Senate Iran — now discussing the nuclear deal and Congress

I don't mind when people have contrary opinions, but it's a little annoying when those opinions are clearly informed by a lack of knowledge.

 

Why are you bringing up the Crusades?

As for immigration to Israel:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Immigration/Immigration_to_Israel.html

I seriously doubt it will have the kind of impact you have in mind. Last year saw a clear uptick (a bit over 26,000), but 2002 was decisively ahead of 2014, and if you look back in past years, 2014 is nothing by comparison. As recently as 1999, there were over 75,000 immigrants to Israel.

So, again: What will Israel do when Jews become a minority in their own country?

 

"Why are you bringing up the Crusades?"

Because the Crusader kingdoms are invoked by those who refuse to accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, even though a Palestinian state is intended to be an Islamic state.

Yes, I am Jewish. Yes, I don 't like those "students for Palestine" at my university who accused me of supporting "israeli apartheid" because of my Jewishness and verbally abused me for wearing a windcheater with my name on it in Hebrew.

 

And strawmen to boot

 

Who here has invoked the Crusades? Nobody that I'm aware of. Further, those "students" you refer to are not here (so far as I'm aware).

Overall, your posts here read more as talking points from a pamphlet than as coherent thoughts.

You may not want to face the question of Israeli apartheid, but it's very nearly upon Israel and certainly will be within another generation. So, for the third time I'll ask you-- what should Israel do when Jews become a minority in their own country?

 

In a final settlement, I'd withdraw the Jewish settlers from the West Bank and encourage those Arabs that want to, to move to the West Bank, The Gaza Strip, and the land that will be transferred to the new state in the final settlement.

No Israeli government or indeed, most western governments, will accept the so called right of return, so that will dropped by the final settlemnt

 

That doesn't really answer the question, which I suppose is not suited for this thread in particular. What should Israel do when Jews become a minority in their own country?

You're not the only person who avoids answering and perhaps even thinking about it.

 

I would be willing to agree that Hamas could be considered Israel's Emmanuel Goldstein, a mortal enemy that poses no threat whatsoever.

"Winston's diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard - a clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile silliness in the long thin nose, near the end of which a pair of spectacles was perched. It resembled the face of a sheep, and the voice, too, had a sheep-like quality. Goldstein was delivering his usual venemous attack upon the doctrines of the Party - an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing BIG BROTHER, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the Revolution has been betrayed - and all this in rapid polysyllabic speech which was a sort of parody of the habitual style of the orators of the Party, and even contained Newspeak words: more Newspeak words, indeed, than any Party member would normally use in real life. And all the while, lest one should be in any doubt as to the reality which Goldstein's specious clap trap covered, behind his head on the telescreen there marched the endless columns of the Eurasian army - row after row of solid-looking men with expressionless Asiatic faces, who swam up to the surface of the screen and vanished, to be replaced by others exactly similar. The dull rhythmic tramp of the soldiers' boots formed the background to Goldstein's bleating voice."

 

I'm a genuine poster, if that's what you mean.

 

Had to study it years ago but don't own a copy now. Israel's Emmanuel Goldstein is probably a good measure of Hamas. Although if ISIS seizes control of Gaza, that could change.

 

You're going to "encourage" Arab Israeli citizens to move out wtf.

 

I'd also withdraw the Jewish settlers from the West Bank. As i said, the "right of return" is not acceptable to either Israeli or Western governments so the Arabs will drop it before a final settlement. Also I said "Arabs that want to" - i wouldn't force them.

 

What about Jerusalem?

 

Most likely to happen is probably some sort of co-sovereignty. I don't think the Israelis want the city divided again. Personally I'd favour it being a city administered by the UN as Danzig was administered by the League of Nations between the World Wars.

The UN is crippled though because it's still ultimately controlled by the Allied Powers from WWII and doesn't reflect the modern era.

 

Well, that was interesting. Leave it to NPR links to devolve a thread into a tangent of empty talking point exchanges about the Palestinian/Israeli issue. Unfortunately, I have another one. NPR link, that is. But don't worry, this one isn't contentious in any way, as it's just a news update regarding the detention of Iranian American reporter for the Washington Post, Jason Rezaian, who has been detained on accusations of espionage for now over a year. I assume we all agree that detaining people without charge and due process is bad. Mmmkay?

I figured it was a good share since it's as much an introduction to the case for anyone curious about it as it is an update for anyone already following it. Also, the guests are very knowledgeable, one of them herself being a former political prisoner.

Clicky

 

So, things like this are why some of the Israel-friendly PACs and many Jews in the US are against the Iran deal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/w...not-exist.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

I happen to still think that this is probably the best deal we could have made, but it's not like people on the other side (except for the "let's attack Iran!" people) are totally crazy...

 

I would say that Netanyahu is equally out there, so I don't really think much of that.

 

You know I'm not his biggest fan, but he's the leader of a country where the beneficiary of this new deal to reduce sanctions is, in essence, saying "you're not going to exist at all in the next 25 years" and has threatened his country's destruction. He's entitled to some bloviating on this.

Again, I'm in favor of the deal -- we just have to acknowledge the other side is saying some crazy things about Israel and it's not unfounded to be at least marginally worried.

 

They're unfounded worries, because it's not as if Israel's destruction via Iran (or anyone else) would happen in a vacuum. Anyone can say anything they want, but for those words to be taken seriously, they need to actually mean something beyond rhetoric. Is Iran going to invade Israel? No. Is Iran going to use nuclear weapons on Israel? No. It would cease to exist if it did so, and Iran's leaders are rational people (along with its citizens). With both of those things in mind, the rhetoric is empty.

In short, it's not worth taking seriously.

 

The one risk to Israel is Hezbollah, which has tens of thousands of rockets pointed in its general direction.

If Israel and Iran come to blows, and the rockets are fired, they could cause serious damage in Israel proper, which could potentially lead to nuclear retaliation against Iran.

I don't think it's likely, but Iran needs to understand that a calculus involving Israeli restraint under the threat of proxy rocket attacks en masse is a reciper for disaster, if not downright catastrophe.

I'm not sure they've got that lesson down yet.

Peace,

V-03