BS: Netanyahu

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 09:40 AM

I'm settling for subtext.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 09:37 AM

Sub text, sub-text, subtext. I dunno.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 09:25 AM

"UN Watch has been run for the last 14 years by a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, the American Jewish Committee. Of the six board members of UN Watch named in Wiki, one is a past president of AJC and another is its executive director. Another member was for 27 years deputy chairman of the Sweden-Israel Friendship Association."

It is not difficult to discern the sub text of your post.

The sub-text of my post is as follows. You put up links to stuff about UN Watch's criticisms of the UN's attitude to Israel. You said nothing about the current status of UN Watch, which is that it is run by AJC, a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, and that its board is dominated by members with long track records of belonging to either that or to other groups of similar demeanour. Your links post, which was strongly pro-Israel and anti-UN, failed to apprise us of that. Now I have no difficulty with UN Watch's findings, as I've already said more than once. As with findings reported by any other advocate of a particular position, I reserve the right to be a little sceptical and to do a bit of delving, as I've shown. What I do have difficulty with is you advocating a strong pro-Israel position whilst sidelining the inconvenient fact that your evidence comes from the pro-Israel lobby. I've asked you to address the substantive issue of the nature of the resolutions instead of just bandying numbers around. Tell us what you think is wrong with the SUBSTANCE of the resolutions you so dislike, then we can have something to actually talk about.

Now, instead of making snide little insinuations about my "subtext", perhaps you'd be brave enough to spell out what you think it is (give me one guess...). Do make sure you give evidence in support.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 08:20 AM

How can someone with so much time on their hands and the dexterity to type so much remain so ignorant?

Granted. I only scan Terribulus posts but the bits I read rarely make sense and at best describe real events with false conclusions. The rest tends to be la la land.

I begin to see how presumably enlightened people allow bad things to happen. So long as it is happening to others eh? If only Israelis looked a little darker, who knows...

😕

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:56 AM

"UN Watch has been run for the last 14 years by a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, the American Jewish Committee. Of the six board members of UN Watch named in Wiki, one is a past president of AJC and another is its executive director. Another member was for 27 years deputy chairman of the Sweden-Israel Friendship Association."

It is not difficult to discern the sub text of your post.

As well as exposing the bias of the UN UN Watch is a respected champion of human rights. At the 2015 Geneva Summit for Human Rights, for example, it led a coalition of 20 NGOs in giving a rare UN platform to the Nigerian girl who jumped off a truck to escape from Boko Haram, the student leaders of the Hong Kong umbrella protest, and courageous dissidents and victims from China, Cuba, Iran, Tibet, Pakistan, Turkey, North Korea and Venezuela.

Should that work also be evaluated in the context that the organization is run by Jews and Jewish money?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:39 AM

"Please show us the borders of this mythical "Palestine"."
Ant thereby hangs the problem of Zionists who refuse to recognise that the Aranb people have occupied this area for Millenia and hav no intention of being driven "out into the desert" as is being proposed by the fascist right in Israel and being made a reality by the present regime.
"We can discuss this emotive subject like grown ups I hope."
Been going to night school to learn how to be one then?
Your own attitude ranges from belligerent to hand-wringing Uriah Heep impersonations - nothing "adult" there
as for your clownish "real historians" and "real bookshops" - you are a standing joke
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:34 AM

Trouble is, who can tell whether we're addressing the same guest all the time?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:31 AM

I asked you in moderate tones to refrain from hijacking the discussion. That was not at all "belligerent". If you want to see gratuitous belligerence, take a look at your mate Teribus's crude intervention on 4 March at 2.04pm. Makes ME look like a fluffy bunny, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:24 AM

"Those living there call their home Palestine."

Calling it something doesn't make it so. There are some who call Israel Palestine too.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 07:03 AM

And therein lies the problem.

"Mythical"

No wonder you posted that as "guest". I'd be ashamed of posting it if I were you.

Call it what you will. Those living there call their home Palestine. Good enough for me.

And it should be good enough for a belligerent PM of a neighbouring country.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 06:31 AM

"Israelis eating its way into Palestine"

Please show us the borders of this mythical "Palestine".

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 06:20 AM

No objection to it.
I was objecting to Steve's belligerence.
We can discuss this emotive subject like grown ups I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 06:12 AM

"All states have a right to exist."
Israelis eating its way into Palestine
It is evicting Bedouins from areas the have occupied for centuries
It is an expansionist terrorist state, so any of its neigbours have a right to arm themselves against its well-established terrorism
How do they confront the threat from Israel that was warned about by some of the great Jewish thinkers 70-odd years ago?
As you rightly said - every state is entitled to defend itself.
Israel has been 'crying wolf' over Iran's "bomb' for several decades, there is no evidence that it either has or wants one.
If Israel has nuclear weapons, by your logic, there is no reason why Iraq, Egypt, Palestine, shouldn't have one.... nightmare scenario.
It's been bad enough having to live under the threat of America's bomb - theyare the only nation in the world to have used monster bombs, and during the Vietnam war, General Westmorland proposed that North Vietam should have been "nuked back into the Stone-age".
dr Strangelove re-visited
"Why are you always on the attack?"
Do you have any objection to MusKie's statement?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 05:59 AM

UN Watch shines a light on bias in the UN, MEMRI shines a light on Jew hatred and and Muslim extremism. It is understandable that some would want to vilify and discredit them.

Your less than moderate language aside, no-one here at least has vilified any organisation. When you put up links without comment, as you did, I think it's important to know who the people you're linking to are batting for. As you refrained from telling us, I assume you find their affiliations somewhat inconvenient to your argument. Just trying to shine a light, in your words, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 05:51 AM

No-one in this thread has suggested that Israel has no right to exist. As for how do we confront those forces, etc., I'd suggest by doing the very opposite of what Netanyahu has tried to do this week. He's trying to a scupper a deal that would be pretty good for Israel, a window of opportunity working with a far more moderate Iranian leader who has shown little interest in confronting Israel and who has demonstrably wound down Iran's nuclear aspirations. So tell us what you think of Netanyahu's work this week, Keith, the subject of the thread, and just for once stop trying to derail the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 05:43 AM

It does include Israel.
Are they denying anyone else's right to exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 05:40 AM

Ever thought that includes Israel?

Blinded by your own prejudice..

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 05:25 AM

Because Musket said in the previous post, "we can as a set of United Nations demand that all communities have an equal right to exist"

Why are you always on the attack?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 04:54 AM

Why have you brought that up? That is not what this discussion is about. You're the first to moan about thread drift, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 04:38 AM

All states have a right to exist.
How do we confront those forces that deny Israel's right to exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 03:49 AM

Fuck all to do with being Jewish.

More to do with a rogue nation state propped up by imperialist style borders and guilt.

We can't turn back the British mentality over Palestine in the '40s but we can as a set of United Nations demand that all communities have an equal right to exist and that two wrongs don't make a right.

Apparently that's not an easy statement when most influential American politicians are both funded by Israeli interests and fed Fox all day with its naive Islamaphobic bullshit.

Complaining about radicalised young people should include asking why.

My time working in the region, admittedly a few years ago now, included comparing those I knew with our lot under Th*tcher. I would be horrified to have foreigners think I supported her and most Israelis I know feel the same about those who cling to power over there by scaring voters after ruffling neighbour's feathers.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 03:07 AM

"Jew hatred and and Muslim extremism"
Jew hatred comes from those who implicate the Jews in Israeli crimes Brucie
'The Jews' were not responsible for Sabra/Shatila - Israel was
'The Jews' weer not responsible for the Gaza atrocities last year - Israel was.
It wasn't 'The Jews' who formed death squads to target civilian survivors of the Israeli bombardment - that was the Israeli troops
It is Antisemitic to suggest otherwise - according to the Eutopean definition of Antisemitism.
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
Two years ago, on a filmed interview with six ex-heads of the Israeli Security Forces, they described their duties for the the State of Israel - they suggested that the State had fallen into the hands of extremists, as Einstein and a group of prominent Jews had warned in 1948
ANTISEMITIC JEWS!!
Please take your Antisemitism elsewhere
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 10:38 PM

UN Watch shines a light on bias in the UN, MEMRI shines a light on Jew hatred and and Muslim extremism. It is understandable that some would want to vilify and discredit them.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 09:08 PM

Guest, UN Watch has been run for the last 14 years by a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, the American Jewish Committee. Of the six board members of UN Watch named in Wiki, one is a past president of AJC and another is its executive director. Another member was for 27 years deputy chairman of the Sweden-Israel Friendship Association. Another is an advisor to MEMRI, a strongly pro-Israel propaganda organisation that routinely seeks to cast Islam in a negative light. Just in case anyone here might be thinking "UN Watch - sounds like an independent watchdog of the UN...", OK? Not for one second does any of that undermine the figures you relay to us via your links, but it does show where they're coming from. And, I think, where you're coming from too. The statistics might be part of the issue but they don't form its substance. It's what's in those resolutions that matters, how they're received and what resolutions you think the UN has been remiss in not making. Harder to talk about than numbers, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 08:40 PM

I am not defending bias... but I am certainly aware of how it is part of 'almost' any debate about the Middle East.

Defeatist? Not exactly... pessimistic is my choice of terms. I think anyone who really cares should never give up trying to make sense... and to promulgate a version of sense whenever possible.

I watched Netanyahu before he ever became PM and was struck by his inflexible attitude. Since then, I have seen my concerns justified.

I also see the Palestinian side give him constant 'excuses' for his rhetoric (rockets, bombers...etc.)... as I see him and/or Israel dare the Palestinians to obect to the settlements...etc.

NO ONE even considers a shared state in the region, with fair treatment for all; they can barely stand to allow 'the other side' to access the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif for worship.
When two sides of a dispute use deep-seated religious traditions as an ultimate defense for political/economic stances, why would I be anything BUT pessimistic? For 40 years now I have watched various friends of mine take sides, often vehemently, over the Irish situation, the Middle East situation, the USSR situation, the USA racial situation... and a host of issues which seem minor in comparison. I have recently been accused of bigotry & denial for my 'failure' to staunchly support someone else's arbitrary position........... pessimism is hard to avoid.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 08:10 PM

Do you it possible that the 47 Muslim majority nations and the 57 bodies that constitute the OIC might have something to do with those resolutions?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 08:01 PM

So you think the UN is biased. I'd be the first to agree that there is a lot wrong with the UN. But, if I read you correctly, you are accusing the UN of bias because it passes a lot of what you regard as hostile-to-Israel resolutions compared with those hostile to other countries. Arguing from bare statistics is a bit bogus, though, isn't it. Suppose Israel really does deserve the flak. I think it does, a lot of the time. So you think other countries get away too lightly. Well, you could be right there. But, if you feel aggrieved about it, you need to focus on what's unjustified about those hostile-to-Israel ones and tell us what's up. And say what you think the UN could usefully be doing to rein in those other bad boys. Your numbers game does not necessarily prove bias. Bad resolutions or a lack of good resolutions is what you need to be talking about. And, by the way, have you looked at the makeup of that UN Watch board yet? Do you really think that its particular setup could have much credence beyond the pro-Israel camp, which, surely, is what you want? Why are you avoiding that question?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 07:22 PM

If you call advocating against bias biased then yes UN Watch is biased.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 07:06 PM

That was directed at Guest.

That's all very well, Bill, but you seem to be defending bias, or to be defeatist about avoiding it. When I said a wee bit, I wasn't exactly being literal. The bias on that board is glaring. At best, those guys need to be treated with extreme suspicion. Take a look at their biographies and affiliations and tell me whether such a setup could be even remotely helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 07:00 PM

No? Then you are on a different planet. Kindly take a look at the affiliations past and present of the UN Watch board members. Looks suspiciously like an offshoot of the US pro-Israel lobby to me! That's all fine by me, as long as you're honest about them and as long as you don't expect me to even remotely regard them as neutral. Not saying for a minute that biased people can't get things right sometimes. But let's stay real, eh? Why are you in denial here?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 06:52 PM

" Don't you think that UN Watch might just be a wee bit biased?"

Anyone who attempts to be NOT biased & neutral and point out the flaws on BOTH side gets branded as stupid or wishy-washy or something worse. This has gone on so long now that no one even has any idea how to sort out who is 'more at fault'.
So many nations have an *interest* in the area ...and *friendships* and *concerns*, that they cannot even pretend to see any point of view except their own. It become just what you read above... and in dozens of threads... a litany of "he hit me first" accusations.

The only fair solution(s) to the situation is/are actions which neither side would agree to. Bodes well for the future, hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 06:43 PM

"Do YOU think that the UN is unfair to Israel"

No I don't THINK it is unfair the evidence is clear.

"if so, why?"

See the fourth link in the post of 05 Mar 15 - 12:02 PM

"Why do you think that Israel gets told off so often?"

See above and:
Israel at the UN: A History of Biasand Progress

"Don't you think that UN Watch might just be a wee bit biased?"

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 06:14 PM

What's your point then? You have posted several times about resolution numbers this way and that but you are not saying what you think is wrong. This is a debating forum, not just a place for posting links without comment. Do YOU think that the UN is unfair to Israel, and, if so, why? Do numbers of resolutions alone prove that? Why do you think that Israel gets told off so often? Nothing to do with the fact that they never have to comply because their main ally routinely uses its power to veto the resolutions (as well as rubbishing and undermining the UN at every opportunity)? Don't you think that UN Watch might just be a wee bit biased?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 05:59 PM

The UN resolutions are a matter of public record.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 05:45 PM

Sorry, Guest, but UN Watch is seriously, SERIOUSLY biased towards Israel whether you can stomach that or not. Read the biographies of the board members - see wiki. None so blind...

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 05:04 PM

See How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff and Irving Geis

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 03:51 PM

"Funny how UN Watch is funded by activists in the two countries that feel they can ignore UN when it suits them, even though one hosts UN and props up the other... "

Funny how you comment on who funds UN Watch and ignore the statistics it presents.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 03:44 PM

"Alleged collaboration with Israel[edit]
See also: Israel–South Africa Agreement
David Albright and Chris McGreal have claimed that South African projects to develop nuclear weapons during the 1970s and 1980s were undertaken with some cooperation from Israel.[11][12][13] The United Nations Security Council Resolution 418 of 4 November 1977 introduced a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, also requiring all states to refrain from "any co-operation with South Africa in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons".[14]

According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in 1977 Israel traded 30 grams of tritium for 50 tonnes of South African uranium[citation needed] and in the mid-1980s assisted with the development of the RSA-3 and RSA-4 ballistic missiles, which are similar to Israeli Shavit and Jericho missiles.[15] Also in 1977, according to foreign press reports, it was suspected that South Africa signed a pact with Israel that included the transfer of military technology and the manufacture of at least six nuclear bombs.[16]

In September 1979, a US Vela satellite detected a double flash over the Indian Ocean that was suspected, but never confirmed to be a nuclear test, despite extensive air sampling by WC-135 aircraft of the United States Air Force. If the Vela Incident was a nuclear test, South Africa is one of the countries, possibly in collaboration with Israel, that is suspected of carrying it out. No official confirmation of its being a nuclear test has been made by South Africa, and expert agencies[who?] have disagreed on their assessments. In 1997, South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad stated that South Africa had conducted a test, but later retracted his statement as being a report of rumours.[17]

In February 1994 Commodore Dieter Gerhardt, former commander of South Africa's Simon's Town naval base who was later convicted of spying for the USSR, was reported to have said:

"        Although I was not directly involved in planning or carrying out the operation, I learned unofficially that the flash was produced by an Israeli-South African test code-named Operation Phoenix. The explosion was clean and was not supposed to be detected. But they were not as smart as they thought, and the weather changed – so the Americans were able to pick it up.[18][19]        "
In 2000, Gerhardt claimed that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with "special warheads" for South Africa.[20]

In 2010, The Guardian released South African government documents that it alleged confirmed the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal. According to The Guardian, the documents were associated with an Israeli offer to sell South Africa nuclear weapons in 1975.[21][22] Israel categorically denied these allegations and said that the documents do not indicate any offer for a sale of nuclear weapons. Israeli President Shimon Peres said that The Guardian article was based on "selective interpretation... and not on concrete facts."[23] Avner Cohen, author of Israel and the Bomb and the forthcoming The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb, said "Nothing in the documents suggests there was an actual offer by Israel to sell nuclear weapons to the regime in Pretoria."[24]"

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 03:34 PM

"Ehmmmm No Christmas Israel and South Africa were co-operating on the development of a nuclear weapon for South Africa"
ERM - YES THEY WERE
Of course - the newspapers could be wrong in the face of your mass of evidence to the contrary (or should that be denial)
All beside the point anyway - A regime claiming to represent a people who underwent a process of mass extermination should not co-operate with right wing regime which has divided their country on racist grounds - what happened to the Jewish cry of "never again"?   
If you weren't such an belligerently arrogant little jobbie, perhaps you wouldn't look as stupid as you do with your foot in your mouth
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Musket
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 03:21 PM

Funny how UN Watch is funded by activists in the two countries that feel they can ignore UN when it suits them, even though one hosts UN and props up the other...

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 02:26 PM

I'm glad I opened this thread Guest....your posts are a delight.

I also think the American people in general still want to do good and I think their politicians sincerely believe what the song says....but it will all end in tears I'm sure.

Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy cynicism, especially when you are damned right. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,cynical
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 12:38 PM

There does seem to be a schism appearing within both parties concerning Iran?

I assume that any schism we're aware of is part of the show. As Chomsky said, there's a news hole, and you have to fill it every day or people worry. In reality, they'll do what they want to do about Iran and about everything else. Not that they aren't concerned about public opinion; they are, because they love us and want us to be happy. But that concern translates into shaping opinion rather than shaping policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST,cynical
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 12:28 PM

...is there no one in US politics capable of waking them up?

Everyone in US politics and the media is waking us up all the time. We're so sleep-deprived we can't think. But fortunately thousands of intelligent and highly educated people work all day long on shaping and implementing policy and marketing it to us. In order to communicate with each other without disturbing the marketing strategy, they speak in code. For example, they talk about trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and being a threat to its neighbors. I don't know what that's code for; I assume it has something to do with Iran's non-dollar oil bourse scheme and their government's popularity with the Muslim rank-and-file and the fact that in the event of a major war Iran couldn't be counted on to supply oil only to our allies; but all I really know is that it doesn't mean that they think Iran is developing nuclear weapons or would ever wage aggressive war.

By the way, I don't mean to be cynical... just inquisitive. And I don't think the people running our government are cynical. I think they want to do good, but they believe that you can't do good without power and so job number one is consolidating power, even if you do some not-so-good in the process. And I think they speak in code because they see us as little children who wouldn't understand certain things without a lot of explanation, and they're probably right about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 12:23 PM

Well, the board members of UN Watch (see Wiki on UN Watch: board and funding) are very heavily biased in favour of Israel. Not that that invalidates your links in any way, or passes judgement on their topics, but it's good to know where the information put up here comes from.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 12:02 PM

Hypocrisy: UN adopts 9 resolutions on Palestinians & Golan, yet silent on Syrian massacre of Palestinians

2014-2015 UNGA Session: 20 resolutions against Israel, 3 on rest of the world

22 UN General Assembly Resolutions Targeted Israel This Year, 4 for Rest of World, Holocaust Revisionist Endorsed

UN, Israel & Anti-Semitism

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 11:05 AM

if you read those UN Security Council Resolutions "against Israel", as you describe them

As I didn't describe them.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 10:35 AM

To clarify what I suspect you already know, when I too loosely used the term "EU" I meant Common Market/ EEC/EC/EU. And anything else it's been called, nice or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 10:27 AM

1: "Israel still won't admit that it's got the bomb. A sort of secret, eh?"

Nope it neither confirms or denies their existence.

What's "nope" supposed to mean? We're saying the same thing.

Now had either Iran or Iraq had nuclear weapons in 1984 do you think they might have been used? Iran get a nuclear weapon, then Saudi Arabia will get a weapon, then Egypt will get a weapon, etc, etc. World much better off Shaw?

Well they didn't so I won't respond to this silly conjecture.

making your idiotic contention - "I think the existence of the EU has prevented a major European conflagration but I can't prove it." - utterly risible.

If I say I think something then say I can't prove it, it isn't a "contention", is it?

In the interests of observing what would be considered as responding proportionately (UN Security Council requirement in the face of aggression) - you do not use a sledge hammer to crack a walnut.

Responding proportionately? Like Israeli regimes do all the time when irritated by their neighbours? There's no word for " proportionately" in the Zionist lexicon, I reckon!

Doesn't mean that if issued with the threat of the possible use of nuclear weapons had been issued I think "It would have deterred Argentina - It would work on Hamas faced with total destruction of their only toe-hold on earth (Amazing how being faced with a credible threat of total annihilation concentrates the mind) - It would work in a similar vein with Hezbollah - it might have saved a great deal of time, money and effort had the US response to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan been tactical nuclear (Maybe next time) - It would have worked on the North Vietnamese - And the threat of it most certainly did work against Saddam in 1991, Why do you think no CW or BW were used by the Iraqis in Desert Storm? - Rhetorical question; Saddam's pals the Soviets told him precisely what NATO's response to use of CW or BW weapons was - Tactical Nuclear which would have cost Saddam his country

So why don't we threaten every time then? Because we can't, that's why. Nuclear weapons are the opposite of " smart" and the good people of this planet will no longer buy that kind of warfare. The best you can come up with is that we don't threaten to use nukes, except for one time when the Russians told Saddam what we might do. Very funny.

Well you tell me Steve Shaw what war has been fought to date between two nuclear armed powers that has remained conventional? (Last shooting war between India and Pakistan was in 1999 - The Kargil War - India nuclear since 1974 with operational nuclear weapons; Pakistan only having carried out it's first nuclear test firing in 1998 had no operational delivery system). So instead of speculation I would say that the reason for no nuclear exchanges since Hiroshima and Nagasaki is down entirely to the fact that nuclear deterrence does work.

Instead of speculation? That IS speculation. What wars HAVE there been between two nuclear powers?

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 09:52 AM

"Steve Shaw - 05 Mar 15 - 06:02 AM"

1: "Israel still won't admit that it's got the bomb. A sort of secret, eh?"

Nope it neither confirms or denies their existence. But considering the tight corners that Israel has found itself in the past, particularly in 1967 and again in 1973 then any nuclear arsenal they possess there would appear to be many with extremely cool heads and nerves of steel in Israel charged with looking after those weapons.

Now had either Iran or Iraq had nuclear weapons in 1984 do you think they might have been used? Iran get a nuclear weapon, then Saudi Arabia will get a weapon, then Egypt will get a weapon, etc, etc. World much better off Shaw?

2: "The only trouble with this "deterrent" malarkey is that there's no evidence that it works."

Oh I don't know about that - The "Cold War" in Europe lasted from 1947 until 1991 and saw the nuclear arms race from start to finish without a single exchange - mainly due to the USA being the first to develop a weapon and due to the fact that the USA was the mainstay of NATO. The EU which did not come into existence until 1993, two years after the end of the "Cold war" - making your idiotic contention - "I think the existence of the EU has prevented a major European conflagration but I can't prove it." - utterly risible.

3: "It didn't work on Argentina, it doesn't work on Hamas, it doesn't work on Hezbollah, it didn't work on the 9-11 attackers, it doesn't work on the Taliban. It didn't work on the Vietcong or Saddam."

In the interests of observing what would be considered as responding proportionately (UN Security Council requirement in the face of aggression) - you do not use a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. Doesn't mean that if issued with the threat of the possible use of nuclear weapons had been issued I think "It would have deterred Argentina - It would work on Hamas faced with total destruction of their only toe-hold on earth (Amazing how being faced with a credible threat of total annihilation concentrates the mind) - It would work in a similar vein with Hezbollah - it might have saved a great deal of time, money and effort had the US response to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan been tactical nuclear (Maybe next time) - It would have worked on the North Vietnamese - And the threat of it most certainly did work against Saddam in 1991, Why do you think no CW or BW were used by the Iraqis in Desert Storm? - Rhetorical question; Saddam's pals the Soviets told him precisely what NATO's response to use of CW or BW weapons was - Tactical Nuclear which would have cost Saddam his country

4: "You think nuclear weapons deter attack. You can't prove that either."

Well you tell me Steve Shaw what war has been fought to date between two nuclear armed powers that has remained conventional? (Last shooting war between India and Pakistan was in 1999 - The Kargil War - India nuclear since 1974 with operational nuclear weapons; Pakistan only having carried out it's first nuclear test firing in 1998 had no operational delivery system). So instead of speculation I would say that the reason for no nuclear exchanges since Hiroshima and Nagasaki is down entirely to the fact that nuclear deterrence does work.

Subject: RE: BS: Netanyahu
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 09:24 AM

Google "Israel and the South African Bomb" for a good long read. There is no solid conclusion at the end but the piece highlights the reluctance of both sides to disclose material, as well as the destruction of documents.