Israel must have freedom to act against Iran, Netanyahu says in Russia

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, dexterm said:

You're deflecting with whataboutery. The minister quoting Netanyahu was there...you weren't.

 

Russians and Iranians were invited to defend Syrian sovereignty. Israel wasn't and doesn't...hence the hypocrisy when it illegally annexes Syrian land.

 

How am I "deflecting"? That's exactly what appears in the OP and the bit you quoted. What does me not being there have to do with anything? You weren't there either.

 

And the minister wasn't "quoting Netanyahu", or at least, not just Netanyhu -

 

Quote

"The news agency, also citing the minister, said that Putin and Netanyahu both underlined the need to safeguard Syria's territorial integrity and sovereignty.

 

The point made, and which you deflected while complaining about imaginary deflections, was that Russia failed to express (at least as far as the OP goes) a similar sentiment to your own.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about alleged pro Israel lobbying group in the USA have been removed. 

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But that was 52 years ago, back in the last century.

 

This is 2019 and unless a country has declared war on Israel they have NO rights at all to attack Syria, Iran, Lebanon et al.

 

That doesn't matter to Israel as motormouth Trump will defend them to the last drop of somebody elses blood.

 

That would be a fine position, if it was applied to Israel adversaries as well. I fail to notice much outrage when it comes to Iran's usage of Syria as a front base, or it's support for hostile non-state agents. That's without taking into account the lack of peace agreements and longtime hostility between the parties.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Claims "debunked chestnut", uses debunked chestnut as support. About the usual fare.

You keep bringing up these faux points on numerous topics. So let's have another round.

 

There is no meaningful way in which "de-Zionising" Israel doesn't amount to anything but dismantling the country of Israel. You wish to go on one of your fantasy kumbaya rants in response - go right ahead. Note that it isn't what the topic is about, though.

 

You go on about Jews in Iran, while glossing over that they do not enjoy full freedoms (most notably when it comes to leaving the country), or that similarly, Israel got an even more sizeable Arab minority. And, if following your presentation, that this Israel's Arab minority isn't interested in emigrating either.

 

Quoting Iranian Jews on record, and expecting them to be anything but supportive of the Iranian regime is a choice. Iran's authorities are not particularly open to criticism, nor is the Jewish community interested in being targeted by them.

 

You continue to defend a country which has as its Nation Law the racist supremacy of one group over the majority indigenous population based purely on race/religion; I will continue to condemn that.

 

There are numerous ways in which Israel could continue to exist as a predominantly Jewish nation and a democracy. All acceptable to Iran.
But at the moment Israel wants its cake and to eat it too.

[Mavideol]

On 9/13/2019 at 9:09 AM, BestB said:

Russia also does not want Iranian bases in Syria and has openly said so numerous times . 

and yet the Iranians are still there .... can't trust anything out of Putin's mouth, same as Trump

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, dexterm said:

You continue to defend a country which has as its Nation Law the racist supremacy of one group over the majority indigenous population based purely on race/religion; I will continue to condemn that.

 

There are numerous ways in which Israel could continue to exist as a predominantly Jewish nation and a democracy. All acceptable to Iran.
But at the moment Israel wants its cake and to eat it too.

 

I'm not "defending" the country so much as countering your agenda-driven, off-topic deluge of nonsense. Apparently you also do not see the irony of you making such comments while "defending" that bastion of human rights and liberalism - Iran.

 

The topic, despite your valiant efforts to hijack it, is not actually about Israel's domestic affairs, or even a whole lot to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, BestB said:

Do you claim israel threatened to use nukes or wanted to wipe Iran off the maps ? If so, show proof 

Why would they have (undeclared) nukes if they would never ever use them?

They could dismantle the nukes, sell the radioactive material to the USA, safe a lot of money and live happily ever after.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why would they have (undeclared) nukes if they would never ever use them?

They could dismantle the nukes, sell the radioactive material to the USA, safe a lot of money and live happily ever after.

 

You could make the same nonsense argument with regard to any country having nuclear arms. It would still have little to do with reality, however.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

As for "fair fights" - Iran is far richer and larger than Israel.

Does the USA also send military hardware for billions of USD every year to Iran? We all know the answer.

 

And why does the USA support Israel which has (undeclared) nukes but has strong sanctions against Iran which does not have such weapons?

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

You could make the same nonsense argument with regard to any country having nuclear arms. It would still have little to do with reality, however.

Except that Israel officially does not acknowledge that they have nukes. They kind of pretend they don't have them.

And at the same time they complain about other countries which might or might not aspire to have nukes but are far away from actually having them.

Sanctions or support should be based on reality. Sanction countries with nukes and support countries without nukes. But obviously Israel and USA don't like that.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Does the USA also send military hardware for billions of USD every year to Iran? We all know the answer.

 

And why does the USA support Israel which has (undeclared) nukes but has strong sanctions against Iran which does not have such weapons?

 

The topic isn't about USA support for Israel. It's about the Israeli Prime Minister heading to Russia in order to seek greater leeway for acting against Iran. You seem to comment on anything but.

 

The USA doesn't "send military hardware" to Israel, but sort of subsidized Israeli military purchases in the USA. If you've got issues with that, contact your state representatives.

 

But even the faulty rendition you went for makes my point - you claim you wish a "fair fight", but bring up an issue which can be seen as balancing the discrepancy (as finances go) between Israel and its adversaries.

 

We've been over the issue of the USA's problematic position regarding Israel's nuclear arms on multiple topics. That you pretend it was addressed is cute. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the topic at hand.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Except that Israel officially does not acknowledge that they have nukes. They kind of pretend they don't have them.

And at the same time they complain about other countries which might or might not aspire to have nukes but are far away from actually having them.

Sanctions or support should be based on reality. Sanction countries with nukes and support countries without nukes. But obviously Israel and USA don't like that.

 

Obviously, the topic isn't about the USA. Obvious too, that for some posters its always about the USA.

 

The new version of the nonsense argument doesn't relate to the prescribed nonsense solution offered in your previous post.

 

I don't think Israel's position on the issue of nuclear proliferation is morally defensible. Then again, I don't see many issues pertaining to war, nuclear proliferation and international relations as being predominantly based on morals. Same can be said toward the USA's position regarding Israel's nuclear arsenal.

 

It may come as a shock to some, but World affairs have more to do with interests, pragmatism and takes that favor realism over ideology and moralizing.

 

Other than in your (and other posters) nonsense posts, pro-proliferation is a bad notion. Same goes for prioritizing nuclear disarmament over non-proliferation efforts. 

[Jack Mountain]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

It may come as a shock to some, but World affairs have more to do with interests, pragmatism and takes that favor realism over ideology and moralizing.

 

 

It's not a shock, we can see that everyday but it's still moralizing by the wrong mindset of morality.

[BestB]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

 

Unofficially, Tel Aviv wants everyone to know it has them, and doesn’t hesitate to make thinly-veiled references to its willingness to use them if confronted by an existential threat. Estimates on the size of Tel Aviv’s nuclear stockpile range from 80 to 300 nuclear weapons, the latter number exceeding China’s arsenal.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/israel-might-have-many-300-nuclear-weapons-and-some-are-ocean-27011

 

In total, the SIPRI report estimated that Israel possesses between 80 and 90 nuclear weapons, an increase over previous years. SIPRI was unable, however, to confirm those estimates with Israel’s government, which has a long-standing policy of refusing to comment on its nuclear weapons program — a policy it describes as “nuclear ambiguity.”

 

https://www.mintpressnews.com/international-watchdog-finds-israel-has-nearly-100-nuclear-weapons/259274/

Again. All you cheerleaders need to pick a number and stick to it . 200, 100, 80-300, over 200.

 

If all you doing is playing a guessing game, sorry to say there is no prize for correct one as no one knows, so why insist on playing is still puzzling 

[BestB]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why would they have (undeclared) nukes if they would never ever use them?

They could dismantle the nukes, sell the radioactive material to the USA, safe a lot of money and live happily ever after.

That was not my question , why would you deflect? and why it should be sold to USA?

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, sanemax said:

Well sort of , I went to Dimona....................and had better not say anymore

Very true, if you utter anything about the nukes you wont see daylight again. Thats how israel deals with the truth.

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, BestB said:

Do you claim israel threatened to use nukes or wanted to wipe Iran off the maps ? If so, show proof 

Now how would israel threaten to use nukes when it wont admit it has them and wont allow inspections.

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The World may accept preemptive strikes, I don't think this extends to condoning use of nuclear arms. A conventional strike targeting nuclear arms project is one thing, a nuclear strike aiming to wipe out a whole country is another.

Well if you say so it must be true. 

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not "defending" the country so much as countering your agenda-driven, off-topic deluge of nonsense. Apparently you also do not see the irony of you making such comments while "defending" that bastion of human rights and liberalism - Iran.

 

The topic, despite your valiant efforts to hijack it, is not actually about Israel's domestic affairs, or even a whole lot to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Your agenda is clear to see.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Jack Mountain said:

It's not a shock, we can see that everyday but it's still moralizing by the wrong mindset of morality.

 

It's more about you quoting a small part of my post out of context, so that you could respond with a meaningless one-liner. You've nothing of substance to add, other than vague insinuations.

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Very true, if you utter anything about the nukes you wont see daylight again. Thats how israel deals with the truth.

 

More nonsense. There's a lot of commentary about on Israel's nuclear arms. You don't see the authors getting thrown in prison or killed. If you're gonna bring up Vanunu's case - he was under obligation to keep secrecy, quiet a different matter. Rather telling no other prominent examples are forthcoming.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Now how would israel threaten to use nukes when it wont admit it has them and wont allow inspections.

 

What's your point? I mean other than playing word games?

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Well if you say so it must be true. 

 

It is true, and it's got nothing to do with what "I say". An attack using nuclear arms will be internationally condemned for sure - regardless of which country initiates it. A conventional strike may be objected to, but not to the same degree and maybe not wall-to-wall agreement on that either.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Your agenda is clear to see.

 

Says an obvious troll who doesn't contribute much to the topic. Again, kinda funny going on about my supposed "clear" agenda, while ignoring the poster I responded to (never mind yourself) are pushing one.

 

Troll harder.

[BestB]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Now how would israel threaten to use nukes when it wont admit it has them and wont allow inspections.

So make up your mind. 

 

Either Israel has nukes and threaten Iran or does not.

 

stop flip flopping 

[BestB]

3 hours ago, Mavideol said:

and yet the Iranians are still there .... can't trust anything out of Putin's mouth, same as Trump

The relations have been strained because of it between the 2. Iranians are still there but no base 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

Your agenda is clear to see.

It always has been on TVF.

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, BestB said:

So make up your mind. 

 

Either Israel has nukes and threaten Iran or does not.

 

stop flip flopping 

Not admitting to having them and not having them are two different things.

[sanemax]

On 9/14/2019 at 8:24 PM, Sujo said:

Now how would israel threaten to use nukes when it wont admit it has them and wont allow inspections.

Could you work that out for yourself , if not , I will explain to you

[batata]

7 hours ago, Jack Mountain said:

Just for clarity, Iran is a Persian country not an Arab one ...

..... and thus worse than the Arabs