IAEA, Hypocrisy and Israeli Nukes.
- Thread starter Kompromat
- Start date
500
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 16,678
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
This cartoon is so wrong.
1) Palestinian state was not established because Egypt and Jordan captured their territories.
2) UK armed and helped the Arabs in 1948 war, US was neutral. Only after 1967 war US started helping Israel.
3) Suicide bombers started only AFTER Israel gave to Palestinians an authonomy in 1993.
GentlemanObserver
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,393
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Never gonna happen!
Kompromat
ADMINISTRATOR
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 40,366
- Reaction score
- 416
- Country
- Location
Why NOT Pakistan ?????
We are Declared Nuclear Power as we have tested them , they ain't hidden away moreover our program is a Direct face breaking response to India's nuclear Program.
You must not forget it was not Pakistan which started the Nuclearization of South Asia , it was Indians and if we didn't responded to that grave threat Pakistan God forbid would long have been lost to our enemies.
Now Israel is a Grave threat to Iran & also possess a credible Nuclear arsenal & delivery system which automatically will compel Iran to respond in pretty Much self defense.
Media's role is also important as a famous claim by Ahmadinijad about Wiping Israel out of the Map but he never said that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kompromat
ADMINISTRATOR
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 40,366
- Reaction score
- 416
- Country
- Location
Israel itself is a Terrorist Country being ruled by Fanatic Rabies with a meter long Beard , why would there be a Need for them to hand out nukes to a terrorist Group who wouldn't even know how to use them ?
Oh just for the Record , Israel did try to sell Nukes in the Black Market to South Africa & the first warhead you guys tested in Pokhran was also an Israeli Nuke (That is not Wrong is it
): http://www.pakdef.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-4594.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Kompromat
ADMINISTRATOR
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 40,366
- Reaction score
- 416
- Country
- Location
500
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 16,678
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
There are only 5 legal nuclear powers. You did not sign NPT so we did not either. Declaring yourself a nuclear power makes is more sever than not doing it.
Our enemies not only acquired WMD but also used them: Egypt used chemical weapons in Yemen, Iraq against Iran and Kurds.
As I said, Israel never had problems with Iran, on contrary, we helped them during the war. It's Iran who broke diplomatic ties with Israel, it's Iran who started threatning Israel, it's Iran who openly supports and arms terrorist groups against Israel.
Yeah sure
I guess you will say now that it's CGI not real Ahmadinejad
Last edited by a moderator:
500
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 16,678
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
No Israel's Prime Minister was religious so far.
Nonsense. Check your own link. There is nothing about Israel offering nukes or even nuclear materials to South Africa. He is just making assumptions by combining two different documents.Oh just for the Record , Israel did try to sell Nukes in the Black Market to South Africa & the first warhead you guys tested in Pokhran was also an Israeli Nuke (That is not Wrong is it
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Why does what Iran did have traction among Muslim majority countries? Why do majorities of Arabs (non-Iranians) support Iran and Ahmadinejad?
See, 500, today, Iran, tomorrow who? Israel gives ammunition to those that it needs as friends, over what? Do Muslims really have no claims over Jerusalem and must suffer a hostile regime thumbing it's nose on their claims? Children of a lesser god? Must Muslims continue to see an idiot problem like partition and the Palestinian state go on and on and on - with petty behaviour like check point hell?? This conflict is like a constant flame feeding a larger fire, I can't really understand why people in Israel don't see this as a great danger.
Some Muslims are certainly motivated by hatred but majorities?? really?.
And then there are nukes, will Arabs and Iranians and other Muslims really have to swallow, Israeli nukes good and Iranian bad and impossible? Just because US says so? Who died and left them in charge? Egypt which has a peace treaty with Israel doesnot seem to think so. Is Israel safer?, Is the threat also demographic and cultural? Isn't this a absurd situation? American General Petraeus's comments on what increases the threat to US troops has been heard by the world - isn't there some possibility of some kind of real breakthrough that enables Israel to become a part of where it actually belongs?
Patrician
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 0
The same 'double standards' apply to 1980s when Pak developed the bomb and US chose to look the other way. As an extension of your logic, Pakistani nukes must also share the same fate.
I'm sure that's not what you want!
500
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 16,678
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
The main reason why Israel-Palestinian conflict is not resolved yet its because there are countries which sponsor anti peace movements among the Palestinians.
First it was USSR which suported PLO. When USSR broke PLO was forced to make peace talks with Israel. Palestinians got authonomy, they could get state too. But then Hamas supported by Iran started suicide attacks, Israel retaliated and so we got vicious circle of violence. If Iran will stop supporting terrorist groups theer will be Palestinian state within several years.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
500 I just don't know what to say, I'm flabbergasted by your response - The below resonated with me as a Pakistani, we have experienced this and I would not wish on enemies - especially this God's politics and God's law business - I think most agree that Jewry has suffered extraordinarily and understand the home in Palestine thing, I wish Israeli were not as estranged from where they claim is their home.
iAugust 29, 2010
In Israel, Settling for Less
By GADI TAUB
Tel Aviv
WILL Israel remain a Zionist state? If so, what kind? These are the important questions in Israeli politics today, and will be looming over the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority scheduled to begin Thursday in Washington.
The secular Zionist dream was fundamentally democratic. Its proponents, from Theodor Herzl to David Ben-Gurion, sought to apply the universal right of self-determination to the Jews, to set them free individually and collectively as a nation within a democratic state. (In fact, the Zionist movement had a functioning democratic parliament even before it had a state.)
This dream is now seriously threatened by the religious settlers movement, Orthodox Jews whose theological version of Zionism is radically different. Although these religious settlers are relatively few around 130,000 of the total half-a-million settlers their actions could spell the end of the Israel we have known.
The roots of the problem have been there from the birth of modern Zionism. The relations between Herzls movement and Jewish Orthodoxy were uneasy from the start. After all, the Zionist movement sought to achieve by human means what Jews for two millenniums considered to be Gods work alone: the gathering of the diaspora in the land of Israel. Most rabbis therefore shunned Herzl, but not all. Some joined the movement, even formed a party within it, based on a separation of religion and politics. For them, secular Zionism was primarily a solution to the earthly predicament of the Jews; it was not so theologically laden.
But over the following decades another form of religious Zionism came to precedence, inspired by the quasi-mystical writings of Abraham Isaac Kook, who was the chief rabbi of Palestine under the British Mandate in the 1920s and 30s. Kook saw secular Zionists as the unwitting agents of Gods providence, advancing redemption by returning Jews to their homeland.
His son, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, later focused his fathers theological ideas around a single commandment: to settle all the land promised to the ancient Hebrews in the Bible. His disciples, energized by a burning messianic fervor, took Israels victory in the Six-Day War of 1967 as confirmation of this theology and set out to fulfill its commandment. Religious enthusiasm made the movement subversive in a deep sense adherents believed they had a divine obligation to build settlements and considered the authority of Israels democratic government conditional on its acceptance of what they declared to be Gods politics.
Although religious settlers often describe themselves as heirs of the early Zionist pioneers, they are anything but. Herzls vision was about liberating people, while theirs is about achieving a mystical reunion between the people of Israel and the land of Israel. Herzls view stemmed from the ideals of the Enlightenment and the tradition of democratic national liberation movements, dating back to the American and French Revolutions; religious settlers are steeped in blood-and-soil nationalism. Herzl never doubted that Israeli Arabs should have full and equal rights. For religious settlers, Arabs are an alien element in the organic unity of Jews and their land.
The consequences of these differences are huge. If the settlers achieve their manifest goal making Israels hold on the territories permanent it will mean the de facto annexation of a huge Arab population and will force a decision about their status. In Israel proper, the Arab minority represents about a fifth of its 7.2 million citizens, and they have full legal equality. But between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, there are roughly equal numbers of Arabs and Jews today.
Even if Israel annexed only the West Bank, it would more than double its Arab population. With birthrates in the territories far exceeding those of Arabs and Jews within Israel, Jews would soon enough be a minority. This would void the very idea of a Jewish democratic state.
Israel would have to choose between remaining democratic but not Jewish, or remaining Jewish by becoming non-democratic. Israels enemies have long maintained that Zionism is racism and that Israel is an apartheid state. If the settlers succeed, they will turn this lie into truth.
In fact, the former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, once the great patron of the settlers, was one of the first politicians on the right to accept that the settlers dream is hopeless. That is why he led Israel out of Gaza in 2005. But not all have followed him. The secular Israeli right has abandoned the idea of annexation but still favors settlement on short-term (and short-sighted) security grounds.
Preserving military rule over the territories, they believe, is necessary to keep terrorism in check, and the settlements demonstrate Israels resolve. Although the occupation and the suspension of Palestinian rights are officially temporary, the right wing aspires to keep Arabs indefinitely in quasi-colonial status. Given the Palestinians refusal to sign a peace deal with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus predecessors, many Israelis who oppose the settlements and occupation in principle have thrown up their hands and accepted this situation, too.
But the status quo cannot last and Israelis and their supporters need to confront this fact. The most pressing problem with the settlements is not that they are obstacles to a final peace accord, which is how settlement critics have often framed the issue. The danger is that they will doom Zionism itself.
If the road to partition is blocked, Israel will be forced to choose between two terrible options: Jewish-dominated apartheid or non-Jewish democracy. If Israel opts for apartheid, as the settlers wish, Israel will betray the beliefs it was founded on, become a pariah state and provoke the Arab population to an understandable rebellion. If a non-Jewish democracy is formally established, it is sure to be dysfunctional. Fatah and Hamas havent been able to reconcile their differences peacefully and rule the territories throwing a large Jewish population into the mix is surely not going to produce a healthy liberal democracy. Think Lebanon, not Switzerland.
In truth, both options and indeed all one-state solutions lead to the same end: civil war. That is why the settlement problem should be at the top of everyones agenda, beginning with Israels. The religious settlement movement is not just secular Zionisms ideological adversary, it is a danger to its very existence. Terrorism is a hazard, but it cannot destroy Herzls Zionist vision. More settlements and continued occupation can.
Gadi Taub, an assistant professor of communications and public policy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is the author of The Settlers.
iAugust 29, 2010
In Israel, Settling for Less
By GADI TAUB
Tel Aviv
WILL Israel remain a Zionist state? If so, what kind? These are the important questions in Israeli politics today, and will be looming over the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority scheduled to begin Thursday in Washington.
The secular Zionist dream was fundamentally democratic. Its proponents, from Theodor Herzl to David Ben-Gurion, sought to apply the universal right of self-determination to the Jews, to set them free individually and collectively as a nation within a democratic state. (In fact, the Zionist movement had a functioning democratic parliament even before it had a state.)
This dream is now seriously threatened by the religious settlers movement, Orthodox Jews whose theological version of Zionism is radically different. Although these religious settlers are relatively few around 130,000 of the total half-a-million settlers their actions could spell the end of the Israel we have known.
The roots of the problem have been there from the birth of modern Zionism. The relations between Herzls movement and Jewish Orthodoxy were uneasy from the start. After all, the Zionist movement sought to achieve by human means what Jews for two millenniums considered to be Gods work alone: the gathering of the diaspora in the land of Israel. Most rabbis therefore shunned Herzl, but not all. Some joined the movement, even formed a party within it, based on a separation of religion and politics. For them, secular Zionism was primarily a solution to the earthly predicament of the Jews; it was not so theologically laden.
But over the following decades another form of religious Zionism came to precedence, inspired by the quasi-mystical writings of Abraham Isaac Kook, who was the chief rabbi of Palestine under the British Mandate in the 1920s and 30s. Kook saw secular Zionists as the unwitting agents of Gods providence, advancing redemption by returning Jews to their homeland.
His son, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, later focused his fathers theological ideas around a single commandment: to settle all the land promised to the ancient Hebrews in the Bible. His disciples, energized by a burning messianic fervor, took Israels victory in the Six-Day War of 1967 as confirmation of this theology and set out to fulfill its commandment. Religious enthusiasm made the movement subversive in a deep sense adherents believed they had a divine obligation to build settlements and considered the authority of Israels democratic government conditional on its acceptance of what they declared to be Gods politics.
Although religious settlers often describe themselves as heirs of the early Zionist pioneers, they are anything but. Herzls vision was about liberating people, while theirs is about achieving a mystical reunion between the people of Israel and the land of Israel. Herzls view stemmed from the ideals of the Enlightenment and the tradition of democratic national liberation movements, dating back to the American and French Revolutions; religious settlers are steeped in blood-and-soil nationalism. Herzl never doubted that Israeli Arabs should have full and equal rights. For religious settlers, Arabs are an alien element in the organic unity of Jews and their land.
The consequences of these differences are huge. If the settlers achieve their manifest goal making Israels hold on the territories permanent it will mean the de facto annexation of a huge Arab population and will force a decision about their status. In Israel proper, the Arab minority represents about a fifth of its 7.2 million citizens, and they have full legal equality. But between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, there are roughly equal numbers of Arabs and Jews today.
Even if Israel annexed only the West Bank, it would more than double its Arab population. With birthrates in the territories far exceeding those of Arabs and Jews within Israel, Jews would soon enough be a minority. This would void the very idea of a Jewish democratic state.
Israel would have to choose between remaining democratic but not Jewish, or remaining Jewish by becoming non-democratic. Israels enemies have long maintained that Zionism is racism and that Israel is an apartheid state. If the settlers succeed, they will turn this lie into truth.
In fact, the former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, once the great patron of the settlers, was one of the first politicians on the right to accept that the settlers dream is hopeless. That is why he led Israel out of Gaza in 2005. But not all have followed him. The secular Israeli right has abandoned the idea of annexation but still favors settlement on short-term (and short-sighted) security grounds.
Preserving military rule over the territories, they believe, is necessary to keep terrorism in check, and the settlements demonstrate Israels resolve. Although the occupation and the suspension of Palestinian rights are officially temporary, the right wing aspires to keep Arabs indefinitely in quasi-colonial status. Given the Palestinians refusal to sign a peace deal with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus predecessors, many Israelis who oppose the settlements and occupation in principle have thrown up their hands and accepted this situation, too.
But the status quo cannot last and Israelis and their supporters need to confront this fact. The most pressing problem with the settlements is not that they are obstacles to a final peace accord, which is how settlement critics have often framed the issue. The danger is that they will doom Zionism itself.
If the road to partition is blocked, Israel will be forced to choose between two terrible options: Jewish-dominated apartheid or non-Jewish democracy. If Israel opts for apartheid, as the settlers wish, Israel will betray the beliefs it was founded on, become a pariah state and provoke the Arab population to an understandable rebellion. If a non-Jewish democracy is formally established, it is sure to be dysfunctional. Fatah and Hamas havent been able to reconcile their differences peacefully and rule the territories throwing a large Jewish population into the mix is surely not going to produce a healthy liberal democracy. Think Lebanon, not Switzerland.
In truth, both options and indeed all one-state solutions lead to the same end: civil war. That is why the settlement problem should be at the top of everyones agenda, beginning with Israels. The religious settlement movement is not just secular Zionisms ideological adversary, it is a danger to its very existence. Terrorism is a hazard, but it cannot destroy Herzls Zionist vision. More settlements and continued occupation can.
Gadi Taub, an assistant professor of communications and public policy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is the author of The Settlers.
Menes
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 134
- Reaction score
- 0
US also helped the Iraqis, but destroyed them three years later.
Because King Abdullah I annexed west bank as a result of secret agreement with Meir. Read The Righteous Victim by Avi Shlayim.
The west banned military aids to both parties, however they sent thousands of volunteers and pilots to help Zionists during the Palestine war. US sent A-4 Skyhawks to Israel before the 1967 war, in addition to massive technical military assistance.
Kompromat
ADMINISTRATOR
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 40,366
- Reaction score
- 416
- Country
- Location
wow , a masterpiece post
Dude we developed nukes to counter yours , so you were the ones who have been threatening & intimidating us. Our nukes was just a response which cracked the jaws and bones of the Indian Establishment's face.
Its simple , if you would not have developed them Pakistan would not have too.
Enough said , no more Derailing of the tread or i will report.
Similar threads
