- #1
Count Iblis
- 1,863
- 8
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212417034&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull"
Last edited by a moderator:
drankin said:The stakes are too high not consider a military option.
As if he actually has that power?Count Iblis said:http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212417034&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull"
How, precisely, do you propose they defend themselves from a nuclear bomb?ExactlySolved said:The stakes might be high for israel, but we have given them more than enough support for them to defend themselves.
russ_watters said:How, precisely, do you propose they defend themselves from a nuclear bomb?
turbo-1 said:BTW, why is Israel not threatened by Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons?
Surely Israel would say they are threatened by Pakistani nuclear weapons, as is everyone else, but not to the immediate degree that a nuclear Iran would pose. Why the difference? That would be because Pakistan does not a) sponsor and control large scale guerilla military organizations like Hezbollah that openly state they want to destroy Israel, and b) Pakistan's president does not make statements that "denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map" - our President about Iran's president.turbo-1 said:...BTW, why is Israel not threatened by Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons? ...
Scooped me! Pakistan no doubt has made plenty of critical, even hateful(?), statements about Israeli policy.tiny-tim said:Because Pakistan, unlike Iran, does not hate Israel, does not want to eliminate Israel from the map, and does not give military and financial support to Hamas or Hizbollah.
Israel and Pakistan have had a much less adversarial relationship since the '70s and '80s, when Israel supplied and ran guns to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Pakistani president Zia ul-Haq is noted for having famously accepted Israel's help so long as the crates didn't have a "<bleeping> Star of David" on them ("quoting" from Charlie Wilson's War). The ISI and Mossad have reportedly been sharing intelligence since at least that time. And in recent years, Musharraf has significantly dialed down the rhetoric against Israel and neither Gilani nor Zardari seem likely to ramp it up again.turbo-1 said:BTW, why is Israel not threatened by Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons?
Shmuel Bar said:Pakistan's nuclear capability, along with its radical Islamic body politic and involvement in encouraging radicalism, should have placed it high on Israel's list of potential strategic threats. However, even media references to the Pakistani nuclear program as the "Islamic bomb" did not affect Israel's basic policy: to view Pakistan more as a potential interlocutor than as a potential threat. Pakistan itself clarified on various occasions and at various levels that its nuclear capability is not intended to serve any but its own national security.
russ_watters said:How, precisely, do you propose they defend themselves from a nuclear bomb?
What is your point?skeptic2 said:A preemptory strike? But then who is the aggressor?
The quote I responded to implied you were talking about military support.ExactlySolved said:Diplomatic concessions...
ExactlySolved; said:Diplomatc Concessions...
russ_watters said:The quote I responded to implied you were talking about military support.
ExactlySolved said:The Iranians are not anti-semetic: they don't hate jews; they are anti-zionist: they don't believe that the modern state of Israel should exist.
I agree with the statements made in the first sentence but not that made in the second (well, it's just not true). Belief that a nation (rather than its people) ought to cease existing is not racist. Much of the US in the 60s and 70s had been hoping and working towards the eradication of the Soviet Union (the beef was with Communism, not the Russians, just as the issue here may be with Zionism rather than with Jews). Moreover, the "unlike any other state" clause is factually incorrect. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly thrown America into the list of countries that ought to cease existing (list=US, Israel), including in the speech where he fantasized that Israel be removed from the pages of history/face of earth. And "death to America" is hardly an unheard of phrase in Iran. Given that, I would say that the only evidence for anti-Semitism lies in the Holocaust denial and the cartoons (most of which - from my experience - are anti-Zionist, but some are certainly anti-Jew).tiny-tim said:The Iranians have antisemitic media, classic-style antisemitic cartoons, and a government that sponsors holocaust denial.
And their belief that the modern state of Israel, unlike any other modern state, should cease to exist is simply racist.
ExactlySolved said:Also, I'm very open to moral arguments in favor of Israel's existence, in fact looking at the posts in this thread I can't help but feel I am missing some information. Please teach me why it is a good idea to support Israel.
russ_watters said:From the article: I'm comfortable with an endless string of temporary setbacks.
Gokul43201 said:I agree with the statements made in the first sentence but not that made in the second (well, it's just not true). Belief that a nation (rather than its people) ought to cease existing is not racist.
Much of the US in the 60s and 70s had been hoping and working towards the eradication of the Soviet Union …
… (the beef was with Communism, not the Russians, just as the issue here may be with Zionism rather than with Jews).
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly thrown America into the list of countries that ought to cease existing (list=US, Israel) …
russ_watters said:As if he actually has that power?
You could just as well be describing the Saudi government here.mheslep said:They already have grievances. They're aggrieved when they see an unveiled woman, they're aggrieved when homosexuals and Jews are tolerated. I am not signing on to any big picture that claims the moral high ground lies in neutrality with all of that.
Thanks for the erudite argument. My response: of course it isn't.tiny-tim said:Of course it is.
They were might pleased that it was broken down into several smaller states. Same difference (wanting the state to lose its political and military influence).Oh come off it …
Iran doesn't just want a change in the electoral system, it wants either for the Jews to leave Israel, or for Israel to absorbed into a larger country.
The US never wanted the Russians (and other ethnic groups) to leave the USSR, nor for the USSR to be absorbed into some Greater Asian Republic.
It is not. You can most certainly oppose the religious/social/political philosophy of a group of people without holding a bigotry against the people themselves. You seem to have lost track of what racism needs to be about (a race of people, not their political identity).Zionism is Jewish nationalism …
how is being against Jewish nationalism not racist?
And how is being against Jewish nationalism not having an issue with Jews?
What are you winking at?Googled, and found nothing … when and where has he said (repeatedly) that America should cease to exist?
Asia Times said:...Ahmadinejad said, "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."
To a cheering audience that at several points erupted with chants of "death to Israel, death to America, death to England"...
Reuters said:Iran's president said on Monday Israel would soon disappear off the map and that the "satanic power" of the United States faced destruction, in his latest verbal attack on the Islamic Republic's arch-enemies.
You're really confused by an assertion that Ahmadinejad has repeatedly talked about the destruction of America?tiny-tim said:
Count Iblis said:According to an old UN reslution Zionism was racism. The US insisted the UN scrap that resolution in exchange for them getting involved in the peace process.
Gokul43201 said:Ahmadinejad has repeatedly thrown America into the list of countries that ought to cease existing
Gokul43201 said:And here's the more recent one that I remember making the news:
Reuters said:Iran's president said on Monday Israel would soon disappear off the map and that the "satanic power" of the United States faced destruction, in his latest verbal attack on the Islamic Republic's arch-enemies.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0261250620080603
… here's the most well-known instance:
Asia Times said:...Ahmadinejad said, "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."
To a cheering audience that at several points erupted with chants of "death to Israel, death to America, death to England"...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ28Ak03.html
They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved…
However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it.
TheStatutoryApe said:There have been jews in that region for centuries, if not longer as they claim. European jews aswell. They were oppressed and treated as second class citizens the majority of that time.
After the fall of the Ottoman Empire the brits and french gave jews a say in the government. After that point there were only more and more violent clashes between arabs and jews because the arabs were not happy with the jews holding political power.
When the jews fleeing persecution by Nazis in europe were denied immigration to palestine the plalestinian jews revolted and helped them immigrate illegally.
The mass exodus was the last straw for the arabs, fearing a jewish majority, and civil war broke out. The jews finished the fight and declared themselves a sovereign nation which was immediately invaded.
The Israelis then pushed their enemies back and took yet more territory and have since been using it as a buffer zone between themselves and their enemies. Its a long messy story and I am sure that jews attacked arabs as arabs attacked jews but really I see nothing particularly immoral about the manner in which Israel came about. Perhaps you can point it out to me.
This assertion requires you to know every single sentence uttered by Ahmadinejad in public.tiny-tim said:(And even with your interpretation, it was in 2005, and has never been repeated
I'll take back the repeatedly (it doesn't take a dozen couterexamples to disprove an assertion), as I have no desire to go about wasting my time digging up instances when Ahmadinejad has spoken of the destruction of America in the same vein as a destruction of Israel. What's more, this thread is veering away from the OP, and I have no desire to take it any farther away.so hardly qualifies as "repeatedly")
Gokul43201 said:This assertion requires you to know every single sentence uttered by Ahmadinejad in public.
QED
… and you started talking about America.And their belief that the modern state of Israel, unlike any other modern state, should cease to exist is simply racist.
ExactlySolved said:It was not very moral for hundreds of thousands of Jews to illegally emmigrate to Palestine, even if they were WW2 refugees.
tiny-tim said:It only became illegal because the British had to impose quotas in order to try to keep the peace, because the Palestinian Arabs, instead of welcoming their new legal Jewish neighbours, were increasingly trying to kill them.
Killing your neighbours is immoral (and killing immigrants is both immoral and racist), even if it does persuade the government to halt immigration.
AhmedEzz said:It is like saying that the native Americans didn't welcome their newly "rightful" neighbors to establish a colony on their territory, instead, they tried to kill them (bad Americans!). This act was considered immoral and therefore, they had to be exterminated.
This seems to be the major point for your argument regarding your original statement so I will focus on it. If we digress onto this topic (in general) too much the thread will probably be locked.ExactlySolved said:It was not very moral for hundreds of thousands of Jews to illegally emmigrate to Palestine, even if they were WW2 refugees.
I believe that the jews had wanted a "piece of the pie" for centuries and when the brits gave it to them they finally had something to fight for so they defended it tooth and nail. The Palestinian jews revolted against the British when the British instituted quotas to reduce the number of refugees able to immigrate from Europe. This is the only major issue I am aware of that the jews fought the brits on. As discussed above, perhaps this was justified and perhaps not but either way it does not appear to have simply been a matter of using them and then tossing them aside when they no longer needed them.Exactly said:The British wanted to help the Jews live in Palestine peacefully, coexisting with the established Arab state, but the Jews eventually revolted against the British in Palestine because they wanted their own state. They exploited the British generosity for 25 years and then dumped them when they became strong enough to fight the Arabs.
This goes to the current point. I can see Iran taking issue with the interference of the US in regional matters. That makes sense. It seems though that they focus on Israel because they are just down the street while the US is across town. Where this tactic may earn them points in the region with their allies I believe that it only hinders them on the world stage. It would seem to be a poor long term strategy unless they can provoke attack from Israel.Exactly said:A long mess about enemies killing enemies is not immoral, but right now Israel receives more support from the USA than does nay other country. Israel is a state that would never have been created without western intervention, and now it is being sustained (to a larger degree than any other state) by western intervention. In the abscence of further evidence I am forced to conclude that the western intervention arises from anti-arab religious and racial prejudice in the west. I implore someone else to give me a more benign explanation for why the US supports Israel.