Good catch, it was 2000 migrants, my bad, 10,000 demonstrated against it.
And sure Iran may have been forced into peace but they came to the table and accepted it. Israel meanwhile tried to block the deal. Strategically from Israel's perspective is Iran's nuclear program the mountain to die on? I mean Israel has more than enough deterrent itself and we live in a world where Pakistan has a bomb. This goes back to my point that Israel doesn't actually appear to be interested in peace. They appear to be gladly pandering to scared right wing fringes that are fundamentally destabilizing to its long-term security.
Being afraid of an Iranian nuclear weapon is valid, but it isn't actual strategy. How do you contain it with a view of the state of Israel 100 years from now. That's the point, does Israel simply plan on being in permanent destabilizing low-intensity warfare throughout its existence? As the country with the biggest stick and the most to gain from peace they have to start making the first real concessions.
And don't take my word for it. Are prominent intellectuals like Stephen Hawking anti-semites now for recognizing what it is that Israel is becoming?
Quote:
Hawking has visited Israel four times in the past. Most recently, in 2006, he delivered public lectures at Israeli and Palestinian universities as the guest of the British embassy in Tel Aviv. At the time, he said he was "looking forward to coming out to Israel and the Palestinian territories and excited about meeting both Israeli and Palestinian scientists".
Since then, his attitude to Israel appears to have hardened. In 2009, Hawking denounced Israel's three-week attack on Gaza, telling Riz Khan on Al-Jazeera that Israel's response to rocket fire from Gaza was "plain out of proportion … The situation is like that of South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue."
|
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ademic-boycott