Should America continue support of Israel?

[Murray land]

Just what the title says. They have fired on American military personnel twice in the past knowingly too. So what do you think NS?THIS IS NOT A RELIGION FORUM. It is strictly about America's support and whether or not you think it is a legitamate state. Once again not a religion forum do not start an argument about it.

[Farnhamia]

Just what the title says. THIS IS NOT A RELIGION FORUM. It is strictly about America's support and whether or not you think it is a legitamate state. Once again not a religion forum do not start an argument about it.

It is considered polite, if not an actual requirement, for the person starting a thread to provide something more than one or two sentences on the topic, and to present their own opinion.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I don't really care whether it's legitimate or not, Israel has succesfully blackmailed everyone with its outrageous samson option, which threatens Iran with a pre-emptive Nuclear strike should the Iranians be overly belligerent with their Nuclear program.

If they state they're willing to go that far to preserve the regional balance, I'd rather America guarantee the Israelis their security and have some leverage to tell the madman to put down the hatchet for now, than that they should be left alone to take their security into their own hands.

[Saruhan]

I don't really care whether it's legitimate or not, Israel has succesfully blackmailed everyone with its outrageous samson option, which threatens Iran with a pre-emptive Nuclear strike should the Iranians be overly belligerent with their Nuclear program.

If they state they're willing to go that far to preserve the regional balance, I'd rather America guarantee the Israelis their security and have some leverage to tell the madman to put down the hatchet for now, than that they should be left alone to take their security into their own hands.

I doubt that they would ever use the Samson option. Nukes are far more effective if they go unfired

[Murray land]

I don't really care whether it's legitimate or not, Israel has succesfully blackmailed everyone with its outrageous samson option, which threatens Iran with a pre-emptive Nuclear strike should the Iranians be overly belligerent with their Nuclear program.

If they state they're willing to go that far to preserve the regional balance, I'd rather America guarantee the Israelis their security and have some leverage to tell the madman to put down the hatchet for now, than that they should be left alone to take their security into their own hands.

I doubt that they would ever use the Samson option. Nukes are far more effective if they go unfired

The Samson option? Never heard of it care to explain.

[Inky Noodles]

I say we silently do nothing while Iran and Israel butt-fuck each other.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I don't really care whether it's legitimate or not, Israel has succesfully blackmailed everyone with its outrageous samson option, which threatens Iran with a pre-emptive Nuclear strike should the Iranians be overly belligerent with their Nuclear program.

If they state they're willing to go that far to preserve the regional balance, I'd rather America guarantee the Israelis their security and have some leverage to tell the madman to put down the hatchet for now, than that they should be left alone to take their security into their own hands.

I doubt that they would ever use the Samson option. Nukes are far more effective if they go unfired

It's not a bluff I'd be willing to call. And if they go on with that rhetoric they might likewise provoke Iran into doing something stupid. There's an escalating security dilemma at work here and I'd rather that a powerful third party, however biased and flawed its outlook and policy, be able to mediate and mitigate tensions. My two cents.

[Murray land]

I doubt that they would ever use the Samson option. Nukes are far more effective if they go unfired

It's not a bluff I'd be willing to call. And if they go on with that rhetoric they might likewise provoke Iran into doing something stupid. There's an escalating security dilemma at work here and I'd rather that a powerful third party, however biased and flawed its outlook and policy, be able to mediate and mitigate tensions. My two cents.

I wouldn't put anything past Iran especially with their recent military exercises. As a show of force to the U.S., which is laughable because it wouldn't take much to burry them.

[Cyborg Holland]

I say we silently do nothing while Iran and Israel butt-fuck each other.

A little "yes...yessss" wouldn't go amiss...

But seriously, America is what keeps both legitimate states and rouge terrorist groups from just walking into the tiny slither of land that is Israel and bombing it. Terrorists are scared of America. FACT.

[Murray land]

I say we silently do nothing while Iran and Israel butt-fuck each other.

A little "yes...yessss" wouldn't go amiss...

But seriously, America is what keeps both legitimate states and rouge terrorist groups from just walking into the tiny slither of land that is Israel and bombing it. Terrorists are scared of America. FACT.

Really they've done some ballsy things to get our attention. It seems like the only terrorists who like America is the IRA

[EnragedMaldivians]

I doubt that they would ever use the Samson option. Nukes are far more effective if they go unfired

The Samson option? Never heard of it care to explain.

The Israelis reserve they have a right to launch an all out pre-emptive attack should they feel that their security is sufficiently threatened; an option they threaten to use on Iran if its' alleged Nuclear program continues.

Israeli national security strategy is founded on the premise that Israel cannot afford to lose a single war. Because the best way to avoid losing a war is to not fight it in the first place, Israeli strategy begins with the maintenance of a credible deterrent posture, which includes the willingness to carry out preemptive strikes. Should deterrence fail, Israel would seek to prevent escalation, and determine the outcome of war quickly and decisively. Since it lacks strategic depth, Israel must prevent the enemy from entering its territory, and must try to quickly transfer the battle to enemy territory.

Israel applies its nuclear weapons to all levels of this formula. The total Israeli nuclear stockpile consists of several hundred weapons of various types, including boosted fission and enhanced radiation weapons ("neutron bombs"), as well as nuclear artillery shells. Strategically, Israel uses its long-range missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft (and, some say, submarines with nuclear-armed cruise missiles) to deter both conventional and unconventional attacks, or to launch "the Samson Option", an all-out attack against an adversary should defenses fail and population centers be threatened.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... ctrine.htm

It's probably a bluff, but rhetoric can get out of hand and either Iran or Israel might miscalculate and do something dramatically stupid. It's better than some of Israel's security is provided for by America, even if they are being blackmailed to do so (the U.S economy would not benefit by a large scale conflict like that in the Middle East between Iran and Israel).

[Neo Art]

I doubt that they would ever use the Samson option. Nukes are far more effective if they go unfired

The Samson option? Never heard of it care to explain.

The biblical story of Sampson who, captured by the Philistines, and chained to the pillars of their temple (or perhaps leaning against them in some versions) used his great strength to pull down the pillars, collapsing the temple, and killing all within.

The "Sampson option" as it refers to Israeli nuclear strategy is, in the event of nuclear war, to not target your enemy, or your attackers, but EVERYBODY. To "collapse the pillars of the world". It's as if to say "hey, America, Britain, Russia, if Iran attacks us, we're not just going to nuke them. We're going to nuke you too. Because if we go down, EVERYBODY is going down with us. So, maybe you should keep them off our backs."

[DogDoo 7]

I doubt that they would ever use the Samson option. Nukes are far more effective if they go unfired

It's not a bluff I'd be willing to call. And if they go on with that rhetoric they might likewise provoke Iran into doing something stupid. There's an escalating security dilemma at work here and I'd rather that a powerful third party, however biased and flawed its outlook and policy, be able to mediate and mitigate tensions. My two cents.

The only thing Israel would do would be to launch a quick strike from one of it's newly acquired Azeri bases, demolish whatever thing it was so important to demolish, and let this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_%28missile%29 take care of keeping the haram al-sharif standing.

[Marina and The Diamonds]

I believe Israel as a state, in itself is legitimate. Though, I do disagree with America's heavy support considering Israel's human rights abuses and war crimes towards Palestine. That's not to say I'm pro-Palestine either however. I think both sides are in the wrong. As for Iran-Israel, I don't think America should get involved military, America getting involved on a mediation/diplomatic sense of involvement on the other hand I have no issue with.

[Murray land]

The Samson option? Never heard of it care to explain.

The Israelis reserve they have a right to launch an all out pre-emptive attack should they feel that their security is sufficiently threatened; an option they threaten to use on Iran if its' alleged Nuclear program continues.

Israeli national security strategy is founded on the premise that Israel cannot afford to lose a single war. Because the best way to avoid losing a war is to not fight it in the first place, Israeli strategy begins with the maintenance of a credible deterrent posture, which includes the willingness to carry out preemptive strikes. Should deterrence fail, Israel would seek to prevent escalation, and determine the outcome of war quickly and decisively. Since it lacks strategic depth, Israel must prevent the enemy from entering its territory, and must try to quickly transfer the battle to enemy territory.

Israel applies its nuclear weapons to all levels of this formula. The total Israeli nuclear stockpile consists of several hundred weapons of various types, including boosted fission and enhanced radiation weapons ("neutron bombs"), as well as nuclear artillery shells. Strategically, Israel uses its long-range missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft (and, some say, submarines with nuclear-armed cruise missiles) to deter both conventional and unconventional attacks, or to launch "the Samson Option", an all-out attack against an adversary should defenses fail and population centers be threatened.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... ctrine.htm

It's probably a bluff, but rhetoric can get out of hand and either Iran or Israel might miscalculate and do something dramatically stupid. It's better than some of Israel's security is provided for by America, even if they are being blackmailed to do so (the U.S economy would not benefit by a large scale conflict like that in the Middle East between Iran and Israel).

Thank you. I knew that was Israel's M.O. but I didn't know that was the name of it. Neo Artthank you for the story of Samson.

[DogDoo 7]

The Samson option? Never heard of it care to explain.

The biblical story of Sampson who, captured by the Philistines, and chained to the pillars of their temple (or perhaps leaning against them in some versions) used his great strength to pull down the pillars, collapsing the temple, and killing all within.

The "Sampson option" as it refers to Israeli nuclear strategy is, in the event of nuclear war, to not target your enemy, or your attackers, but EVERYBODY. To "collapse the pillars of the world". It's as if to say "hey, America, Britain, Russia, if Iran attacks us, we're not just going to nuke them. We're going to nuke you too. Because if we go down, EVERYBODY is going down with us. So, maybe you should keep them off our backs."

I thought it just referred to nuking the entire Middle East. After all, Samson didn't knock down any other temples.

[Murray land]

I believe Israel as a state, in itself is legitimate. Though, I do disagree with America's heavy support considering Israel's human rights abuses and war crimes towards Palestine. That's not to say I'm pro-Palestine either however. I think both sides are in the wrong. As for Iran-Israel, I don't think America should get involved military, America getting involved on a mediation/diplomatic sense of involvement on the other hand I have no issue with.

We need to stop supporting Israel and Palestine is being oppresed. I don't hate the jews but I don't like Israel

[Divair]

No. All aid to Israel should be cut and the US should pressure the Israeli government into negotiating for a two state solution.

[Serrland]

The Samson option? Never heard of it care to explain.

The Israelis reserve they have a right to launch an all out pre-emptive attack should they feel that their security is sufficiently threatened; an option they threaten to use on Iran if its' alleged Nuclear program continues.

Israeli national security strategy is founded on the premise that Israel cannot afford to lose a single war. Because the best way to avoid losing a war is to not fight it in the first place, Israeli strategy begins with the maintenance of a credible deterrent posture, which includes the willingness to carry out preemptive strikes. Should deterrence fail, Israel would seek to prevent escalation, and determine the outcome of war quickly and decisively. Since it lacks strategic depth, Israel must prevent the enemy from entering its territory, and must try to quickly transfer the battle to enemy territory.

Israel applies its nuclear weapons to all levels of this formula. The total Israeli nuclear stockpile consists of several hundred weapons of various types, including boosted fission and enhanced radiation weapons ("neutron bombs"), as well as nuclear artillery shells. Strategically, Israel uses its long-range missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft (and, some say, submarines with nuclear-armed cruise missiles) to deter both conventional and unconventional attacks, or to launch "the Samson Option", an all-out attack against an adversary should defenses fail and population centers be threatened.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... ctrine.htm

It's probably a bluff, but rhetoric can get out of hand and either Iran or Israel might miscalculate and do something dramatically stupid. It's better than some of Israel's security is provided for by America, even if they are being blackmailed to do so (the U.S economy would not benefit by a large scale conflict like that in the Middle East between Iran and Israel).

Although, on the other hand, Saddam's ousting left a vacuum of sorts - someone the US could play against Iran. Israel filled that void brilliantly. Unfortunately, though, Israel-Iran has a lot more international implications than does Iraq-Iran. Bit of a mixed blessing really.

Better for everyone if no missiles are launched, it goes without saying.

[Neo Art]

The biblical story of Sampson who, captured by the Philistines, and chained to the pillars of their temple (or perhaps leaning against them in some versions) used his great strength to pull down the pillars, collapsing the temple, and killing all within.

The "Sampson option" as it refers to Israeli nuclear strategy is, in the event of nuclear war, to not target your enemy, or your attackers, but EVERYBODY. To "collapse the pillars of the world". It's as if to say "hey, America, Britain, Russia, if Iran attacks us, we're not just going to nuke them. We're going to nuke you too. Because if we go down, EVERYBODY is going down with us. So, maybe you should keep them off our backs."

I thought it just referred to nuking the entire Middle East. After all, Samson didn't knock down any other temples.

The reason it's called the "Samson" option, is because of the idea that "samson" (Israel in this case) took out the "pillars". The entire underlying support. This is not just "if you nuke me, I nuke you". We already had a term for that, M.A.D. (that's the whole theory behind mutually assured destruction, that we BOTH go down, after all).

Sampson goes beyond M.A.D. It goes beyond "if you attack me, I attack you, and we both go down". Israel's position has always been far more than just taking their ENEMY down with them. Their philosophy is to "take down the pillars" of society. It's a position of not merely mutually assured destruction. It's total destruction. That, if Israel's existance is threatened, they will trigger armageddon.

[Murray land]

No. All aid to Israel should be cut and the US should pressure the Israeli government into negotiating for a two state solution.

Well said. What do people in your country think of US aid?

[Conserative Morality]

No, we really shouldn't. They're a rogue state and act against our interests. The more we support them, the more brazen they become. We should have dropped them long ago.

[EnragedMaldivians]

No. All aid to Israel should be cut and the US should pressure the Israeli government into negotiating for a two state solution.

Again, it seems to me that your government is blackmailing the U.S with its Samsom option. It's "provide us with a modicum sense of security or we'll launch a pre-emptive stike on Iran, which incidentally would be incredibly bad for your economy and would cause untold human death and sufferring in the Middle East".

If the U.S cuts it aid, it'd be tantamount to calling that bluff and I'm not really sure if that's wise. No offence but I think that much of your government is functionally insane and insane people shouldn't be left to take care of their own security.

[Marina and The Diamonds]

I believe Israel as a state, in itself is legitimate. Though, I do disagree with America's heavy support considering Israel's human rights abuses and war crimes towards Palestine. That's not to say I'm pro-Palestine either however. I think both sides are in the wrong. As for Iran-Israel, I don't think America should get involved military, America getting involved on a mediation/diplomatic sense of involvement on the other hand I have no issue with.

We need to stop supporting Israel and Palestine is being oppresed.

I don't believe I said Israel should continue to be supported. I do support putting pressure upon Israel to end the conflict and support Palestinian statehood. On the other hand, I do believe both Israel and Palestine should be tried for war crimes, even though the former's may have been much worse.

[Hippostania]

Absolutely. Israel is one of the most important allies of the US, if not the most important. They're the Western foothold in a region controlled by radical islamofascist dictatorships, a bastion of freedom that shines across the entire Middle East. All Western countries should have unwavering support for Israel, despite opposition from left-wing radicals who want to let Jordanians infiltrate Israel and kill millions of people simply because they are Jewish.