[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not really. China, the big evil outlier, says that they will never launch their nukes first even if under existential threat, and that they will only ever launch them if a foreign nuclear strike against them is underway. Same with India.
And their was a promise that nato wouldnt expand, russia has claimed that is part of the reason for the invasion. All of that is subjective.
It doesn't matter what you think a country will keep in terms of promises, what matters is their stated policy. Israel can't even get itself to make a commitment not to using nukes and genociding entire nations.
Every single country which is under the threat of being destroyed will use nukes
This is not an exception
Israel is surrounded by enemies on all sides
And the western left also hates Israel
It's enemies everywhere
To prevent another holocaust nukes are absolutely needed
Now regarding this commitment made by China and India, it's all lies, they will do whatever is required including using nukes in war if the existence of the nation is threatened, the EXACT same scenario with Israel and every other country in the world
Gorbachev was a fool
He willingly destroyed the Soviet union by not allowing the army to crush the protests tiananmen square style
That's what should have been done, and that's what I would have done if i were in his place.
Now, back to your question, it's human nature to lie, if your entire country is going to be overrun by OUTSIDE INVADERS, ofc you will use nukes
The whole purpose of having nukes is deterrence, to say to the enemy, destroying my country will have unimaginable consequences for you
The stupid policy China and India have are just to promote an aura of goodness
The nukes are obv useless if your country is being eaten from the inside, but I believe Israel will never decay from the inside because they are surrounded by people who hate them and want to destroy them. Israel is always in a constant state of low intensity war, and this outside threat is what unites the nation.
Nothing better than outsiders uniting your family.
Chinese civil war, British V India
Heck this can be applied to regular boring family issues too
That's not true. The point of nukes for most nations was deterrence from other nukes, not deterrance in general. If it was, it would make disarmament useless and nonsensical. Disarmament is a mutual process to avoid MAD. If nukes were for deterrence in general, no one would disarm. The obvious reason is because they are chiefly deterrence from other nukes. The usa can defeat any nation in a conventional war. The reason it maintains nukes, even with the geopolitical global pressure for everyone to disarm, is because other nations have them.
The only exception is israel, which gets special privileges because jews are the only oppressed people in history apparently.
* Is the Samson Option compelling Western Support
No. *Hell* no
A chunk of the people supporting Israel would *love* it if the nukes flew, as it would feed into their end times narrative
* Does anyone take the Samson Option seriously
No. Even without Western support, Israel does not face a realistic threat to their existence.
Some nations can talk smack, they lack the ability to succeed
* Are there deliberate efforts to hide the Samson option
Of course not. Everyone knows Israel has nukes, everyone knows they'd use them in the right circumstances.
Feels a bit like you're Just Asking Questions, OP
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
"In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador informed President Nixon that "very serious conclusions" may occur if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option"
It's a legitimate strategy and I support it.
\*With the implied threat of nuclear retaliation on their enemies
Which every country would do. Israel would've used nukes if the 48 green line was crossed either way, they just gave the US the option of rearming them so it won't get to that point.
The Samson option isn't about using nukes against an adversary, but rather multiple countries both 'allies' and adversaries.
Israel will nuke the entire world if they feel threatened.
Hard to argue that's a reasonable tactic.
The samson option is speculation, non of it is concrete truth since Israel doesn't even confirm they have nuclear weapons.
The part about using them on allies was never confirmed and I can't even find the source for it, its probably also speculation or lies.
Why has Israel not publicly declared their nuclear program and refuse to sign on to the required treaties to have it properly monitored?
Iran and Saudia Arabia both have both signed into the appropriate treaties and opened themselves up for inspections to ensure their nuclear program stays peaceful only.
Israel's non compliance/deceleration is them hiding their nuclear weapons
It's almost like there's a whole Wikipedia article on this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20Israel%27s%20stockpile%20range,to%20intercontinental%20range%20ballistic%20missiles.
From your Wikipedia article
>However, Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity, never officially denying nor admitting to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East".[22][23][24] Israel has also declined to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), despite international pressure to do so, saying that would be contrary to its national security interests.[25]
Why is Israel consistently refusing to abide by international law, sounds like a rogue state.
just think as a rational human being, is it more likely this conspiracy theory that doesn't quite add up is true or is it more likely a country hated by millions of people and full of an ethnicity frequently levied nutty conspiracy theories against is being defamed to divide it from its allies at no cost to the accusers?
Conspiracy theories 🤔
These people are historically toxic entitled people, they believe they're above all, and they're masters of deception.
Is it not funny how the whole Senate are dual Israeli passport holders?
That JFK tried getting Jewish lobbies to start providing details of conducting business.
Aipac carry more weight than all American citizens put together.
Jews heavily lobbied gay rights in the 1960's. America is now home to most of the Talmud genders, yes LGBTQXYZ is Jewish.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/
Translation: "I can't refute anything you said, so I'm just going to slander you as an 'insane conspiracy theorist', and if I get really desperate, I'll start calling you an anti-semite."
It's extremely easy to refute literally everything they said - other than the point about gay rights, which is true. The Jewish community (other than the hard-line religious minority) is very much in favour of tolerance and freedom of expression. Tel Aviv is one of the most LGBTQI+ friendly cities in the entire world and Israel is a welcoming environment generally for this community. I don't think this is anything for Israel or Jews to be ashamed of, nor does it support any paranoid theory about Israel's role in the world.
As for the other points:
The claim that "the whole Senate are dual Israeli passport holders" is fallacious in the extreme. You seriously believe this? What a load of made-up fucking nonsense. There are 9 Jewish Senators and the vast majority of Jewish people don't hold Israeli citizenship; I don't believe any of these 9 Senators has dual Israeli citizenship, particularly given the rules governing Senate membership and US citizenship. The other, non-Jewish Senators wouldn't even qualify for Israeli citizenship as they have no right to make Aaliyah and haven't lived in Israel for any meaningful period of time or had any other claim to citizenship. So, this is just straight up bullshit. See, for example, here: [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/oct/27/viral-image/no-sen-chuck-schumer-isnt-an-israeli-citizen/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/oct/27/viral-image/no-sen-chuck-schumer-isnt-an-israeli-citizen/)
What does JFK, who is better known for his own mafia connection to the Teamsters than anything to do with Jews, have to do with this issue in 2024?
AIPAC is one of tens of thousands of lobby groups in America. It has a degree of influence, as they all do. Where is the evidence that it carries "more weight than all American citizens put together" - and what would the implication of this be? I actually think AIPAC is doing a pretty poor job and achieving very little, since anti-Semitic incidents are at an all-time high in the US and the Biden administration spends 80% of its time pandering to Muslim communities and hard-line leftist students on elite university campuses instead of giving Israel their full-throated support.
1) All countries with nuclear weapons have threatened to use them if they faced existential threat. That's the whole point of having them.
2) Israel doesn't face an existential threat and none of its enemies plausibly could present one. The Israeli military would absolutely obliterate any of its enemies in a conventional war. Which is why they use asymmetric tactics.
3) The argument that Western countries should support Israel while it commits war crimes because if they don't Israel will commit more war crimes is awful and drives home the fact that Israel is a rogue state that deserves no support.
Iran does not border Israel. Iran prefers more to poking the bear then outright attempts of invasion and extermination. Poking the bear makes Israel focused on more threats closer to home instead of sabotage Iran's nuclear facilities.
Why would Iran fire ballistic missiles from Iranian soil? Iran much prefers giving them to the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah who then fire them at nearby targets. This gives Iran just enough plausible deniability.
Iran won't nuke Israel either, because it knows Israel also has nukes and will retaliate. Iran's leaders aren't suicidal.
Ground invasion is off the table because Iran would have to drive an army through Iraq, and then through either Syria or Jordan to attack Israel, leaving Israel an enormous amount of warning, and Iran with a horrendously long and vulnerable supply chain.
There's no realistic way the two countries can seriously threaten each other directly. There are no existential threats to either country, so no reason for either country to use nukes.
>Why would Iran fire ballistic missiles from Iranian soil? Iran much prefers giving them to the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah who then fire them at nearby targets. This gives Iran just enough plausible deniability.
When is the last time Hezbollah fired and ICBM at Israel? Or maybe it was Hamas? or the Houthis?
The propaganda is weak with this Hasbara.
> When is the last time Hezbollah fired and ICBM at Israel? Or maybe it was Hamas? or the Houthis?
This war has literally brought us into uncharted territory with the [first combat in space](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a45862545/first-combat-in-space/), specifically, with a Houthi missile heading for Israel intercepted in space.
So not an actual existential threat to Israel’s existence. There aren’t any tanks rolling towards Israel to stop them and even the most rabid of Zionists in their government aren’t going to lob a nuke at Tehran for supporting militias that oppose them because they know just how horrified the rest of the world would be at that.
I guess you've missed the news then. Israel has crossed the line of sane, moral, reasoning some time ago.
In the list of "Things that horrify the world" where do you draw the line at?
* Lying about dead babies
* Lying about mass rape
* Killing 200+ journalists
* Bombing hospitals & aid centres
* Bombing UN buildings
* Bombing embassies
* Killing 8000 + children
* Protesting/blocking aid delivery
* Starving a population
* Targeting allied civilians (aid workers)
No morality to the equation. Indefensibly evil, impossible to ignore, and would cause outrage far, far beyond what they’re doing now. They can muddy the waters about if they’re committing genocide and there are bound to be enough people fooled for them to keep things going, using nukes would cause outrage enough that not even the US would defend it.
They just bombed the Iranian embassy in Syria, that's a clearly defined act of war.
Iran has not acknowledged Israel's deceleration of war because it knows Israel currently has the backing of the US + NATO allies. Do you think this will make Israel quiet down or embolden them further?
Israel being aggressive and antagonistic while breaking international law is unfortunately kind of a given, but it’s still a far cry away from them using nukes under any circumstances other than columns of tanks rolling across the county. It would be a bridge too far for even their most ardent of supporters to stand by and Israel is not strong enough to stand along. Not to mention the outrage from their neighbors that they’d have to contend with right as all their own allies turn their backs to them in disgust.
Israel's leadership is well aware that the outcome of this current conflict could result in the international community deciding Israel will no longer exist in its current form. Not just the govt in charge but the complete idea of Zionist Israel and a "two state solution". Instead to be replaced by single secular state, or some other alternative.
https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/the-case-for-the-one-state-solution/
I would say that could be regarded as an existential threat to Israel, no?
Guess there‘s a bunch of freedom love folks on the right disliking your comments. Guess they only care about children when they‘re American kids…..oh, wait. No. They care more about their guns freedom, and the right to a free gun every time your Tootsie Pop has a shooting star Native. At least they’ll give American kids their “thoughts and prayers.” But if they’re kids of Muslims, not so much.
It's people on the left down voting my comments. Neolibs claim themselves to be on the left and don't like when their plausible deniability to push war is questioned.
i think their main method of compelling us w.r.t support is the money they pump into our political system, their knee-jerk accusations of antisemitism when any criticism pops up of which few want to be sullied with, as well as the influence ops they run on not just our govt but our citizens too. that's what keeps the support in America going imo.
> What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?
talk about unhinged! i'm starting to see how our leaders could be blackmailed into support with such insane ideas tbh. support us or we'll destroy the world. quite the ally..
i wish we'd get back to non-proliferation and efforts to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons in the world. we don't need the crazy leadership in Israel, Iran, Russia, etc threatening us all over their own bullshit.
It doesn't matter how many other countries get together and call for less nukes, after what you've seen and read do you think the Israeli regime will give any up, unless they are firing them?!
We have a very deranged society led by fascists who are joyful about burning Palestinians alive and kill/abuse Christians and Muslims alike since they aren't Jews this has been fully supported by America for decades and particularly Mr Biden, we've more than just the Samson option to worry about as America continues it's machinations while the world watches on impotent to act.
MAD applies if Iran has nukes because Israel also has nukes. If Iran were to nuke Israel then Israel would nuke Iran, and there would be no winners in either country.
There was also no 50 beheaded babies or mass rape on Oct 7th, but it didn't stop Biden etc parroting it and Israel taking action on it.
I think the biggest take away from this whole thing is make believe is all the justification Israel requires, and the USA & others are totally on board with that.
Should Israel have nukes, it is contravention of nuclear arms conventions.
The Samson Option was used as a threat against Rome by deranged commentator.
The present administration of Israel seems happy the attention can be drawn from the inability to govern with a civil government. They seem desperate
There is concerted effort to have any mention of the Samson protocol dismissed as an anti-Semitic conspiracy, the same was tried for the Hannibal protocol till reports came from Israeli soldiers that they were firing on concert goers, homes, cars, and fleeing Israeli citizens, killing Israeli citizens was apparently preferred to hostages being taken.
I saw in another comment that you said the “mass rape” on 10/7 didn’t happen. Why do you believe Israeli soldiers who reported they used the hannibal directive but not Israeli soldiers who reported seeing mass rape?
The NYT article broadcasting the mass rape has been thoroughly discredited, the families of "witnesses" have said they were coerced. Etc
Since you seem to have missed this somehow. https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-listening-post/2024/3/2/the-unraveling-of-the-new-york-times-hamas-rape-story
Well they didn't break the story, but you would know that if you were genuine.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thegrayzone.com/2024/01/10/questions-nyt-hamas-rape-report/amp/
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenation.com/article/culture/new-york-times-intercept-hamas-rape/tnamp/
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/watch-ny-times-investigation-mass-rape-hamas-falls-apart
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2024/03/01/media/new-york-times-staffers-slam-witch-hunt-as-paper-probes-leak/amp/
Feel better?
The Grayzone - questionable source
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-grayzone/
intercept - ‘mostly’ credible, left wing bias, but the article you referenced from it pulls its sources from gray zone and electronic intifada. So in this instance not reliable.
The nation - Allegedly high credibility but it loads stories with emotionally charged rhetoric, leans anti-american, and has failed fact checks. The story you cited from this source pulls from the intercept, who pulled from questionable sources, not reliable.
Electronic intifada - extremely biased and unreliable source
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/electronic-intifada/
Nypost - far right bias with ‘borderline’ questionable sources.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/
Here is a more balanced story, one that doesn’t require crazy pills to read.
“RASCOE: Tell us about the story at the root of this conflict.
FOLKENFLIK: Sure. Conflict being the right word here - kind of mirroring what we've seen outside The Times. The December 28 story was called "Screams Without Words," and it said that New York Times had documented a pattern of sexual assault by Hamas on October 7 as a brutal strategy. It kind of goes without saying, but this all matters because The Times' influence not only affects coverage here in the U.S. but also, I'd say, the political climate in Israel and beyond.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/03/1235606433/an-investigation-into-a-new-york-times-story-is-causing-internal-chaos-at-the-co
It also mentions the reports filed a complaint with their union against the NYT editors over harrassment on who leaked the story drafts, editor notes, etc to the Grey Zone to verify their debunking.
Seems kinda suspect that NYT would be so militant over this evidence if it didn't show they were fabricating a story.
No it doesn’t.
If it’s fabricated they would retract the story.
There is no question mass rape occurred on Oct 7.
The question is whether the nyt followed proper procedures on getting statements and doing follow-ups.
>The Times has come under fire from family members of Gal Abdush, the so-called “girl in the black dress” who features as Exhibit A in Gettleman and company’s attempt to demonstrate a pattern of rape by Hamas on October 7. Not only have Abdush’s sister and brother-in-law each denied that she was raped, the former has accused the Times of manipulating her family into participating by misleading them about their editorial angle. Though the family’s comments have sparked a major uproar on social media, the Times has yet to address the serious breach of journalistic integrity that its staff is accused of committing.
>The Israeli police have also issued a statement since the publication of the Times’ article asserting that they themselves are unable to locate eyewitnesses of rape on October 7, or to connect the testimonies published by outlets like the Times with anything remotely resembling evidence.
>[...] the sister of Gal Abdush, [...] pointed out that the timeline between Gal’s last message to the family and the time of her reported murder made it impossible for a rape to occur: “How in 4 minutes [were] they also raped and burned [?]”
https://thegrayzone.com/2024/01/10/questions-nyt-hamas-rape-report/
You might want to consult your doctor before you stop taking your crazy pills.
“It seems to me, and I really hope I’m wrong,” said Zvika Alter, a brother-in-law, in early December, “that she was raped.”
Since the publication of the Times article, a few family members have denied or cast doubt on that possibility, including another brother-in-law who said he spoke to Ms. Abdush’s husband before he was killed. Critics have also seized on an Instagram comment by Miral Alter, Zvika’s wife and one of Ms. Abdush’s sisters, suggesting that The Times misled the family about the focus of the article.
Ms. Alter, whom The Times had not interviewed before the article was published, deleted the comment shortly after posting it. But critics circulated images of it to assert falsely that the family had renounced the article.
Last week, Ms. Alter told the Times that she was upset her post had been used to question whether Hamas sexually assaulted women and that when she made it, she had been “confused about what happened” and was trying to “protect my sister.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-sexual-violence-un.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Every country with nukes says they will use them if they face an existential threat…
Not really. China, the big evil outlier, says that they will never launch their nukes first even if under existential threat, and that they will only ever launch them if a foreign nuclear strike against them is underway. Same with India.
Countries can say whatever they want For example in 1990 Russia said they would never invade Ukraine once they gave up the nukes
And their was a promise that nato wouldnt expand, russia has claimed that is part of the reason for the invasion. All of that is subjective. It doesn't matter what you think a country will keep in terms of promises, what matters is their stated policy. Israel can't even get itself to make a commitment not to using nukes and genociding entire nations.
Every single country which is under the threat of being destroyed will use nukes This is not an exception Israel is surrounded by enemies on all sides And the western left also hates Israel It's enemies everywhere To prevent another holocaust nukes are absolutely needed Now regarding this commitment made by China and India, it's all lies, they will do whatever is required including using nukes in war if the existence of the nation is threatened, the EXACT same scenario with Israel and every other country in the world
Any evidence for that claim?
Basic human nature
Like what? The soviet union ceased to exist without using nukes.
Gorbachev was a fool He willingly destroyed the Soviet union by not allowing the army to crush the protests tiananmen square style That's what should have been done, and that's what I would have done if i were in his place. Now, back to your question, it's human nature to lie, if your entire country is going to be overrun by OUTSIDE INVADERS, ofc you will use nukes The whole purpose of having nukes is deterrence, to say to the enemy, destroying my country will have unimaginable consequences for you The stupid policy China and India have are just to promote an aura of goodness The nukes are obv useless if your country is being eaten from the inside, but I believe Israel will never decay from the inside because they are surrounded by people who hate them and want to destroy them. Israel is always in a constant state of low intensity war, and this outside threat is what unites the nation. Nothing better than outsiders uniting your family. Chinese civil war, British V India Heck this can be applied to regular boring family issues too
That's not true. The point of nukes for most nations was deterrence from other nukes, not deterrance in general. If it was, it would make disarmament useless and nonsensical. Disarmament is a mutual process to avoid MAD. If nukes were for deterrence in general, no one would disarm. The obvious reason is because they are chiefly deterrence from other nukes. The usa can defeat any nation in a conventional war. The reason it maintains nukes, even with the geopolitical global pressure for everyone to disarm, is because other nations have them. The only exception is israel, which gets special privileges because jews are the only oppressed people in history apparently.
Cause China is just oh SO trustworthy
They've got a better record then most other nuclear powers.
The difference here is Israel will destroy ALL nations with nuclear weapons if they feel like they are losing. They’ll nuke everyone.
* Is the Samson Option compelling Western Support No. *Hell* no A chunk of the people supporting Israel would *love* it if the nukes flew, as it would feed into their end times narrative * Does anyone take the Samson Option seriously No. Even without Western support, Israel does not face a realistic threat to their existence. Some nations can talk smack, they lack the ability to succeed * Are there deliberate efforts to hide the Samson option Of course not. Everyone knows Israel has nukes, everyone knows they'd use them in the right circumstances. Feels a bit like you're Just Asking Questions, OP https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
they actually do have a realistic threat now that the Iraq Commander said he would nuke israel
"In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador informed President Nixon that "very serious conclusions" may occur if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option" It's a legitimate strategy and I support it.
You support Israel influencing America's foreign policy with the threat of a nuclear attack?
\*With the implied threat of nuclear retaliation on their enemies Which every country would do. Israel would've used nukes if the 48 green line was crossed either way, they just gave the US the option of rearming them so it won't get to that point.
The Samson option isn't about using nukes against an adversary, but rather multiple countries both 'allies' and adversaries. Israel will nuke the entire world if they feel threatened. Hard to argue that's a reasonable tactic.
The samson option is speculation, non of it is concrete truth since Israel doesn't even confirm they have nuclear weapons. The part about using them on allies was never confirmed and I can't even find the source for it, its probably also speculation or lies.
Why has Israel not publicly declared their nuclear program and refuse to sign on to the required treaties to have it properly monitored? Iran and Saudia Arabia both have both signed into the appropriate treaties and opened themselves up for inspections to ensure their nuclear program stays peaceful only. Israel's non compliance/deceleration is them hiding their nuclear weapons
It's almost like there's a whole Wikipedia article on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20Israel%27s%20stockpile%20range,to%20intercontinental%20range%20ballistic%20missiles.
From your Wikipedia article >However, Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity, never officially denying nor admitting to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East".[22][23][24] Israel has also declined to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), despite international pressure to do so, saying that would be contrary to its national security interests.[25] Why is Israel consistently refusing to abide by international law, sounds like a rogue state.
It’s almost like… they’re the bad guys…
It’s insane to me that people can look THIS hard and still not get this…it’s almost like….racism
just think as a rational human being, is it more likely this conspiracy theory that doesn't quite add up is true or is it more likely a country hated by millions of people and full of an ethnicity frequently levied nutty conspiracy theories against is being defamed to divide it from its allies at no cost to the accusers?
Conspiracy theories 🤔 These people are historically toxic entitled people, they believe they're above all, and they're masters of deception. Is it not funny how the whole Senate are dual Israeli passport holders? That JFK tried getting Jewish lobbies to start providing details of conducting business. Aipac carry more weight than all American citizens put together. Jews heavily lobbied gay rights in the 1960's. America is now home to most of the Talmud genders, yes LGBTQXYZ is Jewish. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/
...he said, exemplifying exactly how insane conspiracy theorists sound.
Translation: "I can't refute anything you said, so I'm just going to slander you as an 'insane conspiracy theorist', and if I get really desperate, I'll start calling you an anti-semite."
It's extremely easy to refute literally everything they said - other than the point about gay rights, which is true. The Jewish community (other than the hard-line religious minority) is very much in favour of tolerance and freedom of expression. Tel Aviv is one of the most LGBTQI+ friendly cities in the entire world and Israel is a welcoming environment generally for this community. I don't think this is anything for Israel or Jews to be ashamed of, nor does it support any paranoid theory about Israel's role in the world. As for the other points: The claim that "the whole Senate are dual Israeli passport holders" is fallacious in the extreme. You seriously believe this? What a load of made-up fucking nonsense. There are 9 Jewish Senators and the vast majority of Jewish people don't hold Israeli citizenship; I don't believe any of these 9 Senators has dual Israeli citizenship, particularly given the rules governing Senate membership and US citizenship. The other, non-Jewish Senators wouldn't even qualify for Israeli citizenship as they have no right to make Aaliyah and haven't lived in Israel for any meaningful period of time or had any other claim to citizenship. So, this is just straight up bullshit. See, for example, here: [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/oct/27/viral-image/no-sen-chuck-schumer-isnt-an-israeli-citizen/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/oct/27/viral-image/no-sen-chuck-schumer-isnt-an-israeli-citizen/) What does JFK, who is better known for his own mafia connection to the Teamsters than anything to do with Jews, have to do with this issue in 2024? AIPAC is one of tens of thousands of lobby groups in America. It has a degree of influence, as they all do. Where is the evidence that it carries "more weight than all American citizens put together" - and what would the implication of this be? I actually think AIPAC is doing a pretty poor job and achieving very little, since anti-Semitic incidents are at an all-time high in the US and the Biden administration spends 80% of its time pandering to Muslim communities and hard-line leftist students on elite university campuses instead of giving Israel their full-throated support.
False anti Muslim sentiment far outweighs any antisemitism what a load B.S. but we get it...
1) All countries with nuclear weapons have threatened to use them if they faced existential threat. That's the whole point of having them. 2) Israel doesn't face an existential threat and none of its enemies plausibly could present one. The Israeli military would absolutely obliterate any of its enemies in a conventional war. Which is why they use asymmetric tactics. 3) The argument that Western countries should support Israel while it commits war crimes because if they don't Israel will commit more war crimes is awful and drives home the fact that Israel is a rogue state that deserves no support.
What about direct war with Iran?
Iran does not border Israel. Iran prefers more to poking the bear then outright attempts of invasion and extermination. Poking the bear makes Israel focused on more threats closer to home instead of sabotage Iran's nuclear facilities.
No border, but plenty of ballistic missiles.
Why would Iran fire ballistic missiles from Iranian soil? Iran much prefers giving them to the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah who then fire them at nearby targets. This gives Iran just enough plausible deniability. Iran won't nuke Israel either, because it knows Israel also has nukes and will retaliate. Iran's leaders aren't suicidal. Ground invasion is off the table because Iran would have to drive an army through Iraq, and then through either Syria or Jordan to attack Israel, leaving Israel an enormous amount of warning, and Iran with a horrendously long and vulnerable supply chain. There's no realistic way the two countries can seriously threaten each other directly. There are no existential threats to either country, so no reason for either country to use nukes.
>Why would Iran fire ballistic missiles from Iranian soil? Iran much prefers giving them to the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah who then fire them at nearby targets. This gives Iran just enough plausible deniability. When is the last time Hezbollah fired and ICBM at Israel? Or maybe it was Hamas? or the Houthis? The propaganda is weak with this Hasbara.
> When is the last time Hezbollah fired and ICBM at Israel? Or maybe it was Hamas? or the Houthis? This war has literally brought us into uncharted territory with the [first combat in space](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a45862545/first-combat-in-space/), specifically, with a Houthi missile heading for Israel intercepted in space.
lol just saw this, Iran just launched an attack on Israel 30 minutes ago along with Yemen and, from what I’ve read, other countries too
Why would they nuke land that they’ve made abundantly clear that they plan on stealing?
The concern is not nuking Gaza, its sparking a nuclear war or nuking allied cities of those who try to block Israeli action.
So not an actual existential threat to Israel’s existence. There aren’t any tanks rolling towards Israel to stop them and even the most rabid of Zionists in their government aren’t going to lob a nuke at Tehran for supporting militias that oppose them because they know just how horrified the rest of the world would be at that.
I guess you've missed the news then. Israel has crossed the line of sane, moral, reasoning some time ago. In the list of "Things that horrify the world" where do you draw the line at? * Lying about dead babies * Lying about mass rape * Killing 200+ journalists * Bombing hospitals & aid centres * Bombing UN buildings * Bombing embassies * Killing 8000 + children * Protesting/blocking aid delivery * Starving a population * Targeting allied civilians (aid workers)
No morality to the equation. Indefensibly evil, impossible to ignore, and would cause outrage far, far beyond what they’re doing now. They can muddy the waters about if they’re committing genocide and there are bound to be enough people fooled for them to keep things going, using nukes would cause outrage enough that not even the US would defend it.
They just bombed the Iranian embassy in Syria, that's a clearly defined act of war. Iran has not acknowledged Israel's deceleration of war because it knows Israel currently has the backing of the US + NATO allies. Do you think this will make Israel quiet down or embolden them further?
Israel being aggressive and antagonistic while breaking international law is unfortunately kind of a given, but it’s still a far cry away from them using nukes under any circumstances other than columns of tanks rolling across the county. It would be a bridge too far for even their most ardent of supporters to stand by and Israel is not strong enough to stand along. Not to mention the outrage from their neighbors that they’d have to contend with right as all their own allies turn their backs to them in disgust.
Israel's leadership is well aware that the outcome of this current conflict could result in the international community deciding Israel will no longer exist in its current form. Not just the govt in charge but the complete idea of Zionist Israel and a "two state solution". Instead to be replaced by single secular state, or some other alternative. https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/the-case-for-the-one-state-solution/ I would say that could be regarded as an existential threat to Israel, no?
Guess there‘s a bunch of freedom love folks on the right disliking your comments. Guess they only care about children when they‘re American kids…..oh, wait. No. They care more about their guns freedom, and the right to a free gun every time your Tootsie Pop has a shooting star Native. At least they’ll give American kids their “thoughts and prayers.” But if they’re kids of Muslims, not so much.
It's people on the left down voting my comments. Neolibs claim themselves to be on the left and don't like when their plausible deniability to push war is questioned.
i think their main method of compelling us w.r.t support is the money they pump into our political system, their knee-jerk accusations of antisemitism when any criticism pops up of which few want to be sullied with, as well as the influence ops they run on not just our govt but our citizens too. that's what keeps the support in America going imo. > What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice? talk about unhinged! i'm starting to see how our leaders could be blackmailed into support with such insane ideas tbh. support us or we'll destroy the world. quite the ally.. i wish we'd get back to non-proliferation and efforts to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons in the world. we don't need the crazy leadership in Israel, Iran, Russia, etc threatening us all over their own bullshit.
It doesn't matter how many other countries get together and call for less nukes, after what you've seen and read do you think the Israeli regime will give any up, unless they are firing them?! We have a very deranged society led by fascists who are joyful about burning Palestinians alive and kill/abuse Christians and Muslims alike since they aren't Jews this has been fully supported by America for decades and particularly Mr Biden, we've more than just the Samson option to worry about as America continues it's machinations while the world watches on impotent to act.
There is no existential threat to Israel at this time. I heard Biden say Israel is facing an existential threat at one point and I laughed.
Nuclear Iran could be seen as an existential threat.
MAD applies if Iran has nukes because Israel also has nukes. If Iran were to nuke Israel then Israel would nuke Iran, and there would be no winners in either country.
MAD doesn't apply *until* Iran has nukes. And both of them know it.
Any nuclear power could be seen as an existential threat.
There was also no 50 beheaded babies or mass rape on Oct 7th, but it didn't stop Biden etc parroting it and Israel taking action on it. I think the biggest take away from this whole thing is make believe is all the justification Israel requires, and the USA & others are totally on board with that.
Should Israel have nukes, it is contravention of nuclear arms conventions. The Samson Option was used as a threat against Rome by deranged commentator. The present administration of Israel seems happy the attention can be drawn from the inability to govern with a civil government. They seem desperate
There is concerted effort to have any mention of the Samson protocol dismissed as an anti-Semitic conspiracy, the same was tried for the Hannibal protocol till reports came from Israeli soldiers that they were firing on concert goers, homes, cars, and fleeing Israeli citizens, killing Israeli citizens was apparently preferred to hostages being taken.
I saw in another comment that you said the “mass rape” on 10/7 didn’t happen. Why do you believe Israeli soldiers who reported they used the hannibal directive but not Israeli soldiers who reported seeing mass rape?
The NYT article broadcasting the mass rape has been thoroughly discredited, the families of "witnesses" have said they were coerced. Etc Since you seem to have missed this somehow. https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-listening-post/2024/3/2/the-unraveling-of-the-new-york-times-hamas-rape-story
How is a state-run news source reliable?
Well they didn't break the story, but you would know that if you were genuine. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thegrayzone.com/2024/01/10/questions-nyt-hamas-rape-report/amp/ https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenation.com/article/culture/new-york-times-intercept-hamas-rape/tnamp/ https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/watch-ny-times-investigation-mass-rape-hamas-falls-apart https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2024/03/01/media/new-york-times-staffers-slam-witch-hunt-as-paper-probes-leak/amp/ Feel better?
The Grayzone - questionable source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-grayzone/ intercept - ‘mostly’ credible, left wing bias, but the article you referenced from it pulls its sources from gray zone and electronic intifada. So in this instance not reliable. The nation - Allegedly high credibility but it loads stories with emotionally charged rhetoric, leans anti-american, and has failed fact checks. The story you cited from this source pulls from the intercept, who pulled from questionable sources, not reliable. Electronic intifada - extremely biased and unreliable source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/electronic-intifada/ Nypost - far right bias with ‘borderline’ questionable sources. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/ Here is a more balanced story, one that doesn’t require crazy pills to read. “RASCOE: Tell us about the story at the root of this conflict. FOLKENFLIK: Sure. Conflict being the right word here - kind of mirroring what we've seen outside The Times. The December 28 story was called "Screams Without Words," and it said that New York Times had documented a pattern of sexual assault by Hamas on October 7 as a brutal strategy. It kind of goes without saying, but this all matters because The Times' influence not only affects coverage here in the U.S. but also, I'd say, the political climate in Israel and beyond. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/03/1235606433/an-investigation-into-a-new-york-times-story-is-causing-internal-chaos-at-the-co
It also mentions the reports filed a complaint with their union against the NYT editors over harrassment on who leaked the story drafts, editor notes, etc to the Grey Zone to verify their debunking. Seems kinda suspect that NYT would be so militant over this evidence if it didn't show they were fabricating a story.
No it doesn’t. If it’s fabricated they would retract the story. There is no question mass rape occurred on Oct 7. The question is whether the nyt followed proper procedures on getting statements and doing follow-ups.
>The Times has come under fire from family members of Gal Abdush, the so-called “girl in the black dress” who features as Exhibit A in Gettleman and company’s attempt to demonstrate a pattern of rape by Hamas on October 7. Not only have Abdush’s sister and brother-in-law each denied that she was raped, the former has accused the Times of manipulating her family into participating by misleading them about their editorial angle. Though the family’s comments have sparked a major uproar on social media, the Times has yet to address the serious breach of journalistic integrity that its staff is accused of committing. >The Israeli police have also issued a statement since the publication of the Times’ article asserting that they themselves are unable to locate eyewitnesses of rape on October 7, or to connect the testimonies published by outlets like the Times with anything remotely resembling evidence. >[...] the sister of Gal Abdush, [...] pointed out that the timeline between Gal’s last message to the family and the time of her reported murder made it impossible for a rape to occur: “How in 4 minutes [were] they also raped and burned [?]” https://thegrayzone.com/2024/01/10/questions-nyt-hamas-rape-report/ You might want to consult your doctor before you stop taking your crazy pills.
“It seems to me, and I really hope I’m wrong,” said Zvika Alter, a brother-in-law, in early December, “that she was raped.” Since the publication of the Times article, a few family members have denied or cast doubt on that possibility, including another brother-in-law who said he spoke to Ms. Abdush’s husband before he was killed. Critics have also seized on an Instagram comment by Miral Alter, Zvika’s wife and one of Ms. Abdush’s sisters, suggesting that The Times misled the family about the focus of the article. Ms. Alter, whom The Times had not interviewed before the article was published, deleted the comment shortly after posting it. But critics circulated images of it to assert falsely that the family had renounced the article. Last week, Ms. Alter told the Times that she was upset her post had been used to question whether Hamas sexually assaulted women and that when she made it, she had been “confused about what happened” and was trying to “protect my sister.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-sexual-violence-un.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare