Ok, Palestinians are NOT maltreated refugees. They're members of a no-longer existent country who consistently support terrorist attacks in Israel. If people who still claim to be Scottish suddenly crashed a plane into Big Ben, or blew up a school bus or two, would we call THEM maltreated refugees? No, we'd call them terrorists. But yeah, Syria, Iran, etc are more concerned with the theocratic ramifications of retaking Jerusalem.scribe999 said:The terrorist groups aren't the one's coming up with the elaborate political schemes. It's Iran and Syria, and to a lesser extent our "allies" in the war on terror, Saudi Arabia, that are using them in a proxy campaign against Israel. Palestinians are maltreated refugees if they happen to be in their "brethren" nations adjacent to Israel. Many of the Arab nations that pay lip service to the plight of the Palestinians desire the destruction of a Western friendly nation, Israel, while taking back the Holy Land for their own gain. Hamas and Hezbollah are merely tools since they couldn't exist without the help of these backer countries.
Of course it had something to do with Iran, be it directly or indirectly. Iran has more control of oil than Iraq does, and I'd have to bet that France and Russia went to Iran before they went to Iraq when they wanted to cut a deal for oil. And even so, it's undeniable that Iran is giving UN countries that go easy on them oil kickbacks. Granted, nobody wants Iran to become a country with nuclear capabilities, especially France, but that doesn't mean they're not willing to cut some deals.France and Germany were in the Oil for Food program for Iraq. This was the major scandal that engulfed many of the governmental figures in those nations and the UN, but it had nothing to do with Iran. For all its faults, Iran doesn't have the massive scarcity of food and medicine that afflicted Iraq after the first Gulf War. Regardless, Great Britain, France and Germany do not believe it is acceptable that Iran becomes a nuclear power considering its history of extremism and violent rhetoric that has come out of Iran in the past few decades. They may not do anything well, but they will not ignore the threat as it is clearly more of one than Iraq ever presented during the years following the first Gulf War.
This is entirely true, but when was the last time Israel has been in an actual, full-blown war? I'd have to say that they're going to make some attempts on the life of some political leaders. Or pull a Columbia and have somebody else do it.As for a pre-emptive strike against Iran, it isn't out of the question for Israel, but if they were going to do it, most likely they would have done it by now. Currently, Israel is hoping for a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear capabilities as is everyone else. However, Israel has made it clear, with announcements by the Prime Minister and other representatives of their government, that this campaign currently is not only an attempt to get back their kidnapped soldiers, but that this is a statement against Syria and Iran, Hezbollah's biggest supporters. If you believe Israeli military strength and intelligence is so effective, then you have to believe that they know that this is not merely a minor border skirmish with terrorist thugs SINCE ISRAEL HAS STATED IT THEMSELVES. Also, while Israel has assassinated recognized terrorists in their history, they have not ever assassinated an actual head of state of a recognized sovereign nation. If it's so damn easy to murder a figurehead, Hassan Nasrallah (head of Hezbollah), Yassir Arafat, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein would have been offed by Mossad since they all represented, at one point or another, clear and present dangers to Israel.
This is true, but I think that Israel may want more than the Lebanese government is willing to give, in terms of military presence and action. If this is the case, I think that Israel will take steps towards having them do whatever they like.Regarding the government of Lebanon, Israel has also publicly stated that they support them, but that they no longer have the patience with its weakness in dealing with the Hezbollah presence in Southern Lebanon. They feel that they're actually doing the Lebanese government a favor. Israel supported the efforts to remove the Syrian military presence that had dominated Lebanon from the 1978 until 2005. There are only a few feasible reasons for Israel to do a full-scale operation in the area, and the most likely is to provide a statement against Iranian nuclear ambition while removing one of Iran's most dangerous tools, Hezbollah.
Of course there are people who are opposed to them taking military action. But this isn't a domestic issue they're dealing with. I think that things aren't going to be held back by worries about public opinion when it comes to them.Israel's history is colored with violence, yes, but the liberal elements in their government have always pressed for peace and order. Otherwise, they would not have allowed Palestinian Arabs to remain within the boundaries of their country at all. Until the most recent Intifada, Palestinians worked and moved about within the boundaries of Israel proper with the necessary documentation. This is not to defend everything Israel has done in the treatment of Palestinians, but the Israeli government has been more reasonable than most governments would be in such a situation.
True, but I don't think they're going to occupy Iran. They aren't actually being attacked by Iran. I just think they're going to bomb a few places, then leave.Also, if Israel isn't in the business of occupation, why did theyt OCCUPY Lebanon for 22 years? There is no way you can say that this isn't something they're in to since they HAVE done it and ARE in the process of doing it again. Go back in their history, and Israel has occupied the West Bank, Southern Lebanon and the Sinai Peninsula (belonging to Egypt) as defensive measures. So yeah, they have administerd occupational forces in the formally recognized territories of other nations.
And meet Jewish girls...?