• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

153 UN states call on Israel to 'renounce possession of nuclear weapons’

Oh, lets see. Eliminating missile systems perhaps.

:giggle:

That would only count if Israel was comitting to eleiminating it's own which would not be the case.

If nobody else has nukes, which is the case, then nobody that ticks the boxes would be able to reciprocate.

YOur posts do love that bashing square pegs into round holes once they are exposed for their inaccuracies
 
:giggle:

That would only count if Israel was comitting to eleiminating it's own which would not be the case.

If nobody else has nukes, which is the case, then nobody that ticks the boxes would be able to reciprocate.

YOur posts do love that bashing square pegs into round holes once they are exposed for their inaccuracies

You still can't comprehend that unilateral does not require reciprocity of any sort.
 
The periodic slaughter of Palestinian children and their civilian families in Gaza is more that "skirmishes". The Canadian government agrees with you.

Oh yeah? They're using nukes for that, are they?

Look, if you go back through this forum, you will see me as a very vocal critic of Israel's internal policy - how they deal with Palestine is about as shitty as Palestine deals with them - and, yes, we can talk about motivations, and liabilities, and who threw the first punch, but when you're this deep in an eternal conflict, well... as I often say, nobody is innocent in the ME.

But nuclear weapons are not instruments of internal policy. The reality is, the next time a government detonates a nuclear bomb in an act of war, we're all done anyway. Your point, despite being made passionately and dramatically, would be moot. In the meantime, without the threat nuclear weapons present, the fact is that Israel would have been erased some time ago...or, at minimum, dragged into a war that would result in the loss of far more lives than have been lost otherwise.

It's great that you're passionate about Palestine...so am I. But you need to do a little thinking beyond the sensational. Yes, yes, the children...but just saying the word doesn't impart credibility. As much as I hate nuclear weapons, as part of an overall hate for war in general, in this situation logic suggests that the presence of the nukes saves lives, in a region that only appears to understand and respect violence.
 
You still can't comprehend that unilateral does not require reciprocity of any sort.

I gave the link to the definition I cited , you ? nope, you hardly ever do anyway

Nonetheless , the point remains, so here is the definition again, note it includes the reference to " disarmament " and not just " unilateralism "

"Unilateral disarmament is a policy option, to renounce weapons without seeking equivalent concessions from one's actual or potential rivals "

The Arabs have no nukes so couldn't give them up as an " equivalent concession " even if they wanted to, the point is valid to the description of unilateral disarmament I cited
 
I gave the link to the definition I cited , you ? nope, you hardly ever do anyway

Nonetheless , the point remains, so here is the definition again, note it includes the reference to " disarmament " and not just " unilateralism "

"Unilateral disarmament is a policy option, to renounce weapons without seeking equivalent concessions from one's actual or potential rivals "

The Arabs have no nukes so couldn't give them up as an " equivalent concession " even if they wanted to, the point is valid to the description of unilateral disarmament I cited

They don't have to have nukes for Israel to Unilaterally disarm nuclear weapons...

The Arabs do have tanks, aircraft, rockets, poison gas, artillery, etc. But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Unilateral disarmament doesn't require anything other than the decision of the state of Israel.
 
They don't have to have nukes for Israel to Unilaterally disarm nuclear weapons...

The Arabs do have tanks, aircraft, rockets, poison gas, artillery, etc. But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Unilateral disarmament doesn't require anything other than the decision of the state of Israel.


You demanded they get rid of their ballistic missiles? Make you mind up
 
You demanded they get rid of their ballistic missiles? Make you mind up

Intentional ignorance of what I stated....

What " equivalent concessions" can any neighbouring state make considering they don't have any nuclear weapons ?

Question asked.

Oh, lets see. Eliminating missile systems perhaps.

Question answered.

Where did I DEMAND they get rid of their ballistic missiles?

Why lie about what I post?

Dishonest tactic of yours.

Unilateral disarmament doesn't require anything other than the decision of the state of Israel.
 
Last edited:
The frigging UN has always been against Israel and the the US. So screw them!!
Here are some stats about the UNGA:
https://unwatch.org/un-israel-key-statistics/ :
  • In 2017, 21 of 27 UNGA condemnatory country-specific resolutions (or 78%) exclusively targeted Israel. There was one resolution each on Iran, Syria, North Korea, Crimea, Myanmar, and the U.S., for its embargo on Cuba.
  • In 2016, 20 of 26 UNGA condemnatory country-specific resolutions (or 77%) exclusively targeted Israel. There were 3 on Syria, and one each on Iran, North Korea, and Crimea.
  • In 2015, 20 of 23 UNGA condemnatory country-specific resolutions (or 87%) exclusively targeted Israel.
  • In 2014, 20 of 23 UNGA condemnatory country-specific resolutions (or 87%) exclusively targeted Israel.
  • In 2013, 21 of 25 UNGA condemnatory country-specific resolutions (or 84%) exclusively targeted Israel.
  • In 2012, 22 of 26 UNGA condemnatory country-specific resolutions (or 85%) exclusively targeted Israel.
From 2012 through 2015, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a total of 97 resolutions criticizing countries; 83 out of those 97 have been against Israel (86%) .
It's crystal clear the UN is against Israel. As Abba Eban said - "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."
 
Oh yeah? They're using nukes for that, are they?

Look, if you go back through this forum, you will see me as a very vocal critic of Israel's internal policy - how they deal with Palestine is about as shitty as Palestine deals with them - and, yes, we can talk about motivations, and liabilities, and who threw the first punch, but when you're this deep in an eternal conflict, well... as I often say, nobody is innocent in the ME.

But nuclear weapons are not instruments of internal policy. The reality is, the next time a government detonates a nuclear bomb in an act of war, we're all done anyway. Your point, despite being made passionately and dramatically, would be moot. In the meantime, without the threat nuclear weapons present, the fact is that Israel would have been erased some time ago...or, at minimum, dragged into a war that would result in the loss of far more lives than have been lost otherwise.

It's great that you're passionate about Palestine...so am I. But you need to do a little thinking beyond the sensational. Yes, yes, the children...but just saying the word doesn't impart credibility. As much as I hate nuclear weapons, as part of an overall hate for war in general, in this situation logic suggests that the presence of the nukes saves lives, in a region that only appears to understand and respect violence.
As you know, Israel has no yet used its nuclear arsenal against the civilian population under their occupation nor against any of their neighbors. I cannot agree with you that nobody is innocent in the Middle East. Millions of children and civilians are completely innocent. Once a country is armed with nuclear weapons, such as Israel, and is the only country in the region to do so, is manages the risk to have Israel renounce the use of nuclear force if possession of nuclear weapons is renounced. Your thinking echoes the North American love of firearms as a way of guaranteeing peace and the preservation of life. I do not believe the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East will keep the peace.
 
As you know, Israel has no yet used its nuclear arsenal against the civilian population under their occupation nor against any of their neighbors. I cannot agree with you that nobody is innocent in the Middle East. Millions of children and civilians are completely innocent. Once a country is armed with nuclear weapons, such as Israel, and is the only country in the region to do so, is manages the risk to have Israel renounce the use of nuclear force if possession of nuclear weapons is renounced. Your thinking echoes the North American love of firearms as a way of guaranteeing peace and the preservation of life. I do not believe the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East will keep the peace.

No one is innocent in the middle east is more of a general comment about factions. This would include Israel, Palestine, other Arab nations, the UN, America, Canada, everyone who has felt the need to stick their fingers in ME regional politics. The creation of Israel was the most messed up implementation in the history of implementations, and actions taken by all parties at the time and since have resulted in what we see today. Just wanted to clear that up.

The nature of nuclear weapons makes it highly unlikely that they would use them close to home - highly unlikely and suicidal. Again, if it ever got to that, there would be much bigger problems to worry about.

I'm Canadian, and as such, have a completely different view on guns than my American friends to the south. Our gun culture is completely different, we do not look at guns as a means of self defense, in the universal way they are viewed in America. However, I'm realistic in understanding that I cannot apply my culture to America, anymore than I can to the Middle East. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of ingrained characteristics, spanning generations. It is arrogant folly to think you can transplant your values - something we know quite a bit about in North America, as we continue to pay the price for that colonial sentiment. Those millions of innocent children and civilians you're (rightly and admirably) concerned about would certainly see far more casualties, if not for the nuclear deterrent.

I believe your heart is in the right place, and ideologically I agree with you. Practically, however, the reality of the situation is unlikely to meet our ideals in this particular region, not within our lifetime. Therefore, in an imperfect world with an endless degree of variation in regional realities, it is possible that a nuclear arsenal can save lives. As much as I hate to say that, and wish it were different. I'm not sure how you prove me wrong here, but it would be great if you could. :)
 
No one is innocent in the middle east is more of a general comment about factions. This would include Israel, Palestine, other Arab nations, the UN, America, Canada, everyone who has felt the need to stick their fingers in ME regional politics. The creation of Israel was the most messed up implementation in the history of implementations, and actions taken by all parties at the time and since have resulted in what we see today. Just wanted to clear that up.

The nature of nuclear weapons makes it highly unlikely that they would use them close to home - highly unlikely and suicidal. Again, if it ever got to that, there would be much bigger problems to worry about.

I'm Canadian, and as such, have a completely different view on guns than my American friends to the south. Our gun culture is completely different, we do not look at guns as a means of self defense, in the universal way they are viewed in America. However, I'm realistic in understanding that I cannot apply my culture to America, anymore than I can to the Middle East. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of ingrained characteristics, spanning generations. It is arrogant folly to think you can transplant your values - something we know quite a bit about in North America, as we continue to pay the price for that colonial sentiment. Those millions of innocent children and civilians you're (rightly and admirably) concerned about would certainly see far more casualties, if not for the nuclear deterrent.

I believe your heart is in the right place, and ideologically I agree with you. Practically, however, the reality of the situation is unlikely to meet our ideals in this particular region, not within our lifetime. Therefore, in an imperfect world with an endless degree of variation in regional realities, it is possible that a nuclear arsenal can save lives. As much as I hate to say that, and wish it were different. I'm not sure how you prove me wrong here, but it would be great if you could. :)
The United Nations wanted it on record that the Middle East be nuclear weapons free. Clearly, you agree with your government that this is not necessary. Your argument might make sense if an Arab neighbor of Israel had such weapons but they do not. Israel alone has these weapons and has stated they will not use them first. Why then be the only country in the region to have them and thereby has already introduced them into the region? Israel is more than capable of defending itself using conventional war methods. Only Canada joined the USA/Israel this year as well as a few Pacific atolls which do the U.S. State Department's bidding. I have definitely changed my mind about Canada because of this.
 
The United Nations wanted it on record that the Middle East be nuclear weapons free. Clearly, you agree with your government that this is not necessary. Your argument might make sense if an Arab neighbor of Israel had such weapons but they do not. Israel alone has these weapons and has stated they will not use them first. Why then be the only country in the region to have them and thereby has already introduced them into the region? Israel is more than capable of defending itself using conventional war methods. Only Canada joined the USA/Israel this year as well as a few Pacific atolls which do the U.S. State Department's bidding. I have definitely changed my mind about Canada because of this.

Ah well, can't please all the people all the time, I guess...hehe... And to be honest, if you go to pieces about an entire nation based on one UN vote, well... "meh" is about the full strength of my response.

Though, I must say, I'm confused by your bloodthirstiness. That you'd rather see conventional war than see it avoided through nuclear deterrent is a little cruel - I'm guessing you've never been to war. Maybe, rather than trying to put toothpaste back into the tube, you should examine your humanity a little. It doesn't matter who has the bomb, it only matters that it's there, and that people are too afraid to enter into silly conflicts because of it. When the alternative is guaranteed war and bloodshed, I say let them have their little rockets. Any leg that Israel has left would be instantly amputated the moment they used it for anything outside of what the UN deemed fit.

Come to think of it, I guess I've changed my mind about Spain because of this... ;) Just kidding, I don't say such stupid shit over a little debate about a single UN vote.
 
The United Nations General Assembly called on Israel to “renounce possession of nuclear weapons” in a 153-6 vote on Monday, with 25 abstentions. Israel was asked “not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.”
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/1...renounce-possession-of-nuclear-weapons-651457

Need one ask who the six rouge states were who want Israelis to keep their 90 nuclear warheads while they daily warn of Iran which has 0? Well Israel of course and equally of course the USA/Canada which leaves three, commonly confused with printer's errors on a map and who let the USA do their thinking for them in matters of foreign policy: the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. Could Pompeo find these places on his own map, one wonders. Some of us at one time considered Canada to be a sovereign independent country. Not any longer.

Why do you care? As a Socialist Spaniard, why is Israel's possession of nuclear weapons of such particular significance to you?
 
Ah well, can't please all the people all the time, I guess...hehe... And to be honest, if you go to pieces about an entire nation based on one UN vote, well... "meh" is about the full strength of my response.

Though, I must say, I'm confused by your bloodthirstiness. That you'd rather see conventional war than see it avoided through nuclear deterrent is a little cruel - I'm guessing you've never been to war. Maybe, rather than trying to put toothpaste back into the tube, you should examine your humanity a little. It doesn't matter who has the bomb, it only matters that it's there, and that people are too afraid to enter into silly conflicts because of it. When the alternative is guaranteed war and bloodshed, I say let them have their little rockets. Any leg that Israel has left would be instantly amputated the moment they used it for anything outside of what the UN deemed fit.

Come to think of it, I guess I've changed my mind about Spain because of this... ;) Just kidding, I don't say such stupid shit over a little debate about a single UN vote.
You have no proof that possessing nuclear weapons has stopped Israel from making war on its neighbors, that it has stopped conflict involving Israel in the region. The opposite seems to be the case since the Israelis are bashing the Palestinian civilians in Gaza with regularity and the Palestinians do not even have a navy, army, or air force. I was shocked that Canada joined with the USA/Israel vote as the only western democracy to do so. What is going on, I had to ask myself.
 
Universal nuclear disarmament, warmongers.
 
Why do you care? As a Socialist Spaniard, why is Israel's possession of nuclear weapons of such particular significance to you?
It is of significance to 153 countries, including Spain but not the 6 which includes the USA. Forgive me for having an opinion.
 
The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers. It is an American idea and brave Americans have given their lives as UN troops. Shame on you to dishonor their memory.
It’s not dishonor when UN causes have been big nothing burgers.

the UN fundamentally is based on a lie that nations are equals and that all people are equal to other groups of people. That’s why it’s a failing organization that accomplishes nothing.
Overt Western European Christian colonization accomplished more.
 
It is of significance to 153 countries, including Spain but not the 6 which includes the USA. Forgive me for having an opinion.
It’s of exactly zero significance to you.
 
You have no proof that possessing nuclear weapons has stopped Israel from making war on its neighbors, that it has stopped conflict involving Israel in the region. The opposite seems to be the case since the Israelis are bashing the Palestinian civilians in Gaza with regularity and the Palestinians do not even have a navy, army, or air force. I was shocked that Canada joined with the USA/Israel vote as the only western democracy to do so. What is going on, I had to ask myself.

Jean, again, I get your heart is in the right place, and you are super programmed to hate everything Israel does because you feel sympathy for the Palestinians. I, too, feel sympathy for the Palestinians, but both sides are to be pitied, and both sides share blame. But none of that matters in a discussion about nuclear weapons, because countries do not nuke themselves! Once again, they are not tools of internal policy, no matter how much you, rightly, want to hold Israel accountable for their part in the conflict. I'm not arguing with you that their treatment of Palestine is highly problematic.

As for Canada...bud...hehe... You look through our past, and you will notice one thing. We do what WE think is right. It doesn't matter how many people disagree with us, mob mentality and popularity contests don't factor into our decision making. Most times we vote with the UN, but we are free to pursue our own way through the world. Israel is an ally, they've got the bombs already, and they appear to be responsible with them. Having nuclear weapons in that region is a strategic advantage. While this stuff is unfortunate and problematic, just by nature of the fact that we're talking about WMD's, we must operate within the reality we are given. When the world is ready for a full disarmament, I expect we will be at the head of the line to sign. Until then, I am not for dismantling any country's defenses.

You're right...I have no proof that nukes in the region have prevented violence. However, given that they have not been used, despite an endless timeline of uninterrupted conflict in which to do so, you have no proof that Israel having them is any more problematic than any other country having the damn things. Saying that some countries are ok to have them, but not the Jews, well....that's a little problematic too, don't you think?
 
It’s not dishonor when UN causes have been big nothing burgers.

the UN fundamentally is based on a lie that nations are equals and that all people are equal to other groups of people. That’s why it’s a failing organization that accomplishes nothing.
Overt Western European Christian colonization accomplished more.

The concept of equality really bothers you, huh?
 
The concept of equality really bothers you, huh?

well it bothers me like lies in general bother me. Egalitarianism is a fiction so against human nature that it requires massive delusion to sustain.
 
Forget it, Israel is much like India in this regard. Neither one signed relevant UN sponsored agreements on this subject nor do they intend to.

It is a bit like trying to put the cat back in the bag... good freaking luck.

Israel is still surrounded by their enemies, their only real ally is the US, and as long as key nations in that area Perdue weapons up to and including nuclear there is no reason for Israel to all of a sudden give a shit what the UN says.

And on that subject, the UN has been pathetically worthless at really changing anything. The entire organization has devolved into a massive group of bureaucratic squabbling idiots all with self-serving interests devoid of any real international advancement.

That ship has sailed, there is no reason for Israel to give up anything at this point.

They want conflict and will get it for generations to come, all evidence supporting.

The UN is dead politically (always was because it never had teeth) but it's very much alive in regard to world development.
 
The UN is dead politically (always was because it never had teeth) but it's very much alive in regard to world development.
Especially the development of corrupt local officials and some occasional affirmative action employment for third world back bencher lawyers.
 
Back
Top Bottom