Israel has a 30 year record of promising never to introduce and not having used nukes despite having every reason and opportunity to do so. Iran has a 30 year record of threat-making against the US, Israel, worldwide sponsorship of terrorist organizations (and being accused most recently by Azerbaijan of orchestrating attacks on the Israeli embassy). It is simply insane to treat these two countries as equal threats.

For part of those 30 years, Israel didn't share your concerns about Iran being such a threat, do you have any idea what has changed in more recent years?

You highlight the danger from having nukes in the region. You think Israel's use of them in the past would have been reasonable. One day an Israeli leader might agree with you. I don't blame any neighbouring country for wanting a nuclear deterrent just in case for their own security.

I certainly never said that. I don't think there's ever been a reasonable time to drop a nuclear bomb, but then I've never had that decision to make, and I'm certain I'd have a hard time arguing against dropping a bomb in Wannsee ca. 1930s.

What I said was that Israel has - on several occasions - been in a hostile enough environment where a reasonable person might have concluded that a state in posession of nuclear weapons might have in fact used them. Israel has rejected every one of those opportunities, suggesting a very high standard of use (at least as high as, say, the US, France, or UK). Add to that the promise it has repeatedly made (and kept) never to introduce sych weapons, and it becomes reasonable to let sleeping dogs lie in terms of ambiguity.

Contrast this with the speech coming from the supposed representatives of the Iranian people (make no mistake, the Iranian people deserve way better than these nuts), with their fingers on the button. Constant threats against the Great Satan and promises to "wipe the regime in Jerusalem from history" (to use the exact translation). For all the economic and academic integration (despite the BDSers efforts and perpetual failure), Israel is enmeshed with the Western world. Iran's ties are to Russia, China, India, and the Arab world; the Iranian government may even understand MAD doctrine (I'd bet on it but its not 100%), but its terrorist proxies in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza clearly do not. That's what the fear is really all about (as has been discussed). Say what you will about AIPAC (and I'll disagree anyway), they're not blowing themselves up on the streets or trying to hijack planes. The people that could get a nuke from Iran are indeed prepared to do these things. We don't need to go and carpet bomb the country and occupy it for 15 years, but Iran can not have a nuclear bomb for distribution.

The Arabs know Israel won't use it. Like I said, what they say and think are very different. They know they have nothing to fear from Israel as long as they don't poke the bear. They worry about keeping the real story of Israel out of the public awareness. They've spent decades telling their people that Israel is pure evil, because its better than the people demanding the democratic reforms and freedoms that Israelis, Jew and Arab, have.

Don't get me wrong (and I'm speculating here) they'd still much prefer those troublesome Jews out of there. But the fact is, a strong Israel is better for them because they keep the arab spring types thinking about Palestinians (who actually have above averagelife expectancy and quality of life) instead of their own despotic leaders.

You just said it again ! It is thought that Israel came quite close to using nuclear weapons in the 1970s.

Iirc it's a forecast that Zionism will end rather than a threat. I agree that Zionism can't go on forever. No race-based system should last forever. It is already looking anachronistic.

It's Israel poking them that is the problem.

[QUOTE=Cwocwoc;32078495]You just said it again ! It is thought that Israel came quite close to using nuclear weapons in the 1970s.

jesus. saying its reasonable to think that a country might use a nuke <> saying that its reasonable for a country to use a nuke. I'll try again: You can argue that it was unreasonable for the US to drop a nuke in 1945. It wouldn't mean that it was unreasonable to predict the US was going to drop a nuke in 1945.

A questionable assumption to say the least, but Israel government officials from any of the major parties haven't "forecasted" the end of the Arab world or Islam or anything like that.

sigh. its simply hopeless talking to you; everything is israel's fault. it doesn't matter if you're talking about worldwide racism, warfare, suffering anywhere. it's always israel's fault. just ridiculous.

You shouldn't be. If Israel has nukes this makes the other countries feel less secure so they are tempted to follow suit as a counter measure for their own security. It's better if nobody has nukes. Everyone is secure from them then.

You said it for a third time ! This time with added gobbledygook about Hirsohima and Nagasaki. Might or might not is not good enough when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons.



Those aren't political movements. One's a region and one's a worldwide religion. I suppose the religion might end. I suppose all religions might end. Many people said apartheid couldn't last and communism couldn't last. Those are more reasonable comparisons.



They've got to stop colonising the West Bank and expanding in East Jerusalem. That's illegal and very provocative towards the Palestinians.

I'm bowing out. The lack of logic is astounding.

Snap. Your view seems to be nukes for Israel good, nukes for anybody else bad.

Your view seems to be based on whatever you'd prefer the other side's views to be. All of your views depend on your assumptions about my views.

Namely, you assume that with I (and Israel) am ultimately a racist, murderous thug, that i want to colonize the Middle East, that I want to indiscriminately kill Arabs, that I see myself as superior beings and therefore entitled to do whatever I want because I and Jewish and therefore better, that Jews in fact do control the US government and American politicians are mere sock puppets of the Zionists, that the Arab/Muslim world's beef with a Jewish state (in what are of course "Arab/Muslim" lands) has anything to do with Palestinian human rights, and finally, that Israel is leading the world towards nuclear war.

Simply put, none of the above is true, and given that, your views are meaningless.

No, what you said was

You don't just think that "a reasonable person might have concluded" that a state in Israel's position at some point in the past might have used nukes. You personally believe that, within the past 30 years, Israel could have justifiably ("having every reason") used nukes.

I was writing for the perspective of "the reasonable person", not "Israel".

Fine. The wording I used was vague and indefinite. I clearly meant the former. There has been a level of "reason" present that would lead to a nuke. Stop tarding up the thread with your nitpickery.

OR

Whoops, you caught me! Not only do I have a vote in the Israeli elections, but I want to drop nukes on everyone!!!

Which reply would you prefer?

Calm down and stop accusing me of assuming things you've just made up yourself.

My views are straight down the middle. The Palestinians and Israeli Jews are the same to me. They are equal human beings deserving of equal consideration. Likewise on this issue the Iranians and Israel should be treated even handedly. No nukes for one should mean no nukes for the other.