Young Writers Society

These three countries are a centre of causing strife in Middle East and one insist on USA ally but never even acts like an ally outside of making demands of more money and weapons to US. But Iran ain't innocent either, so what should be done about them. Sensisble suggestions only.

Don't you mean Israel and Palestine? Apart from a few (seemingly idle) threats, Iran hasn't really had much interaction with Israel.

Historically I'd agree with you Sureal, but with the development of a nuclear program, in Iran, we're entering a whole new ball park in Middle East politics.

I think there remains too much warmongering and arrogance on both sides, until a significant tragedy happens (categorically upscale from what we've had in the last 60 years), nothing's going to change.

So Iran nuking Israel is probably, one way or another, the best chance at peace. Which makes one wonder if there isn't an entirely different approach that needs to be taken.

You mean, how is Israel an American ally besides the sharing of intelligence, joint military exercises, a widespread corporate exchange program, a deep cultural relationship, a common belief system, and thousands of American student expeditions to Israel every year? How indeed...


Rubric: Iran nuking Israel is the best chance for peace? I understand the basis of the argument you're making that only a significant tragedy will lead to peace, but that particular event would not lead to peace. Israel very likely has nuclear weapons that it would feel compelled to respond with if attacked by Iran. Moreover, even if it did not respond, you'd very likely see the whole powder-keg situation in the Middle East explode. You'd end up with Shiite v. Sunni, Christian & Jew v. Arab, East v. West, etc.

But the basis of the argument does have merit. The Oslo Accords in 1993 came about chiefly due to two reasons: the end of the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War. The first removed the main benefactor of Palestine, the USSR, and the second demonstrated to Israel that surrounding itself with occupied lands was no longer a viable defensive strategy. While neither event was a tragedy, both were water-shed moments and I believe that's what you're referring to.

As an Arab, I definitely have an opinion on these, and it amounts to look at the history.

Palestine isn't illogically full of hate. They had land, and homes. They were taken away and given to Israel without explanation or reason. Furthermore, Israel has invaded quite a few Palestianian territories and are still building on the ones Palestine has left. Quite simply, Israeli is where they shouldn't be (if we assume Israel should exist at all)

As for Iran? We overthrew their democratically elected government. Yeah, that causes issues.

We back off. Make Israel follow the law (why rules for Palestine and not for them?) and give the countries soveriegnity. We're not the world police. Why act it?

You mean, how is Israel an American ally besides the sharing of intelligence, joint military exercises, a widespread corporate exchange program, a deep cultural relationship, a common belief system, and thousands of American student expeditions to Israel every year? How indeed...

agree 100%

(if we assume Israel should exist at all)

Oh. my. god.



To answer the original answer, what should be done:

Israel - We need to fully stand behind Israel, always. We are one of their only real allies in this frighteningly anti-Semitic world. They are the only country in the Middle East that is fully democratic, promotes freedom of religion, promotes social and gender equality, etc., the list goes on. They are the only free country in that area.

Iran - Action needs to be taken about Iran. I remember Obama acting so naive about this back around the election. I hope he has wised up since. Iran does not have good intentions. Talking nicely to them isn't gonna help. Engaging in open diplomacy with terrorist-supporting, tyrannical dictators - Iran would love it if we did this. It would only make fools of us and put us one step behind whatever is actually going on. We need to actually do something to actively prevent Iran from attaining nukes. An official UN "thumbs down" (or whatever they do, really) and a sanction here or there isn't going to do anything.

Palestine - The biggest issue in the Arab/Israel conflict does not stem from either the Israelis or the Palestinians, but the surrounding Arab nations who perpetuate the conflict. They close their borders to Palestinian refugees, they sell weapons to Palestinians and/or give them military training to ensure the conflict never ends. They couldn't give a shit about their Arab brothers - quite the opposite; they want them to be seen as oppressed victims in the eyes the world, and Israel, the evil oppressor. They perpetuate the conflict at the cost of Palestinian livelihood all in order to villanize Israel. A solution could be reached if it weren't for them.

Attolia - The Semitic race includes the Arabs, btw. And I think it's a bit extreme to claim Israel has freedom of religion...it amounts to look at the map. Israel is invading territories that aren't theirs, and we turn a blind eye. And as for immigration, why don't we accept Palestinian immigrants? Pressure is being put on Arab countries to close trade with Palestine and to reject the immigrants...why? And as for Iran...I understand the US' concerns about Iran, but yet again, I always wonder why we feel we have the right to decide. Pakistan is much more unstable, and has nuclear weapons. Honestly, I'm less concerned about Iran than Pakistan...Iran has a stable government, while Pakistan does not. The decision of nukes can't be based on whether or not their our allies, it should be on whether or not they are likely to be taken over, and as far as it goes, Iran is a strong country, and not one so deeply hateful of the US that they'll bother putting themselves at risk for smallscale revenge

the Semitic race includes the Arabs, btw

I know , but the phrase is usually just meant as anti-Jewish.

And I think it's a bit extreme to claim Israel has freedom of religion...it amounts to look at the map. Israel is invading territories that aren't theirs, and we turn a blind eye.

Israel invading territories has nothing to do with whether or not they have freedom of religion. They do have freedom of religion. Everyone is Israel is allowed to openly practice whatever religion they choose. Arab Muslims make up 16% of Israel - they live there freely and peacefully. They retain full Israeli citizenship and have the complete rights of any other Israeli. But you don't hear about them very often, do you? Any people don't want you to.

And as for Iran...I understand the US' concerns about Iran, but yet again, I always wonder why we feel we have the right to decide. Pakistan is much more unstable, and has nuclear weapons. Honestly, I'm less concerned about Iran than Pakistan...Iran has a stable government, while Pakistan does not. The decision of nukes can't be based on whether or not their our allies, it should be on whether or not they are likely to be taken over, and as far as it goes, Iran is a strong country, and not one so deeply hateful of the US that they'll bother putting themselves at risk for smallscale revenge

We have the right to decide because the UN has proven to be ineffective. The UN is responsible for dangers like this, but they have very little real power. That said, they'll support us in whatever action we take (the majority of them, at any rate). We often act as the force behind the UN. Furthermore, we have the right to decide because we'd be idiots not to. We should stand around and watch while Iran develops nukes? I disagree with you on the stability of Iran. I think the recent elections and protests there have proved that - that one, Iran's government is obviously undemocratic, tyrannical, and bordering on totalitarian, and two, that it is very likely there will be a change of power in the somewhat near future. (On that matter, it is actually wisest for us to do nothing, so the reigning despots don't use "anti-America" to rally what support they can, but the possibility of them developing nukes trumps this. Unfortunately, it is more important to prevent a nuclear winter than to try and help Iranians gain freedom. But hopefully the two don't have to work against each other.)
Anyway, Iran cannot be allowed to develop nukes! Iran is ruled by terrorist-supporting tyrants, who basically funded 9/11 and who deny the Holocaust and call for the destruction of Israel. Nukes in the hands of Iran is a very, very scary thought. They would use them to first attempt to destroy Israel (and Israel has nukes, so that right there would basically be the end of the Middle East), and second to attempt to destroy us.

I agree with you that Pakistan can be worrisome, but the huge difference between Pakistan and Iran (in this specific matter, that is) is that Pakistan already has nukes. Iran does not. It's not a matter of preventing Pakistan from gaining nukes, as it is with Iran.

With nukes, you're right, it's not the decision of whether or not they are our allies. It's whether or not they exist as a country! With nuclear disarmament, under the UN, NO new country is allowed to gain nukes. The world community is trying to disarm and slowly lessen the supply of nukes. It's already frightening enough with all the countries that do possess them - it has long since been decided that no new country is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has been pretending they haven't, though everyone knows they are. Even if there weren't nuclear disarmament, the decision of nukes would not be based on who are our allies, but it would be based on who would be likely/unlikely to use them. Iran is one of the most likely countries to use nukes if they had them, and thus one more reason why they cannot be allow to gain them.

Sorry, it's hard for me to answer anything on these subjects without getting into length and getting off on tangents.

Attolia wrote:

the Semitic race includes the Arabs, btw

I know , but the phrase is usually just meant as anti-Jewish.

And I think it's a bit extreme to claim Israel has freedom of religion...it amounts to look at the map. Israel is invading territories that aren't theirs, and we turn a blind eye.

Israel invading territories has nothing to do with whether or not they have freedom of religion. They do have freedom of religion. Everyone is Israel is allowed to openly practice whatever religion they choose. Arab Muslims make up 16% of Israel - they live there freely and peacefully. They retain full Israeli citizenship and have the complete rights of any other Israeli. But you don't hear about them very often, do you? Any people don't want you to.

And as for Iran...I understand the US' concerns about Iran, but yet again, I always wonder why we feel we have the right to decide. Pakistan is much more unstable, and has nuclear weapons. Honestly, I'm less concerned about Iran than Pakistan...Iran has a stable government, while Pakistan does not. The decision of nukes can't be based on whether or not their our allies, it should be on whether or not they are likely to be taken over, and as far as it goes, Iran is a strong country, and not one so deeply hateful of the US that they'll bother putting themselves at risk for smallscale revenge

We have the right to decide because the UN has proven to be ineffective. The UN is responsible for dangers like this, but they have very little real power. That said, they'll support us in whatever action we take (the majority of them, at any rate). We often act as the force behind the UN. Furthermore, we have the right to decide because we'd be idiots not to. We should stand around and watch while Iran develops nukes? I disagree with you on the stability of Iran. I think the recent elections and protests there have proved that - that one, Iran's government is obviously undemocratic, tyrannical, and bordering on totalitarian, and two, that it is very likely there will be a change of power in the somewhat near future. (On that matter, it is actually wisest for us to do nothing, so the reigning despots don't use "anti-America" to rally what support they can, but the possibility of them developing nukes trumps this. Unfortunately, it is more important to prevent a nuclear winter than to try and help Iranians gain freedom. But hopefully the two don't have to work against each other.)
Anyway, Iran cannot be allowed to develop nukes! Iran is ruled by terrorist-supporting tyrants, who basically funded 9/11 and who deny the Holocaust and call for the destruction of Israel. Nukes in the hands of Iran is a very, very scary thought. They would use them to first attempt to destroy Israel (and Israel has nukes, so that right there would basically be the end of the Middle East), and second to attempt to destroy us.

I agree with you that Pakistan can be worrisome, but the huge difference between Pakistan and Iran (in this specific matter, that is) is that Pakistan already has nukes. Iran does not. It's not a matter of preventing Pakistan from gaining nukes, as it is with Iran.

With nukes, you're right, it's not the decision of whether or not they are our allies. It's whether or not they exist as a country! With nuclear disarmament, under the UN, NO new country is allowed to gain nukes. The world community is trying to disarm and slowly lessen the supply of nukes. It's already frightening enough with all the countries that do possess them - it has long since been decided that no new country is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has been pretending they haven't, though everyone knows they are. Even if there weren't nuclear disarmament, the decision of nukes would not be based on who are our allies, but it would be based on who would be likely/unlikely to use them. Iran is one of the most likely countries to use nukes if they had them, and thus one more reason why they cannot be allow to gain them.

Sorry, it's hard for me to answer anything on these subjects without getting into length and getting off on tangents.

Okay Attolia let me say I totally disagree with ya. Because all three are problems, and to claim one is an ally is just plain ignorant. You do realize that UK a much bigger ally of USA? This should make it clear that we have no right to interfere. You don't bring Democracy by attacking other nations, it doesn't work that way, you distablise them by doing that.

Also the UN are peacekeepers first and foremost they help with great many Humantarian efforts and you're basically saying 'They're wrong, we're right' the world doesn't work that way. Diplomacy isn't cowardly, and until you realize that, you won't get anywhere in this debate. Sure fighting them be good and quick, but a reigion that's already having trouble stablising shouldn't have the match added to the gunpowder.

There no easy solution in this case. And America can't keep fighting a wars on so many fronts, it doesn't have the manpower to subtain so many conflicts.

Because all three are problems, and to claim one is an ally is just plain ignorant.

What? You believe Israel is not an ally of the United States? Israel and the United States are allies. That is a fact. Claiming otherwise is what is ignorant.

You do realize that UK a much bigger ally of USA? This should make it clear that we have no right to interfere.

I know that Britain is a much bigger ally. I love Britain. They are probably our greatest ally. I never said they weren't. I said that United States is one of Israel's only real allies. As in, the United States has tons of allies. Israel, on the other had, has about two real allies.

I originally was going to say we are Israel's only real ally, but changed it to "one of their only real allies" because I then thought of Britain, and thought it would be offensive to Britain to claim that we are Israel's only ally.

This should make it clear that we have no right to interfere.

I have no clue what you're trying to say here. That we are allies with Britain means that we have no right to interfere in world affairs?

We have the right to interfere in world affairs because nobody else is going to, and I personally don't like to sit around and watch foreign peoples being oppressed or killed.

You don't bring Democracy by attacking other nations, it doesn't work that way, you distablise them by doing that.

I never claimed this. Though, how did Japan get the successful democratic system they have today again?

Also the UN are peacekeepers first and foremost they help with great many Humantarian efforts and you're basically saying 'They're wrong, we're right' the world doesn't work that way.

The UN are peacekeepers only through word. What is mean is that they'll see a problem, and they'll vote, and they'll officially condemn it and maybe add in a sanction. They are great, but they have very little real power. Most of the time they will rightfully denounce something, but they don't have the physical manpower to successfully stop it. That's where we come in. The UN will often condemn something, and then the US and a few other countries will send in troops to resolve it. Sometimes it's through official UN procedures, sometimes it is not. But the UN often stands behind us when it is not. It's unfortunate that we have to sacrifice to do this (and we are not the only ones, a number of other countries help), but if we don't nothing will ever get done.

I'm not claiming the UN is wrong. They are generally correct. They are, however, too inefficient and restrained by their lack of real physical power - which is why the US has to get involved in world affairs in the first place. In a perfect world, the UN could resolve all conflicts. In the real world, they can't and don't. Look at the history of the UN over the last 65 years.

Diplomacy isn't cowardly, and until you realize that, you won't get anywhere in this debate.

I love diplomacy. We should always, always see if the matter can be resolved by diplomacy alone. I only wish all matters could be.

Sure fighting them be good and quick, but a reigion that's already having trouble stablising shouldn't have the match added to the gunpowder.

I know . The whole Middle East conflict is so deep and complex. I wish there were an easy solution. But in the case of Iran, we cannot sit around and watch them - allow them - to develop nuclear weapons.

There no easy solution in this case. And America can't keep fighting a wars on so many fronts, it doesn't have the manpower to subtain so many conflicts.

I agree and I agree . It's not looking good. So we need to prioritize.

In the end it all comes down to this, we don't have the means or manpower to do anything using the army, instead we should look to alternative solutions. Because this problem can only get worse and it's threatening to destablise whole Middle East. So, what needs to be done is less orthordox methods, methods that people find questionable out of war, not torture, but the killing of leaders could work, but ethically it's unbalanced. Really there is no solutions to this, because war won't work, diplomacy is failing, so we need to look to these methods.

Britain Israels allie, not really. USA shouldn't be because your suppose to be about freedom. Israel is a bad country I mean how you feel if a native american came and knocked on your door and said hey this use to be my land give it back and go live in a shit area you would tell him to bugger off. Israel have done the same thing and as is so often the case is only a small step for the victim to become the victimizer. If Britain was in a war with israel I would go and sign up for the army today.

I shouldn't even reply to that, but here I go.

Britain Israels allie, not really.

Unfortunately, your personal feelings cannot change the facts of international politics. Britain and Israel are allies.

USA shouldn't be because your suppose to be about freedom.

Which is why we are allies with the only FREE country in the middle east. Aka Israel.

Israel is a bad country

The word "bad" has no real meaning, and it is a completely subjective word. Please support your arguments with facts.

I mean how you feel if a native american came and knocked on your door and said hey this use to be my land give it back and go live in a shit area you would tell him to bugger off. Israel have done the same thing and as is so often the case is only a small step for the victim to become the victimizer.

The history of the region is so deeply, deeply complex you cannot dumb it down to the argument of a second-grader.

Plus, situations are completely different anyway. It was Britain and the UN mandate who forced relocation originally. Transition of territory after that occurred with war that Palestinians started.

I'm not anti Jew I'm anti Israel, theirs a difference and for someone who seems to think that their so smart I would expect you to know this. I'm the bias one I think not you are the one who is devoted to proving that Israel are the ones being wronged. Yes politicly Israel is britain's ally but not for much longer if the country keeps on as it is and most people I know don't like Israel except one but he's a Jew so dosen't really count. By the way if you can't dumb something down then it's not true. After all truth can be told on many mediums and if you can't tell it on one then it must not be true. sorry but think about it and you'll realise I'm right

TheTruthTeller

I'm not anti Jew I'm anti Israel

except one but he's a Jew so dosen't really count

Wait, what?

Both sides have done, and are currently involved in programs that infringe upon human rights. Finger pointing will get us no-where, it has certainly go the UN no-where since 1948.

Your analogy to native americans was, as noted, invalid, but interesting nonetheless. You compared Israel to the ancestral caretakers of the land, which is usually something an anti-israeli would not do. Usually an anti-Israeli would point out (legitimately) that Israel is essentially a colony of western ideals, and that regardless of how deeply their bloodlines may be rooted in the ground, that link was only re-established (largely due to western holocaust guilt) about 60 years ago.

What makes your flawed analogy so truly interesting is that if a member of the Kuarna (I'm South Australian so I personalised it here) People came and told me I was living on their land, I would say no, while I respect your people's traditional ties to the land, I am currently living here, with my family and am legally entitled to do so.

To simply transplant the Israeli into the position of "traditional custodians of the land" is spurious. The UN legitimised the states of Israel and Palestine in 1948, after which Israel was invaded by the surrounding Arab nations and their Palestinian neighbours.

As an Australian I feel I can empathise with the Israeli situation because unlike Israel, the foundation of Australia was actually illegal. (Terra Nullius is always worth a google) When push comes to shove, Israel has a legal right to exist, a moral responsibility to protect its citizens from harm and a moral right to occupy regions strategically neccessary to protect its citizens from nations dedicated to its extermination.

Don't forget the main platform of the current government of the Gaza Strip is to essentially wipe Israel into the sea, a sentiment widely echoed throughout the Middle East.

I'm rambling now, so I'll wait for a reply and respond to that.