'Israel should dismantle nuclear weapons' US Army War Colleg

Sorry Moishe, I'm not really picky, I'm just struggling to follow the arguments here.

I appreciate your and everybody else's restatements, clarifications and corrections......

For approximately the last 100 years the Palestinians, which is what the Jews were called before they became citizens of the State of Israel, living in what is today called the State of Israel, have been attacked.

Under Oslo, the PA came into existence; Israel and the world financed the PA; Israel armed and trained the PA; and Israel committed itself and indeed did, negotiate with the moral and actual equivalent of Osama bin Laden, Arafat the Rotting (y'mach shmo).

There is no government; no ruling faction or clan; no law; no order, at all in Gaza or the West Bank. It is chaos and anarchy and death created, not by Israel, but by those that live there.

And the suggestions are that Israel simply give up?

Tear down the fence?

Give the savage tribes more money?

My suggestion is that you all go over and help your helpless friends. Maybe your money and lives will feed the poor Arabs known as Palestinians. Try it!

Galilite wrote:

If you look back at last 15 years...

If you look back at the last 75 years, you'll see that with no exceptions, Israel has been under constant attack.

Since the beginning of that hundred year time span to which you refer, to the time even before the creation of Israel, nearer the turn of the last century, what had been attacked was the imposition of an externally imposed, ethnically bigoted state in the land we now call Israel and Palestine, itself informed by the racism and ethnocentricity of nineteenth century European Nationalism. That nationalistic movement was, and is, Zionism. Ironically, Nazism was itself informed by that very same ideology as Zionism. This attack to which you refer was, and largely is, a Middle Eastern reaction to that ideology and its product, the state of Israel.

Being rhetorical, Moishe wrote:

And the suggestions are that Israel simply give up?

The suggestions are that, most ideally, Israel and Palestine become a single nation and mandates for the maintenance of a bigoted, ethnocentric state be repealed, or that a Palestinian state be created along the pre-'67 War boundaries with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the Right of Return enacted in the state of Israel.

Continuing the rhetoric, Moishe wrote:

Tear down the fence?

The fence should have been erected along the pre-'67 boundaries.

Moishe3rd wrote:

Galilite wrote:

If you look back at last 15 years...

If you look back at the last 75 years, you'll see that with no exceptions, Israel has been under constant attack.

Moishe - perhaps I wasn't clear in that posting, but my message was exactly that - Israel has to resort to the current measures because other measures failed...

InfraBlue - is it all personal???

Moishe wrote:

For approximately the last 100 years the Palestinians, which is what the Jews were called before they became citizens of the State of Israel, living in what is today called the State of Israel, have been attacked.

Since the beginning of that hundred year time span to which you refer, to the time even before the creation of Israel, nearer the turn of the last century, what had been attacked was the imposition of an externally imposed, ethnically bigoted state in the land we now call Israel and Palestine, itself informed by the racism and ethnocentricity of nineteenth century European Nationalism. That nationalistic movement was, and is, Zionism. Ironically, Nazism was itself informed by that very same ideology as Zionism. This attack to which you refer was, and largely is, a Middle Eastern reaction to that ideology and its product, the state of Israel. I believe the slur "savage tribes" was also used by your Zionist predecessors in describing the goyim of those lands, moishe. It's illustrative of the intolerant, racially myopic mentality of the times. You are a living anachronism.

Moishe further wrote:

Under Oslo, the PA came into existence; Israel and the world financed the PA; Israel armed and trained the PA; and Israel committed itself and indeed did, negotiate with the moral and actual equivalent of Osama bin Laden, Arafat the Rotting (y'mach shmo).

Your inane comparison aside, I also think Arafat had become a liability, and hinderance to the peace process, but at the same time, so did the Israeli right also become a hinderance thereto, seizing upon the terrorism perpetrated by the Israeli extreme-right, the assassination of Rabin, as an opportunity to circumvent the progress that he had made through Oslo.

What's more, Moishe wrote:

There is no government; no ruling faction or clan; no law; no order, at all in Gaza or the West Bank. It is chaos and anarchy and death created, not by Israel, but by those that live there.

This is the fault of both the Palestinians and Israel as well as the world community as a whole.

Being rhetorical, Moishe wrote:

And the suggestions are that Israel simply give up?

The suggestions are that, most ideally, Israel and Palestine become a single nation and mandates for the maintenance of a bigoted, ethnocentric state be repealed, or that a Palestinian state be created along the pre-'67 War boundaries with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the Right of Return enacted in the state of Israel.

Continuing the rhetoric, Moishe wrote:

Tear down the fence?

The fence should have been erected along the pre-'67 boundaries.

Moishe the anachronism wrote:

Give the savage tribes more money?

See the last sentence of the first paragraph here for a response to this racist drivel.

In a fit of sneering cynicism, Moishe the Misanthrope wrote:

My suggestion is that you all go over and help your helpless friends. Maybe your money and lives will feed the poor Arabs known as Palestinians. Try it!

It is raving haters like you who are in positions of power in this conflict that are largely to blame for why this conflict has festered like an open, gangrenous sore, waiting to be treated. To be fair, there are mirror images of youself on the other side of the coin

Excuse me but who cares about pre- or post- 1967 borders when it comes to nuclear weapons??

Earlier on this thread I posted a link to a USAF study estimating them at over 200, so I'll stay with that number, and my question is:

How can 200+ nukes be used defensively when the territory of Israel is so small?? Fallout is sure to affect either the Mediterranean or other neighboring portions of Eurasia or of course both. One or two weapons could be considered "defensive" like, say, France or England have, (proportionally to extent of respective territories) but 200+ .... HOW can they not be viewed as a massive OFFENSIVE capability??

Any (polite, please) reply greatly appreciated!!

Excuse me but who cares about pre- or post- 1967 borders when it comes to nuclear weapons??

Earlier on this thread I posted a link to a USAF study estimating them at over 200, so I'll stay with that number, and my question is:

How can 200+ nukes be used defensively when the territory of Israel is so small?? Fallout is sure to affect either the Mediterranean or other neighboring portions of Eurasia or of course both. One or two weapons could be considered "defensive" like, say, France or England have, (proportionally to extent of respective territories) but 200+ .... HOW can they not be viewed as a massive OFFENSIVE capability??

Any (polite, please) reply greatly appreciated!!

InfraBlue - is it all personal???

The notion that the Jews might return to their homeland is neither racist nor bigoted. And it is the exact opposite of Nazism.

The second suggestion is a non-starter. The Right of Return is incompatible with a two-state solution.

That said, Barak did offer them just that. However, the Palestinians toppled him with their Intifada. Now they have to contend with Sharon drawing the borders of their state unilaterally.

The wall is being erected on the future border between Israel and the Palestinian state.

As upset as you are, perhaps you might want to take a different tack than simply longing for the past...

Arafat the Rotting a liability? . . . Okay, yeah, I guess he was a "liability"...

He sinlgle-handedly led the Arab and Israeli fools who trusted in him into death, destruction, and despair.

And the solution? Maybe invade Gaza and impose Law and Order?

Naw. I don't think so. But, you are certainly welcome to surrender wherever you live to the Mexicans; or perhaps the Commanche, the Kiowa, or the Wichita... You have a lot of folk that you could invite to live with you.

Why? No other Arab people ever recognized the "pre-'67 boundaries" as borders. Hell, they didn't even recognize the "pre-Israel boundaries" as borders. It's really a very simple idea, Infra.
You try and kill me. I hit you over the head. I offer you terms. You say no. Then you try and kill me again. I hit you again. Now, my terms are not as generous. You say no. And it goes on until, finally, you have nothing...

Well, perhaps you are uncomfortable with the adjective "savage?"
It seems an apt descriptor of someone who consistently murders their own children. Child Murderers is a little too wordy.
And tribes? You have an argument with tribes? You really should visit Gaza. You might find it enlightening. The entire Muslim world is a world of tribes and clans. That's the fac' Jac'

Now, Infra, be honest. Read your first paragraph. Objectively speaking, I suspect that most would find it far more of a "rave" than anything I wrote.
My "raving hatred" quotient operates in direct proportion to those who wish to surrender the reins of civilization to people who promise; vow; state unequivocably; and act upon their pledges, of wishing to destroy, murder and obliterate, not just Israel, but anyone whom they dislike.
Folks like you, who believe it's no big deal to turn over the civilized world to hateful, murderous, maniacs.... puzzle me.

I didn't say that Zionism is racist. I said that Zionism is ethnocentric. The notion that "the Jews might return to their homeland" is ethnocentric and bigoted because it ignores the reality of the existence of the Eastern and Central European Jews, the Ashkenazim, that is, their origins as a mix of peoples that came from Palestine with peoples that originated in those parts of Europe. Zionism slights the other, European origin of the Ashkenazim. Zionism is ethnocentric and bigoted precisely because it is centered around ethnocentric goals, ideologies, and perceived ethnocentric rights.

The details of Zionism and Nazism differ. This fact doesn't negate the fact that they are both informed by the nationalist philosophies and ideologies, which generally was racist, ethnocentric and therefore bigoted, that suffused Europe during the nineteenth century.

Barak offered a patchwork prison state to the Palestinians.

Your contention that the wall is being erected on the future border between Israel and the Palestinian state belies what the government of Israel had publicly stated.

That the Israeli government plans to encroach on the '67 boundaries further dims expectations of peace in the region. They are effectively planing and doing their part to thwart peace.

Galilite wrote:

InfraBlue - is it all personal???

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking that do I take it all personally? If so, then no, I don't take it personally. Are you asking if it affects me personally? If so, then it, the Israel/Palestine Conflict does not affect me personally in that I don't have any personal connections to that region. Being a US citizen, it affects me indirectly in the way that the US goes about dealing with the issue.

Rather, I'm just calling it the way it is, Galilite. Do you take my posts personally?

Earlier on this thread I posted a link to a USAF study estimating them at over 200, so I'll stay with that number, and my question is:

How can 200+ nukes be used defensively when the territory of Israel is so small?? Fallout is sure to affect either the Mediterranean or other neighboring portions of Eurasia or of course both. One or two weapons could be considered "defensive" like, say, France or England have, (proportionally to extent of respective territories) but 200+ .... HOW can they not be viewed as a massive OFFENSIVE capability??

Any (polite, please) reply greatly appreciated!!

Abdel Wahab Darawhsheh, from the United Arab List, said in parliament that Israel had "exploded a neutron bomb which caused the quake," but he did not give the source of his information.

I can't help but wonder if the people calling for the dismantling of Israel's nukes based upon the fantasy, that if Israel didn't have them none of their enemies would try to develop or want them. If the same thinking persists for the US. If we dismantled ours everyone else would.

I am no expert in nuclear weapons, but - what about testing? I understand that, unlike chemical or biological warfare, it is an extremely difficult process.

The USAF study many times mentions that Israeli weapons didn't require any tests as it used French test results (??) and quotes two possible tests: one in south Indian Ocean, "believed to be a South Africa-Israel joint nuclear test"

With regards to the first probable nuclear test - there are some discrepancies as well. Vanunu's photographs mentioned in the same USAF report, show airborne nuclear devices. A report quoted again in this USAF report, says an artillery nuclear shell was tested. How come??? And how one sneaks nuclear equipment to Indian Ocean past Arab countries?

As Moishe cited, Israeli nukes (if they exist!) are not meant to be used - because it is plain suicidal. They are meant to be a scarecrow. My personal opinion - a scarecrow doesn't have to be fully armed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident

Probably a test of an Israeli copy of an American W79-1 (atomic artillery shell).

What discrepancies are you talking about?

They tested the artillery shell to verify that the design worked.

Mordechai Vanunu provided the best look at the Israeli nuclear arsenal in 1985 complete with photographs.[93] ... His data shows a sophisticated nuclear program, over 200 bombs, with boosted devices, neutron bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads, and Jericho warheads.[94]

I don't think the Arab countries are in any position to monitor Israeli shipping.

Galilite wrote:

As Moishe cited, Israeli nukes (if they exist!) are not meant to be used - because it is plain suicidal. They are meant to be a scarecrow. My personal opinion - a scarecrow doesn't have to be fully armed.

I'm not sure that it is necessarily suicidal. That would depend on the enemy's ability to hit back.