• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rice: Netanyahu's objections to Iran deal 'premature'

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Wednesday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should hold back his criticism of any proposed interim deal on Iran's nuclear program until such an agreement is finalized."I think it's important that everybody understand what the deal is that needs to be reached and then they can make a judgment on its contours," Rice said at the Washington Ideas Forum in Washington, D.C.
Asked by Aspen Institute President Walter Isaacson if Netanyahu didn't understand the deal before issuing his harsh attack on it last week, Rice did not mention Netanyahu by name but indicated that he did not.
"Well it's not done, so by definition it's premature to judge it because the outlines have yet to be finalized," she said.
Rice said any pact would ensure Iran's nuclear program doesn't advance while the agreement is in effect.
"Any deal that we would accept is going to be one that we would have confidence is in our interests and the interests of our allies and partners in the region and beyond, that gives us clarity and confidence that the Iranians cannot make any progress and indeed will see their program [set] back while negotiations continue," she said.
A spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Rice's remarks.
Click to expand...


Read more @: National Security Adviser Susan Rice: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's objections to Iran deal 'premature' - POLITICO.com

I agree. Speaking out against diplomacy and a deal that hasnt even been reached yet and calling it a "bad bad bad deal" is premature and makes no sense to me.
 
I'd be more inclined to agree if Ms. Rice had used the term unwarranted. Premature sounds like, Bibi has a good point now, it is just too soon to make that point.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I'd be more inclined to agree if Ms. Rice had used the term unwarranted. Premature sounds like, Bibi has a good point now, it is just too soon to make that point.
Click to expand...

True... :cool:
 
American said:
When I saw the name Rice, I was expecting one with a brain named Condoleezza.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that Ms. Rice couldn't dream of clearing the intellectual bar you've set here.
 
Netanyahu has his own political and national security concerns to grapple with, so his public objection and voiced skepticism to a possible easing of sanctions is quite understandable.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
I agree. Speaking out against diplomacy and a deal that hasnt even been reached yet and calling it a "bad bad bad deal" is premature and makes no sense to me. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't to you. Without Iran to demonize, the right-wing Likud party starts to become irrelevant, the whole "We can do whatever we want in the name of security" narrative falls apart, and the Revisionist Zionism manifest destiny dream collapses.
 
Fisher said:
Of course it doesn't to you. Without Iran to demonize, the right-wing Likud party starts to become irrelevant, the whole "We can do whatever we want in the name of security" narrative falls apart, and the Revisionist Zionism manifest destiny dream collapses.
Click to expand...

Iran has agreed to stop funding Hez and Hamas?
 
ecofarm said:
Iran has agreed to stop funding Hez and Hamas?
Click to expand...

You do realize that Israel itself used to fund one of those don't you?
 
I believe the term premature is apt. Without a solid set of terms and agreements on Iran's Nuclear Program there is nothing to judge as unwarranted or not. both Israel and the Sunni Arabs have a very strong economic interests in keeping Shia folks deep in a box.

I think the whole terrorism support in the Middle East debate is better inj the ME section, but what has been said so far shows how convoluted the history of 'terrorist' support has been and one side can use military road blocks and settlements while the other side uses suicide bombers and rockets in attempts of getting their way in the region.

Israel has a very strong INTERNAL political reason for keeping a 'far' enemy in the region and making them the focus on why they have a 'near' enemy. It does help keep form having to assess your own actions in the situation as a trigger/ sustainer of violence.
 
ecofarm said:
Therefore, Iran funding terrorism is ok?
Click to expand...

karma is a bitch when ones tries to play the innocent victim. Terrorism is also relative. What the US does could be considered terrorism in the places we do things.
 
Fisher said:
karma is a bitch when ones tries to play the innocent victim. Terrorism is also relative. What the US does could be considered terrorism in the places we do things.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why Israel is given voice in this matter. Screw 'em. Iran has as much right to a nuke as Israel. Irregardless, Israel is not part of the 5 + 1 deal. End of story. They have way too much influence on USA policy.
 
DaveFagan said:
I don't understand why Israel is given voice in this matter. Screw 'em. Iran has as much right to a nuke as Israel. Irregardless, Israel is not part of the 5 + 1 deal. End of story. They have way too much influence on USA policy.
Click to expand...

Exactly - why are the religious zealot hell bent on the destruction of an entire race being discriminated against here? Everyone should have the right to nuke everyone else regardless of their mental stability so we can all die of plutonium poisoning nice and slow, if we weren't all vaporized first.
 
DaveFagan said:
I don't understand why Israel is given voice in this matter. Screw 'em. Iran has as much right to a nuke as Israel. Irregardless, Israel is not part of the 5 + 1 deal. End of story. They have way too much influence on USA policy.
Click to expand...

I agree. Backing away from Israel's corner is one of the things Obama has done that I agree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom