Who Will Strike First…?


As Iran continues to advance their nuclear programs, the rest of the world is forced to sit and wait for them to act before having the ability to deter the threat of a nuclear bomb. This is due to the UN charter’s “idea” that sovereign states must act collectively when dealing with international issues. However, remaining neutral is not an option for all countries. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found evidence of Iran’s progress in creating nuclear arms which has led Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to address the UN General Assembly. Acting like a hawk waiting to strike its prey, Netanyahu has made a peremptory statement that Israel will not wait for Iran to finish their nuclear arsenal and that Israel will take action if the UN Security Council doesn’t do more, thus demanding global nations to draw a “Red Line.”

Netanyahu mentions this “Red Line strategy” as a tool to prevent war. Rules have been implemented in the NATO charter with the purpose of deterring countries from going to war as seen with Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War when the U.S. stepped in and kept him from invading Kuwait. Additionally, it can be seen when JFK put sanctions on Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is said that an attack on one member state of the UN is an attack on <em>all</em> member states. Although Iran may not care if they start a nuclear war, most of the remaining sovereign states have strong feelings towards this matter and will act hopefully not based on strategic self-interests but as an international deterrent.

Netanyahu’s Bomb Diagram

After reading Netanyahu’s speech to the General Assembly, I found it extremely interesting how he speaks of Israeli values, technology sustainability and their actions of global aid. He speaks as if Israel wants nothing but peace and prosperity for all of mankind no matter what religion, sex or race one is. What I find interesting is how the American media twists the Middle East situation to make individuals belief Israel is set out for the destruction of another country and its innocent citizens. Journalist Israel Asher reports,

<blockquote>”Much of the world media have been taken captive by their own biases, or victimized by their own ignorance…Dishonest reporting tells you that it’s about territory… Honest reporting would tell you that it is a war to destroy Israel.The central, and conveniently ignored, fact is that the current warfare is merely the latest chapter in a war against the Jewish people.”</blockquote>

Although I neither agree or disagree with these comments, think about the reality of the situation from both perspectives; the constant struggle for land and water, families who are threatened daily and the idea that one bomb could lead to the decimation of civilization. Would you live life in fear or be brave for your family and country? Realize that this is the reality of people living in the Middle East.

References:

Asper, I. (n.d.). Dishonest Reporting: Media Bias Against Israel. The Jewish Website – aish.com. Retrieved October 4, 2012, from http://www.aish.com/jw/mo/48932327.html

Luciano, M. (n.d.). Netanyahu Speech at UN General Assembly: Full Transcript and Video. Netanyahu Speech at UN General Assembly: Full Transcript and Video. Retrieved October 4, 2012, from http://www.policymic.com/articles/15409/netanyahu-speech-at-un-general-assembly-full-transcript-and-video

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Who Will Strike First…?

  1. The US, as we discussed in GLC classes and as many American students agreed, invaded Iraq to be able to grab a hold of its oil, and not to protect Kuwait. Israel on the other hand does engage in wars, and does kill innocent people. Despite what any media shows, we live in the actual situation, and we have seen how Israel killed innocents of Lebanon and Palestine and others. For sure, any country, whether Israel or another, would not tell what it has on its hidden agenda. If anything a president or a prime minister said was true, the world wouldn’t have had much conflicts. Iran also stated that they do not seek to use this nuclear power in any way that would hurt anyone, but you still believe that it is wrong, and I agree. For that same reason, I disagree with that what Israel wants is “peace”, unless they want their own peace and everybody else’s destruction. Israel has contributed to the loss of lives and had commited many war crimes, and here I speak about the 2006-war since I was present. Because I lack much trust in the media, or in any political figure, I will tell you about what I witnessed. Israel’s bombing of Lebanese people and lands was very terrorist. I would only want you, or any other person who has similar thoughts, not to be a silent listener, only hearing what Natanyahu says, or what the media provides. Get on the real ground, ask real people, people who have no political interest and no religious bias.

    1. First, I’d like to address your first point. I was talking about the gulf war, 1990-91, which America went in in order to protect Kuwait from being invaded by Iraq as well as probably protecting their oil interests. I also agree that Israel has engaged in wars, but so has most every country surrounding Israel at one point including Hezbollah which unfortunately occupies and has much influence in Lebanese politics and society. Sadly, death and destruction from both sides have occurred: Israeli’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon and Hezbollah’s firing of rockets into Israel are just two examples. When talking about a hidden agenda, I agree that each country has their own special interests in mind which is why there is so much conflict and noncooperation amongst sovereign states. Obviously, it looks like we have differing views on what Netanyahu’s agenda is. I believe it is to achieve peace, but that proves to be difficult when multiple countries, Iran specifically, want the complete annihilation of Israel and all that Israel encompasses which includes innocent civilians and families. I believe Iran’s hidden agenda is to say they don’t want to use nuclear weapons for that, but should we wait to find out? Israel has tried to make peace with Palestine but they refuse unless the entire country is theirs. That is a whole separate topic though. Sadly, the destruction and aggression that you witness by the IDF is being done because Israel has to defend themselves. I do believe that their methods may be extreme at times but it’s Israel’s belief that this must be done. Lynn, I very much appreciated your perspective and I do want to understand this issue from all standpoints as well which is why I enjoyed the conversation when you guys were visiting. I also concur that people do need to listen and try to grasp both perspectives so that an independent, non-bias opinion can be formed.

      1. Justin, let me just start by inviting you to check out these pictures from 2006. (Warning: they might disturb you). Do those pictures go with the words “Israel wants nothing but peace”? Do they support your view that Netanyahu’s agenda is to achieve peace? The pictures in the link are from Qana Massacre #2, the first one took place in 1996. You may think “massacre” is too big of a word, but I will let the photographs speak for themselves.
        Before one justifies the IDF’s aggression by saying they are defending themselves, one should go back to 1948 and also justify the Palestinians’ reaction to the Israeli attempt of ethnic cleansing of Palestine (as referred to by Illan Pappe, one of Israel’s most famous New Historians which has been condemned by the Knesset itself).

  2. Please send a link for those pictures; I’m sure are most disturbing. I believe those pictures do not go with the word peace, but ask yourself why did those attacks occur? The one perspective believes for security and the other for simply hatred of another. They obviously won’t support the view of peace that Netanyahu seeks, though they see it as necessary and most likely have a reason for doing so. Just like Hezbollah probably has a reason for sending rockets into israel or the PLA for blowing up busses and throwing hornets nest grenades into crowded Israeli establishments. I understand that death is not the solution and it is disturbing what the IDF did, though most countries over history have committed savage like acts against another civilization. Even America with the native Americans. I most definitely understand the word massacre; I have seen the remnants of the Holocaust and that left me speechless. I do agree that the way Israel became to be was wrong and that land was simply taken. Unfortunately, the fact that Israel and Palestine couldn’t figure a just solution has lead us to this challenging conflict today.

    1. Sorry about the technical fault, here’s the link: http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/07/qana-massacre.html

      What differentiates the Israeli aggressions over other nations’ is the mere silence of the international community when it comes to Palestine. And, you cannot blame the Palestinians for not settling for a solution yet. Put yourself in their situation; would you accept someone to invade your house, take control over it, change the legal ownership documents, and force you to live in one room?

    2. Sorry about the technical fault, here’s the link: http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/07/qana-massacre.html

      What differentiates the Israeli aggressions over other nations’ is the mere silence of the international community when it comes to Palestine. And, you cannot blame the Palestinians for not settling for a solution yet. Put yourself in their situation; would you accept someone to invade your house, take control over it, change the legal ownership documents, and force you to live in one room?

  3. (in case my name doesn’t appear yet again, this is Fatima A.)

    Sorry about the technical fault, here’s the link: http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/07/qana-massacre.html

    What differentiates the Israeli aggressions over other nations’ is the mere silence of the international community when it comes to Palestine. And, you cannot blame the Palestinians for not settling for a solution yet. Put yourself in their situation; would you accept someone to invade your house, take control over it, change the legal ownership documents, and force you to live in one room?

    1. Those photos are disturbing and I hope the death discontinues. Sadly, there are no current signs of that stopping for good. You may find this site interesting… http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/iopt0807/index.htm. I do not completely blame the Palestinians for not settling a solution because their land was taken in a non-diplomatic fashion. I would not accept how Israel came to be if I were a Palestinian but I would try and resolve the issue based on what the situation is now. CAn’t live in the past and peace will only come by working for it in the present.

      1. Of course one can’t live in the past. But, if it weren’t for the past, we wouldn’t have been discussing this issue now. So, I disagree with you. The past should be taken into consideration, because it is history which helps us learn from our mistakes. And, just because something happened in the past, it doesn’t mean one can’t hold parties accountable for it in the present.

  4. We most definitely learn from our past and that I do agree with. However, the past is not being considered in any solution which is why to move forward, we can’t afford to take the past into consideration. If we do, then there will never be a mutual agreement in regards to who has the rights of the land. That is an issue that can be debated from the political and diplomatic standpoint or from a biblical stance. Who is right? Technically the Palestinians are, but from all the wars, peace negotiations and tension over political issues, the Israelis will never agree to go back to what it was even if it was wrong in the first place.

    1. I agree with you, in a theoretical sense. However, as an Arab citizen, I do not accept to acknowledge the movement that is trying to erase the past for its own “present” political stance. The 1948 Palestinian exodus’ history should not be disregarded, just like the Holocaust’s isn’t.

      Just because the Israelis “will never agree to go back to what it was” it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stand up for what is right. And, the future generations won’t formulate their own opinions if they are not aware of the historical context of the issue. So, again, I do not agree (even slightly) with your suggestion to not consider the past in coming up with a solution. Why should the Palestinians settle for what the Israelis want, when it’s their homeland at stake.

      1. You make a good point. I also believe that the palestinian exodus shouldn’t be disregarded because it did in fact happen. I’m saying that if this matter is to be considered when trying to form a peace treaty, a solution will never be met because neither side will agree to give up what they believe is their land. I don’t believe the Palestinians should settle with what the Israeli’s want. However, from a current standpoint, taking the past into consideration will do nothing for either side. Sadly, it will just prolong the process of peace.

  5. But, if you don’t take the past into consideration, the Israelis would have a legitimate equal right to the land. If you take the past into consideration, you would still know who oppressed who.

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