• 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!

Should Israel be required to sign the NPT? [W:348]

Should Israel be required to sign the NPT


  • Total voters
    41
I have had the chance to think about it a bit. I think they can be made a party to the NPT as a nuclear weapons state if they can prove that they actually had them before the NPT and demonstrate exactly how they were able to produce them. That seems to be the only practical way forward because they are not going to give them up.

Yeah, that could be an answer, if it ever becomes necessary.
 
An idiotic deduction clearly considering chocolate and pasta are allowed into the Gaza Strip at present.
Those two items were only allowed in starting around 2010 after a worldwide outcry. So tell me, how does banning chocolate and pasta stop terrorism? Seems more like an example of Isreali state terrorism at work.

Cement however is blockaded and only allowed through manageable channels, as Hamas indeed makes rockets and tunnels using the material.
First you claimed that chocolate and pasta was banned due to Hamas making rockets out of them and now youre saying cement is only allowed in limited quantities because Hamas makes rockets out of them. One idiotic statement followed by another. :screwy

It is frivolous to believe that whether or not a state is a Democracy has anything to do with blockading a territory controlled by terrorists.
Blockading a territory just because you didnt like who was voted in democratically is pretty much illegal, there's nothing frivolous about that.

These ridiculous baseless assertions are fitting the mentality of terror-supporters which is clearly attracted to conspiracy theories by nature.
Not everyone is a believer in Isreali state propaganda. Sorry to burst your bubble.

This is like claiming that the US is worse than al-Qaeda.
Such statement will obviously be a show of support for al-Qaeda.
I do not support terrorism of any kind, whether it is state terrorism or religious terrorism, you on the other hand are an ardent supporter of warcriminals.
 
Those two items were only allowed in starting around 2010 after a worldwide outcry. So tell me, how does banning chocolate and pasta stop terrorism? Seems more like an example of Isreali state terrorism at work.

You don't know then what state terrorism means.
Regardless you have admitted that chocolate and pasta is no longer banned, so there is no relevancy to your argument. As to the irrelevant question, the blockade on Gaza in 2007-2009 was a blockade on civilian goods (hence including chocolate and pasta) and not only a military blockade, meant to cripple Hamas' economical capabilities and thus reduce its ability to project terror, however there was little point to it as Hamas just used the tunnels to smuggle and make such blockade ineffective. The blockade in its current form is extremely justified.

First you claimed that chocolate and pasta was banned due to Hamas making rockets out of them and now youre saying cement is only allowed in limited quantities because Hamas makes rockets out of them. One idiotic statement followed by another.

Calling an obvious fact of reality "idiotic" is extremely idiotic on its own. Hamas does indeed make use of cement for the purpose of terrorism.
IDF: Cement used by Hamas for tunnels could build 100 kindergartens - Israel News, Ynetnews
Hamas uses other materials that are considered "dual-use" (as in used for both military and civilian purposes) for building rockets. These items are, like cement, allowed in only through means that give Israel the ability to see what they are used for. That too is extremely justified.

Blockading a territory just because you didnt like who was voted in democratically is pretty much illegal, there's nothing frivolous about that.

There is, as Israel and Egypt blockade Gaza due to it being controlled and governed by terrorists - not because they merely "do not like" Hamas. The very assertion is ridiculously stupid.

Not everyone is a believer in Isreali state propaganda. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I had no intention to imply that those who promote anti-Israeli propaganda are able to accept reality.

I do not support terrorism of any kind, whether it is state terrorism or religious terrorism, you on the other hand are an ardent supporter of warcriminals.

Neither the first claim nor the last one hold any truth to them.
Crying over terrorists who are killed is indeed supporting terrorism, so is claiming that they are better than a western liberal democracy. Claiming that people have a right to defend themselves is not, in any way, "supporting war-criminals". Claiming they do not - is.:shrug:
 
Claiming that people have a right to defend themselves is not, in any way, "supporting war-criminals".

Although it was not said specifically, and is certainly not the subject of this thread, there is substance to the claim that Ariel Sharon is a war criminal. That is not some wild, delusional, conspiracy theory.
 
Although it was not said specifically, and is certainly not the subject of this thread, there is substance to the claim that Ariel Sharon is a war criminal. That is not some wild, delusional, conspiracy theory.

He was responsible for not acting to stop a massacre committed by another party at one time, and for being irresponsible on another.
Not of war crimes on his own. So delusional it is.
 
He was responsible for not acting to stop a massacre committed by another party at one time, and for being irresponsible on another.
Not of war crimes on his own. So delusional it is.

The notion that he did not act to stop a massacre is an interpretation of the evidence. The evidence could be interpreted such that he deliberately sent the Phalangist militias in to massacre innocent civilians. It is not delusional to interpret the facts in that way. Of course, because of your irrational bias, you will refuse to acknowledge that.

Furthermore, that is not the only war crime that Sharon could be legitimately accused of.
 
To anyone interested, here is verbatim from the Kahan Commission report

It is true that no clear warning Was provided by military intelligence or the Mossad about what might happen if the Phalangist forces entered the camps, and we will relate to this matter when we discuss the responsibility of the director of Military Intelligence and the head of the Mossad. But in our view, even without such warning, it is impossible to justify the Minister of Defense's disregard of the danger of a massacre. We will not repeat here what we have already said above about the widespread knowledge regarding the Phalangists' combat ethics, their feelings of hatred toward the Palestinians, and their leaders' plans for the future of the Palestinians when said leaders would assume power. Besides this general knowledge, the Defense Minister also had special reports from his not inconsiderable [number of] meetings with the Phalangist heads before Bashir's assassination.

To say he disregarded it is a generous interpretation towards Sharon. That is the very least one could conclude. One could also conclude that he sent them in deliberately to massacre innocent people. That is not a delusional interpretation.

But again, that is not the subject of this thread. That issue has been beat in the ground many times.
 
The evidence could be interpreted such that he deliberately sent the Phalangist militias in to massacre innocent civilians.

That is utter nonsense.

Furthermore, that is not the only war crime that Sharon could be legitimately accused of.

Only in two accidents was he acting inappropriately, at one time he was found at fault for not intervening and precluding a massacre and at another he was being irresponsible. Neither were war crimes. Delusional it is.
 
That is utter nonsense.

Like I said, irrational bias. I can understand the generous interpretation, but to say the notion is utter nonsense, sorry. There is simply no point in this discussion, but I knew that going in from past experience. Carry on.
 
Any rate, if the world is going to make serious efforts towards non-proliferation some sort of mechanism is going to have to be found to get some sort of handle on those states, like Israel, that have nuclear weapons but are not a party to the NPT. In Israel's case, there is a case to be made that they had the weapons before the NPT. What to be done about India and Pakistan, I don't know. North Korea's arsenal is small and in my opinion they would get rid of them if they were simply properly integrated in the the world economic and financial system.
 
Like I said, irrational bias. I can understand the generous interpretation, but to say the notion is utter nonsense, sorry. There is simply no point in this discussion, but I knew that going in from past experience. Carry on.

It's the fourth time now you've been demonstrating that you would call anyone who does not approve of you distorting the truth in a baseless manner "biased". You thus lack the credibility to be taken seriously. Good for you. There is no point in discussing baseless claims I will agree with that, so once you have something that doesn't fall under that definition that will be quite refreshing. Stick to the truth or continue being irrelevant; fully up to you.
 
It's the fourth time now you've been demonstrating that you would call anyone who does not approve of you distorting the truth in a baseless manner "biased".

No it's not a matter of approving of me distorting the truth. Neither is it a matter of approving of what I said. It is a matter of viewing facts and how they can be interpreted. It would be one thing to say that the interpretation that Sharon deliberately sent the Phalangists in is not necessarily true. It would be one thing to say that such an interpretation is flawed. But it is biased and irrational to say that it is utter nonsense, because that is a rational interpretation of the facts. The facts are that Sharon gave the order for them to go in. That is an indisputable fact. It is also an indisputable fact that the Kahan report has stated that Sharon knew full well that it was dangerous to send the Phalangists in but that he did so anyway. Putting those two FACTS together, namely that he gave the order to send them in and that the commission felt he knew the danger, it is rational to conclude that he could have done it on purpose. That is a rational, reasonable conclusion. To say that it is utter nonsense is irrational bias. It has nothing to do with approving of me distorting the truth. That is a distortion that has been created by your mind.
 
Last edited:
It would be one thing to say that the interpretation that Sharon deliberately sent the Phalangists in is not necessarily true. It would be one thing to say that such an interpretation is flawed. But it is biased and irrational to say that it is utter nonsense, because that is a rational interpretation of the facts. The facts are that Sharon gave the order for them to go in. That is an indisputable fact. It is also an indisputable fact that the Kahan report has stated that Sharon knew full well that it was dangerous to send the Phalangists in but that he did so anyway. Putting those two FACTS together, namely that he gave the order to send them in and that the commission felt he knew the danger, it is rational to conclude that he could have done it on purpose. That is a rational, reasonable conclusion. To say that it is utter nonsense is irrational bias. It has nothing to do with approving of me distorting the truth. That is a distortion that has been created by your mind.

Listen to yourself; "rational to conclude he could have done it on purpose". It's ridiculous. You've asserted that he had done it on purpose, that he is a war criminal, while you haven't based the assertion at all. Sure you claim that the assertion is based by bringing up the fact that he let them go in (given) and bringing up another claim that he knew it was dangerous (not given). One simply cannot draw a conclusion from those two facts that he wanted them to murder and massacre innocents and that he sent them in with the desire or hope that they would do so. The only war criminals in this case were thus obviously the Phalangists. Yet you distort the truth by making a baseless assertion - and as long as it isn't proven then hell yeah it's baseless - and claiming that anyone who calls out the nonsense in it is "biased". Ridiculous.
 
So you admit that you've twisted his words to suit your antisemitic agenda to portrayal Jews as Nazis. Good for you. :shrug:

That's not what I said, it appears your the one twisting things for your own agenda. By any estimation, the Jews should be the last people imprisoning and oppressing anybody. One would think that they knew the lessons of its horror more than any other people. Fascinating that you excuse prison camps for Palestinians due to your selfish hatred and bigotry towards the more indigenous people's of the land that the occupiers now hold siege to these last seven decades. What a pathetic position you occupy.
 
Yet you distort the truth by making a baseless assertion

Oh no. I based it on two indisputable facts. And although we are off the subject matter of this thread, we could talk about it some more. You see this isn't the only time Sharon has been responsible for a massacre of innocent women and children. Consider this

The Qibya massacre, known in Israel as Operation Shoshana, and also known as the Qibya incident, was a reprisal operation that occurred in October 1953 when Israeli troops under Ariel Sharon attacked the village of Qibya in the West Bank. At least sixty-nine Palestinian Arab villagers, two-thirds of them women and children, were killed.

You see if you really want to start to get into it, it's one of those things that forms a pattern of behavior. And we could go on and on about Mr Sharon and his grotesque history of violence towards innocent people. Indeed their is ample good, rational reason to view him as a butcher and a war criminal.
 
Now I should take the time to point out that one should well note that the Jews are the kind of people who would have a state, despite it's flaws, that would put such a report on it's website. I got that excerpt right from the Israeli government website. Indeed the Jewish people in various roles throughout the world tend to help practically form some of principles of good governance and some degree of justice. That report was rather damning of Sharon.
 
Now I should take the time to point out that one should well note that the Jews are the kind of people who would have a state, despite it's flaws, that would put such a report on it's website. I got that excerpt right from the Israeli government website. Indeed the Jewish people in various roles throughout the world tend to help practically form some of principles of good governance and some degree of justice. That report was rather damning of Sharon.
In light of the current Govt's policies, I haven't been in an Israel-defending mood for a few years.

Of course, your string is based on a Preposterous Israel-bashing premise.
No one can be 'forced' to sign the NPT, and those in it are free to withdraw.
Iran/Ayatollah Iran, REaffirmed the Treaty in the 90s Knowing Full well Israel had Nukes and they didn't.
The are free to Withdraw from it.
So making it mandatory for Israel TO join is just a piece of selective absurdity/hostility.

And when Israel developed Nukes it was (and still is) in a UNIQUE geostrategic situation. Literally, a few million surround by 50 times their number.
NO Country, including the USA or former USSR, Ever had a better justification for developing and possessing Nukes.

Now I see you Dragged up old Sabra and Shatilla.
Of course, that massacre was one of just SCORES of tit-for-tat massacres between Lebanese Christians and Muslims.
ie, the much LARGER but much LESS known 'Damour':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damour_massacre
Though I prefer the more gritty/GRAPHIC:Lebanese Forces : Historical Fact: The Massacre and Destruction of Damour
But hey, there was a Jew in the neighborhood for this one so, what the Hell "War Crimes!", "Genocide!", "Attica!"

What next? USS Liberty?
 
Last edited:
In light of the current Govt's policies, I haven't been in an Israel-defending mood for a few years.
At least youre open minded. I can respect that even though we differ on our opinions. Its a vast improvement over others here who seek to defend Isreal no matter what- even to the point of trying to justify the banning of chocolate and pasta is due to "terrorism".
 
That's not what I said, it appears your the one twisting things for your own agenda. By any estimation, the Jews should be the last people imprisoning and oppressing anybody. One would think that they knew the lessons of its horror more than any other people. Fascinating that you excuse prison camps for Palestinians due to your selfish hatred and bigotry towards the more indigenous people's of the land that the occupiers now hold siege to these last seven decades. What a pathetic position you occupy.

Hilarious, but no. You have indeed twisted the Prime Minister of the UK's words from saying that Gaza is a prison camp to saying that it is a concentration camp so you could then claim that "Jews are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them" in a blatant antisemitic primitive and repulsive manner. I find the very notion that you sincerely believe your position holds any morality in it at all to be insanely absurd as you are suggesting that Jews cannot defend themselves from terrorism and as you are comparing the act of self-defense employed by Jews to the act of mass genocide employed by the Nazis. You are a very sick individual with a very inhuman take on life. Pretty much it. But yeah sure go ahead and claim your words are being distorted when they are very well documented on these boards. Good luck with that mate.
 
Oh no. I based it on two indisputable facts.

The first is, the second? Not at all.

And although we are off the subject matter of this thread, we could talk about it some more. You see this isn't the only time Sharon has been responsible for a massacre of innocent women and children. Consider this

I've already referred to this. He was found at being irresponsible. Some drone strike conducted by America not long ago had killed a lot of civilians. Does that make Obama a war criminal? Or the commanders on the ground? Ridiculous.

You see if you really want to start to get into it, it's one of those things that forms a pattern of behavior. And we could go on and on about Mr Sharon and his grotesque history of violence towards innocent people. Indeed their is ample good, rational reason to view him as a butcher and a war criminal.

I've already stated beforehand that there were two incidents when he acted inappropriately; one was the massacres he did not preclude and one was the Qibya incident he was being irresponsible. Your refusal to admit that you have no case whatsoever to label the man a "war criminal" is ridiculous and very sad to watch.
 
In light of the current Govt's policies, I haven't been in an Israel-defending mood for a few years.

Of course, your string is based on a Preposterous Israel-bashing premise.
No one can be 'forced' to sign the NPT, and those in it are free to withdraw.
Iran/Ayatollah Iran, REaffirmed the Treaty in the 90s Knowing Full well Israel had Nukes and they didn't.
The are free to Withdraw from it.
So making it mandatory for Israel TO join is just a piece of selective absurdity/hostility.

And when Israel developed Nukes it was (and still is) in a UNIQUE geostrategic situation. Literally, a few million surround by 50 times their number.
NO Country, including the USA or former USSR, Ever had a better justification for developing and possessing Nukes.

Now I see you Dragged up old Sabra and Shatilla.
Of course, that massacre was one of just SCORES of tit-for-tat massacres between Lebanese Christians and Muslims.
ie, the much LARGER but much LESS known 'Damour':
Damour massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Though I prefer the more gritty/GRAPHIC:Lebanese Forces : Historical Fact: The Massacre and Destruction of Damour
But hey, there was a Jew in the neighborhood for this one so, what the Hell "War Crimes!", "Genocide!", "Attica!"

What next? USS Liberty?

Precisely.
Those who wish Israel to be "required" to sign it seek for a special standard regarding Israel that they seek not regarding any other nation.
It's meaningless. Nothing but an anti-Israeli hateful rant.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Friendly reminder that all discussions specific to the Israel and Palestine conflict are to be housed in the Middle East forum. Violation of these placement rules incur penalties. Any posts going forward that violate the Forum rules relating to I/P specific discussions will receive consequences.
 
Of course, your string is based on a Preposterous Israel-bashing premise.
No one can be 'forced' to sign the NPT, and those in it are free to withdraw.
Iran/Ayatollah Iran, REaffirmed the Treaty in the 90s Knowing Full well Israel had Nukes and they didn't.
The are free to Withdraw from it.
So making it mandatory for Israel TO join is just a piece of selective absurdity/hostility.

I said they could refuse it they wanted. Also I proposed them joining as a nuclear weapons state under certain conditions.

And when Israel developed Nukes it was (and still is) in a UNIQUE geostrategic situation. Literally, a few million surround by 50 times their number.
NO Country, including the USA or former USSR, Ever had a better justification for developing and possessing Nukes.

They haven't had to use any of their nuclear weapons so far. What do anticipate happening that will change that?

Now I see you Dragged up old Sabra and Shatilla.

Well its off limits in this thread now. But he kept pressing the issue.

What next? USS Liberty?

That is an interesting topic. Not for this thread.
 
Hilarious, but no. You have indeed twisted the Prime Minister of the UK's words from saying that Gaza is a prison camp to saying that it is a concentration camp so you could then claim that "Jews are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them" in a blatant antisemitic primitive and repulsive manner. I find the very notion that you sincerely believe your position holds any morality in it at all to be insanely absurd as you are suggesting that Jews cannot defend themselves from terrorism and as you are comparing the act of self-defense employed by Jews to the act of mass genocide employed by the Nazis. You are a very sick individual with a very inhuman take on life. Pretty much it. But yeah sure go ahead and claim your words are being distorted when they are very well documented on these boards. Good luck with that mate.

Deleted as per mod warning. Meet you in the other thread if you'd like.
 
Back
Top Bottom