Israeli sources: Israel willing to accept Iran deal for US compensation

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
You asked what Israel is using for leverage and if we should give them weapons "just because". That's why I mentioned the Samson Option. It doesn't matter if you believe it is real or not, since you're not a lawmaker or international power broker. But as long as those people in power believe it is a credible threat, that's all that matters.

I didn't say the Samson Option wasn't real. I said they wouldn't invoke it over a treaty. They would wait until someone is actually threatening them first. At the end of the day Israel wants to survive too and using Samson guarantees their destruction it's not a measure that you use until the enemy is actually at the gates and you can't repel them.

Once again, you asked what they are using for leverage. I reminded you of their ultimate leverage. And I brought up their campaign contributions as a reminder to why US federal lawmakers are willing to give Israel more weapons in exchange for allowing the Iran deal. Why is that so hard to understand?

And it's a bit delusional to think they would or wouldn't do something. Israel already pulled out their nukes to force the US to give them more military aid in the '70s. So how can you claim they wouldn't do it again, especially when it worked then? Do you also think it would be suicidal for Israel to destroy a US Naval ship, killing 34 Americans & wounding 170+ more? Because they actually did that & it wasn't suicidal. And the Samson Option isn't just 1 all out attack, it also includes the threat of attacks.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

So your argument is that their leverage is continued campaign contributions through their lobbyists? I don't think that's much leverage because politics doesn't really have a memory. Congress can oppose them here, but as long as they're on Israel's side in the future during election season they'll get campaign money.

Why not?

If they are willing to pay Iran for signing a deal, pay Israel for accepting it. While they are at it, in the event that this whole mess leads to nuclear conflict one day, the Obama administration should be willing to offer compensation to every human being on the planet in advance.

originally posted by: ausername
Why not?

If they are willing to pay Iran for signing a deal, pay Israel for accepting it.

"Accepting it"? That implies choice. I don't see where they have one....aside from accepting the inevitable.

a reply to: intrepid

I think Israel has made their choices and options clear on these issues. Unilateral military action on Iran to remove the "nuclear threat". How much would it be worth to remove that from the table?

Hell, if the Iranian and Israeli elite work secretly together on this, maybe they could get hundreds of billions?

a reply to: ausername

Hell, if the Iranian and Israeli elite work secretly together on this, maybe they could get hundreds of billions?

Now your talking...

a reply to: intrepid

All kidding aside, there really is, unfortunately, only one ultimate inevitability for Israel.

imo

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: intrepid

All kidding aside, there really is, unfortunately, only one ultimate inevitability for Israel.

imo

I see 2. One- Relax and actually work with your neighbors. Hell, their tech alone could bring water from Africa to China. Two- Keep being a dick and get destroyed. I like #1 myself.

a reply to: intrepid

The middle east in particular, and much of the world now are never going to fully accept or tolerate the Jewish state of Israel. They will never have peace, only cycles of violence and war.

Israel can accept their ultimate fate, destroy their enemies, or abandon the region under pressure.

These are their ultimate tough choices. None of them are easy, or end well for Israel.

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: intrepid

The middle east in particular, and much of the world now are never going to fully accept or tolerate the Jewish state of Israel. They will never have peace, only cycles of violence and war.

I disagree. If Israel actually worked with it's neighbors I think there would be reciprocity. Good will.

a reply to: intrepid

That has been attempted in the past, consessions and good will were met with more violence and demands.

Good will and concessions from Israel are seen as weakness by their enemies, an invitation for more of the same.

It's true, damned if they do, damned if they don't now.

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: intrepid

That has been attempted in the past, consessions and good will were met with more violence and demands.

Good will and concessions from Israel are seen as weakness by their enemies, an invitation for more of the same.

OK. Let's look at how things have changed....just since 1948. Israel's inception. The USSR was the boogyman. Gone. Black people STILL had limited rights. Better today. Women were slapped around in their homes and THAT was accepted. Glad that one is mostly gone.

Times change. If Israel reached out I think they would have a hand to shake.

Washington DC - Panhandling Ordinance
source: www.downtowndc.org...

For additional information or to report what appears to be aggressive panhandling, you can also call the DowntownDC BID’s dispatch unit at 202.624.1550.

The Downtown BID discourages people from giving any individuals money. Money received from strangers or “regular contributors” can help feed drug or alcohol addictions.

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: intrepid

I think Israel has made their choices and options clear on these issues. Unilateral military action on Iran to remove the "nuclear threat". How much would it be worth to remove that from the table?

Hell, if the Iranian and Israeli elite work secretly together on this, maybe they could get hundreds of billions?

I don't see how it's in the US's interest to placate Israels threat of proactive strikes on Iran by giving Israel weapons that makes their future use of such a threat more effective.

originally posted by: ausername
Why not?

If they are willing to pay Iran for signing a deal, pay Israel for accepting it. While they are at it, in the event that this whole mess leads to nuclear conflict one day, the Obama administration should be willing to offer compensation to every human being on the planet in advance.

The money Iran received belonged to Iran in the first place. When sanctions were placed on Iran all the money they had in banks here was frozen. So we didn't pay Iran so Israel deserves nothing. And if it does lead to nuclear conflict which Iran has no nukes the nation that starts the conflict will be responsible for paying for it not America.

This also means that they are always going to accept Iran having nuclear power

originally posted by: Azureblue
This also means that they are always going to accept Iran having nuclear power

But Iran does have nuclear power, stomping feet and refusing to accept reality doesn't really change that.

a reply to: buster2010

We should send them a stamp, which they can use to send a thank you letter and a few billion dollars back to the US.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Rosinitiate

For future reference, and certainly applicable in this instance - the word "ship", is how I say the actual word I want to say whilst still adhering to T&Cs...........unless I'm talking about actual sea-going vessels,

I'm sorry for quoting this, but it gave me a gut bursting laugh that I really needed.

Iranian nuclear terrorist duck, OMG.

Priceless.

originally posted by: intrepid
I disagree. If Israel actually worked with it's neighbors I think there would be reciprocity. Good will.

Prior to the Ayatollah deposing the Shah, Israel/Iran relations were quite good. They were trading partners and allies. When Khomeini took power, one of his first acts was to sever ties with Israel, declaring them "an enemy of Islam", and starting his little "Death to Israel" tantrums.

Your blame is placed on the wrong party here, 'Trep. On one side you have a country using cowboy diplomacy to the advancement and protection of their own nation and on the other you have a country ruled by a religious zealot trying to apply nonsecular rational to calls for violence.

What special situation exists that the cycle of lunatics running Iran from behind the scenes deserve deference over a nation that essentially operates under the same guidelines as the rest of the West?