• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Israel 'satisfied' with Iran's rejection of West's demands

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
They have every right to be free of politics;

However, they chose to accept oversight of the IAEA.

They did not claim the right to pick and chose what rules they wanted.
OTOH, the IAEA can't arbitrarily change the rules, either, which is what they're trying to do.

The NPT is a treaty obligation, and the text of it, linked earlier by TLC, does not support the idea that the IAEA can enforce additional rules without full agreement by Iran, including formal acceptance by their parliament. It also makes no reference whatsoever to "nuclear weapons related activities" that don't involve the use of actual nuclear materials.

Which is not to say that Iran, and likely other NPT states, haven't likely engaged in weapons research. It's just that doing so is outside the realm of the NPT as signed.

So we want Iran to accept additional protocols prohibiting such research, with rather invasive inspection provisions, which sounds fine, but what do we offer in return?

We still deny their right to enrich their own fuel even under additional protocols, which is obvious doublespeak. Netanyahu even demands that they surrender existing enriched materials, as if he has the right to make any demands at all.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
But it becomes a matter of interpretation of verbiage and intent
Each side will interpret according to what their aims are and the other will reject because it does not accomplish their own aims.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,392
3,035
126
We still deny their right to enrich their own fuel even under additional protocols, which is obvious doublespeak. Netanyahu even demands that they surrender existing enriched materials, as if he has the right to make any demands at all.
They would listen to Netanyahu before they would even consider listening to your bloviations!!
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
They would listen to Netanyahu before they would even consider listening to your bloviations!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So goes the the Jediy contentions, but the larger world is having increasing doubts about Netanyuhu blovations.

But point granted, JediY would never doubt a word Nertanyuhu says.

As the question defaults back to, in the larger world, how strong is Netanyuhu support?

As JediY and Lemon law opinions are largely irrelevant.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
They would listen to Netanyahu before they would even consider listening to your bloviations!!
I welcome your derision, such as it is, because it echoes the moral & intellectual bankruptcy of the Netanyahu govt, minus the smarmy smooth talking.

I rather suspect that world opinion is becoming more strongly aligned with Lavrov's sentiments, linked earlier, and with my own. The fact that talks are taking place at all indicates that's probably true.

If an agreement is reached, there will obviously be a great deal of wailing & gnashing of teeth among the Masada headset in the Netanyahu govt, and nothing more, because they know full well that any attack on Iran w/o US involvement will just make the situation worse, not better, and they've been trying to sucker us into that for years. Even the Bushistas weren't so stupid.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
What the IAEA wants & what Iran has agreed to in a legal sense are entirely different matters, particularly since the Iranian parliament hasn't authorized any subsequent agreements at all. It's like the executive branch of the US govt signing a treaty not subsequently affirmed by the Senate not having the force of law, and a lot of other non-binding international agreements.

Professor Joyner explains-

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2010/03/qom-enrichment-facility-was-iran.php

All of which brings us back around to reality.

Iran already possesses the capability to breakout into nuclear weapons production should they choose to do so. Attacking them will only insure they take that path, and nothing short of nuclear weapons or invasion can realistically stop them from doing so after they've been attacked. Israel lacks the might for it, plain and simple, and US interests fall short of the threshold required for such an adventure, particularly in light of the events of the last dozen years.

So we need to make a deal, or at least offer one, that will allow for Iranian enrichment with maximum safeguards against the production of weapons grade material. Short of war, and the incalculable consequences associated with it, that's the best we'll get.

Other approaches merely allow for the Netanyahu govt to drag us into a war we don't need or want, basically allowing them to dictate US policy. Their obvious contempt for us would be well deserved if we allowed that to happen.
You are stuck focusing solely on IAEA mandates when the issues involving Iran also involve resolutions.

It's effectively spelled out in a single paragraph:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf



3. By virtue of its Relationship Agreement with the United Nations,
5 the Agency is required to cooperate with the Security Council in the exercise of the Council’s responsibility for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security. All Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council,6 and in this respect, to take actions which are consistent with their obligations under the United Nations Charter.

This gives the IAEA a lot of lattitude in exercising their responsibilities and takes them quite a bit beyond their own specific mandates. The Security Council has confirmed those responsibilities with a number of resolutions regarding Iran and its lack of compliance.

The one that needs to make a deal here is Iran. It's their ass in the fire, nobody elses.


 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So goes the the Jediy contentions, but the larger world is having increasing doubts about Netanyuhu blovations.

But point granted, JediY would never doubt a word Nertanyuhu says.

As the question defaults back to, in the larger world, how strong is Netanyuhu support?

As JediY and Lemon law opinions are largely irrelevant.
We have seen how much support the larger world provides.

We also have seen how much support the UN security council provides.

We have also seen how much the Palestinians care about the guidelines setup by the quartet to get through the Security Council.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,392
3,035
126
As JediY and Lemon law opinions are largely irrelevant.
Truth be told your opinions are more irrelevant than mine.....
I have made no outlandish predictions that have been proven wrong time and again!!

Just setting the record straight! :)
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Truth be told your opinions are more irrelevant than mine.....
I have made no outlandish predictions that have been proven wrong time and again!!

Just setting the record straight! :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To set the record straight, I have stated and predicted the current Israeli government general direction strategy is untenable and can't be sustained.

The fact that the Israel government has not reached its end point YET, does not mean Israel is well on its way, and the maybe the more import point to stress is the Israel today is in worse shape than it was 1 yr ago, 2 years ago. 3 years ago.......10 years ago.

I also stated about a year ago that the Palestinians will take their case to the UN, it may have taken a year longer than I thought, and just because progress is slower than I thought, does not mean my predictions won't happen.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To set the record straight, I have stated and predicted the current Israeli government general direction strategy is untenable and can't be sustained.

The fact that the Israel government has not reached its end point YET, does not mean Israel is well on its way, and the maybe the more import point to stress is the Israel today is in worse shape than it was 1 yr ago, 2 years ago. 3 years ago.......10 years ago.

I also stated about a year ago that the Palestinians will take their case to the UN, it may have taken a year longer than I thought, and just because progress is slower than I thought, does not mean my predictions won't happen.
Well they had better rent a stadium since the palestinians haven't anyone they can say has authority to treat. They can have all of them sit before the UN.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Well they had better rent a stadium since the palestinians haven't anyone they can say has authority to treat. They can have all of them sit before the UN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations Hayabsusa Rider,as you somehow manage to contradict your self on another similar thread today. As Haybasusa said, when referring to the missing Fayyad, "The article indicates that Abbas got screwed by someone he was counting on making Abbas look like a powerless fool. Since that could not have been unforeseen, I suggest the internal political dynamics of the Palestinians is the item of interest."

As Haybasusa seemingly understands nothing about world history or moral forces, no one elected Gandhi or Nelson Mandella to initially unify their respective countries, no one elected Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to lead the US civil rights Marches of the late 1950's and 1960's, none of them had any arms, no one asked if they represented 100% of the Blacks, but they achieved their ends with moral force.

But when Fayyad was a polarizing figure inside the Palestinian camp and was a deal killer for a Palestinian unification, once Fayyad quit being a term player, why should the Pals keep him? So if the Pals get finally totally rid of Fayyad, what Haybasusa may think of an embarrassing incident for Abbas, may be instead a Palestinian huge asset in the end.

And if Netanyuhu wants to play the part of Bull Conner, the case for a Palestinian State becomes stronger and quicker. Israel is very good at playing the part of a Villain. See the IDF officer use a rifle to bash the face of an unarmed bicyclist.

Like I say, time will tell. What this has to do with Iran, if another question. But it does go to show, is that Israel manages to piss off too many people off for its own good. As we can add in the EU, China, India, to the list of nations unhappy with Israel.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
You are stuck focusing solely on IAEA mandates when the issues involving Iran also involve resolutions.

It's effectively spelled out in a single paragraph:
Which is, as I've offered, attempting to change the rules w/o mutual consent, which is the nature of all treaty obligations, including the NPT.

We have the rules & roles as spelled out in the treaty, we have additional agreements that don't carry the same legal authority as the treaty, and we have the Security Council attempting to impose new rules unilaterally, while the US & Israel demand that all Iranian enrichment cease entirely.

Basically, if we really want to establish a new & safer relationship, we & the UN need to leave the past behind us, modify our demands, insist & allow that Iran can engage in enrichment activities under the additional protocols as described.

I doubt they'd turn us down.
 

RedString

Senior member
Feb 24, 2011
299
0
0
that statement makes you look like you have no clue!!
Israel has nukes?? proof......
They probably do......but nobody in the Israeli government is bat shit crazy enough to use them or allow them to be used by terrorists.
Plus if Israel dopes have nuclear weapons they have not signed an agreement with the IAEA to allow inspectors in.....as opposed to Iran which did sign an agreement!

Yet the leadership in Iran has called for the removal of Israel from the face of the earth and they have stated they will support any terror organisation that targets Israel.....

A lot of differences..let say Israel does have nuclear wae\\eapons -- Israel will never use them unless it is as a last result in the event they are going to be annihilated.

Iran on the other hand has leaders that are bat shit crazy enough to use the weapons....
If you're not willing to use nukes under any circumstances, which you're saying Israel would never do - then why should you keep any nukes at all?

I personally believe that if Israel was ever at risk of losing their land, they would most definitively use their nukes for some ridiculous religious reason.

Every time Israel is mentioned you fly into the thread, clearly typing frantically judging from all the typos, and defend Israel no matter what the circumstances.

It's people like you who give Israel the potential to really get out of hand.


If that were to happen eventually there would be no Israel....
As it stands now Israel supposedly has a nuclear deterrent.
Without that deterrent Israels enemies would IMO en masse get together into one super large attack force and attack Israel....

Of course you do not want Israel to have any sort of deterrent.......
Wait, I thought you said no one was "bat shit crazy enough" to use nukes in Israel? Or are you agreeing with me here when I said if they were ever in a position where they know they will lose their land that they would actually initiate a no-win scenario for either participants and start a nuclear war?

I don't think there is any question that Israel would nuke if they were at risk to lose their holy land, they would without a doubt justify it for some religious reason.

I don't support ANYONE having nukes if I think they would attempt to justify its use by a religious means; back against the wall or not. The only reason to have a nuke is to create a stale-mate so the other wouldn't nuke you. If Israel was nuked, or US, or anyone - the one being attacked should be able to retaliate. But I believe Israel would use it without this scenario, just being taken over by ground forces.

They're just as radical as anyone else over there.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations Hayabsusa Rider,as you somehow manage to contradict your self on another similar thread today. As Haybasusa said, when referring to the missing Fayyad, "The article indicates that Abbas got screwed by someone he was counting on making Abbas look like a powerless fool. Since that could not have been unforeseen, I suggest the internal political dynamics of the Palestinians is the item of interest."

As Haybasusa seemingly understands nothing about world history or moral forces, no one elected Gandhi or Nelson Mandella to initially I unify their respective countries, no one elected Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to lead the US civil rights Marches of the late 1950's and 1960's, none of them had any arms, no one asked if they represented 100% of the Blacks, but they achieved their ends with moral force.

But when Fayyad was a polarizing figure inside the Palestinian camp and was a deal killer for a Palestinian unification, once Fayyad quit being a term player, why should the Pals keep him? So if the Pals get finally totally rid of Fayyad, what Haybasusa may think of an embarrassing incident for Abbas, may be instead a Palestinian huge asset in the end.

And if Netanyuhu wants to play the part of Bull Conner, the case for a Palestinian State becomes stronger and quicker. Israel is very good at playing the part of a Villain. See the IDF officer use a rifle to bash the face of an unarmed bicyclist.

Like I say, time will tell. What this has to do with Iran, if another question. But it does go to show, is that Israel manages to piss off too many people off for its own good. As we can add in the EU, China, India, to the list of nations unhappy with Israel.
Israel pisses you off is the significance here. Abbas does not have the clout to make a binding treaty. No one really does. The world doesn't see israel as nazi germany nor any palestinian as a MLK. A soldier doing something wrong doesn't change any of it. The world is more concerned about Iran who you champion. The truth is you have yet to show a grasp of what other nations think. Israel getting grief while the saintly Iranian leaders are persecuted? Seriously?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Which is, as I've offered, attempting to change the rules w/o mutual consent, which is the nature of all treaty obligations, including the NPT.
When Iran attempts to make end-runs around those rules they aren't exactly acting mutually agreeable either. As far as attempting to change the rules, it was Iran that attempted to change the rules about submitting design information in a decided non-mutually consenting manner.

We have the rules & roles as spelled out in the treaty, we have additional agreements that don't carry the same legal authority as the treaty, and we have the Security Council attempting to impose new rules unilaterally, while the US & Israel demand that all Iranian enrichment cease entirely.

Basically, if we really want to establish a new & safer relationship, we & the UN need to leave the past behind us, modify our demands, insist & allow that Iran can engage in enrichment activities under the additional protocols as described.

I doubt they'd turn us down.
It's not JUST the US and Israel demanding that Iran cease enrichment. Russia and China are both behind it as well so the veiled implication that this is some sort of AIPAC hustle doesn't hold much water because Russia and China certainly aren't the lapdogs of the US nor Israel.

Regarding the agreements, if the IAEA and Security Council make any modifications it completely erodes their authority in this matter. It sends the message that all a country need do is refuse to comply with the rules, flip the IAEA the finger, and eventually those rules will be changed to accomodate whatever terms that country wants.

What needs to happen is Iran needs to straighten up and fly right. It is that simple.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
When Iran attempts to make end-runs around those rules they aren't exactly acting mutually agreeable either. As far as attempting to change the rules, it was Iran that attempted to change the rules about submitting design information in a decided non-mutually consenting manner.


It's not JUST the US and Israel demanding that Iran cease enrichment. Russia and China are both behind it as well so the veiled implication that this is some sort of AIPAC hustle doesn't hold much water because Russia and China certainly aren't the lapdogs of the US nor Israel.
Source of the claim wrt Russia & China?

Regarding the agreements, if the IAEA and Security Council make any modifications it completely erodes their authority in this matter. It sends the message that all a country need do is refuse to comply with the rules, flip the IAEA the finger, and eventually those rules will be changed to accomodate whatever terms that country wants.

What needs to happen is Iran needs to straighten up and fly right. It is that simple.
How would agreeing to the additional protocols while maintaining an enrichment program not constitute "flying right"?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Source of the claim wrt Russia & China?
Resolution 1929, demanding that Iran cease all enrichment activities. Both China and Russia voted for the resolution.

How would agreeing to the additional protocols while maintaining an enrichment program not constitute "flying right"?
It would not constitute flying right because Iran has already been told to cease their enrichment activities. Once they comply with that demand and clear up the questions that have been asked of them, at that point the resumption of enrichment can be discussed.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
Resolution 1929, demanding that Iran cease all enrichment activities. Both China and Russia voted for the resolution.


It would not constitute flying right because Iran has already been told to cease their enrichment activities. Once they comply with that demand and clear up the questions that have been asked of them, at that point the resumption of enrichment can be discussed.
Back to circular reasoning. In order for Iran to enrich uranium under the additional protocols, they must cease enriching uranium under the existing protocols & the oversight of the IAEA, who have found no violations in their enrichment program. That's because they may have engaged in activities not covered by the NPT or their agreement with the IAEA in the first place.

Both the Chinese & Russians emphasize that they voted for sanctions in order for Iran to negotiate, which they are. The resolution calls for Iran to "suspend" enrichment, anyway, which entirely different form the US & Israeli demand that they "cease" enrichment entirely. Apparently Iran is willing to endure those sanctions, such as they are, & continue their program in the meanwhile. Neither the US nor the Israelis threaten to seek UN sanction to take military action, but rather threaten to do so unilaterally, which renders their use of the UN as a sham.

Which is where circular reasoning always leads, to nowhere.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Back to circular reasoning. In order for Iran to enrich uranium under the additional protocols, they must cease enriching uranium under the existing protocols & the oversight of the IAEA, who have found no violations in their enrichment program. That's because they may have engaged in activities not covered by the NPT or their agreement with the IAEA in the first place.
From SC Resolution 1929:

"Noting with serious concern that Iran has enriched uranium to 20 per cent, and
did so without notifying the IAEA with sufficient time for it to adjust the existing​
safeguards procedures
"

Apparently the IAEA has found violations of their enrichment program. The resolution by the IAEA Board of Governors lays out further violations.

Both the Chinese & Russians emphasize that they voted for sanctions in order for Iran to negotiate, which they are. The resolution calls for Iran to "suspend" enrichment, anyway, which entirely different form the US & Israeli demand that they "cease" enrichment entirely. Apparently Iran is willing to endure those sanctions, such as they are, & continue their program in the meanwhile. Neither the US nor the Israelis threaten to seek UN sanction to take military action, but rather threaten to do so unilaterally, which renders their use of the UN as a sham.

Which is where circular reasoning always leads, to nowhere.
If Iran suspends enrichment they cease enrichment. afaik, none of the P5+1 members are calling for Iran to cease enrichment forever so trying to play words games with "suspend" and "cease" is a bit dishonest.

As far as threatening unilateral action, diplomacy and sanctions alone has failed to work with Iran since they continue to be defiant. Someone needs to threaten more severe consequences. The US, Israel, and Iran all know the UN won't ever take military action so what would be the point of even going that route?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,392
3,035
126
If you're not willing to use nukes under any circumstances, which you're saying Israel would never do - then why should you keep any nukes at all?-- I have never said Israel would never use nuclear weapons!! I said Israel would ONLY use nuclear weapons if they had nio choice in order to survive!

I personally believe that if Israel was ever at risk of losing their land, they would most definitively use their nukes for some ridiculous religious reason. -- I personally believe you fail in read and comprehending!! What did I say??? Do you comprehend?? I believe again that israel if faced with total annihilation would use nuclear weapons!! What country would not use them if faced with total annihilation?

Every time Israel is mentioned you fly into the thread, clearly typing frantically judging from all the typos, and defend Israel no matter what the circumstances.

It's people like you who give Israel the potential to really get out of hand.-- it`s people like you who cannot comprehend who need to stop posting your nonesense!!


Israel would never use the nuclear deterrent for some religious reason! You know nothing about Israel!

Iran once they get nuclear weapons will be feared by other countries for just that reason!! Religious reasons!!




Wait, I thought you said no one was "bat shit crazy enough" to use nukes in Israel? Or are you agreeing with me here when I said if they were ever in a position where they know they will lose their land that they would actually initiate a no-win scenario for either participants and start a nuclear war?

You honestly think that it is bat shit crazy to use nuclear wepons when confronted with total annihilation?-- you are one sad person!!

Dude.....do you comprehend..losing your land and toital annihilation are totally different! Yet -- let me ask you what country if faced with losing their country would not use nuclear weapons??

I don't think there is any question that Israel would nuke if they were at risk to lose their holy land, they would without a doubt justify it for some religious reason. -- so you honestly believe that if Israel was to lose its land they should not fight back?? What are you smoking?

I don't support ANYONE having nukes if I think they would attempt to justify its use by a religious means; back against the wall or not.

-- your opinions are very moronic. It is NOT Israel who would use nuclear weapons for religious reasons!! Why do you think the whole middle east does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons? The only reason to have a nuke is to create a stale-mate so the other wouldn't nuke you. If Israel was nuked, or US, or anyone - the one being attacked should be able to retaliate. But I believe Israel would use it without this scenario, just being taken over by ground forces. Who is going to take Israel over...they have tried and tried and tried......you honestly believe Israel is going to sit back and allow it`s country to be taken over -- you are bat shit crazy!!

your beliefs are based on nothing more than whimsicle stoopidity! Israel has fought and won everytime it has been attacked by its neighbors! Israel has never used nuclear wepons and will not use them unless faced with total annihilation of it`s race...which you can define anyway you want!!

It is those very nuxlear weapon that they supposedly have that is the dterrent![/B]

They're just as radical as anyone else over there.
-- umm no they are not!! They do not kill people for not converting the Judaism!! Comneback when you understand what the differences are between Islam and Judaism...
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
From SC Resolution 1929:

"Noting with serious concern that Iran has enriched uranium to 20 per cent, and
did so without notifying the IAEA with sufficient time for it to adjust the existing​
safeguards procedures
"

Apparently the IAEA has found violations of their enrichment program. The resolution by the IAEA Board of Governors lays out further violations.


If Iran suspends enrichment they cease enrichment. afaik, none of the P5+1 members are calling for Iran to cease enrichment forever so trying to play words games with "suspend" and "cease" is a bit dishonest.

As far as threatening unilateral action, diplomacy and sanctions alone has failed to work with Iran since they continue to be defiant. Someone needs to threaten more severe consequences. The US, Israel, and Iran all know the UN won't ever take military action so what would be the point of even going that route?
"Noting" is not the same as claiming a violation of the original agreement has occurred, although it's pretty spiffy for propaganda purposes. Claiming that diplomacy has "failed" is a stretch, considering that Iran apparently hasn't created nuclear weapons and that there is no war.

And it's already obvious that we're backing away from some of our demands, given that talks are occurring even as Iran is still enriching uranium...

Under the heading of possible areas of cooperation with Iran-

In order to seek a comprehensive, long-term and proper solution of the Iranian nuclear issue consistent with relevant UN Security Council resolutions and building further upon the proposal presented to Iran in June 2006, which remains on the table, the elements below are proposed as topics for negotiations between China, France, Germany, Iran, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, joined by the High Representative of the European Union, as long as Iran verifiably suspends its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, pursuant to OP 15 and OP 19(a) of UNSCR 1803. In the perspective of such negotiations, we also expect Iran to heed the requirements of the UNSC and the IAEA. For their part, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union High Representative state their readiness:
So we claim we won't even talk until they do what we want, but we're talking anyway... Go figure.
 

RedString

Senior member
Feb 24, 2011
299
0
0
-- umm no they are not!! They do not kill people for not converting the Judaism!! Comneback when you understand what the differences are between Islam and Judaism...

... What does that have to do with anything I just said?

Hypothetically, let's say that Israel was without a doubt going to lose their lands from an Islamic assault. Hypothetically, let's assume that the U.S. nor anyone else is going to come to their rescue. Can you say, without a doubt, that Israel would not consider using their nuclear weapons as a last ditch effort?

I believe they would, and I believe they would justify it by claiming a religious premise that gives them a right to defend their Holy Land by any force necessary.

I'm not saying Israel would be alone in this. I think there are quite a few countries who would do this.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I believe they would use them as well, but not for a religious reason. They would use them for the same reason every other nuclear armed country would use them.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,392
3,035
126
. What does that have to do with anything I just said?

Hypothetically, let's say that Israel was without a doubt going to lose their lands from an Islamic assault. Hypothetically, let's assume that the U.S. nor anyone else is going to come to their rescue. Can you say, without a doubt, that So wIsrael would not consider using their nuclear weapons as a last ditch effort?

So whats your point?? I have always stated and will continue to state that Israel will only use nuclear weapons as a last resort@@!! When have a said otherwise??
Your of the convoluted opinion that Israel would use them for religious reasons which is just not true. Yet you are trying to paint Judaism to be exactly like islam...which if your had the knowledge to read and comprehend you would see that they are far from being like each other!!


I believe they would, and I believe they would justify it by claiming a religious premise that gives them a right to defend their Holy Land by any force necessary.-- You have no basis to believe that based on what?
If Israel were to be attacked by a conquering force that was hell bent on exterminating all Jews and the nation of Israel they would need to religious justification to use nukes...wow just wow your opinions are well bat shit crazy.... think about it...

I'm not saying Israel would be alone in this. I think there are quite a few countries who would do this.
All nations with nuclear arms would defend themselves with nuclear arms if it was the only means to survive...
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
All nations with nuclear arms would defend themselves with nuclear arms if it was the only means to survive...
I don't know about that.
But yes, Israel has a policy that if it were to be taken over by a foreign country it will unleash hell on earth.

edit- That's probably the biggest reason the world has to treat Israel with kid gloves
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY