Vanunu Goes Free

[Edan]

This thread needs some humor. Here's some, From "Yes, Prime Minister":

Humphrey: Nuclear weapons are there to make people believe that Britain is defended.

Bernard: The Russians?

Humphrey: No, not the Russians, the British. The Russians know it's not.

Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Jim Hacker: I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Sir Humphrey: It's a deterrent.
Jim Hacker: It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.
Jim Hacker: They probably do.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know.
Jim Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Azazel

Why should you suddenly care about the law now, seeing as Israel breaks a number of international laws regarding the Palestinians every single day!?

I am talking about a real law, you know, one that is enforced.

Real law huh?

Israel employs a prostitute to honey trap Vanunu to Rome where he is kidnapped and abducted from a foreign country by Mossad agents...

Whereas UN international law is toothless because Israel is protected by its puppet, the US...

So law as far as you are concerned is whomever has the power to do what the f*ck the like...?

Between your 'might is right' BS and Eli's wish to bomb into oblivion anyone that even looks at him funny - no wonder your country is a pariah state in the just and free thinking world!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Will the UK or France dismantle their nukes? They've got far less direct threat on them then Israel does, even with a peace treaty with Syria.

Every nuclear state should dismantle their nukes. Of course, international law currently ensrhines the right of those two along with the toher permanent UNSC members to lord a nuclear monopoly.

And who knows, with all the virulent frog anti-semitism and pro-arab fundamentalism, they might need their nukes to take out Israel, no?

Oh, and as of why Israel does not come out-I think it has far more to do with the fact it lied to the US about getting nukes, and it is more convinient for the US and Israel to play the game of "well, we don't know" so the US would not have to take the blatant step of ignoring it's own laws by not cutting off all aid to Israel for being a nuclear power outside of the NPT system.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Prior to 1973, The Arabs kept on attacking Israel.

Liar!

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
No, no. You misunderstand. I didn't say it was right...just that it was reality.

That is the huge problem: "reality" is what we make of it. If I decide to punch someone, then that is reality - a punch occured. If I don't, well, then that is reality.

While you might be able to predict with some success how people will feel if something is done, Man is not an automaton-we still decide, and the fact is we could decide to act differently, if we really wanted a different set of actions to dominate our lives. That people don't is NOT 'reality', its weakness. And thinking all human beings are permanently weak and can't control their actions is the true pessimism.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
While you might be able to predict with some success how people will feel if something is done, Man is not an automaton-we still decide, and the fact is we could decide to act differently, if we really wanted a different set of actions to dominate our lives. That people don't is NOT 'reality', its weakness. And thinking all human beings are permanently weak and can't control their actions is the true pessimism.

I love Social Constructivism. It's complete bollocks in this instance but it's still interesting.

A major reason to doubt this perspective is that fact that realism has dominated the discourse of international realations for the past seven centuries or more. Such staying power over such a long period of time that has seen such profound change in all other areas of daily life strongly suggests that it is the basic structure of the international system that determines how states think and act toward each other.

[Sirotnikov]

Liar!

I remind you that it were Arab armies who declared their goal to destroy Israel in 1948.
I welcome you to read about the Fedayeen movement in the 50s.
I welcome you to read about the reasons leading to 1967, the 4 years conflict between 1967 and 1971, The war of 1973.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I love Social Constructivism. It's complete bollocks in this instance but it's still interesting.

A major reason to doubt this perspective is that fact that realism has dominated the discourse of international realations for the past seven centuries or more. Such staying power over such a long period of time that has seen such profound change in all other areas of daily life strongly suggests that it is the basic structure of the international system that determines how states think and act toward each other.

The interaction between states has changed fundamentally in the last 700 years. For example, people today think the notion of transnational soverign systems are absurd, yet 700 years ago the Pope still could excersice real temporal power, and the Holy Roman Emperor, and individual elected by heterogenous nobles representing feudal lords or trading cities had power-and you had things like the Hanseatic League-a set of trading cities gathered together for self-defense.

In fact, international relations has changed dramatically in the last 700 years. Back in 1304 one king could just swallow up another kingdom and for the people in the groud, it only means one new lord. Back in 1304 someone could still claim universal temporal power and that God had granted them power.

The fact is the very notion of sovereign states is at best 360 years old, and even now it has come under attack as the idea of individual human rights gathers power.

And lets even look at your premise-why 700 years? Human history is 5000 year long. If this has been the "system" for 700 years, you are telling me it wasn't for 4300 previous years of human history (and a pre-history of indeterminate length)-so then you have no claim to say that is "reality", only a system that has proven successful for now, but which could , just as every systmne before it, change.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Liar!

I remind you that it were Arab armies who declared their goal to destroy Israel in 1948.

Yet most Arab armies moved in only after Israeli forces attacked into those araes given to palestinians, and on many occasions did not travel beyond the pertition lines the UN had set up.

I welcome you to read about the Fedayeen movement in the 50s.

Maybe it had to do with those 750,000 people kicked out of their homes?

I welcome you to read about the reasons leading to 1967, the 4 years conflict between 1967 and 1971, The war of 1973.

Why did you skip the 1956 War? Oh, yes, that was Israel working with the UK and France to attack the Arabs. BUt given Israel history of wanting peaceful relations with it's neighbors, those nasty Arabs were ebing utterly irrational by gearing for war.

And between 1967 and 1971, it's not like Israel was occupying Arab territory, not at all.....

[DinoDoc]

What is would delegitimize realism as the reigning discourse of international relations after all this time and put a better system in its place? What determines whether this replacement will be benign or malign? I've yet to hear any real answer to these questions from either you or Aggie which makes it somewhat hard to believe that a change anytime in the foreseeable future is in the cards.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

well it's agame of cat and mice... sometimes one is stronger than the other... there is plenty of Jewish people that were expelled all over Arab world to Israel after Israel was created, no fuss about that either.

The point is all sides are guilty and Palestinians have it the worst. However they have to thank their leaders too for asking to anhillate Israel as the only proper solution for their problems which is of course ridicilous.

So unless a winner in this whole thing is accepted this will continue, If arabs were so cool they would accept Palestinian refugees in the same way Israel accepted Jewish... but no. and now they squibble about what while people are dying.

Noooot good, IMHO that wall is a good idea.

[Az]

Yet most Arab armies moved in only after Israeli forces attacked into those araes given to palestinians, and on many occasions did not travel beyond the pertition lines the UN had set up.

And on many other occasions they occasions they did travel beyond those lines. I hope that you aren't serious in this argument.

Maybe it had to do with those 750,000 people kicked out of their homes?

has nothing to do with the point, of course. A cease-fire was established. If I were the egyptians, I'd of course, support them, as well, but no due to love for your international law.

Why did you skip the 1956 War? Oh, yes, that was Israel working with the UK and France to attack the Arabs. BUt given Israel history of wanting peaceful relations with it's neighbors, those nasty Arabs were ebing utterly irrational by gearing for war.

And was used to deter Egypt, and gain geopolitical ground vis a vis the european powers. It was quite a brilliant geopolitical victory!

[East Street Trader]

Walls to pen people in or out are generally horrid.

As is this one.

[Az]

Originally posted by our_man
Azazel, how so? The Arabs weren't aware that the Israelis had nukes then, were they? Did Israel really have nukes back that long ago?

First nukes in the late 60's, IIRC. Knowledge of nukes by arabs: before 1973 ( and yes, they still started a war with us. )

[Az]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Walls to pen people in or out are generally horrid.

As is this one.

not everyone has a nice body of water between them, and the rest of the world.