• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Netanyahu cancels trip to Obama's nuclear summit

alexa said:
I see your point now that it has been made clear her reason for not attending was because pressure was to be put on her to sign the npt. ;)
Click to expand...

Alexa,

Israel will be attending the conference, though with a lower-level delegation.

Israel's strategic posture is one of deliberate ambiguity when it comes to nuclear weapons. Israel has adopted such a policy for a variety of reasons including deterrence created by possible possession of such weapons, avoiding an explicit declaration that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race, etc. Signing the NPT would not lead to Israel's having to eliminate its nuclear arsenal, as it would enter the NPT as a pre-existing nuclear power. However, it would be irreconcilable with its basic strategic doctrine, as such a move would eliminate any room for ambiguity. Israel still believes that ambiguity makes a contribution to its vital security needs.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Alexa,

Israel will be attending the conference, though with a lower-level delegation.

Israel's strategic posture is one of deliberate ambiguity when it comes to nuclear weapons. Israel has adopted such a policy for a variety of reasons including deterrence created by possible possession of such weapons, avoiding an explicit declaration that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race, etc. Signing the NPT would not lead to Israel's having to eliminate its nuclear arsenal, as it would enter the NPT as a pre-existing nuclear power. However, it would be irreconcilable with its basic strategic doctrine, as such a move would eliminate any room for ambiguity. Israel still believes that ambiguity makes a contribution to its vital security needs.
Click to expand...

Maybe, and I do understand that Israel has a need to keep herself safe and everyone believing she has nuclear weapons may be a part of that, so please take it that I am recognising that.

However, ambiguity also causes problems. It could mean that while other Middle Eastern countries signed NPT Israel did not because she did not yet have nuclear weapons...allowing other Middle eastern countries to think why should I not have weapons if Israel has got them after I signed up to NPT and Iran is getting them now too.

Tashah I notice said that if Israel had Nuclear weapons she had them already before 1969/70, but how would we know if this was true?

Obviously it is also necessary that Nations say whether they have them and sign up for NPT even if they do have them, so that we can hopefully start reducing them with the hope of eventually getting rid of the ability to destroy the world in a few seconds.

So while Israel's position may suit Israel, as everyone knows she has nuclear weapons anyway, would it not be simpler if she just acknowledged it like everyone else, unless of course, which I very much doubt, she does not have them. Then it would possibly be a very good idea to remain quiet.
 
alexa said:
Tashah I notice said that if Israel had Nuclear weapons she had them already before 1969/70, but how would we know if this was true?
Click to expand...
Scientific documentation and internal government memos. In addition, nuclear physicists from both France and the United States knew in 1965 that Israel already possessed both the fissile material and the requisite bomb components. The only thing lacking was a means of delivery which was solved by 1968 at the very latest.

Don't forget that Jewish physicists were instrumental in developing nuclear weapons for both the United States and Russia. Israel has never had a shortage of physicists (I am a physicist myself).
 
PeteEU said:
what a coward. Cancelling because he does not want to admit that Israel has nukes.. pathetic coward.
Click to expand...

How petty. Obama's nuclear summit isn't supposed to be about Israel, in case you were wondering.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Alexa,

Israel will be attending the conference, though with a lower-level delegation.

Israel's strategic posture is one of deliberate ambiguity when it comes to nuclear weapons. Israel has adopted such a policy for a variety of reasons including deterrence created by possible possession of such weapons, avoiding an explicit declaration that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race, etc. Signing the NPT would not lead to Israel's having to eliminate its nuclear arsenal, as it would enter the NPT as a pre-existing nuclear power. However, it would be irreconcilable with its basic strategic doctrine, as such a move would eliminate any room for ambiguity. Israel still believes that ambiguity makes a contribution to its vital security needs.
Click to expand...

Honest question, since this confuses me. How is being unambiguously ambiguous a strategy? I mean, every one knows Israel has nukes, there is no real ambiguity there. So how does not admitting it effect strategy, outside of the NPT, and would signing the NPT have an effect on the number of nukes Israel could have?
 
Gander said:
How petty. Obama's nuclear summit isn't supposed to be about Israel, in case you were wondering.
Click to expand...

And yet it is now... because Israel made it so.. /clap the coward Netanyahu.
 
concerning the title of this thread, netanyahu cancels trip to obama's nuclear summit:

today on fns jiltin joe lieberman, hands down israel's #1 inside-the-beltway loyalist for decades, announced that he has just sent a letter to president pie-in-the-face objecting to the administration's "offensive" rewriting of natl security docs stripping terms like "islamic extremism" from them

failing to call terrorists exactly what they are, asserts jf kerry's veep pick, is "dishonest, wrong-headed and disrespectful to the majority of muslims who are not terrorists"

FOXNews.com - Lieberman: Omitting 'Islamic' Terrorism From Security Document Dishonest, 'Offensive'

the chair of homeland security, questioned by fnc's chris wallace (son of 60 minutes mike), continued:

Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday" this isn't the first time the Obama administration has tried to tiptoe around referring to Islam in its security documents and that it's time to "blow the whistle" on the trend.

"This is not honest and, frankly, I think it's hurtful in our relations with the Muslim world," Lieberman said. "We're not in a war against Islam. It's a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists."

Lieberman, in his letter, noted that prior Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon documents also did not refer to "Islamist extremism." He expressed dismay that the administration's review of the Fort Hood shooting, in which alleged shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan was said to have had contact with a radical cleric beforehand, omitted the term.

"Unless we're honest about that, we're not going to be able to defeat this enemy," Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday." "It's absolutely Orwellian and counterproductive to the fight that we're fighting."
Click to expand...

lieberman's right

obama is wildly and weirdly pro muslim

bibi's a badass

you don't stick it to aipac, domestically speaking, for nothing

obama should know this, it's common knowledge, politics 101

and yet you can see SURPRISE visibly register in this white house's wide-eyed countenance

rank amateurs

the point is---the party will NOT follow the president over another ambitious, obamite abyss

not after health care

ahab harpooned his moby, and that's all he'll get

at this point, initiative is non starter that does not have the express approval specifically of john mccain

because democrats will not go for their leaders again without COVER

you can see agenda's end in cap and trade, reg reform, the bank tax, the debt commission...

the trial of ksm downtown, the mirandizing of murderous mullahs, the relegation of dadt...

the prosecution of the cia, the movement of yemenis to thompson, the closure of gitmo...

the party will not follow him, not on anything left of center

and you can see it here, vividly---his start treaty, which has already stopped

http://video.ap.org/?f=VAAJN&PID=274QUjjQE9s4F01EhnAgUjU6CnYc1iGn

lieberman said today he wouldn't vote for it

putin will pull out over eastern sdi

which lieberman says we need to "protect our allies from iran"

it's all so complicated

Russia reserves opt-out of arms treaty with US - Yahoo! News

bit picture---the most incompetent leadership at a national level america has ever endured

hang in
 
Last edited:
Tashah said:
Cites please. Show us when Israel has ever outright denied having nuclear weapons. Israel has always neither confirmed nor denied nuclear capability.
Click to expand...

Give me a break, everyone knows Israel has nukes, but Israel refuses to say so. Not only is Israeli policy hypocritical, it is in fact urging other countries to behave just as bad and go for a nuke, because of the threat from Israel.

While Iran is being chastised for having a nuclear program that may or may not be able to make a nuke, and even stating.. we do not want to make a nuke, little old Israel gets a full free pass for hiding its nukes (officially) from the world for 40 or so years.

Just imagine if another nation had done that....

If Israel has nukes, they acquired this capability before the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1969/1970).
Click to expand...

Prove it.. officially Israel has no nukes. Hence if they were to admit they had, then they would be "forced" to go under the NPT. By not admitting it, they are free to sell/give their technology to others, which they have.

In the end all that has happened is that the NPT has been weakened because not all nuclear weapon nations are part of it, and hence other nations who develop the weapons can say.. why should we sign it when Israel does not?

Under the NPT guidelines, this would make Israel a pre-existing nuclear power with the same perks enjoyed by the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China. Israel has never proliferated in either nuclear technology or nuclear materials.
Click to expand...

Bull****. Israel sold/gave technology and knowhow to Apartheid South Africa. Of course there is no "proof" out there, but then again there is no "proof" Israel has nukes and yet we all know they do.

With the nascent rise of post-NPT nuclear states (North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran), the NPT is losing all credibility as more nations (Syria/Egypt/KSA) explore the nuclear option.
Click to expand...

It lost its credibility long ago because Israel never joined.
 
PeteEU said:
Give me a break, everyone knows Israel has nukes, but Israel refuses to say so. Not only is Israeli policy hypocritical, it is in fact urging other countries to behave just as bad and go for a nuke, because of the threat from Israel.

While Iran is being chastised for having a nuclear program that may or may not be able to make a nuke, and even stating.. we do not want to make a nuke, little old Israel gets a full free pass for hiding its nukes (officially) from the world for 40 or so years.

Just imagine if another nation had done that....



Prove it.. officially Israel has no nukes. Hence if they were to admit they had, then they would be "forced" to go under the NPT. By not admitting it, they are free to sell/give their technology to others, which they have.

In the end all that has happened is that the NPT has been weakened because not all nuclear weapon nations are part of it, and hence other nations who develop the weapons can say.. why should we sign it when Israel does not?



Bull****. Israel sold/gave technology and knowhow to Apartheid South Africa. Of course there is no "proof" out there, but then again there is no "proof" Israel has nukes and yet we all know they do.



It lost its credibility long ago because Israel never joined.
Click to expand...
All bull**** and conjecture. You're only bad boy in the whole world is Israel.

Gee, fancy that. I think Pew Global Research is right on the money regarding Spain and intolerance.
 
appears you struck a nerve there, pete

israel's refusal to acknowledge its nuclear arsenal is about to bite it in the butt
on one hand, it insists that iran should not be entitled to develop its own nuclear capacity; that iran needs to be monitored to ensure a weapons capability does not result
on the other hand, israel refuses to play by the same rules it would have the world impose on iran

what is the diplomatic term for 'tuff tushies'?
 
justabubba said:
appears you struck a nerve there, pete

israel's refusal to acknowledge its nuclear arsenal is about to bite it in the butt
on one hand, it insists that iran should not be entitled to develop its own nuclear capacity; that iran needs to be monitored to ensure a weapons capability does not result
on the other hand, israel refuses to play by the same rules it would have the world impose on iran

what is the diplomatic term for 'tuff tushies'?
Click to expand...

In this case, it's probably, "Go ahead and develop your nuclear weapons, and the delivery system to wipe us out. We already have nuclear weapons, we're watching you, and we'll nuke you before you get us."

It' a variation on the theme of, I've got the drop on you, the hammer is back, and the gun is aimed. Go ahead and draw.
 
Why does Israel refuse to declare it Nuclear weapons, and they want Iran to be watched? Israel are a bunch of hypocrites, if they want Iran to be watched they should also confuse to having the weapons in the first place.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
what a coward. Cancelling because he does not want to admit that Israel has nukes.. pathetic coward.
Click to expand...

This statement shows the kind of thinking Dumb ass Obama used to tell the world come and kill millions we'll just sit by and watch.

You never show your cards or make stupid statements about you capabilities to protect and defend your home.

It's like the monumentally stupid gun laws in Australia where all the guns were outlawed and the crime rates have soared since, because the bad guys know what to expect, no resistance.

Naive is too nice a word to describe Obama and his fellow Cultists.
 
Last edited:
obama's living in a fantasy world, he thinks he's woodrow wilson

and he's so UNFAMILIAR with american politics (he pissed off aipac, for no profit, didn't he), he doesn't seem to appreciate that the virulently racist progressive ex-president of princeton, at least on this internationalist approach, was a LOSER

while obama summons the someones and no ones to summit in dc to sing about his pretty nuke-free planet, his own senate makes his START with PUTIN a non-start

the treaty needs SIXTY SEVEN, for starters

and nuke agreements take FOREVER, there's no way this can be done before late 2011, if then

and SIX MONTHS from now the dems are gonna lose, according to rcp's polls of polls, EIGHT seats in upper house

now, it's true, the party in power may not lose that many (tho they may lose more)

but, either way, they're gonna have substantially fewer than the FIFTY NINE they have today

and no momentum

momentum, in fact, is certain to morph into a state of intimidation

obama's nuke summit is a narcissistic fantasy

which, at times like these...

well, it just doesn't look good

RealClearPolitics - Politics - Apr 11, 2010 - Senators question future of US-Soviet nuclear pact

RealClearPolitics - Video - Sen. Alexander: START Treaty Passage Will Not Happen This Year

RealClearPolitics - 2010 Election Maps - Senate No Toss Ups
 
Councilman said:
This statement shows the kind of thinking Dumb ass Obama used to tell the world come and kill millions we'll just sit by and watch.
Click to expand...

Obama told the world to come and kill millions while we sit by and watch?

When did that happen? Where" I must have missed it.

It must be that liberal media that doesn't report on stories like millions of people killed by invitation while we sit and watch.
 
PeteEU said:
And yet it is now... because Israel made it so.. /clap the coward Netanyahu.
Click to expand...

You live in an alternate universe. Only someone utterly detached from reality could claim that Israel made it about their nukes by refusing to make it about their nukes. No wonder no one above the age of twenty-five takes you anti-Israeli nuts seriously.
 
Redress said:
I mean, every one knows Israel has nukes, there is no real ambiguity there. So how does not admitting it effect strategy, outside of the NPT, and would signing the NPT have an effect on the number of nukes Israel could have?
Click to expand...

Redress,

There is a lower degree of certainty concerning an issue that is widely believed vs. one that is confirmed. It is widely believed that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal. Israel has not confirmed such possession, so there is an area of doubt.

I suspect that if Israel were to confirm its possession of nuclear weapons, one would witness enormous pressure on Israel to rid itself of such weapons (with a lot of grandstanding in such forums as the UN General Assembly) and a nuclear arms race could occur in the Middle East. The latter development might occur anyhow if Iran attains a nuclear weapons capability. If so, ambiguity serves Israel's purposes in that it has not led to the kind of international pressure tactics that have been applied elsewhere, even when Israel has been trying to defend itself against terrorists through passive means e.g., the security fence. Were Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability, there is a possibility that Israel might end its ambiguity, if it felt that such an approach would strengthen its capacity to deter Iran.
 
Gander said:
You live in an alternate universe. Only someone utterly detached from reality could claim that Israel made it about their nukes by refusing to make it about their nukes. No wonder no one above the age of twenty-five takes you anti-Israeli nuts seriously.
Click to expand...

HTML: 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteEU  
And yet it is now... because Israel made it so.. /clap the coward Netanyahu.

Not seeing how Petes statement makes him an anti Israeli! nut ?
 
PeteEU said:
Bull****. Israel sold/gave technology and knowhow to Apartheid South Africa. Of course there is no "proof" out there, but then again there is no "proof" Israel has nukes and yet we all know they do.
Click to expand...

Exactly, like there's no "proof" the bogeyman lives in my closet and yet we all know it does. O wait....

No its more like there's no "proof" Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim, and yet we all know he is. It just makes sense right?

For the record I wouldn't doubt Israel has nukes, but using that kind of logic can get you all sorts of crazy places.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
HTML: 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteEU  
And yet it is now... because Israel made it so.. /clap the coward Netanyahu.

Not seeing how Petes statement makes him an anti Israeli! nut ?
Click to expand...

Netanyahu didn't go to the summit because he didn't want his political enemies shifting the focus onto Israel's alleged nuclear program (which is NOT the purpose of Obama's summit). Pete interprets this as Israel making said summit about Israel's alleged nuclear program. Only someone who is detached from reality (a anti-Israeli nutbag) can claim that NOT shifting focus onto Israel's nuclear program is actually shifting focus onto Israel's nuclear program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom