• 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!

Arab states call on Israel to join global anti-nuclear weapons treaty[W:14,W:94]

They don't talk about it, they just do it. In June of 2006 in response to a small attack by Hezbollah, Israel took out their aggressions on the innocent as they are prone to do. For 51 days they bombed Lebanon, killing 1,500 civilians, making refugees of another 750,000 and destroying 3billion dollars worth of the countries infrastructure. What ME country that has voiced a desire to do the same thing to Israel has actually done the same to Israel? I'm so sick of Israel getting a pass and being treated as the victim. They are way beyond belligerent! Not until the president of Lebanon was on national television BEGGING the world to make them stop was their intervention.

Are you really saying Israel should sit back and take it when Lebanese militias hijack Israeli soldiers every 6 years ?
How long do you think Mexico will last if they did the same "small attack" on the US?
 
Israel at this point doesn't need nuclear weapons outside of deterring Iran. Its conventional military can handle all of the conventional threats it faces, short of Turkey attacking them which will not happen.
But engaging in conventional warfare shouldn't be necessary just to protect your very existence. MAD is a terrible, terrible thing, but in the case of nations who went to war with Israel not once, not twice, but three times Israel might not trust them to remain peaceful outside of self-preservation and might not want to take advantage of their good luck over the past few decades.
Furthermore, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia not to mention the UAE and Bahrain share many of the same geopolitical goals as Israel does.

I suppose that's why many of those countries fund Palestinian terrorists, and why all of the harangue Israel on international fora.
 
I agree their not, which is why Iran should want the deterrent.

The chicken and the egg. The hostility between Israel and Iran was created by Iran's nuclear program, not the other way around.
 
I don't want anybody to fight, that should be clear by now. But Hezbollah was criticised as fighting like women as though Israelis (with lots of women in the IDF) fight like men. My point is that they wouldn't be so aggressive without the US standing behind them loading the guns and handing them to them.

It just so happens that the US shares more of its geopolitical interests with Israel than it does with Hezbollah. Shocking really.
 
i am not so certain
exposing the hypocrisy of one regional power, which possesses a nuclear arsenal, objecting to the development of nuclear means by another regional power, might slow down the international effort to thwart iran's nuclear development capabilities
What hypocrisy? Iran signed the NPT, Israel did not, therefore Iran is bound by international law not to develop nukes (since it gets benefits from signing the NPT), and Israel is not. Israel, as a member of the international community (and Iran's likely target), therefore has not only a right but an obligation to hold its fellow country to international law.

Furthermore, Iran is one of four countries in the world - the others being Pakistan, India, and North Korea - who have nuclear capabilities to some extent and are likely to use them.
the reality is that other ME nations will seek a nuclear deterrent capacity as long as israel projects its nuclear capacity. only by dismantling israel's nuclear arms can the perceived need to develop nuclear equivalency be eliminated i that region

Iran is primarily looking for nuclear capability so they have free reign in the Middle East, not specifically to threaten Israel. If they have nukes, the Sunni kingdoms will respond in kind by developing nukes of their own so as not to lose their influence and, potentially, their rule. We already know that Pakistan is saving up its nukes for use against the neighboring Hindu democracy of India, who also has nukes; a similar situation would occur if either Iran or Saudi Arabia achieved nuclear capacity.

Saying that the only reason any Middle Eastern country is trying to achieve nuclear capabilities is because they're scared of a tiny country that's never attacked them without provocation is absurd. Israel hasn't used the nukes even when they've had them (IIRC, they already had nukes in the Yom Kippur War).
 
It just so happens that the US shares more of its geopolitical interests with Israel than it does with Hezbollah. Shocking really.

Yes, some people do find it shocking that democracies support each other rather than siding with tyrants and fanatics. Hard to explain.
 
What hypocrisy? Iran signed the NPT, Israel did not,
thank you for making my point
israel, which refuses to be a NPT signatory, whines that iran is not complying with NPT expectations
israel has no standing to point to iran's actions
such hypocrisy
... therefore Iran is bound by international law not to develop nukes (since it gets benefits from signing the NPT), and Israel is not. Israel, as a member of the international community (and Iran's likely target), therefore has not only a right but an obligation to hold its fellow country to international law.
NO. hell no. israel has no right or obligation to hold iran to a standard to which it refuses to adhere
that government's hypocrisy could not be any more profound
Furthermore, Iran is one of four countries in the world - the others being Pakistan, India, and North Korea - who have nuclear capabilities to some extent and are likely to use them.
cough-bull****!!!!!!!!
iran is without nuclear weaponry
iran, unlike israel, has not initiated warfare with another nation in over two centuries
we cannot say that about israel for two years


Iran is primarily looking for nuclear capability so they have free reign in the Middle East, not specifically to threaten Israel.
you miss the point
iran is intimidated by israel's nuclear capacity and reasonably recognizes that either israel must abandon its nuclear arsenal or, barring that outcome, iran must develop one as a mater of sovereign security

If they have nukes, the Sunni kingdoms will respond in kind by developing nukes of their own so as not to lose their influence and, potentially, their rule.
you make a good point. israel's nuclear arsenal has resulted in the other ME nations seeking parity
it must be found that israel's possession of nuclear weapons capability is directly responsible for other nations in the region having legitimate reason to pursue nuclear parity

We already know that Pakistan is saving up its nukes for use against the neighboring Hindu democracy of India, who also has nukes;
no, we don't know this
do you have any objection information which would prove this to be true?

... a similar situation would occur if either Iran or Saudi Arabia achieved nuclear capacity.
you are unclear. what is the similar siuation you insist must result?

Saying that the only reason any Middle Eastern country is trying to achieve nuclear capabilities is because they're scared of a tiny country that's never attacked them without provocation is absurd.
that tiny country with the military arsenal supported by the USA
that tiny country which attacks other nations and the pretends that it was necessary to do so as a pre-emptibe prescription
that tiny country ... the one known for initiating military hostilities


Israel hasn't used the nukes even when they've had them (IIRC, they already had nukes in the Yom Kippur War).
fortunately, they have not found a necessity to do so
but if its very existence were to be threatened, we could expect a nuclear response from israel
just as we could from iran once it acquires a nuclear arsenal

if our national leaders were wise we would gift a nuclear warhead with projecting ability to iran. that would be enough to stiffle any future israeli aggression against iran and eliminate that counry's need to develop its own nuclear technology
 
thank you for making my point
israel, which refuses to be a NPT signatory, whines that iran is not complying with NPT expectations
israel has no standing to point to iran's actions
such hypocrisy

NO. hell no. israel has no right or obligation to hold iran to a standard to which it refuses to adhere
that government's hypocrisy could not be any more profound

Iran is signatory of the NPT and hence is required to follow it. Israel isn't.
Israel has every right to call Iran out on developing nuclear capabilities due to the Iranian threats made towards Israel and due to the Iranian proxy war against its citizens through Islamic terror organizations.

justabubba said:
cough-bull****!!!!!!!!
iran is without nuclear weaponry
iran, unlike israel, has not initiated warfare with another nation in over two centuries
we cannot say that about israel for two years

that tiny country with the military arsenal supported by the USA
that tiny country which attacks other nations and the pretends that it was necessary to do so as a pre-emptibe prescription
that tiny country ... the one known for initiating military hostilities

Not really, no. Israel has never "initiated warfare" on another country as you claim it to be. Whenever the IDF took to arms it was on the defensive.
Not that it means anything really or would have given your arguments any kind of support at all.

justabubba said:
you miss the point
iran is intimidated by israel's nuclear capacity and reasonably recognizes that either israel must abandon its nuclear arsenal or, barring that outcome, iran must develop one as a mater of sovereign security

you make a good point. israel's nuclear arsenal has resulted in the other ME nations seeking parity
it must be found that israel's possession of nuclear weapons capability is directly responsible for other nations in the region having legitimate reason to pursue nuclear parity

Baseless claims that don't deserve much attention.

justabubba said:
fortunately, they have not found a necessity to do so
but if its very existence were to be threatened, we could expect a nuclear response from israel
just as we could from iran once it acquires a nuclear arsenal

'We' could expect nothing. Not during the Yom Kippur war and certainly not in the future.

justabubba said:
if our national leaders were wise we would gift a nuclear warhead with projecting ability to iran. that would be enough to stiffle any future israeli aggression against iran and eliminate that counry's need to develop its own nuclear technology

Not sure if 'wise' is the right adjective here. 'Terror supporters', 'insane' and 'suicidal' come up as more fitting options.
 
I'd first like to thank you for basing this discussion on the premise that Iran has nuclear weapons. I'm glad to see that you're assuming that the theocratic regime is lying about their intentions, which indeed they are.
thank you for making my point
israel, which refuses to be a NPT signatory, whines that iran is not complying with NPT expectations
israel has no standing to point to iran's actions
such hypocrisy

NO. hell no. israel has no right or obligation to hold iran to a standard to which it refuses to adhere
that government's hypocrisy could not be any more profound
Here's an analogy which might help:

There are two American gentlemen named Ben and Ali. Ben is a bachelor. Western society dictates that Ben, like any other bachelor, is not obligated to hold a monogamous relationship. It may be frowned upon by some; hell, it may even be dangerous for Ben, but he can womanize all he wants without violating society's moral, ethical, and legal code against adultery - and I hope that there aren't any states that outlaw fornication.

On the other hand, Ali is a married man. Marriage as we define it is a permanent, monogamous bond between a man and a woman that cannot be violated by extramarital affairs by either of the spouses. If Ali is promiscuous, society is going to hold it against him more than they hold it against Ben, and everyone, including Ben even if he is promiscuous, can condemn Ali without being hypocrites themselves. Ali willingly put himself in a position where he was obligated not to womanize, Ben did not; therefore, Ben is not holding Ali to standards that he is not holding himself to because he is not a married man while Ali is, especially since Ali receives benefits via his marriage that Ben does not get.

If Israel expected Iran to sign the NPT without signing it herself, then her government would be hypocritical. However, expecting Iran to hold herself to standards that the theocracy, of its own free will, decided to hold itself to is not hypocritical, even if Israel is not holding herself to those same standards because she had not agreed to those standards.
cough-bull****!!!!!!!!
iran is without nuclear weaponry
iran, unlike israel, has not initiated warfare with another nation in over two centuries
we cannot say that about israel for two years
I would say that kidnapping our diplomats and holding them hostage qualifies as an act of war. Iran is more of the proxy warfare type, arming and assisting death squads and puppet regimes to achieve its expansionist goals rather than engaging in open warfare. Not one Iranian troop needs to set foot in Lebanon for Iran to de facto control the country via Syrian death squads and Shia Lebanese terrorist groups.


you miss the point
iran is intimidated by israel's nuclear capacity and reasonably recognizes that either israel must abandon its nuclear arsenal or, barring that outcome, iran must develop one as a mater of sovereign security
What interest has Israel shown in Iran that might even slightly imply that they would use nukes against the Islamic Republic?

you make a good point. israel's nuclear arsenal has resulted in the other ME nations seeking parity
it must be found that israel's possession of nuclear weapons capability is directly responsible for other nations in the region having legitimate reason to pursue nuclear parity
Israel, save the ultra-right political parties and fundamentalist Jews, has no expansionist or imperialist designs. Iran has traditionally been an empire, and it is attempting to reclaim this status to some extent by supporting Shia groups, from Iraq to Yemen.

no, we don't know this
do you have any objection information which would prove this to be true?
You don't know that both Pakistan and India have nuclear capabilities - we've assisted both nations in achieving this?

you are unclear. what is the similar siuation you insist must result?
Basically, this:

1. Tehran succeeds in building nukes; as a result, the regime can essentially do whatever it wants in the Middle East in promoting its own interests without serious opposition from the West and the international community. It will be able to greatly increase its support for the Assad regime and for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Shia terrorist groups, and will begin to forge dominance over Iraq.
2. Saudi Arabia, fearful of being overshadowed in the region by Iran and frightened by the empowerment of the Iraqi Shia majority whom they despise, will also attempt to achieve nuclear capabilities, likely getting it from the West.
3. Both nations continue to hate each other without using the nukes, but all it would take is a single fanatic on either side to take control of the WMDs and turn basically the entire Gulf into rubble.

We already are in this precarious position with India and Pakistan. The two natural enemies are aware that using one's own nukes will result in the obliteration of a vast majority of their respective civilian populations; since they currently have more pragmatic governments, they refrain from causing this. Pakistan's repeated coups, however, could eventually put the nuclear missiles in the hands of a Sunni extremist party.
that tiny country with the military arsenal supported by the USA
We also support Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Pakistan. It's not as if Israel is receiving some vast favoritism that the Arab world could only dream of.
that tiny country which attacks other nations and the pretends that it was necessary to do so as a pre-emptibe prescription
that tiny country ... the one known for initiating military hostilities
Name one conflict that Israel has ever had that was not provoked by one of its enemies.

fortunately, they have not found a necessity to do so
but if its very existence were to be threatened, we could expect a nuclear response from israel
just as we could from iran once it acquires a nuclear arsenal
Iran faces no existential threat by the mere possession of nuclear missiles by Israel.

I, for one, am not worried about Iran using the nukes on Israel. They're at the moment too clever to do that. I'm worried about their arsenal being used to intimidate any powers who would stand up to their imperialism in the Arab world. I support Israel in this matter for that reason; I don't think that the Jewish state would be in nuclear danger from Iran. I will add, though, that Iran's support for Hamas would probably increase once they got nukes.
if our national leaders were wise we would gift a nuclear warhead with projecting ability to iran. that would be enough to stiffle any future israeli aggression against iran and eliminate that counry's need to develop its own nuclear technology

The moment we gave Iran nukes we'd see our ability to influence events in the Middle East drop drastically.
 
I'm aware of the self identified superiority and elitism of the loons, but common sense only dictates that a target should be the logical decider of adequacy of defense armament. Certainly you could convey to Israel your dictates on this matter, but understand that they may be brash enough to fail to follow your orders.

Got it?

So no, you don't have anything constructive or useful to say. Nor are you even willing to show you even have the barest of grasps of the understanding of the topic at hand.
 
But engaging in conventional warfare shouldn't be necessary just to protect your very existence.

Humanity's entire history suggests otherwise.

MAD is a terrible, terrible thing, but in the case of nations who went to war with Israel not once, not twice, but three times Israel might not trust them to remain peaceful outside of self-preservation and might not want to take advantage of their good luck over the past few decades.

But Israel doesn't need nukes to defend itself. It's conventional military is already more than capable of wiping out the opposition. MAD only works when both sides are capable of wiping each other out. Right now, Israel's military dominance is a one way street.

I suppose that's why many of those countries fund Palestinian terrorists, and why all of the harangue Israel on international fora.

That depends how you define terrorists. Giving money to Hamas for hospitals doesn't qualify for most people. Look who's running Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon. Not exactly "let's kill Israel" kind of people.
 
Humanity's entire history suggests otherwise.


But Israel doesn't need nukes to defend itself. It's conventional military is already more than capable of wiping out the opposition. MAD only works when both sides are capable of wiping each other out. Right now, Israel's military dominance is a one way street.
I didn't say it isn't necessary, I said it shouldn't be. If Israel were to have nukes and no conventional army, it would still be screwed. Arab armies could occupy the country and get rid of the nukes before they're even loaded into their silos. My point is that it's better for both Israeli and Arab soldiers for the Arab nations to be too scared to invade in the first place than for them to test Israel's winning streak.


That depends how you define terrorists. Giving money to Hamas for hospitals doesn't qualify for most people. Look who's running Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon. Not exactly "let's kill Israel" kind of people.

Do the Gulf states know exactly where their aid money will be appropriated? IIRC they have transferred weapons in the past, and I think Egypt may soon become more militantly anti-Israel if the Islamists happen to come out on top. Also, whoever wins this Syria fiasco is going to have a bone to pick with Israel - the IAF bombed the pro-government Hezbollah forces in Syria, and if the fundamentalist rebels win they very well may launch a "holy war."
 
I didn't say it isn't necessary, I said it shouldn't be. If Israel were to have nukes and no conventional army, it would still be screwed. Arab armies could occupy the country and get rid of the nukes before they're even loaded into their silos. My point is that it's better for both Israeli and Arab soldiers for the Arab nations to be too scared to invade in the first place than for them to test Israel's winning streak.

I guess, but it could be argued right now that Israel's conventional army is enough to stop them from testing the winning streak. The only reason why Israel could need nukes is Iran. Israel's neighbors are either militarily weak or politically disinclined to do anything about Israel's existence except keep the trading going on between them. The only conventional threat Israel faces is Turkey and the chance of Turkey attacking is about on par with Magical Space Pandas who live in the Sun in jelly spaceships invading the planet.

Do the Gulf states know exactly where their aid money will be appropriated? IIRC they have transferred weapons in the past, and I think Egypt may soon become more militantly anti-Israel if the Islamists happen to come out on top. Also, whoever wins this Syria fiasco is going to have a bone to pick with Israel - the IAF bombed the pro-government Hezbollah forces in Syria, and if the fundamentalist rebels win they very well may launch a "holy war."

True, they don't know, but the Gulf states are hardly in a "wipe Israel off the map" mode. Plus it looks like Egypt is headed back to secular rule. I don't think anyone is going to "win" the Syria fiasco. It's just question of who loses the most.
 
Forget nukes. After spending the last few years upgrading, Iran are already an existential threat to Israel if they so choose to be.

It would only take one or two conventional missiles beating the iron dome defense system and hitting the Dimona or Fordow nuclear and CW plants to make things very uncomfortable for Israeli citizens.

The real issue is Israeli hegemony in the ME and the fact that Iran is becoming/has become a threat to this.
 
It would only take one or two conventional missiles beating the iron dome defense system and hitting the Dimona or Fordow nuclear and CW plants to make things very uncomfortable for Israeli citizens.

Even if the Iranian regime could scud specific targets, they're not gonna hit anything that will explode. A missile strike on Israel would not cripple the state and the Iranian regime would cease to exist almost instantaneously.

The real issue is Israeli hegemony in the ME and the fact that Iran is becoming/has become a threat to this.

That is a problem. We need more democracy in the ME.
 
I find it amazing that I can leave this topic alone for almost 3 years, 3 freakin years, and when I return I'm still hearing the same nonsensical arguments...

It shouldn't be surprising. Attacks on the Jewish people have been going on for centuries.
 
israel is smart enoguh to know not to use nuklear power like the usa would not use..
we got nukles to show the arabs that they have 0% to ever destroy israel and kill our people
 
Back
Top Bottom