The Nuclear Annihilation of Israel?

Iran hasn't curried our favor.......

 

Wont happen. Next.

 

Every time I think I have seen the STUPIDEST POSSIBLE THING posted here...I see something like this that lowers the bar. Ye gods.

 

Subdermal

Ive given you the answer youve been demanding.

Do you have any response?

Come on were interested to know.

 

Perhaps true but if a real threat of nuclear retalliation is not used to prevent a nation from starting a nuclear war then what would prevent any nation from starting a nuclear war? The policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD) worked for decades during the cold war and cannot be abandoned as it is the only means I'm aware of that is so severe as to prevent a nation from starting a nuclear war. It is the only policy that eliminates any need for any additional nations to develop nuclear weapons.

The five authorized nuclear weapon nations under the NPT must assure all other nations that they will never be attacked with nuclear weapons because any nation initiating a nuclear war will be annihilated for doing so. That guarentee must be made to all nations.

Israel should never have to worry about Iran developing a nuclear weapon and using it on Israel because the "Big Five" as I would call them would retalliate with a nuclear response against Iran. Iran should never have to worry about Israel attacking it with nuclear weapons because the "big five" would retallitate with a nuclear response. There can be no "politics" involved in this retalliation and no nation should be exempt. If the US was to attack another nations with nuclear weapons then the remaining "big four" should be obligated to initiate a nuclear retalliatory response against the United States.

There can be no exceptions to the policy of MAD. Use a nuke and be annihilated is the only deterant to nuclear war.

 

I agree and that is why it won't happen.

 

Then we can be assured of a nuclear war in the future and I find that unacceptable.

 

There will be no nuclear war because the world knows what happens if they drop the bomb. Ain't going to happen. It is a pipe dream. Nothing to worry about...move along.

 

Iran hasn't got the American politicians by the short and curly. I'd say 'testicles' there, but they manifestly don't have any.

 

Oh dear! I have brought a blush to the fairest cheek! Close those nunnery windows do!

 

A regime :
A form of government: a fascist regime.
b. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
2. A prevailing social system or pattern.

In fact if you want to discuss ironies, it is ironic that the west have called for the removal of the regime in Iran and was there a regime change in Egypt or Libya, yet here you are saying that there cant be a regime change in Israel?

If enough Israeli Jews vote out the Zionist parties, then the Zionist regime will no longer be in power. Is it that hard to understand? Perhaps you think all the political parties in Israel are Zionist parties. Zionism is not just about having a country called Israel. The first aim of Zionists was to have a country which they now have. That will not change. From this point onwards, they can vote in any other political party in the world?

The countdown button is a metaphor!

I don't know but how is that relevant? Or is the article irrelevant because it goes against your beliefs you obtained from cut and paste articles?

 

Yes - it is called the USA. Zionism began in German nationalism and shared its racism. It would have been perfectly happy for Hitler to have driven out 'Jews' to Palestine, but obviously disliked the loss of good master-race fodder in the Camps. Zionism shares its assumptions about 'races' and its gibbering historical nonsense with the nazis. The 'racial' descendants of the Old Testament Jews are the Palestinians; the settlers are ex-Jews descended from allsorts, especially Khazars. Try to get help with your brainwashing: it stops you being aware of the real world.

 

Your response is a red herring. It was Ahmahnutjob that called something in Israel a "Zionist Regime", and - there you are - honoring his characterization as though it should have credibility with the rest of the world. There's only one thing noteworthy about Nutjob's characterization (and it is exactly the thing which hooks you on the inconsistency/irony I pointed out): that Ahmahnutjob cannot separate Zionism from Israel, even though you claimed that - somehow - they are.

You attempt to deflect from the question I asked: how does Nutjob destroy Zionism without also destroying Israel?

"Zionism" is merely the characterization that those who do not like Israel defending itself use to rationalize attacking behaviours that they themselves are guilty of.

You asked and answered your own conundrum. Zionists want the country they now have. Do you honestly think you can poll anywhere near a majority of Israelis who would disagree with that?

What land Israel occupies is occupies as a result of legitimate agreements which sprung from prior war, and from abrogations of other agreements of other parties. They hold what they earn. They earned this land, just like any other country has.

I'm aware. In order to be a metaphor, it has to be predicated on an action.

The article you post isn't substantive; it appears to be an apology piece, offered in place of an actual clarification from the Nutjob that didn't offer his own clarification.

 

Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews; not drive them out. If he wanted to do that, he would have done so.

Evil really does propagate from stupidity.

 

Read what I said, when you sober up. I wasn't talking about the German nazis but the zionist ones. Which are you?

 

You should perhaps inform the Palestinians, who seem to have a penchant for murdering the only types of people within Israel who could possibly bring about such "velvet revolutions".

Makes you kinda wonder if Palestinians/other Arab States really only want to eliminate "Zionism", and not Israel, don't it?

Well: it doesn't make me wonder; I know. These anti-Israel Arab States - with Nutjob as their figurative head - are using the constructed strawman of "Zionism" as their excuse to attack Israel, when in reality they simply want to end Israel altogether.

Unless you can come up with a reason that the only people who you would claim would be their allies in Israel keep ending up dead?

Because I don't see anything in Nutjob's speech or actions which indicate anything which could be construed as "velvety".

You mean after years of bloodshed, and the 27 years of imprisonment of Nelson Mandela? I will also point out something else very important: this change took place from within.

This change also took place - as you said - from within (that is, if you're identifying the Carnation Revolution time period of Portuguese history).

Israel is a highly advanced country, both socially and economically. It doesn't have much in common with S. Africa - or Portugal - and both of those were examples of revolution from within a non-democratic country.

If Israelis want to give up everything, they can merely vote for it. They haven't done so, only arriving as close as the election of Ehud Olmert
Nothing about the people of Israel indicates such strife. What we're discussing here is saber-rattling from Nutjob and other Arab States aligned against Israel: a threat from without.

Your characterization of Zionism is confusing. Immigration and theft? By that standard, all spoils of war is 'theft', which renders the accusation meaningless.

 

I requoted your post, as - while I may be drunk - I at least possess the mentality faculties to remember what you wrote. My post referenced Hitler, who was most certainly not a Zionist. You cited Hitler as well. Thought I'd remind you.

I would like to see cites about this "German Zionism" you fabricate. Jews believe that they are the Chosen People of God. Your disdain for their beliefs notwithstanding, it really didn't matter what German Jews wanted: Hitler determined their fate. You're attacking German Jews as though their own beliefs about their culture have any meaning in this debate, or were any source of threat at the time. They weren't.

As for me, I'm half German - but I don't appear to be arguing the side that you would apparently feel fits the box you've preordained for me.

 

I don't know, but I like most Americans anyway, especially the ones who aren't puppets on strings. Who is talking through you today, and why?

 

Hmm. Interesting responses. But palestinians, like israelis in reverse, murder all kinds of israelis, and its actually mainly the ones who're against any such velvet scenario that get murdered or injured, ala settlers and soldiers.
Those who would claim to be their allies simply do not end up dead at least no more than peaceful palestinians are made to suffer, so thats just something you made up so you could counter the simple presentation of examples that you demanded - and so really your argument here goes nowhere.

The velvet may indeed come when israeli society, the peaceful ones, enact direct action to halt settlement and seige activity. This, as your 'nutjob' has already indicated when he declared that palestinians may decide their own peace settlement, would be enough.

Yes exactly, just as you say - was this point meant as a counter to something ove said? It seems to agree with it.

From within you say? Tell us, did your average black south african feel 'within' South Africa? Living out in designated zones, needing a pass to traverse south africa or go to work?

Indeed, Israel spent decades telling us that the west bank and east jerusalem was disputed territory, all of it, where jews may live and vote as israelis wherever they chose. They still claim this. Was the intifada thus an internal battle?
Indeed would forcing all settlers and soldiers out of the west bank and east jerusalem be an internal or external revolution?

Indeed if israels arabs along with the palestinians no longer accepted the division placed upon them and managed to unite would this be an internal or external struggle?

Indeed? Does the palestinian under occupation and settlement have a vote in israel? Is the israeli arab part of a multi ethnic state formed for all its citizens or is it for jews? Perhaps we should ask Liebermans party what they think.
Moreover most importantly Israeli citizens surround and live among arab neighbourhoods, yet no vote for the palestinians is given - is this the crucial demoncratic distinction you would like to make that matters so much?

Did western leaders saber rattle when they told of their hopes that the USSRs yoke would be lifted from both eastern europe and russias people?

Did their opposing speeches mean they planned invasion?

But you do make a good point. Israelis have only ever voted for real peace when theyve been forced to face a less pleasing military reality.

Indeed? Was the european taking of the territory of the north american continent merely the spoil of war? Was the conquest of south america by spaniards spoils of war?
Was operation barbarossa and the proclamation of new gernman living space merely a spoil of war?

Indeed by your determination all gains made in wars are merely spoils of victory.

Israeli gains have occurred both before during and after its various officially known conflicts so this accusation is both meaningful and accurate. Ill discuss examples if you like.

 

You're going to have to clarify that statement. It doesn't make sense to me. I said that we have repeated examples of the very people who Palestinians and other Arabs claim they would need in Israel who are dying: those who are against Zionism, and are fighting it.

I see nothing of substance in your posts to refute what I said. If Arabs were truly only interested in defeating Zionism, they would engage in much more precise violence. That's not what they're doing. What they're doing looks crazy and disjointed. It is a failing strategy, unless the point is simple undirected killing.

What indication do you have that this is even plausible? It has never happened to date.

I don't see how. Eventually, a war has victors. The premise was based upon Nutjob's inflammatory and suggestive rhetoric vis a vis destroying Israel, and apologists explained he said "Zionism". The question that arose is how to accomplish a defeat of Zionism without destroying Israel.

Like it or not, S. Africa was gutted for decades due to violence.

Okay...so now I'm confused. Now you're saying that the problem still isn't solved. So what was the point of bringing up South Africa if the problems are still there?

You still haven't illustrated how such a thing will happen. I point out the meddlers in Arab States, and cannot see Israel's internal struggles remaining internal.

All of this is ancillary to the point I made above.

I'm not sure how this is germane. There was a Cold War strictly because the US knew it could bankrupt the USSR.

What real peace?

What was it, if it wasn't that?

What was it, if it wasn't that?

Here I don't know what you're referring to.

What's so hard to understand about that? It is only the benevolent victor who gives back. Like the US.

Your posts are confusing. Israel could take millions of miles of land - right now - from most surrounding countries, and there wouldn't be a thing these countries could do about it.

Except act in those lands as they are acting within Israel's border.

 

Maybe........but they have managed to garner our attention.

Let's see how this IAEA report plays out.

 

Indeed Ill clarify, those people you speak of are not repeatedly dying. Instead those israelis that die more often are those opposed to peace or activiely trying to prevent it, ala settlers and soldiers. That is a direct refutation of what youve said.

Ill also refute your next point. Arabs have done exactly as every single other population under pressure from the enemy has done. That violence has not been more general and less precise than in other conflicts. What theyre doing doesnt look carzy or disjointed, and its been pretty successful - does that look clear enough for you? Is that a confusingly worded statement?

The israeli peace now initiative to get them out of Egypt and prior to the Oslo negotiations with Arafat, before the assassination of Yitzak Rabin, the general pressure to get israelis out of the west bank and make a good go of peace negotiations brought israel closer than ever.

All we really need is US pressure. Causing consequent waves in israeli politics. The trouble is proabably that people such as yourself would oppose any pressur on israel to stop settlement building for example.

Indeed, all one has to do is get israel to reverse its zionist policies. No more east jerusalem, no more west bank, no more Golan heights for Israel, and the result will have been acheived while israel itself will still exist - problem?

And S Africa was not gutted. The whites did very well for a long time in S Africa. It only really suffered when sanctions became an issue. But to the extent it had many burdens to bear that threatened it, israel is in the same boat - thats why it still thinks it need billions in aid per year.

What problem is still there in S Africa? The majority runs it.

I think youre trying to make some crucial division between internal and external when israel itself recognises little of such divisions and will not even set its own borders.

Basically my points undermine your notion that israel is somehow different because its a democracy.

I see, so you admite that even western leaders didnt saber rattle when they told of their hopes that the USSRs yoke would be lifted from both eastern europe and russias people and werent making inflammatory speeches etc etc.

Nor did their opposing speeches mean they planned invasion. So effectively again your notions against 'Nutjob' are undermined.

The Camp David Agreement, where israel received peace guarantees in return for leaving the Sinai ending their theft of egyptian territory.

x 2.

Theft. The taking of land. Much like you would regard it if I walked into your garden and pitched a tent.

These actions cause both the war in the first place and the further wars that follow as consequence. These two sides here were not at war until the arrival of mass numbers of europeans.

Sure you do.

I surprised you, and took your wallet, is it a spoil of war or have I simply robbed you?

If I gave it back, am I benevolent?

Sure it could. But how long could it hold it?

And would those countries be justified in fighting back ?

 

No it isn't. It's stupid to point out that there are more people dying who aren't overtly pacifist anti-Zionist - that should be obvious: that type of person is the majority in Israel.

I'm talking about activist anti-Zionists. If those people who you are apologizing for in this thread are truly after converting Israel to an anti-Zionist State, why aren't they going out of their way to avoid killing anti-Zionists?

It's a statement that ignores the bus bombs and the indiscriminate killing of innocents...and in some cases using children to do it.

If you think that equates to how "every single other population" acts when confronted with pressure by an enemy, there will be no reasoning with you.

I agree with Netanyahu, and the PMs before him: the Road Map contained untenable terms. Families in settlement areas needed to be able to act like families.

I'm actually in favor of Israel being allowed to fight a war and take land that they win in that war. The problem is that Arabs do not know how to lose a war; they have no honor. They will continue to engage in terrorist actions within a territory that they lost, and do so to validate continuing negotiations...

...to bring about a complete eradication of those who do not adhere to their ways of life. That is what the Caliphate is all about, Sharia Law is all about, the rhetoric is all about; and what the tacit acceptance of Islamist Terrorism is all about.

Israel - and I - do not believe it.

Having only one nationality doing well doesn't meet my criteria.

Israel gets billions because - to the US - it is a check on full Arab control of the region, and keeps the powers that supply so much of the world's oil off balance enough to avoid any one of them growing in power sufficient to gain too much control.

There is no longer much of a problem in S. Africa, beyond the typical problems most countries face.

I am making a distinction between internal and external because so-called "Velvet Revolutions" do not come from without. Those are invariably very bloody, which was my point in challenging anyone to explain how Zionism dies without killing the host.

Then you're looking to undermine the wrong notion. Israel is different than your examples of velvet revolution because Israel has sworn enemies all around it.

I didn't really expound upon saber rattling. I merely said that the US - particularly Reagan - knew that the USSR would be defeated via a very specific strategy. There was plenty of harsh rhetoric throughout. If you want to call that 'saber rattling', go right ahead.

You certainly are desperate to think so, that I'll grant. The US/USSR Cold War is not comparable to the ME/Israel conflict. Manifold acts engaged in in the ME would have touched off WWIII had they occurred between the US and USSR.

That alone should demonstrate the incomparability. This is about scale: and Nutjob is talking about elevating the scale here by threatening with nukes, and accelerating Iran's nuclear efforts simultaneously (as even the most strident Iran apologist cannot deny).

How can you call the Camp David Accord real peace, when it wasn't lasting?

That is not what happened. Israel is not in any land was incorporated as a country. Lands that are occupied with nomads, etc don't belong to anyone but those who can take it and control it. This fight is about Arabs not liking that Israel did it, and they didn't - or couldn't.

These two sides have always been at war.

Non sequitur. You are describing a violation of a law in an incorporated area that obeys a set of laws. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. You're conflating war with robbery.

It depends upon how brutally they choose to defeat the enemy.

That's why wars have battles. They fight back until they declare an armistace. The problem is that the non-incorporated side doesn't seem to have incorporated the ability to adhere to the simple principles one must possess to honor such a thing.

And Israel is being far too nice about their violations.

 

So even though its mostly the anti peace people that die they still arent going out of their way enough for you to avoid killing the peaceful ones?

I put it to you that they are doing so. To do any more would be silly when israel doesnt mind killing or imprisoning or tear gasing so many peaceful palestinians.

Im not ignoring any of that, let me be clear, Im fully acknowledging every single killing. Get that?

It certainly does equate to other populations. The irish had no problems bombing the british citizens for years with direct support from americans and under far easier conditions than the palestinians.
The US never even declared war on North Vietnam yet felt little problem in delivering carpet bombing runs on to the population.

South American terrorism from both the state, and various outlawed orgs? It was legion and still often goes on today. Africans on their dark continent?

If you would deny any of that perhaps its you who cannot be reasoned with.

Well its seems youre not going to refute my response but instead make a different one. Its interesting and should be addressed;
Families in settlement areas need to get out and act like families elsewhere. Palestinians need to act like families too. I dont agree with Bibi, hes a born liar and manipulator.

The trouble with that notion is that its all too easy for a nation to cook up some reason, some slight, some perceived threat, in order to justify a war. Its happened everywhere over and over again. Even Saddam Hussein did it. Thats the inadmissibility clause of territorial acquisition by war was introduced.

As for this anti arab commentary, its of no value. The same charges re honour can be bandied about everywhere, including on israelis - it reeks of simple bigotry and cannot be defended. Same goes for this islamophobic bigotry too..

I dont accept commentary against jewish people, and I dont accept it against arabs or muslims. For a start its just too easy to refute.

Israel and you, also want the land. So its convenient for you not to believe it.

Lol. Hmm Should everyone endeavour to ascertain your criteria now? if it was gutted in whatever criteria your applying, it was deliberatly gutted by the whites not because of conflict but as deliberate policy of subjugation.

Indeed? And what sort of check is this? Is Israel going to prevent a takeover of Tunisia by Algeria or Morroco?

Is it going to keep the peace in the southern arabian peninsula?

Dont you people always argue that israel is but a sliver of land in as sea of arab land? Ah yes, the sliver keeps the sea off balance indeed...

Did Israel prevent the takeover of Kuwait by Iraq? Or was it the USA and partners?

Thats just a few examples of where israel has no part to play except for defending its own gains - which is really what its all about. Was that a clear enough refutation for you?

Granted. Not even sure what were disagreeing about on this point.

See my above comment on the ending of zionism, that you dont believe etc etc.

Israel deciding to give up its occupied territories can be done from within without killing off israel itself. The USA and Europe are the ultimate guarantors of Israeli integrity, as are your own nuclear weapons - so please stop telling us youre so very threatened, youre not and everyone knows it.

Indeed and your Nutjob seems to know that zionism will be defeated by a very specific strategy too. Saber rattling? Inflammatory language? reckless rhetoric? Do these differing terms really matter?

Nonsense. Both examples involve powers that cannot afford to go to war with each other and fight conflicts by proxy. Both proclaim they fight for freedom and reason.

Indeed Nutjob is not threatening you with nukes. Hes making clear that zionism can be toppled. Nukes are nowhere mentioned. The only threats he has ever made are to those who would think of attacking Iran. Its exactly the strategy israel has taken, pretend no nuclear weapon programme and bury it deep so no one will ever think of invading you.

Because it has lasted even til today.

 

Convenient nonsensical excuses of mighty against the meek; youre too weak to hold it from me so it might as well be mine, even if ive never been there and dont know any family there - fascism in its purest form.

Arabs have fought against and committed various imperial actions. Just like anyone else, including israelis. The arabs would have and have before fought anyone who had done such a thing. They fought the turks, they fought the british they fought the israelis. Thats both muslim arabs and chrsitian arabs and others. Your prejudices are undermined.

Rubbish. Theyve been mostly at peace.

Nonsense. If I took from you in the artic, where no nation holds sway, ive still robbed you rather than committed war against you. As well as the arabs having no state the proto israelis werent even israelis when they did these deeds, so where does that leave your notion?

Its merely convenient for you to describe theft as some rightful part of war.

Theres a strict limit on how much they can do that. Israel must keep its supply lines as short as possible.

Why do you say these nonsensical things? The israelis have always played the game according to their means. When these improved so did their tactics and principles - the arabs are no different. Try not to tell me anymore tripe about the lack of principles on the other side - ill just bring up israeli actions, theres no lack of examples.