Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould Israel preemptively strike Iran to keep them from getting a nuclear bomb?
Results so far:
| Yes | 30% | 12 votes | Total: 40 votes | |
| No | 70% | 28 votes |
Yes
by Stephanie K
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThere are many comparisons between South Africa and Israel on the Internet. These commentaries usually related to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, including the illegal settlements, land seizures, human rights violations and other issues pertaining to Palestinians.
While these commentaries are worth considering in a certain political context, they are not related to the issue of a country's right to self-defense against aggression.
Many people oppose Israel's right to self-defense and security because they disagree with their right to exist. I do not support or oppose any country. It is up to a group of people to determine their sovereignty. The argument about 'stolen land' is fruitless. North Americans in Canada and the U.S. live on land that formerly belonged to aboriginal peoples. Nobody calls for the destruction of the U.S. or Canada. Nobody would justify the use of terrorism against residents and citizens in these countries. The Israelis are not going to get up and leave. They have just as much a right to the land they live on as the Palestinians have a right over the land in Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinian refugees in Syria, Jordan and other Arab countries have to live there and are not awarded citizenship, land rights and self-rule. If people argue for Palestinian rights, they must accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. This is in the spirit of political egalitarianism.
Nobod y can change what happened sixty, two hundred or five thousand years ago. One can rectify certain situations. As for refugees, they exist on both sides. There were 850,000 Jewish refugees from former Arab colonies of the Ottoman Empire. Nobody argues that the land once occupied by the Ottomans, or the modern Turks, belongs to Turkey. The Arabs and other groups live there and the land belongs to them. If one accepts the existence of a country like Jordan or Egypt, one must accept Israel's right to exist. This anti-Zionist extremist sentiment has held up the peace process for decades. It inspires anti-Semitism and militancy. It gets in the way of creating democracy, peace and prosperity in the Palestinian territories.
Ahmadine jad claims to support the sovereignty of the Palestinian people. His denial of Israeli self-determination and the Holocaust indicate his level of anti-Semitism. He calls for the liquidation of Israel and has made direct threats against the state. The country of Iran funds militancy in Lebanon and Palestine. The U.N. has brought sanctions against Iran for its nuclear enrichment program. Given the limited uses of uranium and the limits on travel in Iran, one can only speculate the uses.
It is unlikely that the Israeli government would plan out a possible scenario in the wake of a pre-emptive strike against Iran, but it is a clear sign of Iranian intentions. Only in this extreme age of political correctness would anyone argue for the Iranian side. Criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified but unrelated to the Iranian issue. It was America that initiated colonialist and racist warfare against insignificant countries in the Middle East on false premises. This is not the fault of Israel anymore than Lebanon, Jordan or any other Middle Eastern country. One cannot expect a country to wait for its self-destruction out of concerns for the U.S.
The Iranian government is running the Forth Reich. They are the modern Nazi Germany with Nuremberg Laws against Iranian Christians, Jews and Baha'is. In the thirties, leftist intellectuals and professors insisted that Germany was not a threat and that diplomacy would work with Hitler. If one expects Israel to wait in light of history's tragic consequences, then one is supporting the other sides. This is one of those extreme situations where one must make a hard choice: support the fascists or the democrats. It is the same when people insist that terrorism is freedom-fighting: one is then justifying the taking of innocent military and civilian lives. While there is such a notion of state-sponsored terrorism, it is interesting that people on the Left often deny that Syria, Lebanon and Iran engage in it. They have a romantic love of the guerilla fighter, no matter what his agenda is. It reminds them of their beloved Lenin, Trotsky and Kamenev during the Russian Revolution. Communists were amongst the worst supporters of state-sponsored terrorism, including the Red Terror and Great Purges of Stalin.
Leftist sentiment on Israel is often pointless when it comes to self-defense. If these sympathizers of Iranian militancy, aggression and fascism faced the threat in their own country, I am certain they would want their military to launch pre-emptive strikes against the possible threat of nuclear arsenal. The Israeli plan doesn't call for a ground war or occupation. It is not the same as Iraq or Afghanistan. These so-called peace activists deny a country the right to security and self-defense. As much as I hate unnecessary warfare and loss of life, I can rationalize why a country would defend itself.
In regards to Israel's policies towards the Palestinians, I understand that the Palestinians have an established history in the Holy Land and fully support their right to a homeland with self-rule. I hope that eventually a country can be established for them in time.
Learn more about this author, Stephanie K.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
This very question smacks of a tendency in today's journalism that leaves us awash in the ambiguity of euphemisms. Were they not so cruel, they would be absolutely ludicrous. For example, during WWII, what is now known as the, "Secretary of Defense," was known as the, "War Department." As aggressive as the latter title may sound, at least it had the merit of being honest. In those days, the War Department waged war.
Nevertheless, nowadays, when Washington speaks of, "Defense," this is rarely the case. Rather, the thinly veiled efforts of the powers that be to qualify its efforts as such pale when one realizes that their basic thrust is not one of, "defense," at all. Indeed, they are persistent manifestations of a calculated intent to coerce, divide and conquer and otherwise basically dominate the world political scene under the pretext that Washington acts under some divine guidance.
It doesn't.
In fact, the overwhelming evidence points to a single focus on behalf of Washington that consists of calling the shots, not in the interest of worldwide political cohesion and, why not? peace and prosperity, but instead to ensure its domination of the world's economy and politics. Americans may be quick to recognize among their fellow citizens a spirit of E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) within the US, yet abroad, this is clearly not their political credo.
It all comes down to domination.
We're not talking about justice, nor defense.
There is abundant proof pointing to the fact that the US attack on Iraq had much more to do with oil than with defense. Political theorists and propaganda artists of all stripes know that if one dresses a lie elegantly and repeats it long enough, it quickly takes root as, "truth," in the primitive collective consciousness. Labeling, "aggression," or, "war," as, "defense," is a cheap, though frighteningly effective, subterfuge.
That said and getting back to the question: Should Israel preemptively strike Iran to keep them from getting a nuclear bomb? Now, perhaps, we may proceed to define the question properly. Why say, preemptively strike? Why not call a spade a spade? Why not say attack? Is not a preemptive strike an attack?
As for, "to keep them from getting a nuclear bomb?" Why should Israel have a nuclear bomb and Iran not? China has a nuclear bomb. They never asked anyone for permission to build it. The same goes for France, India and several other countries.
Could we thus not reformulate the question: Should Israel attack Iran to keep them from getting something that Israel has and does not want Iran to have? It would appear that such is what the person asking the question meant to ask, but lacked the courage to say. In much the same way that Donald Rumsfeld was the so-called Secretary of Defense and not an administrator of war. In both cases, there is a grave breach between what is asked and said and what is meant.
This, in a nutshell is the very modus operandi and essence of imperialism.
George Bush gave us a, "preemptive strike," on Iraq. Seven years, a ruined country, countless deaths and ruined lives and three trillion dollars later, the miasma of despair will not let go.
As for your question: Should Israel preemptively strike Iran to keep them from getting a nuclear bomb? Please, have the grace and human dignity to at least formulate it honestly. Something like:
Should Israel attack Iran so that Israel can continue to pursue many of its Zionist policies (that many Jews themselves disapprove of) without enduring any scrutiny whatsoever of its neighbors? Should Israel attack Iran so that Israel can retain its status of undisputed nuclear master whether for civil or military purposes in the Middle East? Should Israel attack Iran even if Iran enjoys considerable support from the likes of Russia and China? These latter two are also nuclear powers. Should Israel attack them?
The dearth of intellectual honesty in the very question itself is the very pillar of propaganda of the likes used to rally youthful cannon fodder. The hypocrisy of the term, "preemptive strike," as opposed to an, "attack," reveals a poorly hidden desire to justify a hideous gesture behind terms that only the most naive would fail to identify as an effort to do the unspeakable while remaining politically correct.
Politically correct. The term itself is very, "politically correct." That is, people often say, "discrimination," when they actually mean, "racism," or, "hatred based on someone's color." Some once said, "final solution," when they meant, "Auschwitz." Few lucid human beings can appreciate such a euphemism at this late hour.
And alas, instead of focusing the debate on an, "attack," political correctness obliges one to say, "preemptive strike." The terms, "preemptive strikes and armed conflicts," sound so noble in the comfort of one's armchair.
The reality of war is yet another story.
Learn more about this author, Clay Deschamps.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Politics in the Middle & Near East
- Should Jerusalem be split between the Israelis and Palestinians?
- Does the Arab summit in Syria confirm a growing Arab rift?
- Was Israel's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip wise?
- Will Mahmoud Abbas be able to unite the Palestinians or will new leader have to try?
- Will the Afghanistan war end in 2009?
- Is the mega fortress US embassy in Iraq justified?
