    “Second, Israel is NOT in conflict with the entire Middle East – Israel has called for peace time and time again, but the Muslim and Arab nations are the ones who refuse it.”

    Ori, you really must learn how to read. I did not say the entire Middle East. I stated the MAJORITY of the Middle East. And for you to say that the Muslims and Arabs will not accept it is stupidity when you consider that the state of Israel has expanded its borders since it was established. Would you be willing to accept peace proposals as an Israeli if one of the Muslim states decided that it wanted to expand its own borders into Israel? Yes, I did not think so. This is the reason for refusal.

    “There are many reasons for it (some of it goes back to the UN resolution in 1947 that established Israel, some of it lie in the Soviet Union’s using the Israeli-Arab conflict as backdoor for it’s conflict and cold war with the US… as I’ve mentioned, this is very complex and for you just gesture your hand and simplify it to fit your own personal view is more than ridicolous, and again shows your true colors). ”

    I understand the complexities, but as you say you do too, then please, entertain me. I will take great pleasure in reading your assertions of support for Israel and hatred for anything or anyoen that offends it.

    It is interesting that you have not mentioned (and indeed ignored the ones I have mentioned) one single Israeli atrocitiy, thereby confirming that as a country, Israel does not care about the destruction is causes and the lives it takes because it is aware that its American ally will support it. But let me tell you, this will not be the case as long as there is no Republican administration.

    You state several times that my opinion is biased, and thus continue to claim knowledge over my opinion and perspective. Yet the truth is that you cannot stand any criticism of Israel whatsoever, and your patriotism clouds your judgment. You have shown yourself to be completely unwilling to accept another outlook (and ironically accuse me of this very act). This, sir, refelcts YOUR true colours, and displays a certain and calculated bias in Israel’s favour. The fact that you can say anyone is biased is laughable.

    Regards,
    Martin

    • Ori Lentzitzky Says:

      I think that at this point we simply need to agree to disagree, since i’m so lousy at debate and my english is simply unreadable.

      I have, by the way, written you a very lengthy response, and just wrote a short reply here that your statements make it clear that we cannot have a debate or dialogue. You’ve chosen to only reply to that. You’ve chosen to state that I don’t you (didn’t claim to know you, just the opinions that you stated at facts in your replies) and continued to reply, though you’ve admitted to barely understanding my words due to my poor english.

      It’s actually very funny how you accuse me of stating opinions as facts, and then go on to make your own opinions facts (like the fact that Israel doesn’t care about “its’ atrocities”, your opinion as facts of these atrocities and your words about the lives it takes [failing to mention of course that the other side of this conflict is far from angelic, and has taken many lives in this conflict, with the intent of killing as many innocents as possible and then celebrating their death – just two months ago, the aunt of one of the Fogel Family killers was interviewed on the official Palestinian TV and both she and the host, praised her nephew], your statements about how Israel does whatever it wants because of its’ ally and that its’ specific to a Republican administration, and much more). This is exactly why, as I’ve had many dialogues and debates on this blog with several people, one of them was even a Palestinian from Ramallah, I knew exactly where this will go. You might hate to admit it, but you are bias. Just because you surround your biad statements with nice words about gentlemenly behaviour and debate, doesn’t make it less so.

      You’re right about one thing for sure – I’m a patriot. But being a patriot means to acknowledge that you don’t live in a perfect world and that your governments make mistakes and sometimes does thing that you don’t agree with. Otherwise it’s a dictatorship, or worst a cult or a religion. Since you’re accusing me of bias, here’s a few things in international-related matters that I don’t agree with my governments:
      1. The land blockade on Gaza should be lifted immediately in full
      2. Israel should allow much more exports out of Gaza
      3. The decision to freeze (which has since been unfrozen) transfers of tax money to the Palestinian Authority, due to its’ unilateral moves in the UN bodies, was (and should it ever happen again – is) stupid and laugh out ridiculous, and I’m happy interntional pressure overturned that decision.
      4. The equation that each terror attack or unilateral move will be met with buildings of settlements is really stupid
      5. I’m astonished by how intellegence and security forces cannot produce a single evidence against the Tag Price vandals.
      6. There’s plenty I don’t agree with what’s happening in East Jerusalem.
      7. Why the hell isn’t Israel doing something with the Mughrabi Bridge? If Jordan and the Palestinians are so unwilling to go out to the Muslim world and explain why it’s important that the bridge will be fixed, even if by Israeli forces, pressure the international community to pressure them. At the end, it’s going to collapse and people are going to die, because of this stupid dispute!
      8. I think that even if there are no negotiations for peace on the horizon, the situation in Hebron cannot continue as it is, and Israel should do something to not harm freedom of religion to both sides, and yet at the same time change the current security measures taken in the H2 district. This of course is one of those things, like many others, that could have been resolves ages ago if there were serious negotiations, by I digress.

      As for the rest of what you’ve wrote – I haven’t ignored anything, I’ve replied to almost every line from your original post, you’ve chosen to reply without reading it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: