Skip to main content

The Israeli media has reported that Israel will attack Iran before November.

Activists in Tel Aviv protest outside Defense Minister Barak's home in Tel Aviv.

In  Beit Shemesh, three women fight against an Ultra Orthodox campaign to exclude women from public.

Rochelle Davis, author and Associate Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Georgetown University, discusses her book Palestinian Village Histories: Geographies of the Displaced.

Rahwi Qarqaz from Gaza describes how he was arrested & held for 13 days when he sought medical treatment in Israel.
 

Demos took place in Bilin & Ni'ilin.

Egypt continued military operations in the Sinai, & closed the border with Gaza.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Israel is debating war in the (4+ / 0-)

    press but it seems like the scare tactics are going to win out and there will be an attack on Iran. My fear is that Israel may not be prepared for the aftermath and that the damage done to the Israel in the aftermath will render the operation a failure. There is no way to stop Iran from building the bomb anyhow. They can at best delay it. For 3 years, 5 years. At some point not too long from now, they'll have the bomb. Israel would be better off relying on deterrence as other nuclear state have.  

    •  Oh Israel may indeed rely on deterrence (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      207wickedgood, frostbite

      Ever heard of the Samson Option?

      The Samson Option is a term used by various commentators to describe Israel’s alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well
      http://en.wikipedia.org/...
      Here is a quote which I think sums up the detterence policy of Israel, it's from Martin van Crevald (same source):
      "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under
    •  Iran is not working on a bomb (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Friendlystranger, frostbite

      The issue is rather different than what it appears.   Iran has been sold on nuclear power since the time of the Shah and paid billions to the French for reactors.      After the overthrow of the Shaw they didn't get the reactors and France kept the money.  

      There has been lots of back and forth since then but having nuclear power is a big issue for Iran's pride because of this history.   Why should France, say, have nuclear power and Iran not?   They both are signatories to the NPT -- which they have followed as well as any other signatory.   The NPT gives them obligations, but it gives the nuclear weapons nations obligations as well, one of which is never to threaten to attack them and provide support and help for peaceful nuclear energy.

      It has been quite obvious to Iran that they need their own source of fuel (and they are allowed to do this) since nobody takes seriously the idea that they should have an indepedent source of power.

      Iraq was a signatory as well and you see how that worked out for them.

      The stupid argument is "Iran has so much oil, why do they need nuclear power?" and the answer is that Iran doesn't have refineries, which are about as difficult to build as nuclear plants.   In addition, oil is their only resource so it makes no sense for them to burn it for power when there are other options.

      I am no longer sold on nuclear power so I think it is a long term mistake for Iran to persue this line, but I can understand why they are.  

      Now long story short, the whole issue is really about Russia (the world's largest reserves of natural gas) keeping their monopoly on supplying natural gas to Europe, using pipelines through France.   Iran has the second largest reserves.  

      Follow the money...

      •  Should be "pipelines under construction" (0+ / 0-)

        Russia's pipelines currently go through "former soviet block states" which explains several "minor" incidents over the last decade including a near war and a blockde that caused people to freeze to death in Germany.   (The former states want a larger cut of the profits.   Follow the money.)

        I mention France because they are one of the more rabid members of the anti-Muslim club.

      •  Russian pipelines through France? (0+ / 0-)

        Do they involve wormhole technology, or did you type France when you meant a different nation entirely? One that is adjacent to Russia?

  •  I actually watched the clip (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    volleyboy1
    The Israeli media has reported that Israel will attack Iran before November.
    That bit was nowhere to be found.
    •  You technically may be right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco

      In the middle of the clip. the ex-Mossad head does say that the next twelve weeks (to mid November) will see if Israel will attack Iran.

      •  Technically? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1, livosh1

        Nowhere does anyone state Israel will attack Iran. If anything, the people interviewed are bearish on the idea. "Technically" the original claim is hyperbole.

        •  Israel and the USA have (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Friendlystranger

          already launched attacks on Israel. The killings of scientist, the hacking of nuclear production computers, the support of terrorists, the ongoing demonization of Iran, and brutal sanctions that will likely kill thousands of children. In Iraq, American led sanctions killed and estimated 500,000 small children according to a major research study by the UN.

          Many right-wingers in Israel have threatened to attack Iran for a number of years. In the US even Obama has refused to take a nuclear attack on Iran off the table. I am not panicking, but any nuclear countries making any military threats against a non-nuclear armed country is criminal. These issues should be debated now, and not after the bombs have fallen.

          Also, any attack on Iran could lead to the closing of the strait of Hormuz. This could double the price of heating our homes and of fueling our cars--and very likely to a severe worldwide depression. Going forward, can we really trust the military and political leadership of all the countries involved to act rationally.

          War is costly. Peace is priceless!

          by frostbite on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 04:54:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've heard all that talk. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1

            The claim was the attack was in the pipeline and gonna happen.

            By the way, I've heard that exact prediction before too. About 100 times, and counting.

            If there was a real drumbeat to war, we'd know about it from many other clues, not just from one unknown blogger with a totally misleading headline.

            Israel cannot attack Iran w/o US/Iraqi joint permission, because Israel would have to fly and re0fuel over Iraq. So what you are hearing out of Israel these recent days is spelled b-l-u-f-f.

  •  Good thing the Raid on Entebbe... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund

    ...had a somewhat lower PR profile.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 07:30:01 PM PDT

  •  Is there anyone here who thinks that the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    207wickedgood

    Israeli government would simply be able to walk away after using the first aggressor strategy with nuclear weapons on a non nuclear population?  Or that anyone else would allow it to continue to  function if its response to an objection to such a nuclear attack on civilians  is "Next time we'll do Rome"?

    And what do those here think the reaction would be if Israel attacked Iran with nukes before the US election. Nukes are nukes, and civilians are civilians. And using the former on the latter is a line not even the US and the Soviets and the Chinese and the North Koreans have crossed when they are furious at one another.

    Their real issue for some time is to be able to change the US position of protecting them from aggressive attack by others, "Security,"  into  the US adopting as the US' own their particularistic foreign policy and being their arms when they want another country attacked, rather than doing it itself? AND, OH YES,  diverting attention from the continuing efforts to take over the WB and clear it of people not their own in their own estimation while all this tsouris is going on. There are now reports of settlers firebombing cars with Palestinians in them, and what even the English language papers reported as a Jerusalem lynch, where Israeli youth attacked Palestinians in West Jerusalem, plus more destroyed orchards, an IDF officer holding military ceremonies at the Cave of the Patriarchs, etc etc.

    As it is, some of the Israeli papers are reporting that essentially all of this wolfing about war and gas masks, not something that works well against nuclear weapons, is a very fancy bluff to make the US try to persuade them not to attack by taking itself more forceful action than the boycotts and sanctions already in place.

    •  Um, I agree with you in general but (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Friendlystranger, poco, frostbite
      Nukes are nukes, and civilians are civilians. And using the former on the latter is a line not even the US and the Soviets and the Chinese and the North Koreans have crossed when they are furious at one another.
      The US has used nuclear weapons on civilians.  We have that singular distinction.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 07:44:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Correct. The US did it. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, poco, frostbite

        And although many who loathe one another have since developed and tested such weapons, none of them have used them on one another after seeing what the two and only times, Hiroshima and Nagisaki, did. IMO, the consequence of the  one use is a global consensus that it should never happen again. That includes the nukes Israel as a state boasts of its care of but refuses officially to admit it has, even as it sort of threatens to use them on Iran in the current mess unless . . . someone . . .agrees to do something to persuade them not to.

  •  Doubt Israel will attack Iran before the election. (6+ / 0-)

    It's too risky and could backfire on them.  But Netanyahu will use the upcoming elections to get promises of more arms and more aid, while his government confiscates more Palestinian land unabatedly and without any repercussions from Washington.

    Netanyahu is really hoping Romney wins, because Romney owes Bibi's friend and propagandist Adelson a huge favor for the millions donated to his campaign.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site