General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[mortimer]

interesting that neither of you bit on the 'samsom option'.
it's kinda the elephant in the room.
i think is is worthy of discussion.

And? Do you think *any* nuclear-armed nation would hesitate to use their arsenal as a "last resort"? But it's only bad that Israel has that capability. Not North Korea, not Pakistan, not the UK (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort). Just Israel. Care to explain that?

 

[WildCat]

interesting that neither of you bit on the 'samsom option'.
it's kinda the elephant in the room.
i think is is worthy of discussion.

That "elephant in the room" is what has kept the Arab armies from trying to destroy Israel since 1972. Now they have to do it by funding and arming terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbullah to fight the Jews via proxy.

 

[Skeptic]

The "Samson Option" is a term used to describe Israel’s alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence

So? True for any nation which has nukes. That's sort of the point of having nukes, to deter others from destroying you.

 

[The Fool]

So? True for any nation which has nukes. That's sort of the point of having nukes, to deter others from destroying you.

The problem I have with Nukes is when they are controlled by people who have rather elastic and hidden standards of what "destroying you" means.....

As an example, you constantly refer to Israel being "destroyed" if it is no longer demographically "jewish" I have tried a few times to get you to describe how many non Jewish citizens in Israel it takes to "destroy" Israel.

also....you are constantly warning anyone who will listen of the need to take into account the danger of Israel being "wiped out" militarily when determining what must be done with the Palestinians.....I can only assume you are taking nuclear weapons into account when you talk down the capabilities of the IDF like that?

don't suppose you are at all interested in commenting?

 

[Matt Giwer]

So? True for any nation which has nukes. That's sort of the point of having nukes, to deter others from destroying you.

What is the value of a nuclear arms race in the middle east?

 

[angrysoba]

ironic..............
israel has never signed any treaties about nukes, and refuses to admit they have them.
the world's worst kept secret.
no one fusses over that.

and then there is the sampson option:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israel’s alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well.[1] Israel refuses to admit it has nuclear weapons or to describe how it would use them, an official policy of nuclear ambiguity, also known as "nuclear opacity." This has made it difficult for anyone outside the Israeli government to definitively describe its true nuclear policy, while still allowing Israel to influence the perceptions, strategies and actions of other governments.[2]

israel has never signed any treaties about nukes

Good. Then they're not bound to any treaties. Other countries have joined the NPT and then broken the terms of the treaty. But as you might say:

no one fusses over that.

No. They don't.

[Israel] refuses to admit they have them.

So what? Iran refuses to admit it has a nuclear weapons programme. But I suppose:

no one fusses over that.

the world's worst kept secret.

Now you're condemning Israel for lack of secrecy?

The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israel’s alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well.

The Samson Option is, therefore, no different from MAD - or Mutually Assured Destruction.

The US and the USSR both had Samson Options during the Cold War. Cuba also, if MacNamara is to be believed was told by the Cubans that in the event of a full-scale invasion the Cubans would have wanted to launch an all-out nuclear attack even if the resulting exchange destroyed them. MacNamara even used the expression, "You mean you would have pulled down the whole temple on yourselves?" to describe the Cuban war plans.

But, I forget...

no one fusses over that.

 

[DC]

Go back and see what you were replying to and the somewhat incoherent question you posed (ie disconnect between the 2, a usual tactic employed by you):

I'm going on a limb here, but I take it 'good way' meant that building a security barrier along defensible 'borders' (not official or permanent that is) is not a 'good way' to mending the supposed peace negotiations between Israel and the PA.

If this were the question, I would say its totally irrelevant to peace negotiations due to the PA/Hamas schism, the continued calls for Israel's destruction, be it by jihad or passive reluctance to force Israel to allow in 3-7 million self-proclaimed 'refugees' into Israel proper, and the continued rewriting of history as (recently) seen here, yet again:

Netanyahu calls Abbas op-ed 'callous falsification of fact'

On top of the usual deflecting you do by posing these somewhat incoherent questions, I find this use of the security barrier, its route (and re-routing), just as irrelevant, and actually used as an excuse, to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as Abbas and the rest of the PA squabbling on about how building housing complexes in J'lem and existing 'settlement' boundaries is an impedement to peace.

I do, however, feel that you've known this for quite a while. So I answered your question, yet again.

Any other clarifications needed?

On a side-note, I can't believe Mycroft called you an 'objective neutral' regarding this topic. Far from it. Especially the usual crickets with that Ben Gurion quote AUP hacked up and delivered on the propaganda platter....

i guess that means, you think its a good idea to build this abrrier on disputed land.

what is your problem with me linking the quote AUP brought up?
i think what was quoted made sense. I wish it would be different, and Palestinains and Israelis could be living in peace next to eachother. But that is not the case atm.

but with things like building a barrier on disputed land you do not work towards long lasting peace, its more like giving ammunition to others.

and no i am not neutral, i am biased towards peace and a solution for both Nations, Israel and Palestina.

 

[a_unique_person]

i guess that means, you think its a good idea to build this abrrier on disputed land.

what is your problem with me linking the quote AUP brought up?
i think what was quoted made sense. I wish it would be different, and Palestinains and Israelis could be living in peace next to eachother. But that is not the case atm.

but with things like building a barrier on disputed land you do not work towards long lasting peace, its more like giving ammunition to others.

and no i am not neutral, i am biased towards peace and a solution for both Nations, Israel and Palestina.

Sorry DC, you just don't make the grade. That must make you an anti-semite, according to the Official Anti Semite Grading and Damning officers we have here. Why do you want to see Jews die? No other reason comes to mind for your statements, so that must be what you want. That is the official standard of evidence we have come to accept, and praise, here.

 

[bikerdruid]

So what? Iran refuses to admit it has a nuclear weapons programme. But I suppose

you are trying to make a point that is silly.
no one fusses about iran and north korea, over their nuke programs?

dude....you are really not paying attention......everyone fusses over them....

 

[Mycroft]

Sorry DC, you just don't make the grade. That must make you an anti-semite, according to the Official Anti Semite Grading and Damning officers we have here. Why do you want to see Jews die? No other reason comes to mind for your statements, so that must be what you want. That is the official standard of evidence we have come to accept, and praise, here.

Again, fail.

I disagree with DC on many issues, but I respect him in that he seems to approach the issues with a sense of honest inquiry rather than just rationalizing an anti-Israel point of view. In my opinion, he is certainly willing to challenge someone if he doesn't think their reasoning stands up, but he also seems to pay attention to that persons response and give it some credence if it's good enough. That may not rise to the level of "objective" in the eyes of Skeptic or bigjelmapro, but neither is it going to get him labeled as an anti-Semite.

 

[Mycroft]

you are trying to make a point that is silly.
no one fusses about iran and north korea, over their nuke programs?

dude....you are really not paying attention......everyone fusses over them....

Quite a lot of people fuss over Israel's program too.

 

[Stout]

Late to the party but...

Great post at 3364 Mycroft.

 

[Mycroft]

don't suppose you are at all interested in commenting?

Absolutely. Let's see how long you can refrain from picking up your toys and going home this time.

The problem I have with Nukes is when they are controlled by people who have rather elastic and hidden standards of what "destroying you" means.....

As an example, you constantly refer to Israel being "destroyed" if it is no longer demographically "jewish" I have tried a few times to get you to describe how many non Jewish citizens in Israel it takes to "destroy" Israel.

So...what do you think the odds are of Israel using nuclear weapons in response to Israel being "destroyed" in a demographic sense?

My personal opinion, because otherwise you might accuse me of not having an opinion, is the odds are exactly zero. Further, I believe the suggestion that Israel might use nuclear weapons that way ranks among the most silly things I've ever heard.

Obviously you feel differently, so please quantify the threat for us. Do you feel the odds are 5%? 25%? More? Do you think the danger is so severe that Palestinians should be warned of this new and unique danger of not using birth control? If not, why not?

 

[Mycroft]

interesting that neither of you bit on the 'samsom option'.
it's kinda the elephant in the room.
i think is is worthy of discussion.

I think the "elephant in the room" is the unspoken question of why you think it's bad that Israel have this deterrent.

Can you answer that?

 

[bikerdruid]

I think the "elephant in the room" is the unspoken question of why you think it's bad that Israel have this deterrent.

Can you answer that?

because they seem to have no problem with killing unarmed civilians, i don't believe that they can be trusted.

the point is that they are the only 'ally' we have that is nuke capable, but not honest about it.

 

[angrysoba]

you are trying to make a point that is silly.
no one fusses about iran and north korea, over their nuke programs?

dude....you are really not paying attention......everyone fusses over them....

Well, they shouldn't have signed the NPT if they were going to flagrantly violate it. But as a signatory to the NPT, Iran can hardly complain about the IAEA wanting to inspect its sites.

As a non-signatory to the NPT, the IAEA has no reason to inspect Israel's sites. But your bouts of hyperbole don't serve you well. It isn't true that nobody fusses over Israel's nuclear weapons. People fuss about them all the time.

North Korea also gets no IAEA visits any more.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2003/inspectorsrecall20030103.html

They do enjoy a jolly good nuclear test from time to time and a launch of their delivery system - the Taepodong.

Also, I doubt anyone was fussing much over Syria's nuclear program until the Israelis blew it up.

 

[bikerdruid]

They do enjoy a jolly good nuclear test from time to time and a launch of their delivery system - the Taepodong.

not much of a threat.

 

[A'isha]

My personal opinion, because otherwise you might accuse me of not having an opinion, is the odds are exactly zero. Further, I believe the suggestion that Israel might use nuclear weapons that way ranks among the most silly things I've ever heard.

No kidding.

"There are too many non-Jews in Jerusalem! We'd better nuke the place before it's too late and they destroy it!"

 

[Mycroft]

because they seem to have no problem with killing unarmed civilians, i don't believe that they can be trusted.

Trusted in what way? Do you believe Israel will just arbitrarily nuke some city?

the point is that they are the only 'ally' we have that is nuke capable, but not honest about it.

In what way should they be "honest" and how would that help anything?

 

[Mycroft]

No kidding.

"There are too many non-Jews in Jerusalem! We'd better nuke the place before it's too late and they destroy it!"

Truthfully, I've been giggling over it all morning.

Going sightseeing in Israel? Better pack that SPF 3000 sunscreen. The Arab population is getting kinda high and you never know what could happen. It couldn't hurt to find out what kind of lead shielding your hotel has too. Always know the location of the nearest fallout shelter, just in case.

If I had less of a life, I'd be tempted to infiltrate some white supremacist website and see if I could get them to bite on this nonsense. I bet it's too crazy even for them.