New iraq advs econ adv debt 1ac contention Economy



Download 1.25 Mb.
Page74/97
Date31.05.2016
Size1.25 Mb.
1   ...   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   ...   97

Middle east unstable



Iran/Israel war is inevitable and will spillover leading to global and regional instability

Lutz 10 ( “Middle East: Threatened Israeli strike on Iran would lead to regional war, report says”, 7/14, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/Babylon beyond/ 2010/07/middle-east-israel-preparing-to-strike-iran-report-says-1.html
The ultimate nightmare scenario could soon become a reality: Israeli strike aircraft cross into Iranian airspace and hit the nuclear facilities at Natanz, Esfahan and Qom, as well as the laboratories of the University of Tehran, killing one of Iran's leading nuclear scientists along with dozens of researchers and a janitor. Iran retaliates by hitting Tel Aviv with long-range missiles and fanning the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, engulfing the Middle East in a protracted regional war and triggering a global economic crisis over oil prices. This terrifying outcome is increasingly likely if Israel carries out a reportedly impending military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, according to a new study by the Oxford Research Group, a leading security think tank. The paper, titled "Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effects," was released Thursday following ominous statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the Fox News channel in which he called Iran "the ultimate terrorist threat today." "We should not allow irrational regimes like Iran to have nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said. Although Netanyahu declined to outline a specific plan of action or a deadline, he reiterated his country's willingness to use force to stop Tehran from developing its nuclear capabilities, which Iran insists are for peaceful purposes. "There's only been one time that Iran actually stopped the [nuclear] program, and that was when it feared U.S. military action," the prime minister said. Watch the interview here. But according to the paper released Thursday, the consequences of such a military action against Iran "are so serious that they should not be encouraged in any shape or form.” The report predicts such an attack would have the exact opposite of the desired effect by uniting Iranians against a common enemy, thus bolstering Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hard-line regime, which would retaliate against Israeli and U.S. interests in the region. The report points to Israel's recently improved strike capabilities and the bellicose rhetoric of its politicians and concludes that the Jewish state is preparing to take out not only known Iranian nuclear facilities but also factories, research centers, and university laboratories with the intention of destroying Iran's technical capabilities and killing its leading technocrats. Iran would likely respond by attacking Israel directly, withdrawing from negotiations over its nuclear program, supporting insurgent activity against Western interests in Iraq and Afghanistan, and facilitating attacks against Western oil facilities in the Persian gulf.“There would be many civilian casualties, both directly among people working on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, but also their families as their living quarters were hit, and secretaries, cleaners, labourers and other staff in factories, research stations and university departments,” says the report, which was authored by Paul Rogers of the University of Bradford.“An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would almost certainly be the beginning of a long-term process of regular Israeli airstrikes to further prevent the development of nuclear weapons and medium-range missiles," it continues. "Iranian responses would also be long-term, ushering in a lengthy war with global as well as regional implications."
The potential for war between Iran and Israel has increased and it would affect the price of oil and exacerbate instability within the region

Jansen 10 (Michael is an author and veteran journalist who specializes in coverage of the Middle East and has followed this issue for more than 30 years,” Warning of long war if Israel attacks Iran”, 7/16, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0716/122427481 9332.html/MZ)

AN ISRAELI attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could launch a protracted regional war and encourage Tehran to build nuclear weapons. This is the conclusion of a 14-page briefing paper, Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effects, issued yesterday by the Oxford Research Group, which promotes peaceful resolution of conflicts. The report, written by Paul Rogers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University, points out that Israel’s “potential for action against Iran” has been increased by domestic support and enhanced capabilities, including long-range bombers acquired from the US, drones, tanker aircraft for refuelling, and the establishment by the US, Israel’s ally, of “support facilities” in northern Iraq and Azerbaijan which could be used as staging areas. The report says that a strike could not be carried out without US “tacit support”, thereby implicating Washington and risking Iranian attacks on US interests, troops, and allies in the Middle East. Israeli air action would “target a wide range of nuclear and missile facilities” as well as “factories, research centres and university facilities that would underpin the rebuilding of [destroyed nuclear] facilities”. Since such targets are located in or near Iran’s cities, there would be “significant civilian casualties”, states the report. If attacked, it argues, Iranians would unite behind their government which would withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and prioritise development of weapons programmes at underground sites, leading to further Israeli strikes. This would result in “prolonged conflict” during which Iran could take action that would “affect world oil markets” and exacerbate instability in Iraq and Afghanistan.“Prospects for regional stability and global security would be very seriously damaged.”

There are many factors that contribute to the Palestine and Israeli conflict – media proves

Glick 10 (Caroline B. served as Coordinator of Negotiations with the PLO in the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. She was a core member of Israel's negotiating team with the Palestinians. Deputy Managing Editor of The Jerusalem Post and a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC, “Column One: Fit for ‘The New York Times’”, 7/9, http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article .aspx?Id =180887/MZ)

Since 1994 scores of Arabs have been killed in both judicial and extrajudicial executions for selling land to Jews. This open move to hide the fact that since 1994 the PA has dispatched death squads to murder both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs suspected of selling land to Jews is a shocking miscarriage of journalistic standards. Whereas the Times required five reporters to work for weeks to come up with exactly nothing illegal in the operations of US charitable groups that support Jewish communities the Times wishes to destroy, the Times would have needed to invest no resources whatsoever to discover that the PA kills any Arab who sells land to Jews. The PA has made no effort to hide this policy. It is in the public sphere for anyone willing to look at reality. AND THAT is of course the real issue here. The entire Times “investigation” of American charitable groups that support Jewish communities and neighborhoods in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem is a blatant attempt by a major newspaper to hide the real issues prolonging the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Those issues – exposed by Abbas’s praise for a terrorist mass murderer, Erekat’s denial that Abbas has any interest in compromising with Israel, as well as by the PA’s policy of killing all Arabs who sell land to Jews – do not serve the Times’ purpose of blaming the absence of peace on Israel generally and on the Israeli Right and its supporters in the US in particular. And so it is that 17 years after the start of the so-called peace process between Israel and the PLO, and 10 years after the PLO destroyed that process by launching a terror war against Israel, and four and a half years after the Palestinians elected Hamas to lead them, we are still stuck in a distorted, irrelevant discourse about the Middle East. We are stuck in a rut because politically and ideologically motivated media organs operate hand in globe with radical groups seeking to undermine Israel’s national sovereignty and end its alliance with the US. Together they manufacture news that bears no relation to reality or the true challenges facing those who seek peace in the Middle East. But obviously for The New York Times, that is what makes it fit to print.

The International community is key to prevent the growth of Middle East instability and further movement of the Palestine/Israel conflict

Salama 10 (Samir is associate editor for the gulf news, “A call to correct history’s mistakes”, 7/16, http://gulfnews.com/news/region/palestinian-territories/a-call-to-correct-history-s-mistakes-1.653818/MZ)
Rashid Al Khalidi, professor of Arab studies at Columbia University and a leading Palestinian-American scholar and advocate for Palestinian rights, says the international community, which supported Zionism and decided to give most of Palestine to a Jewish state and did not do anything when the Palestinian state was destroyed and Palestinians were driven out of their homes, has to wake up and take it upon itself to correct the errors it made in acting in an unjust fashion towards the Palestinian people. "The world community created by its decisions a source of unending instability in the region. Maybe somebody is going to wake up and realize that the people who played a large part in this instability can take it upon themselves — whether it is the United States or other actors in the international community — to resolve this," Al Khalidi told Weekend Review in an exclusive interview. Al Khalidi said he did not expect that to happen soon. "But it will be part of the settlement — the responsible correction by the world community of the errors it committed in this part of the world." Al Khalidi said the two-state solution is very difficult for reasons including the half million Israelis living in the occupied Arab territories after 1967, the decade-old matrix of control over four million Palestinians, divisions among the Palestinians and ineffective Arab and Muslim stand. While stressing the two-state solution might take long years to realize, Al Khalidi added that "there are also flaws in the alternative, grouped under the rubric of the one-state solution. The Palestinian people want freedom in their sovereign state."
Palestine is too weak to establish a resolution with a powerful Israel state that crushes and occupies the Palestinians

Salama 10 (Samir is a associate editor for the gulf news, “A call to correct history’s mistakes”, 7/16, http://gulfnews.com/news/region/palestinian-territories/a-call-to-correct-history-s-mistakes-1.653818/MZ)
I would argue that an Israeli government that is the most racist, the most extreme, the most expansionist, the most colonizer-dominated government in Israel's history, and with the Palestinian national movement, as your question said, at its weakest point in years, it is not the best moment for resolution. There are some factors, [such as] when the president and military leadership in the US appear to understand the extremely negative effect of America's continued and unlimited support for Israel on American interest in the region. Another is the beginning of a change in American public opinion towards Israel and in the opinion of the American Jewish community. It is a beginning — maybe a process that could be aborted or will take a long time to have a positive impact on the political process in the US, because the political process in America has not been affected by these changes. And if you look at the leadership in the American Jewish community, it is farther to the Right — more pro-(colony), more pro-occupation than anytime since 1976. If you look at the Congress, the Senate, they passed the same resolutions that are basically drafted for them by America's pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. So the political situation in the US is not better though the president and leadership understand the problem. But you do have shifts in public opinion. Israel no longer enjoys the kind of support that it used to. This was evident during Gaza and the 2006 war and the negative effect of American public opinion on the second Intifada, which had a very negative effect because of suicide attacks on Israeli civilians. Those effects have diminished and people now see the reality much more — a powerful Israeli state that crushes, represses and occupies the Palestinians.
There is no peace process occurring between Palestine and Israel therefore the Middle East will not be stable

Collings 10 (Tony is a cnn correspondent for sixteen years, covering the Middle East, he is a lecturer in communication studies at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Mideast: no peace, no process”, 7/8, http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/58938 /MZ)

Headlines from twenty-three years ago speak of "Hope for Peace Talks" but it’s now clear that there never was any hope by anyone informed of the true situation. And can journalists really use the term "peace process" to describe the fruitless attempts at meaningful talks that have taken place decade after decade in the Middle East? There ought to be a more realistic, truthful term to describe the situation. "Peace process" has a nice sound to it, and serves as a reminder what the desired goal ought to be, but there’s no peace and no process, just a seemingly endless series of fits and starts. A cynic might wonder whether U.S. politicians ever really cared about peace in the Middle East. One problem is that even if American officials wanted to do something meaningful, they can never get very far without running up against political reality. A first-term president is thinking about re-election and usually the main issue is the economy, not the Middle East. A second-term president is often a lame duck, and the politicians who are candidates to replace him do not place the Middle East at the top of their agenda because that’s not what wins them the votes they need. Unless the Israeli-Palestinian situation is on the front burner, it won’t receive much American attention.

Peace will not be established with Israel demolishing Palestine

Amayreh 10 (Khalid is a Palestinian journalist, went to the University of Oklahoma and then the university of Southern Illinois, “Israeli settlement expansion continues to make a mockery of efforts to reach a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”, 7/19, http://palestinefreevoice.blogspot.com/MZ)
Tufakji said Israel was also planning to expand the borders of the city in all directions to the point where the Arab population wouldn't exceed 12 per cent, whereas the Jewish population would reach an unprecedented 88 per cent. The realization of this daring plan will take the form of a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Arab demography in Jerusalem. "Their tactic is designed to confine as much as possible Arab inhabitants into the smallest amount of land. In addition, they will dramatically step up demolitions of Arab homes and withdraw residency rights from as many East Jerusalemites as possible in order to empty the city of its Arab residents and consequently obliterate its Arab-Muslim identity." Israel has already withdrawn residency rights from as many as 70,000 Arab residents, citing a host of concocted pretexts and justifications, such as travelling abroad or involvement in vague security violations. Since 1994, Israel has demolished nearly 1000 large buildings in East Jerusalem. Tufakji pointed out that unmitigated Israeli pressure, coupled with Israeli policy of narrowing Arab horizons, has caused the size of the Arab population within the walled town to dwindle to 175,000 while the Jewish population skyrocketed to 200,000 plus. The Weekly asked Tufakji if he thought that the Palestinian Authority was playing on borrowed time as far as saving Jerusalem was concerned. "Unfortunately, it is too late for Jerusalem for the time being. Others might say the same thing with regards to the West Bank as well. In the final analysis, we are talking about objective facts on the ground. To simplify things for your readers, I can say that Israel has killed the possibility of a true Palestinian state. And if anyone tells you that Jerusalem will become the capital of a prospective Palestinian state, don't believe him."
Israel/Palestine conflict is inevitable- peace will not be established only aggression will increase

Haetzni 10 (Elyakim a lawyer and former Knesset member who resides in Kiryat Arba, “The peace paradox”, 7/19, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3921907,00.html/MZ)
It’s unpleasant to be considered the aggressor, especially when you do not hold any belligerent intensions. Yet the fact of life is that precisely this “slander” deterred the Arabs from attacking us, because one always seeks to stay away from aggressors. And so, as long as they thought they were curbing our own aggressive intentions, they felt absolved of the duty to attack us. However, our peace efforts eroded this achievement. Only after the Arab started to believe our desire for peace was genuine, our security was faced with grave danger. A peace-seeking Israel was perceived as weak and as such invited aggression. Hence, a clearly leftist government was forced to conduct two wars, in Lebanon and in the Gaza Strip, with no other objective except for displaying our power and ability to hurt others, because the government’s willingness to make concessions conveyed a sense of helplessness. In our region, being perceived as a peace-seeker is a mortal danger.



Share with your friends:
1   ...   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   ...   97




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page