Main Question or Discussion Point
Last edited by a moderator:
Because Pakistan, unlike Iran, does not hate Israel, does not want to eliminate Israel from the map, and does not give military and financial support to Hamas or Hizbollah.BTW, why is Israel not threatened by Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons?
Surely Israel would say they are threatened by Pakistani nuclear weapons, as is everyone else, but not to the immediate degree that a nuclear Iran would pose. Why the difference? That would be because Pakistan does not a) sponsor and control large scale guerilla military organizations like Hezbollah that openly state they want to destroy Israel, and b) Pakistan's president does not make statements that "denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map" - our President about Iran's president....BTW, why is Israel not threatened by Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons? ...
Scooped me!! Pakistan no doubt has made plenty of critical, even hateful(?), statements about Israeli policy.Because Pakistan, unlike Iran, does not hate Israel, does not want to eliminate Israel from the map, and does not give military and financial support to Hamas or Hizbollah.
Israel and Pakistan have had a much less adversarial relationship since the '70s and '80s, when Israel supplied and ran guns to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Pakistani president Zia ul-Haq is noted for having famously accepted Israel's help so long as the crates didn't have a "<bleeping> Star of David" on them ("quoting" from Charlie Wilson's War). The ISI and Mossad have reportedly been sharing intelligence since at least that time. And in recent years, Musharraf has significantly dialed down the rhetoric against Israel and neither Gilani nor Zardari seem likely to ramp it up again.BTW, why is Israel not threatened by Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons?
As for the Taliban gaining power in Pakistan ... if that happens Israel is hardly the only or even first place that needs to start worrying.Shmuel Bar said:Pakistan's nuclear capability, along with its radical Islamic body politic and involvement in encouraging radicalism, should have placed it high on Israel's list of potential strategic threats. However, even media references to the Pakistani nuclear program as the "Islamic bomb" did not affect Israel's basic policy: to view Pakistan more as a potential interlocutor than as a potential threat. Pakistan itself clarified on various occasions and at various levels that its nuclear capability is not intended to serve any but its own national security.
Diplomatic concessions, mutual self-assured destruction proclamations, and various other techniques that are modernized versions of what the USA used to defend itself against the nuclear bombs in the USSR. Really it should not be a concern for the US, anymore than 'how will Iran protect itself from Israel's nuclear bombs?'How, precisely, do you propose they defend themselves from a nuclear bomb?
The Iranians have antisemitic media, classic-style antisemitic cartoons, and a government that sponsors holocaust denial.The Iranians are not anti-semetic: they don't hate jews; they are anti-zionist: they don't believe that the modern state of Israel should exist.
I agree with the statements made in the first sentence but not that made in the second (well, it's just not true). Belief that a nation (rather than its people) ought to cease existing is not racist. Much of the US in the 60s and 70s had been hoping and working towards the eradication of the Soviet Union (the beef was with Communism, not the Russians, just as the issue here may be with Zionism rather than with Jews). Moreover, the "unlike any other state" clause is factually incorrect. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly thrown America into the list of countries that ought to cease existing (list=US, Israel), including in the speech where he fantasized that Israel be removed from the pages of history/face of earth. And "death to America" is hardly an unheard of phrase in Iran. Given that, I would say that the only evidence for anti-Semitism lies in the Holocaust denial and the cartoons (most of which - from my experience - are anti-Zionist, but some are certainly anti-Jew).The Iranians have antisemitic media, classic-style antisemitic cartoons, and a government that sponsors holocaust denial.
And their belief that the modern state of Israel, unlike any other modern state, should cease to exist is simply racist.
There have been jews in that region for centuries, if not longer as they claim. European jews aswell. They were oppressed and treated as second class citizens the majority of that time. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire the brits and french gave jews a say in the government. After that point there were only more and more violent clashes between arabs and jews because the arabs were not happy with the jews holding political power. When the jews fleeing persecution by Nazis in europe were denied immigration to palestine the plalestinian jews revolted and helped them immigrate illegally. The mass exodus was the last straw for the arabs, fearing a jewish majority, and civil war broke out. The jews finished the fight and declared themselves a sovereign nation which was immediately invaded. The Israelis then pushed their enemies back and took yet more territory and have since been using it as a buffer zone between themselves and their enemies. Its a long messy story and I am sure that jews attacked arabs as arabs attacked jews but really I see nothing particularly immoral about the manner in which Israel came about. Perhaps you can point it out to me.Also, I'm very open to moral arguments in favor of Israel's existence, in fact looking at the posts in this thread I can't help but feel I am missing some information. Please teach me why it is a good idea to support Israel.
The first strike would be possible because Iran's nuclear installations are under IAEA inspections, therefore everyone knows the exact locations of these installations. After an attack, Iran will withdraw from the NPT and then there would be no easily accessible information about the precise location of their nuclear installations.From the article: I'm comfortable with an endless string of temporary setbacks.
Of course it is.I agree with the statements made in the first sentence but not that made in the second (well, it's just not true). Belief that a nation (rather than its people) ought to cease existing is not racist.
Oh come off it …Much of the US in the 60s and 70s had been hoping and working towards the eradication of the Soviet Union …
Zionism is Jewish nationalism …… (the beef was with Communism, not the Russians, just as the issue here may be with Zionism rather than with Jews).
Googled, and found nothing … when and where has he said (repeatedly) that America should cease to exist?Ahmadinejad has repeatedly thrown America into the list of countries that ought to cease existing (list=US, Israel) …
You could just as well be describing the Saudi government here.They already have grievances. They're aggrieved when they see an unveiled woman, they're aggrieved when homosexuals and Jews are tolerated. I am not signing on to any big picture that claims the moral high ground lies in neutrality with all of that.