Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Why does Israel get so much special treatment when it comes down to nuclear weapons?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
42 replies to this topic

#1 Waaayoff   Members   -  Reputation: 781

Posted 29 September 2011 - 05:24 AM

I understand that being surrounded by Arab countries, some of which are hostile towards it, Israel has to protect itself. (Yet again they're the ones who chose to displace the Palestinians and establish their country in the middle of the middle-east in the first place). And so the world turned a blind eye to Israel's nuclear program. Israel even destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 which was under construction and only capable of peaceful scientific research according to France, the one who sold Iraq the reactor.

Now Jordan, Israel's peaceful neighbour, is planning on building 4 nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes. Jordan has no oil reserves and can really benefit from nuclear energy. It even asked the US for permission as a sign of goodwill. Something it does not have to do since unlike Israel, it is a signatory to NPT.

Israel has objected and the US took Israel's position. Jordan and the US have been negotiating this matter since 2008.

My question is this. Why the double standards?

Is it for the fear that Jordan might use nuclear weapons against Israel? Any nuclear attack on Israel would devastate Jordan, seeing as how both are very small neighbouring countries. Is it because of radical Islam? Jordan isn't even considered an Islamist country. It was ranked as the most liberal Arab country with a pro-secular government. It has no history of terrorism, a peace treaty with Israel and good relations with everyone. And i do mean everyone.

I honestly have nothing against Israel but i'm just sick of all the special treatment it gets.

/rant
"Spending your life waiting for the messiah to come save the world is like waiting around for the straight piece to come in Tetris...even if it comes, by that time you've accumulated a mountain of shit so high that you're fucked no matter what you do. "

Sponsor:

#2 GMuser   Members   -  Reputation: 211

Posted 29 September 2011 - 05:31 AM

It's very simple. The middle east is the modern day Colosseum, USA are the Roman lanistas, Israel are the gladiators and the Arabs are the filthy criminals who are supposed to die.

#3 Discount_Flunky   Members   -  Reputation: 102

Posted 29 September 2011 - 05:57 AM

I do think it is a double stranded for the most part. Although I really didn't buy Iran's story when they said the wanted Nuclear power for "peaceful Proposes".

I'd like to point out though that Jordan and Israel do not get along and historically have not been peaceful with one another. Jordan was one of Israels enemies in the Six Day war. Israel has a right to be paranoid, but in this case Jordan deserves to have Nuclear power I think.

#4 EgoDeath   Members   -  Reputation: 110

Posted 29 September 2011 - 06:16 AM

There are double standards, have been since the creation of Israel. Now it's getting harder for Israel to label everyone who opposes them as terrorists it will be interesting to see what happens. The double standards are in the news reports. What about Sabra and Chatilla? It's not talked about much. What about all the UN resolutions Israel has broken, what about the illegal settlements?
Nuclear weapons aren't for peaceful purposes, they are for killing many many people, and as a result they become a political bargaining chip that can create a favourable peace for the side with those weapons. Now it's perhaps time the region wasn't so polarised by Israel and the US, the region may be able to move forward to better pastures.
But Israel will find it difficult not being the one dictating how this happens. There against the Palestinians being a soverign nation, and perhaps need brutal dictatorships in order to carry on with there own brutal policies, interesting times ahead.

#5 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 30384

Posted 29 September 2011 - 06:21 AM

Why stop at just bitching about nukes?
What about the apartheid? Martial law? Racial discrimination? Illegal occupation? Massive collective punishment? Convention on Cluster Munitions? Geneva conventions? Chemical Weapons Convention? Forgery of allied passports? Espionage? Assassination? Political imprisonment?

C'mon, you can rant more.

#6 Discount_Flunky   Members   -  Reputation: 102

Posted 29 September 2011 - 06:28 AM

There are double standards, have been since the creation of Israel. Now it's getting harder for Israel to label everyone who opposes them as terrorists it will be interesting to see what happens. The double standards are in the news reports. What about Sabra and Chatilla? It's not talked about much. What about all the UN resolutions Israel has broken, what about the illegal settlements?
Nuclear weapons aren't for peaceful purposes, they are for killing many many people, and as a result they become a political bargaining chip that can create a favourable peace for the side with those weapons. Now it's perhaps time the region wasn't so polarised by Israel and the US, the region may be able to move forward to better pastures.
But Israel will find it difficult not being the one dictating how this happens. There against the Palestinians being a soverign nation, and perhaps need brutal dictatorships in order to carry on with there own brutal policies, interesting times ahead.


I going to have to say a little about this. Israel's policies aren't brutal, there just over reactive, they certainly aren't dictators. With what has happened to them it's understandable why they have gotten to the point where they are now. They do not oppose the creation of a sovereign Palestinian nation, because of racism, religious hatred etc. They are opposed to it because they are already a small country, and their afraid of Palestine slowly chipping away their territory, as they already have done. Also if Palestine becomes sovereign they will be able to have there own standing army and such. I can only imagine how much fighting would result if that happened.

Israel and Palestine really should just morph into one nation. That would be the most peaceful solution in the long run. Of course the chances of that happening are slim to none.

#7 Bregma   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5133

Posted 29 September 2011 - 06:41 AM

Here's the simple answer: if you think there are any simple answers to any questions regarding the Middle East, you're wrong.

It's just that simple.
Stephen M. Webb
Professional Free Software Developer

#8 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 30384

Posted 29 September 2011 - 06:43 AM

...

Oh man, I actually laughed out loud half way through that!
I'm not "taking sides" with the Palestinians here, but... who has been teaching you history?

--With what has happened to them it's understandable why they have gotten to the point where they are now--
By the same token, I assume this also applies to the Palestinians? Including the ones who were forced from their homes during the creation of Israel within their land? Both sides have been through hell at each other's hands, but it's pretty hard to argue that the Palestinian side hasn't been worse off.

--They do not oppose the creation of a sovereign Palestinian nation, because of racism, religious hatred etc--
They just take every effort to stop the Palestinians from seeking recognition as a sovereign nation...
The Israel/Palestine division was created out of racism and religious hatred.

--They are opposed to it because they are already a small country, and their afraid of Palestine slowly chipping away their territory, as they already have done.--
Ok. That's where I LOLed.
Here's the original lines for the part of Palestine that Israel was to claim: http://en.wikipedia....estine_1947.png
Here's the current lines: http://upload.wikime...tlements%29.png
N.B. that the majority of the green area is occupied by Israeli forces, with the Palestinian residents living under martial law and apartheid. Palestine is being chipped away at constantly by new settlements.

--Israel and Palestine really should just morph into one nation--
You know that's where the conflict started from right? The zionists wanted their own state just for Jews, and a civil war broke out, which has never really ended.

#9 Discount_Flunky   Members   -  Reputation: 102

Posted 29 September 2011 - 07:13 AM

...

Oh man, I actually laughed out loud half way through that!
I'm not "taking sides" with the Palestinians here, but... who has been teaching you history?

--With what has happened to them it's understandable why they have gotten to the point where they are now--
By the same token, I assume this also applies to the Palestinians? Including the ones who were forced from their homes during the creation of Israel within their land? Both sides have been through hell at each other's hands, but it's pretty hard to argue that the Palestinian side hasn't been worse off.

--They do not oppose the creation of a sovereign Palestinian nation--
Except that they're taking every effort to stop the Palestinians from seeking recognition as a sovereign nation...

--They are opposed to it because they are already a small country, and their afraid of Palestine slowly chipping away their territory, as they already have done.--
That's where I LOLed.
Here's the original lines of the part of Palestine that Israel was created within: http://en.wikipedia....estine_1947.png
Here's the current lines: http://upload.wikime...tlements%29.png
N.B. that the majority of the green area is occupied by Israeli forces, with the Palestinian residents living under martial law and apartheid. It's being chipped away at constantly by new settlements.

--Israel and Palestine really should just morph into one nation--
You know that's where the conflict started from right? The zionists wanted their own state just for Jews, and a civil war broke out, which has never really ended.


You really didn't address half of what I said in fact you miss quoted me a few times. He called Israel a brutal dictatorship. 1. This a lie. 2. It means he is on the side of the Palestinians, a neutral person would not have said that.

When I said "With what has happened to them it's understandable why they have gotten to the point where they are now" I was referring to their entire history. The Jews are the most hated people who have ever existed. It's easier to make a list of the nations who haven't tried to wipe them off the face of the earth. They didn't just appear out of some Tarsus gate somewhere and start slaughtering hundreds of "innocent" Palestinians. Fist they were persecuted all over Europe and then six million of them where killed in the Holocaust. After that happened (and this is the most important part) Britain felt sorry for them and forced the Palestinians out of their homes so that the Jews could have back their ancient ancestral home. It wasn't the Jews, it was the British. That's the part that everyone forgets.


I clearly did not deny that they are opposing Palestine becoming a sovereign nation as you miss quoted me saying.

Yes the Jews land did start small, but then Palestine and Israel fought a war. Guess what, Israel won, that's the way it is. It also doesn't matter how much they used to have. They only care about what they have now, and their land is the main reason they oppose Palestine's sovereignty.

Your last point doesn't even address what I said at all. You said them trying to join together caused it, then you said the Zionist caused it all in the same sentence. That's a compelelty redundant statement. Also how does them failing to come together then change the fact that it's a good Idea now?

#10 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 29 September 2011 - 07:30 AM

When I said "With what has happened to them it's understandable why they have gotten to the point where they are now" I was referring to their entire history. The Jews are the most hated people who have ever existed. It's easier to make a list of the nations who haven't tried to wipe them off the face of the earth. They didn't just appear out of some Tarsus gate somewhere and start slaughtering hundreds of "innocent" Palestinians. Fist they were persecuted all over Europe and then six million of them where killed in the Holocaust. After that happened (and this is the most important part) Britain felt sorry for them and forced the Palestinians out of their homes so that the Jews could have back their ancient ancestral home. It wasn't the Jews, it was the British. That's the part that everyone forgets.

I clearly did not deny that they are opposing Palestine becoming a sovereign nation as you miss quoted me saying.

Yes the Jews land did start small, but then Palestine and Israel fought a war. Guess what, Israel won, that's the way it is. It also doesn't matter how much they used to have. They only care about what they have now, and their land is the main reason they oppose Palestine's sovereignty.


On the creation of the current middle east nations. A big problem with the middle east is because of the way many countries had their boundaries set post-wwII. They were split generally geographically rather than culturally, and a lot of middle east conflict stems from that.

Though there is a lot to be said for the fact that the palestinians repeatedly either start wars and lose or join wars on the eventual losing side resulting in their continued loss of land. I cannot really say Israel has been any more out of line than the Palestinians have been. Neither side is willing to bend, so one of them has to break eventually or they have to change their outlook, which won't happen. It's a shitstorm in which both sides are in the wrong and neither side is willing to admit it.

#11 EgoDeath   Members   -  Reputation: 110

Posted 29 September 2011 - 08:53 AM

Well as far as being even.. This does not mean we cannot take sides? If we were to be even handed about WW2, would we sit on the fence?


The history that people hear is often twisted far out of it's original shape, sadly.
While many make good arguments, they are often based on lies and propaganda.

Yea the boundaries were made by the west post ww2, for example, Afghani's do not recognise the borders of Afghanistan, it is tribal and tribal lands span across these borders, it is much the same story all-over the middle east and a major source of the problems.




"After that happened (and this is the most important part) Britain felt sorry for them and forced the Palestinians out of their homes so that the Jews could have back their ancient ancestral home. It wasn't the Jews, it was the British. That's the part that everyone forgets."

Yea, many Palestinians still hold the papers that legally entitle them to there land. (Now in Israel), but don't forget the jewish gangs who blew Palestinians apart with home-made bombs as part of the Zionist movement. (Or maybe, find out about these things)

The thing is, the Israeli's keep taking their land.... Yes still, that's what the illegal settlements are, or what are they called these days??? Jewish settlements..
Their water is taken also, their infrastructure is systematically destroyed every few years as well. If Palestine becomes a sovereign nation, well Israel might find it a little more tricky systematically tearing them apart.

As far as either side willing to bend, well the Palestinians have been conceding and conceding for years now, especially under Arafat.

At the end of the day it highlights one of life's lessons. If you want to know, really know something.. You have to find out for yourself.

And il finish by recounting what an Israeli said to me, an old girl who made it through Auschwitz.

"Hitler won, we (Israel) have become just like the Nazi's, Hitler has won"

I could go on, but what's the point, the truth speaks for itself. Im just looking forward to a world where the Arabs start working together, and refuse to be controlled by the west.
Viva la revolution :)

#12 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 30384

Posted 29 September 2011 - 09:17 AM

1) Your last point doesn't even address what I said at all. 2) You said them trying to join together caused it, then you said the Zionist caused it all in the same sentence. That's a compelelty redundant statement. 3) Also how does them failing to come together then change the fact that it's a good Idea now?

1) I wasn't addressing what you said, or the discussion between yourself and EgoDeath. I was having a good laugh at the bizarro world described in your post. Big difference in intent. Seriously, I actually burst out laughing, which takes a lot, so I had to comment.
2) lol what? The time before "starting a civil war" is called "joining together" now? You can't really join together if you've not been separated by the civil war yet, right? I said the civil war grew out of a desire for a jewish state. That's not a contradiction. It's also not a statement that places blame on either side - I didn't say zionist's *caused* it. Lern2comprehend.
3) You're imagining that I said a one-state solution is a bad idea? I was asking if you knew they used to be "one state" not because it's a bad idea, but because by the imaginary world you were describing, it seemed you were unaware of the fact.

#13 EgoDeath   Members   -  Reputation: 110

Posted 29 September 2011 - 10:31 AM

Here's the simple answer: if you think there are any simple answers to any questions regarding the Middle East, you're wrong.

It's just that simple.


There are simple answers, but no-one in power has the heart or courage to ask the right questions.

#14 Bregma   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5133

Posted 29 September 2011 - 10:54 AM


Here's the simple answer: if you think there are any simple answers to any questions regarding the Middle East, you're wrong.

It's just that simple.


There are simple answers, but no-one in power has the heart or courage to ask the right questions.

No. There are plenty of simplistic answers. There are no simple answers. If you don't know the difference, your answers will be simplistic.
Stephen M. Webb
Professional Free Software Developer

#15 Discount_Flunky   Members   -  Reputation: 102

Posted 29 September 2011 - 11:59 AM

1) Your last point doesn't even address what I said at all. 2) You said them trying to join together caused it, then you said the Zionist caused it all in the same sentence. That's a compelelty redundant statement. 3) Also how does them failing to come together then change the fact that it's a good Idea now?

1) I wasn't addressing what you said, or the discussion between yourself and EgoDeath. I was having a good laugh at the bizarro world described in your post. Big difference in intent. Seriously, I actually burst out laughing, which takes a lot, so I had to comment.
2) lol what? The time before "starting a civil war" is called "joining together" now? You can't really join together if you've not been separated by the civil war yet, right? I said the civil war grew out of a desire for a jewish state. That's not a contradiction. It's also not a statement that places blame on either side - I didn't say zionist's *caused* it. Lern2comprehend.
3) You're imagining that I said a one-state solution is a bad idea? I was asking if you knew they used to be "one state" not because it's a bad idea, but because by the imaginary world you were describing, it seemed you were unaware of the fact.




--Israel and Palestine really should just morph into one nation--
You know that's where the conflict started from right?
The zionists wanted their own state just for Jews, and a civil war broke out, which has never really ended.


I said that Israel and Palestine should be unified.


First you said "You know that's where the conflict started from right?" this implies the conflict started because they were unified. Then you said this "The zionists wanted their own state just for Jews, and a civil war broke out" which implies that the conflict started because they were divided. As written the two statements contradict each other.


Imaginary world you say? You clearly stated in the first post that the Jews started it and that they were acting on their own. Completely leaving out the part about the British. Implieing that the Jews invaded the area like some hoard. No body who really knows anything about the subject would leave the British out. It was the way that British handled it that really started it. "O hi Palestinians, we want the Jews to live here now, so we're going to take away all your land and give it to them. Now I want you guys to play nice so if I catch you messing with the Jews I'm going to SHOOT you." Not exactly a good way to introduce to groups.


Also I like to point out that Palestinian is not a nationality, it's an ethnic group. There has never been a Palestinian nation. That area of the world, until recently, has been ruled by someone else going all the way back to when the Jews where first thrown out of Israel. That's another factor in why it's taking them so long for them to become a real nation. They don't have as legitimate of claim to lands compared to the Jews. The Jews have ruled the area for over 3000 years while the Palestinians are just descendants of Arab settlers that came there in like the 10th century who have never had a real nation. If you can really determine who should own land based on "who used it more" then the Jews win every time.

#16 EgoDeath   Members   -  Reputation: 110

Posted 29 September 2011 - 12:04 PM



Here's the simple answer: if you think there are any simple answers to any questions regarding the Middle East, you're wrong.

It's just that simple.


There are simple answers, but no-one in power has the heart or courage to ask the right questions.

No. There are plenty of simplistic answers. There are no simple answers. If you don't know the difference, your answers will be simplistic.



I rather think the old, 'no simple answer' routine is merely just the mask of impotence. Or the answer of someone who has reneged on their values and now finds themselves weighing both the 'devil' and the 'divine'.

How about;
Stop building Illegal 'settlements'.

Is this too simplistic for you?
How about, hold Israel accountable to International law?

I know it get's awfully complicated when one has double standards.

#17 Discount_Flunky   Members   -  Reputation: 102

Posted 29 September 2011 - 12:14 PM




Here's the simple answer: if you think there are any simple answers to any questions regarding the Middle East, you're wrong.

It's just that simple.


There are simple answers, but no-one in power has the heart or courage to ask the right questions.

No. There are plenty of simplistic answers. There are no simple answers. If you don't know the difference, your answers will be simplistic.



I rather think the old, 'no simple answer' routine is merely just the mask of impotence. Or the answer of someone who has reneged on their values and now finds themselves weighing both the 'devil' and the 'divine'.

How about;
Stop building Illegal 'settlements'.

Is this too simplistic for you?
How about, hold Israel accountable to International law?

I know it get's awfully complicated when one has double standards.




I love how everyone throws around all of Israel's supposed "War crimes" and completely ignores the car bombings, suicide bombings, beheading's, and stoning's, committed by the completely innocent and defenseless Palestinians.

#18 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 7267

Posted 29 September 2011 - 12:26 PM

I love how everyone throws around all of Israel's supposed "War crimes" and completely ignores the car bombings, suicide bombings, beheading's, and stoning's, committed by the completely innocent and defenseless Palestinians.


Defending one states actions by saying 'but the other guys do it too!' is no defense.

Both sides are killing each other and Israel's continued taking of land is not helping matters and are pushing one group who have no other voice or backing into their actions.

If Israel was to stop their actions then they would have a leg to stand on and would more than likely get more backing if the Palestinians didn't stop their actions.

Right now however what is happening is that one nation, with the backing of another, is stealing land and forcing people from their homes, that group have no other recourse and are fighting back as best they can.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" has never rung so true.

And there is no 'supposed' about it, just that while the US is backing them they will never be brought to account on them.

#19 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 29 September 2011 - 12:32 PM

How about;
Stop building Illegal 'settlements'.

Is this too simplistic for you?
How about, hold Israel accountable to International law?


Those aren't answers. Those are simple parts of complex answers. Doing either of those won't suddenly make rainbows appear over jerusalem as moslems, jews, and christians run through the street. These are deep seeded cultural problems that extend beyond the legal and political problems, and there are, in fact, no simple answers.

And there is no 'supposed' about it, just that while the US is backing them they will never be brought to account on them.

Ron Paul for president? <_<

I would actually be curious what would happen if israel didn't have the us backing it in more than a being-on-the-security-council capacity.

#20 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 7267

Posted 29 September 2011 - 12:39 PM

and there are, in fact, no simple answers.


Indeed; the whole thing is a mess.

It's resolveable, but it won't be easy and it's going to require give and take on both sides... the problem is, as it stands, it would seem neither side wants to do that and, from Israel's stand point why would they want to? Lets face it, right now, they are 'winning'...




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS