Palestinian children tortured, used as shields by Israel: U.N.

[Kondor3]

Some of the worst hyperbole and amateur-caliber (failed) attempts to link Israeli aloofness to Nazi race theory that have graced these boards in quite some time.

Sorry bro, but when folks in this forum call for all Gentiles in Israel to lose their citizenship, and all Palestinians to be kicked out of Israel or face death, comparisons to the Nazis will be made.

Who has called for that?

 

[Kondor3]

Sorry bro, but when folks in this forum call for all Gentiles in Israel to lose their citizenship, and all Palestinians to be kicked out of Israel or face death, comparisons to the Nazis will be made.

Who has called for that?

No one did. Hyrcanus just makes up stuff about the pro - Israeli posters here.

Well, he does like to put words into peoples' mouths, during the course of an exchange - it's a permissible gambit in a debate but it's not a mark of all-around higher-caliber scholarship or intellectual display...

 

[Coyote]

If the "Palestinians" truly support a "two state solution" (as opposed to a "two state" stepping stone to the ultimate goal of an Arab state "from river to sea"), why do they elect people who openly call for Israel's destruction (i.e. Hamas in Gaza, PA officials who - when speaking in Arabic - call for the end of the Jewish State)?

From what I read about the election that brought Hamas into power it had little to do with Israel and much to do with the corruption and domestic ineffectiveness of the status quo.

 

[Coyote]

Yet unlike any other country they have never had sanctions applied for their behavior. They've gotten more free passes than any other country. Look at the nuclear weapons for a start.

Indeed.

Rather than using their nukes simply as a defensive measure, they instead use them to protect their Apartheid-like policies.

Israel would probably use their nukes to stop any country from preventing them from ethnically cleansing the West Bank of all "untermenschen".

You seriously think that?

I doubt it very much. When you're a small state surrounded by enemies - having nukes makes sense. With the exception of North Korea (a country that truly acts like a rabid dog) - I don't think the intention of having nukes is to necessarily use then but to make a statement: "we are to be taken seriously" No one wants to start a nuclear war.

 

[toastman]

Yet unlike any other country they have never had sanctions applied for their behavior. They've gotten more free passes than any other country. Look at the nuclear weapons for a start.

Indeed.

Rather than using their nukes simply as a defensive measure, they instead use them to protect their Apartheid-like policies.

Israel would probably use their nukes to stop any country from preventing them from ethnically cleansing the West Bank of all "untermenschen".

You seriously think that?

I doubt it very much. When you're a small state surrounded by enemies - having nukes makes sense. With the exception of North Korea (a country that truly acts like a rabid dog) - I don't think the intention of having nukes is to necessarily use then but to make a statement: "we are to be taken seriously" No one wants to start a nuclear war.

Absolutely right Coyote. It's very typical of anti - Zionist posters to bring up Israels nuclear arsenal to make them look like the aggressor. It's usual a sign that they have their back to the wall. Israel is completely justified in having nukes,

 

[Kondor3]

Much less floating the idea that the Israelis want to nuke the West Bank to get rid of the Palestinians...

 

[Hyrcanus]

Israels nukes are absolutely for defensive purposes...

and to prevent the Arabs from defending their people.

 

[toastman]

Israels nukes are absolutely for defensive purposes...

and to prevent the Arabs from defending their people.

Wrong. ISraels nukes have not stopped the Arabs and Palestinians from attacking them. They had nukes in 1967. Stop lying

 

[Kondor3]

Israels nukes are absolutely for defensive purposes...

and to prevent the Arabs from defending their people.

Yeah..

Like the Israelis needed nukes to kick the Arabs' asses in 1948...

Or 1967...

Or 1973...

Maybe if the Arabs had not attacked Israel so often, and with such overwhelming power, and sworn to drown the Jews in the Med (and failing spectacularly as only those militarily incompetent clowns can), the Arabs would not NEED to 'defend' their people...

The Israelis were making the foolish Arabs pee their pants LONG before they developed a nuclear arsenal...

Try again...

 

[Coyote]

Indeed.

Rather than using their nukes simply as a defensive measure, they instead use them to protect their Apartheid-like policies.

Israel would probably use their nukes to stop any country from preventing them from ethnically cleansing the West Bank of all "untermenschen".

You seriously think that?

I doubt it very much. When you're a small state surrounded by enemies - having nukes makes sense. With the exception of North Korea (a country that truly acts like a rabid dog) - I don't think the intention of having nukes is to necessarily use then but to make a statement: "we are to be taken seriously" No one wants to start a nuclear war.

Absolutely right Coyote. It's very typical of anti - Zionist posters to bring up Israels nuclear arsenal to make them look like the aggressor. It's usual a sign that they have their back to the wall. Israel is completely justified in having nukes,

I suspect every country that has them feels that way - India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel. Probably NK but it's mad.

If one is justified though - who's to say the others aren't?

What worries me most is not "who" has it but how effectively a sane government can keep it out of the hands of stateless entities who have nothing to lose by using it.

 

[toastman]

You seriously think that?

I doubt it very much. When you're a small state surrounded by enemies - having nukes makes sense. With the exception of North Korea (a country that truly acts like a rabid dog) - I don't think the intention of having nukes is to necessarily use then but to make a statement: "we are to be taken seriously" No one wants to start a nuclear war.

Absolutely right Coyote. It's very typical of anti - Zionist posters to bring up Israels nuclear arsenal to make them look like the aggressor. It's usual a sign that they have their back to the wall. Israel is completely justified in having nukes,

I suspect every country that has them feels that way - India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel. Probably NK but it's mad.

If one is justified though - who's to say the others aren't?

What worries me most is not "who" has it but how effectively a sane government can keep it out of the hands of stateless entities who have nothing to lose by using it.

Considering Israels size and their location, combined with the fact that they've been attacked plenty of time by surrounding Arab nations with the goal of "driving the Jews to the sea", I would say Israel is very much justified in having a nuclear arsenal. Of course, that's just my opinion , but I'm pretty sure any rational person who is familiar with Israel's history would agree with me .

 

[Coyote]

Off topic/trolling posts have been removed (7) - please take it to Flame Zone or Badlands rather than derailing this thread. Thx

 

[Indofred]

Absolutely right Coyote. It's very typical of anti - Zionist posters to bring up Israels nuclear arsenal to make them look like the aggressor. It's usual a sign that they have their back to the wall. Israel is completely justified in having nukes,

I suspect every country that has them feels that way - India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel. Probably NK but it's mad.

If one is justified though - who's to say the others aren't?

What worries me most is not "who" has it but how effectively a sane government can keep it out of the hands of stateless entities who have nothing to lose by using it.

Considering Israels size and their location, combined with the fact that they've been attacked plenty of time by surrounding Arab nations with the goal of "driving the Jews to the sea", I would say Israel is very much justified in having a nuclear arsenal. Of course, that's just my opinion , but I'm pretty sure any rational person who is familiar with Israel's history would agree with me .

But you neglect to consider; they're surrounded by hostile Arab nations because they chose to invade that bit of land.
There hasn't been a Jewish state there for 2,000 years so what gives them the right to take it over now?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

I suspect every country that has them feels that way - India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel. Probably NK but it's mad.

If one is justified though - who's to say the others aren't?

What worries me most is not "who" has it but how effectively a sane government can keep it out of the hands of stateless entities who have nothing to lose by using it.

Considering Israels size and their location, combined with the fact that they've been attacked plenty of time by surrounding Arab nations with the goal of "driving the Jews to the sea", I would say Israel is very much justified in having a nuclear arsenal. Of course, that's just my opinion , but I'm pretty sure any rational person who is familiar with Israel's history would agree with me .

But you neglect to consider; they're surrounded by hostile Arab nations because they chose to invade that bit of land.
There hasn't been a Jewish state there for 2,000 years so what gives them the right to take it over now?

How long would you have had them wait then?

 

[Indofred]

Considering Israels size and their location, combined with the fact that they've been attacked plenty of time by surrounding Arab nations with the goal of "driving the Jews to the sea", I would say Israel is very much justified in having a nuclear arsenal. Of course, that's just my opinion , but I'm pretty sure any rational person who is familiar with Israel's history would agree with me .

But you neglect to consider; they're surrounded by hostile Arab nations because they chose to invade that bit of land.
There hasn't been a Jewish state there for 2,000 years so what gives them the right to take it over now?

How long would you have had them wait then?

Until hell froze over.
The very idea of a state that displaced the local population and worked on bigoted/racist principles was always going to lead to massive problems.

However, much as I don't believe the terrorists should have won the day; they did so we're stuck with violence until they either have a dramatic policy change or there's an equally massive war and we see the death of the stupid experiment.

I can't say I'm looking forward to that day because of the terrible of of a war, regardless of who wins the thing.
However; whatever the cause of the conflict; the Zionist extremists will be responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews because of their stupidity.

I wonder how the pro Israeli Americans would feel if the Zionists had set up home in California. I suspect there'd be a lot less support of Calisrael and a lot of support for David Duke.

 

[toastman]

I suspect every country that has them feels that way - India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel. Probably NK but it's mad.

If one is justified though - who's to say the others aren't?

What worries me most is not "who" has it but how effectively a sane government can keep it out of the hands of stateless entities who have nothing to lose by using it.

Considering Israels size and their location, combined with the fact that they've been attacked plenty of time by surrounding Arab nations with the goal of "driving the Jews to the sea", I would say Israel is very much justified in having a nuclear arsenal. Of course, that's just my opinion , but I'm pretty sure any rational person who is familiar with Israel's history would agree with me .

But you neglect to consider; they're surrounded by hostile Arab nations because they chose to invade that bit of land.
There hasn't been a Jewish state there for 2,000 years so what gives them the right to take it over now?

Invade? That's a lie. Zionist immigration was encouraged and facilitated by the British who were in charge. Sorry to say, but the Palestinian Arabs were not in charge

 

[Hyrcanus]

Invade? That's a lie. Zionist immigration was encouraged and facilitated by the British who were in charge. Sorry to say, but the Palestinian Arabs were not in charge

Yes, but only as long as the rights of Gentiles in Palestine were protected and respected.

Israel has clearly violated that agreemant.

 

[Kondor3]

Invade? That's a lie. Zionist immigration was encouraged and facilitated by the British who were in charge. Sorry to say, but the Palestinian Arabs were not in charge

Yes, but only as long as the rights of Gentiles in Palestine were protected and respected.

Israel has clearly violated that agreemant.

Then perhaps the Palestinians and their Muslim-Arab brethren should not have tried to drive them into the Mediterranean beginning on Day One of the State of Israel's existence.

Had the Arabs remained in their homes (and only a minority were driven-out by over-eager Israeli militias, the vast majority were driven out by blind fear stoked by their Arab neighbors and by promises of an Arab victory and return, within a matter of days or weeks) and accepted Jewish governance of the original lands claimed by Israel, rather than joining with their incompetent and under-performing militant Arab neighbors in an attempt to kill the Jews, the Israelis would never have found it necessary - from a survival standpoint - to being 'disrespecting' the rights of Arab-Palestinians in the first place.

I'll bet they wish they had a Do-Over now, 65 years later, eh?

 

[toastman]

Invade? That's a lie. Zionist immigration was encouraged and facilitated by the British who were in charge. Sorry to say, but the Palestinian Arabs were not in charge

Yes, but only as long as the rights of Gentiles in Palestine were protected and respected.

Israel has clearly violated that agreemant.

Then perhaps the Palestinians and their Muslim-Arab brethren should not have tried to drive them into the Mediterranean beginning on Day One of the State of Israel's existence.

Had the Arabs remained in their homes (and only a minority were driven-out by over-eager Israeli militias, the vast majority were driven out by blind fear stoked by their Arab neighbors and by promises of an Arab victory and return, within a matter of days or weeks) and accepted Jewish governance of the original lands claimed by Israel, rather than joining with their incompetent and under-performing militant Arab neighbors in an attempt to kill the Jews, the Israelis would never have found it necessary - from a survival standpoint - to being 'disrespecting' the rights of Arab-Palestinians in the first place.

I'll bet they wish they had a Do-Over now, 65 years later, eh?

I'm sure Abbas does

Abbas: Arabs erred in rejecting 1947 partition plan | JPost | Israel News

 

[Kondor3]

And now the Palestinians are paying the price for their foolishness, both in rejecting the Partition Plan, and for believing their incompetent, under-performing Arab neighbors, who promised the refugees swift victory and return.

Next Steps...

Look for the carving-up of Lebanon (especially now that Syria is going downhill) and the establishment of a New Palestine in the southern part of that most unhappy land.

Hezbollah is already paving the way.

Once New Palestine is established, look for West Bank-ers and Gazans to fall all over themselves, scrambling to get there.