Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

1AC

Israel creates the treat of Iran launching a nuke as a justification for their ethnic
cleansing of Palestinians. Question their impact scholarship, Iran has no intent to nuke
them, plus multiple factors.
Yousef Munayyer is executive director of the Palestine Center. April 21, 2010 "Why Iran won't attack
Israel" articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/21/opinion/la-oew-0421-munayyer-20100421
Palestinians are in Israel today because they managed to survive the depopulation of 1948, the year the Jewish state was founded (Arabs
constitute about 20% of Israel's population). Ironically, while Benny Morris' scholarship suggests that the mere existence of these
Palestinians in Israel -- and millions more in the occupied territories -- irks him, Israel's substantial Arab population also blows a hole in his
argument about the need to deal with the supposed Iranian nuclear threat.¶ Morris is part of an increasingly vociferous chorus warning of an
impending apocalypse for Israel at the hands of a nuclear Iran eager to rid the Middle East of its Jews.
Yet Iran's religious leaders have repeatedly stated that such weapons are "un-Islamic" or "forbidden under Islam."¶ Morris' role in our
understanding of the region's history is confounding. Arguably, no one played a more central role in exposing Israel's role
in the depopulation of Palestinians from their homeland than Morris. In his seminal work, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem,"
Morris, using declassified military documents, exposes the calculated effort by early Israeli leaders to impose a Jewish majority through ethnic
cleansing.¶ Long considered a champion of modern Israeli historians who sought to shed light on the ugly side of Israel's birth, Morris shocked
many Israelis and Palestinians alike when he later changed course. To
Morris, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was
no longer the problem at the heart of the conflict; in fact, he suggested that the problem was that
Israel didn't finish the job in 1948.¶ Morris said in a 2004 interview "Under some circumstances expulsion is not a war crime. I
don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands." ¶
Morris added later in the interview that if Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, "was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should
have done a complete job. ... If he had carried out a full expulsion — rather than a partial one — he would have stabilized the state of Israel for
generations."¶ Yet
the pesky Palestinian minority Morris wishes had been expelled decades ago serves as
a deterrent from a nuclear-armed Iran, should the Islamic Republic ever build nuclear weapons and
consider using them on Israel. The fact that Arab Israelis were among the casualties of the 2006 war with Hezbollah speaks to the
reality that no nuclear attack on Israel could happen without the deaths of countless Palestinians and Israelis, not to mention the likely
destruction of Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam.¶ Thereality of Palestinian casualties, the destruction of
Jerusalem, the onset of regional war and the immediate destruction of Iran's regime as a result of a
multilateral conventional or even nuclear counterattack all serve as a credible deterrent to a nuclear
Iran. The Iranian leadership has shown a demonstrable interest in self-preservation¶ The alarmism
espoused Morris and company isn't grounded in reality. Rather — just as with Iraq, Syria and now Iran
— Israel constantly needs an enemy that it says threatens its existence. Otherwise the Jewish state
would have a harder time maintaining its overwhelming military supremacy in the region and
continuously changing the subject from resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to practically anything
else.¶ The ideology at the foundation of the state of Israel and the very justification for its existence requires the existence of apocalyptic anti-
Semitic forces with the intent and capability to annihilate. Without these boogeymen, whether it is Saddam Hussein,
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Arabs who "want to push Israel into the sea," the state
of Israel ceases to have any justification for the maintenance of a Jewish majority by force or for its
ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands.¶ The fact that Benjamin Netanyahu, the pro-colonization
Israeli prime minister, has made every effort to connect the idea of a nuclear Iran to the Holocaust is
evidence of this scare-mongering. Iran, like Iraq in 2003, is an inflated but necessary fear for Israel. No
credible analysis of the situation envisions a scenario in which Iran would use nuclear weapons
against the Jewish state. But proponents of Israel's colonial enterprise, who support maintaining a
Jewish majority by the force of walls and soldiers in occupied territory, want everyone to believe that
the focus should be on Iran, not on the occupation, and that Israel's security policies are justifiable
against "existential threats."¶ The need for these inflated threats has increased in the years since Israel signed peace treaties with
Egypt and Jordan. Despite these agreements, Israel still maintains and furthers its occupation of Palestinian lands through blockade and
settlement expansion.¶ The emperor may be naked in Tel Aviv, but he can continue avoiding attention and shame if he persuades the world to
look in Tehran's direction instead.
1AR – Iran
Iran threat is exaggerated
ANDREW HANDLEY, political writer for listverse MARCH 6, 2014 "10 Signs We Are Headed Into World
War" IIIlistverse.com/2014/03/06/10-signs-we-are-headed-into-world-war-iii/

rumors of war are


While tension rises on the Eastern European front and Southeast Asia is mired in an explosive territorial dispute,
also being whispered in the Middle East—specifically, Iran. But is Iran any real threat? Depending on the
spin, it’s easy to think so. In January 2014, Iran dispatched a fleet of ships toward US national waters. The Senate has
decided that unless military action is taken, Iran’s nuclear development will continue unchecked. And on February 12, 2014, Iran’s military chief
answered that claim by declaring the country’s willingness to go toe-to-toe with American forces, on land or at sea. It
sounds like a
crisis in the making, but it’s not as bad as it seems. Those “warships” were a rusty frigate and a supply
boat, the White House in no way backs the Senate’s bill, and while Iranian general Hassan Firouzabadi
did threaten the US and the “Zionist regime” (Israel), it’s worth remembering that they’ve done so
plenty of times in the past. Another point of contention is Iran’s military force. Including paramilitaries, Iran states that they
have 13.6 million people who can pick up a weapon at a moment’s notice. While that number is
probably exaggerated, it doesn’t matter much anyway—World War III, if it happens, will be mostly an
aerial war dependent more on long-range technologies than close-quarters combat. And that, surprisingly, is
an example of why not to count Iran out of the picture. They have an air force of 30,000 men with several hundred aircraft, along with cruise
missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,240 mi). That’s plenty of range to hit US bases in the Gulf. But most importantly, continued
attention on Iran, Syria, and other Middle Eastern countries is spreading the West’s foreign resources a little too thin, especially now that
Russia won’t be any help in that region.