While that would be public admittance Israel does indeed possess nuclear weapons, it would be a purely symbolical act. A small country like Israel has no interest whatsoever in further nuclear proliferation.
Israeli Apologists: Justify This
- Thread starter Commodore
- Start date
While that would be public admittance Israel does indeed possess nuclear weapons, it would be a purely symbolical act. A small country like Israel has no interest whatsoever in further nuclear proliferation.
Given that Israel was God's chosen people back when David was slinging rocks and beheading, Israel should be concerned that God has found herself a new chosen people that Israel is mistreating.
As I said Israel and Iran trading mutual threats of violence (and no Israel has not actually threatened wholesale destruction on Iran as you state, but rather threatened military action against its nuclear infrastructure) is not a good place to start attacking Israel unless you agree that your assessment of a rogue state hell-bent on military conquest applies just as well to Iran as it does to Israel - after all they do make a show of supplying and sending off volunteer fighters against Israel quite frequently (even though those never seem to get anywhere except the outskirts of Teheran maybe). Essentially you there have two States in a more or less declared state of war trading words not shots, so over all a relatively decent way of waging war. Of course threats from both sides are essentially impotent except for the odd sabotage action attributable to Israeli intelligence agencies and the odd terror attack funded directly or indirectly through Iranian government agencies. Neither of the two sides actually is currently able to actually wage a hot war against the other - Israel *might* be able to perform a few suicide strikes as their airforce might get there but not reasonably expect to come back.
Now to the actual meat of the argument - its twofold really.
1) Any government should only be held to treaties it signed/ratified itself or asserted as still being active when it comes into power.
2) Iran is thus not bound by the NPT and even if it were its not in breach of it.
1) Would throw into doubt every treaty ever entered into by any state as treaties on the international level are only really enforced on an honor system anyways - and the few with minor teeth depend on states adhering to what they signed for a rather long period of time in most cases - also regime change is very difficult to actually define so this would in essence mean that treaties will only be valid as long as the signatory state wants to with regime change being argued at any point it wants out of a treaty without pulling the actual escape clauses that are usually present (see the NPT actually, Article 10 requires 3 months advance notice for withdrawal from the treaty).
2) Iran signed additional safeguard protocols to the NPT in 1992 and again in 2003 - even if 1) was valid, which it is not, this alone signifies their repeat accession to the treaty. They could withdraw at any time giving 3 months notice (and declaring some reason for withdrawing) - but they have not. As such of course they are bound by it. Now they have every right to research and develop civilian nuclear technology under the NPT - however they are subject to IAEA safeguards aka supervision and it is precisely implementation of these that the whole dispute with Iran is about. They do claim only civilian research and development yet do not appear willing to actually adhere to the IAEA requirements on supervision of this work.
As the NPT would require their accession to it as a non-nuclear armed state they cannot actually join without disarming* - I am reasonably certain they would join if allowed in as a nuclear armed state Edit: - or get the same treatment as India got in 2008 being recognized for all intents and purposes as a non-nuclear armed - but nuclear armed, non-treaty member treated as a treaty member by the IAEA.
*they likely actually had some kind of nuclear weapon prior to the cut off date of January 1st 1967 - but as they never actually used one they still don't count as nuclear armed per the treaty no matter what.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I think I understand what you mean.
It's just that "prattling" about the holocaust doesn't seem a fair way of putting the memory of ~6 million dead European Jews, somehow.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
You clipped too short. I didn't say they prattled about the holocaust. I said they prattled about the 'existential threat' with the images of the holocaust in the background.
No one has ever suggested a 'holocaust II'. The Israelis cry about countries that don't recognize their right to exist as a state and give the impression that they are subject to immanent genocide. No one is going to applaud if I declare the sovereign nation of Tim's house either, but people refusing to recognize my right to exist as a state doesn't mean they want to kill me.
Although the rhetoric typically involves allusions to driving the Zionists into the sea, not just denying the right of the state to exist but also of the people making up the majority of said state - which really is not terribly veiled... Now many past Israeli leaders and the current Prime minister specifically are/were very much using the holocaust as a theme to shore up support internally as well as externally, but really the outside threats did and also still do allude to killing the Zionists off once and for all - giving that Israeli theme something to derive from.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
This reminds me of that famous 3-word book review of the Bible: "Important, if true."
But, alas, it's not true. From Wikipedia:
As Redd Foxx once said, "I aint from Africa. Im from St. Louis."
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
I would say Africa, not Europe.
Supposedly the justification for the Israelis displacing the Palestinians is that they were "from" Palestine, based on their ancestors who supposedly were there 3000 years ago. Now it's justified because they were born and raised there, and we are supposed to ignore their ancestors just 2 generations ago fron Russia and Europe.
Apparently you're supposed to pick the standard for where you're "from" based on whatever is convenient for you, so long as you can justify being there.
Apparently you're supposed to pick the standard for where you're "from" based on whatever is convenient for you, so long as you can justify being there.
no, being driven into the sea would mean being killed actually - and the talking point about being sent back to where they came from is an extremely feeble attempt at veiling the call for genocide in this context. Frankly, even if literally meaning being put on ships to go to Europe everyone with any interest in the matter knows that this for all intents and purposes means being sent to their deaths as evidenced by the thousands of people currently perishing annually trying to cross into the
The key difference is that Israel is already a functioning state, with millions of people depending on it to function properly so that they can live normal lives. So the people wanting to change the status-quo, to the detriment of millions, are those who deny Israel's right to exist as a state.
A better analogy would be opposing your right to own the house you presently occupy.
Edit: Another point. Most Israelis descend from Jews who used to live in Muslim countries, not Europe. Many, if not most, were either expelled or left in the face of persecution.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Maybe not everyone agrees that Britain given rights to be a state should be treated in the same way as God given rights to life. It isn't like this 'status-quo' traces back to some point where there was some agreement to establish it in the first place.
Ori...Israel seems to have sufficient wealth to buy the governments of numerous nations, at least one of which certainly qualifies as a "superpower"...if they take to the sea it won't be on rafts.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
From someone else this would be a valid complaint. But since your take of Palestinians living in Palestine is: "When the Israelis want your place, sucks to be you. Serves you right for not agreeing with some agreement you had no part in" you very much blend into into the "people of CFC" without much contrast.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Like other countries granted veto power...they have veto power and that's that. No justification of their actions is required. The entire structure of the UN is built around the acknowledgement that certain countries are beyond the control of the rest of the world.
With all the federal land available around Bundy Ranch, the United States government should grant political asylum to any Palestinian that wants it and give them land and a house and a bit of coin to get started. Shouldn't really cost any money as we can deduct it out of what we gift to Israel.
