Does only Israel have the rights to have nuclear weapons in the middle east? - Page 8

Bobcat · 05-29-2008, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desidude666

Well, as it is said, they have to let UN scientists in to verify. It's not a super power, it's Israel. Why are Iraq, Iran or other countries prone to be checked for WMDs and they are given the green light. Favouritism doesn't work in politics. If Iran is asked to cease it's nuclear endeavours, Israel should be asked to open its doors for checks.

Dude, Israel is not a signatory of the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is. Why did they sign the paper if they're not going to abide by the treaty? Israel, in contrast, has made no promises to anyone, and no one has convincingly shown that they actually have nukes.

Quote:

They are still subject if the US administration, which is providing them with 30 billion dollars annually, wants it done. Just like Iran, Israel is no different to requirements, as I said, it isn't a super power. Ways can always be explored to rid it of this issue. The nukes do *not* work as since their infrastructure, the attacks on their soil has not decreased.

The US has allowed the UN to work its diplomacy with Iran, ineffectively in my opinion. You make it sound like the president of the US just needs to knock on Israel's door and tell them to clean up their act.

Quote:

I still find it rather perplexing because Indians for the transfer of nuclear technology have to undergo stringent protocols by the US, and Israel has a free hand at the WMDs. I doesn't need undeclared WMDs as it serves to no purpose. Inspections or complete trade embargo until they let the inspectors in. And it isn't as if they didn't have inspectors before, the US sent inspectors under President Kennedy and they, rather famously, hid their facilities to conceal their capabilities.

What is this... you want aid from the US, and then you lie to your donor by concealing potential problems for the region.

You blame the US a bit too much. It's the UN's responsibility to police nuclear proliferation. The US just doesn't tell the UN, or any other nation in the world, what to do. We're just a member state in this regard, with no more powers than any other nation on the security council.

Djinn · 05-29-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desidude666

... Their nukes never assisted them in a war, it never will. ...

It could be argued that the nukes assisted Israel by way of avoiding wars, which is even better than "winning" them.[/quote]

joetalmadge · 05-29-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobcat

Really, it would be helpful if you didn't make up facts and stuck to the actual history of the Middle East. The Jews who migrated to the Levant did not uproot or force anyone to leave. They were perfectly content to live with the people of the region. However, in 1920, Arabs rioted and killed Jews regularly, and, as a consequence, Great Britian reneged on its UN Mandate to create a Jewish nation and a war broke out when the British left. The war caused many Arabs to flee the Levant.

You really don’t think the Zionists were going to try and run a country with an Arab majority, do you?
Jabotinsky: “There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs.”
Ben Gurion: “It is impossible to imagine a general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion. “ 1941.
Ethnic cleansing Israeli style.
And if you want to stick to the actual history of the middle east don't wrangle with someone who has lived there and majored in it in college, and you might want to look at reading something other than Israeli mythology. Read books by Israelis who have decided to tell the truth: Pappe, Morris, Segev, Schlaim, et al. Also read: The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined By the French newspaper Le Monde an excellent article by Le Monde about the expulsion of the Arabs.

Quote:

Mainstream Israeli historians, on the other hand, have always claimed that the refugees (numbering, in their estimation, 500,000 at most) mostly left voluntarily, responding to calls from their leaders assuring them of a prompt return after victory [click here to read our rebuttal to this argument]. They deny that the Jewish Agency (and subsequently the Israeli government) had planned the exodus. Furthermore, they maintain that the few (and regrettable) massacres that occurred - particularly the Deir Yassin massacre of 9 April 1948 - were the work of extremist soldiers associated with Menachem Begin's Irgun and Yitzhak Shamir's Lehi.

However, by the 1950s this version was already beginning to be contested by leading Israeli figures associated with the Communist Party and with elements of the Zionist left (notably Mapam). Later, in the mid-1980s, they were joined in their critique by a number of historians who described themselves as revisionist historians: Simha Flapan, Tom Segev, Avi Schlaim, Ilan Pappe and Benny Morris. It was Morris's book, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", that first prompted public concern (4) . Leaving aside differences of subject, methodology and viewpoint, what unites these historians is that they are bent on unpicking Israel's national myths (5). They have focused particularly on the myths of the first Arab-Israeli war, contributing (albeit partially, as we shall see), to establishing the truth about the Palestinian exodus. And in the process they have incurred the wrath of Israel's orthodox historians (6).
This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and the oral history potential among Palestinians themselves, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: "History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)".

Explore outside the Zionist mythology box. As a "teacher" it should be de rigueur.

joetalmadge · 05-29-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobcat

no one has proven that they have nukes.

Why make such an asinine statement? Anybody who reads anything about the ME knows Israel has nukes. Do you think Carter got his information from "reading?" No he had access to the CIA data files. Vanunu's expose nailed it! Do not start an argument that Israel will not give up it's nukes and then claim they might not exist. It's silly.

Quote:

Second, they are not a signatory of the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Finally, their neighbors are still hostile to them, including Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. So, there's no basis in international law for asking them to give up what we cannot prove they have to protect themselves from those whom we know for sure want them destroyed.

I hope this argument works for North Korea! India! Pakistan! Good company for Israel though.

joetalmadge · 05-29-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobcat

and no one has convincingly shown that they actually have nukes.

Olmert admitted it:

Quote:

He told Germany's Sat.1 channel on Monday evening: "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?"

Djinn · 05-29-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joetalmadge

Olmert admitted it:

So did Saddam Hussein.

Bobcat · 05-29-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joetalmadge

Why make such an asinine statement?

I do it so yours won't be so conspicuous all the time.

Quote:

Anybody who reads anything about the ME knows Israel has nukes. Do you think Carter got his information from "reading?" No he had access to the CIA data files. Vanunu's expose nailed it! Do not start an argument that Israel will not give up it's nukes and then claim they might not exist. It's silly.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm just not would putting the cart in front of the horse. You have to establish that Israel does have nuclear arms first. Apparently, no one has done that. Jimmy Carter is not the IAEA.

Quote:

I hope this argument works for North Korea! India! Pakistan! Good company for Israel though.

Wow, good job. Those are the very four nations who are NOT signed onto the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Guess what? They don't need the argument either.

Bobcat · 05-29-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joetalmadge

Explore outside the Zionist mythology box. As a "teacher" it should be de rigueur.

I am and I do. As I'm sure you're aware there are many explanations for the exodus of Palestinians during the war. However, I'm not just gravitating on the ones that paint the Israeli's in the worst light. Samuel Katz pointed out that the "fabrication" that Jews forced the Palestinian exodus "can probably most easily be seen in the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged cruel expulsion of Arabs by Zionists was in progress, it passed unnoticed. Foreign newspapermen who covered the war of 1948 on both sides did, indeed, write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that it was not voluntary." (Katz, Battleground-Fact and Fantasy in Palestine)

Bobcat · 05-29-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joetalmadge

Olmert admitted it:

Ahem...

Quote:

Mr Olmert’s spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, was quick to deny that the Prime Minister had admitted to Israel having nuclear weapons, saying that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the region."

Olmert's nuclear slip-up sparks outrage in Israel - Times Online

joetalmadge · 05-29-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djinn

So did Saddam Hussein.

And your point is? Hussein never stated he had nukes; show me the source!