Why are we telling Iran they can't have nukes?

by mavie 131 Replies latest jw friends

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk
    The thread topic was quickly hijacked by the anti Israel faction.

    Wow.

    So now making any comment about abuses committed by Israel lands one in " the anti Israel faction"?

    I appreciated the following comments:

    My (JW) religious views never affected my opinion of the State of Israel.

    Working for a U.S. Jewish media group on-and-off for 10 years, definitely did. I walked out on the Rosh Hashanah deadline, 9/12/01.

    Growing up not just Jehovah's Witness, but as a non-Jew with a Jewish-sounding surname, certainly put me into a world of minorities
    where others would *never* bear to tread. I seriously have to post my story here someday, I've seen both sides of the coin and am better
    for it, but it's not pretty.

    It's critical to any discussion to separate anti-Semitism (ethnic/religious bias) from criticism of the Israeli State (politics).
    Americans in general are ignorant of the fine line that separates the two, and the mainstream media obliterates that line altogether.

    ~Sue

    Isreal needs to adhere to UN resolutions and end the occupation. Their hopes of a greater Isreal is coming at a very high cost to their respect from much of the world (not just muslim). If it went back to pre 1967 borders, I think it would garner much more empathy from Europe. It would then give more moderate Arab states like Jordan even more reason to have increased diplomatic relations with them.

    While it was easy enough to pull out of the relatively useless Gaza strip, I don't see the Isrealis giving up all that water in the West Bank.

    What about the jews who oppose israeli policies?

    Question: What is a "Semite"?

    Question: Are all genetic "Israelites" "Zionists"?

    Question: What is a "Jew"?

    Question: Are Ashkenazis "Israeli?

    Question: Are Sephardics "Israeli"?

    http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/8/5/122335/1324 A thought and a question (4.00 / 3) I get uncomfortable when every time a discussion of Israel comes up and any criticism of the STATE OF ISRAEL leads to a charge of anti-semitism. Its like if you criticize Israel, you are somehow joining in the long tradition that has oppressed Jews. I can be very sympathetic to the oppression, but we still need to maintain the ability to criticize a government.

    And my question is, everyone always talks about Hezbollah using civilians/children as human sheilds. Does anyone have proof of that. This might just be my ignorance, so I'd like to know. What I have heard of Hezbollah reminds me of the work of the Black Panthers in the US. I might not agree with all of their tatics, but I can understand them. Please help educate me if I am wrong.

    You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. John Lennon

    byNLinStPaul (nancylet at comcast dot net) onSat Aug 12th, 2006 at 01:56:15 PM EST
    http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0428-04.htm Published on Sunday, April 28, 2002 in the Los Angeles Times
    Israel's Jewish Critics Aren't 'Self-Hating'
    There is no path to Jewish security that does not also lead us to global security for all peoples.
    by Rabbi Michael Lerner
    SAN FRANCISCO -- Every day, I receive anguished letters, e-mails and phone calls from members of my congregation and others who have been tagged with the label "self-hating Jews." Why? Solely because they've raised questions about Israel's policy toward Palestinians.

    There is something deeply hurtful about that term and about the way the Jewish community is treating its dissenters, something reminiscent of the cultural repressiveness of 1950s McCarthyism and its labeling of dissidents as "anti-American." Jews in America are all Jews by choice. Those who wish to leave their religion and ethnicity behind can easily do so. Increasing numbers, when asked about their ethnicity or religion, answer, "my parents are Jewish," indicating that they no longer feel connected to that identity. But most Jews don't make that choice. They feel a special resonance with the history and culture of a people that has proclaimed a message of love, justice and peace while others pursued paths of cruelty and domination. They feel a special pride in being part of a people that has insisted on the possibility of "tikkun," a Hebrew word expressing a belief that the world can be fundamentally healed and transformed. They know that the Jews have paid dearly for that belief, and, though they are angry at the history of anti-Semitism and convinced that no one should ever have to endure again what we endured from Christian Europe, they are also proud that Jewish values kept us from becoming like our oppressors.

    A Los Angeles Times poll in 1988 found that some 50% of Jews surveyed identified "a commitment to social equality" as the characteristic most important to their Jewish identity. Only 17% cited a commitment to Israel. Similar statistics have been reported many times in the subsequent 14 years by other pollsters. No wonder, then, that these social-justice oriented American Jews should feel betrayed by Israeli policies that seem transparently immoral and self-destructive.

    All of us are outraged at the immoral acts of Palestinian terrorists who blow up Israelis as they sit at a Seder table, or shop in their stores, or sit in cafes or ride in buses. We know that these acts cannot be forgiven, no matter how they have been provoked.

    But many of us also understand that Israeli treatment of Palestinians has been immoral and outrageous. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their homes in 1948, and recent Israeli historical research has shown that most of them fled not because they were responding to the appeal of Arab leaders, but because they were terrified at the acts of violence by right-wing Israeli terrorists or because they were actually physically forced from their homes by the Israeli army. (The slaying of some 250 Palestinian civilians in a town that had indicated loyalty to Israel, Deir Yassin, was intentionally aimed at convincing Palestinians that they would not be safe in a new Israeli state, no matter how much they wished to live in peace.) Palestinian refugees and their families now number more than 3 million, and many live in horrifying conditions in refugee camps under Israeli military rule.

    Despite Israel's promises in 1993 at Oslo to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories by May 4, 1999, the actual path Israel took was the opposite. After a right-wing Israeli murdered peace-oriented Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Israel actually increased the number of West Bank settlers, from around 120,000 in 1993 to some 200,000 by the time Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met with Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat at Camp David. And though the Israeli and U.S. media bought the myth that what had been offered to Palestinians was "the best they could expect," and that hence their rejection of the offer was proof that they wanted nothing less than the full destruction of Israel, the actual details show a quite different story. Not only did Barak offer Arafat less than had been promised in 1993, but he refused to provide anything at all in the way of reparations or compensation for the refugees. Instead, he insisted that Arafat sign a statement saying that the terms being offered by Barak would end all claims by the Palestinian people against Israel and would represent a resolution of all outstanding issues. No Palestinian leader could have signed that agreement and abandoned the needs of those refugees.

    Though it is popularly thought that negotiations ended there, in fact they continued at Taba until Ariel Sharon's election ended the process, one which, according to the then-Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin (writing recently in the New York Times), was very close to arriving at a full agreement between the two peoples.

    Sharon did not want that agreement, because he had always opposed any deal that would involve abandoning the West Bank settlements, which he had helped establish in the 1980s--precisely to ensure that Israel would never abandon the occupied territories. Using the excuse of responding to the (totally immoral and unacceptable) acts of terror by some Palestinians, Sharon has recently set out to destroy the institutions of Palestinian society, and they have done so brutally, with great harm to many civilians.

    No wonder, then, that many Jews would feel deeply upset by Israeli policies. On the one hand, they can see that the policies are leading to a frightening upsurge of anti-Semitism. On the other hand, they can see that the policies are not providing security for Israel, but instead creating new generations of future terrorists and convincing the world that Israel has lost its moral compass.

    Still, many Jews and non-Jews have been intimidated by the intense campaign being waged on behalf of Israeli "political correctness." Organized by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and by other Jewish institutions, they label those critical of Israel "self-hating" if they are Jewish or anti-Semitic if not. They mobilize large amounts of money to defeat candidates deemed insufficiently pro-Israel. Many rabbis and professionals have told me recently that they fear for their jobs should they even begin to articulate their doubts about Israeli policy--much less give explicit support to calls for an end to the occupation.

    Yet, far from being self-hating, Jews are affirming the highest values of their culture and religion when they conclude that being pro-Israel today requires pushing Israel to end the occupation and break the cycle of violence on both sides.

    Many American Jews understand the need in today's world to abandon chauvinism and insistence on Jewish "specialness." We need instead to affirm those parts of Jewish tradition that lead us to be able to recognize the spirit of God in every human being on the planet, and to recognize that our security will come not from more armaments for Israel, but from more love and connection between the Jewish people and all other peoples. There is no special path to Jewish safety and security that does not also lead us to global safety and security for all peoples.

    I have great compassion for Jews who can't imagine a world in which other people can be trusted. The horrors of the Holocaust continue to reverberate. But if we allow that fear to shape our current perceptions of possibility, we will self-fulfillingly recreate the very world of antagonism toward Jews that we feared--and that would give Adolf Hitler a posthumous victory. The best response to the hatred of the past is to pursue a path that affirms love, justice and peace, and rejects the "realists" who insist that our only security lies in military domination over the Palestinian people.

    It is time for the U.S. to sponsor a multinational force to physically separate and protect Israel and Palestine from each other, and to then convene an international conference to impose a final settlement. The settlement would include an end to the occupation, evacuation of the settlements, reparations for Palestinian refugees (and also for Jews who fled Arab lands), recognition of Israel by surrounding Arab states and an end to all acts of terror and violence. This is the goal of thousands of American Jews and our non-Jewish allies--who have recently formed the Tikkun Community--a progressive pro-Israel organization. Unwilling to be considered traitors and no longer sure that Jewishness is worth preserving if it means the Jewishness of Sharon, we have joined together because we are not willing to allow our culture and religion to lose its prophetic message of generosity, compassion and open-heartedness. ("Thou shalt love the stranger.") No surprise that we have been greeted by some Jews with their favorite mantra: You are self-hating Jews.

    Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun and, with Cornel West and Susannah Heschel, co-chair of The Tikkun Community. He is author of "Spirit Matters."

    Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times

    Gregor, do you think those critical of American foreign policy are "anti-American"?

    Oh wait.

    I think you do.

    LOL!

    Nevermind.

  • BlackSwan of Memphis
    BlackSwan of Memphis

    Why are telling Iran they can't have nukes...

    Question:

    Why does it matter if they have nukes?

    I mean, I realize this sounds probably not near as edumacated as the rest of the posts....

    But this is the way I see it...

    If Iran even Thinks of Nuking ANYONE they will be blown off the effing map.

    Now, on the other hand....lets say Someone attacks them. They're relatively small compared to most other countries. Defense wise, I wonder how able they are to defend themselves against uhmmmm Someone like I dunno, the er US, just thinking off the top of my head.

    So let's say the US just one day says "hey let's attack Iran, why not we just happen to be in the area? We'll make a call."

    Perhaps having nukes would make them a little more secure.

    So perhaps the reason the US govt is telling them they can't have nukes is because if they don't have nukes it makes it a hell of a lot easier to go in.

    On the other hand.......after having this Iranian leader in MI not long ago, I have to say...that man is scary. And the reality is, crazy people and wmd don't generally go together like peanut butter and preserves. And while it does come across as extremely hypocritical, self preservation is a big part of survival.

    So do we have the right to tell them?

    I'm really beginning to wonder about this term "the right to...".....

  • Gregor
    Gregor

    Nvr. et al

    A brief review of posts by yourself and several others indicate nothing but an anti American/ Israel bias on every matter that you bring up or comment on. There is no anti-US accusation or opinion, no matter how unfounded, vile, or just plain looney that you don't embrace. Obviously missing from your strong opinions are any comments condeming the methods of radical Islam and their "theocratic" dictatorships that routinely commit atrocities on innocent civilians. Yet you can't contain your righteous indignation and outrage against US forces when they are accused of brutality in combat. Denial of the holocaust and vows to wipe 'zionists' off the face of the earth by Israels enemies is met by your silence. Even the 9/11 attack has been rationalized or outright denied. Those you quote say the tactics of Hezbollah, while not very nice, are certainly understandable. It goes on and on. You leave no other conclusion to be drawn but that you are anti-American and anti-Israel. Not just in Foriegn policy but in everything they do. Why does it bother you to have this pointed out? It is obviously what you believe. Are you embarassed by your own viewpoints?

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    I didn't say I saw no difference.

    Go back and read what I really said before you twist my words around!

    Why do YOU think Israel *should* have nukes, btw? For what purpose?

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire
    Gregor, do you think those critical of American foreign policy are "anti-American"?
    Oh wait.
    I think you do.
    LOL!
    Nevermind.

    LOL!

    Nvr. et al

    A brief review of posts by yourself and several others indicate nothing but an anti American/ Israel bias on every matter that you bring up or comment on. There is no anti-US accusation or opinion, no matter how unfounded, vile, or just plain looney that you don't embrace. Obviously missing from your strong opinions are any comments condeming the methods of radical Islam and their "theocratic" dictatorships that routinely commit atrocities on innocent civilians. Yet you can't contain your righteous indignation and outrage against US forces when they are accused of brutality in combat. Denial of the holocaust and vows to wipe 'zionists' off the face of the earth by Israels enemies is met by your silence. Even the 9/11 attack has been rationalized or outright denied. Those you quote say the tactics of Hezbollah, while not very nice, are certainly understandable. It goes on and on. You leave no other conclusion to be drawn but that you are anti-American and anti-Israel. Not just in Foriegn policy but in everything they do. Why does it bother you to have this pointed out? It is obviously what you believe. Are you embarassed by your own viewpoints?

    Soooo, basically you're saying that if you quote someone that means you automatically agree with everything that certain someone says/does/believes? Is that what you're saying?

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk

    Nvr. et al

    A brief review of posts by yourself and several others indicate nothing but an anti American/ Israel bias on every matter that you bring up or comment on. There is no anti-US accusation or opinion, no matter how unfounded, vile, or just plain looney that you don't embrace. Obviously missing from your strong opinions are any comments condeming the methods of radical Islam and their "theocratic" dictatorships that routinely commit atrocities on innocent civilians. Yet you can't contain your righteous indignation and outrage against US forces when they are accused of brutality in combat. Denial of the holocaust and vows to wipe 'zionists' off the face of the earth by Israels enemies is met by your silence. Even the 9/11 attack has been rationalized or outright denied. Those you quote say the tactics of Hezbollah, while not very nice, are certainly understandable. It goes on and on. You leave no other conclusion to be drawn but that you are anti-American and anti-Israel. Not just in Foriegn policy but in everything they do. Why does it bother you to have this pointed out? It is obviously what you believe. Are you embarassed by your own viewpoints?

    Thanks for making your views about my interest in US and world politics known, Gregor.

    Obviously missing from your strong opinions are any comments condeming the methods of radical Islam and their "theocratic" dictatorships that routinely commit atrocities on innocent civilians.

    My comments about religion, which undeniably affects one's political opinions/worldview, should make it clear that I'm no sympathizer with radical Islam.

    On occasion I have mentioned the respect I have for Salman Rushdie, an apostate from Islam.

    I have commented on the barbarism of female circumcision.

    I do apologize for not being more vocal about the atrocities committed in Darfur by the Janjaweed.

    Your comments are helpful as a reminder that not enough is being said or done about that.

    Thank you.

    Yet you can't contain your righteous indignation and outrage against US forces when they are accused of brutality in combat.

    As for comments about atrocities committed by US forces, how is sharing reports of the atrocities committed by Blackwater's agents the same as attacking the US military?

    The line has been blurred, not by myself, but by the current administration's attempted cover-up and extreme leniency towards this mercenary army. History has repeatedly taught that use of mercenary forces is often counterproductive to one's "cause".

    Denial of the holocaust and vows to wipe 'zionists' off the face of the earth by Israels enemies is met by your silence.

    I have not debated the Nazi holocaust because I feel that the debate itself is absurd. It is a firmly established and horrific episode in human history. If you really examine my posts/comments/words, which seem to be of great interest to you, you will note that I have commented on the irony of the JW position regarding the WWII Allies and their efforts in liberating the concentration camps.

    Even the 9/11 attack has been rationalized or outright denied.

    By myself?

    I had family members working at the restaurant on the top floor of one of the WTC towers. I saw it all happen LIVE. I was at home drinking my coffee, before leaving for work. I made the call to make sure they were safe. They left work early that fateful morning. I rarely talk about it, but I feel I did suffer some PTDD due to the attack. Millions of us did. Maybe you did too, Gregor. I have never agreed with or defended conspiracy theories about 911 on here. I have agreed with and defended the right of those that have such views to express them without ridicule. It's my opinion that such discussions are helpful in understanding what really happened. It is my opinion that some religious fanatics, in an effort to please Allah, killed thousands of innocents, including some Muslims.

    Those you quote say the tactics of Hezbollah, while not very nice, are certainly understandable.

    To attempt to understand what motivates violence or "terror" is not the same as advocating it. Surely you know that, Gregor.

    I have travelled to many other countries, and have enjoyed that immensely, but I'm always happy to come home, to America.

    I look forward to voting in the upcoming Presidential election.

    I am undecided regarding my vote. I am disappointed and frustrated by the current political system in the US but still think participation is important.

    It is obviously what you believe. Are you embarassed by your own viewpoints?

    On a more personal note, has it crossed your mind that I bring up the topics I do because I'm looking for a greater understanding of reality? I would be indebted to more mature and experienced persons such as yourself if you could share your views in a way that could help me to see things another way. In fact, I have made comments to that effect to Forscher. I would love to be "convinced" by you to see things another way. But you have exhibited a rather personal disdain for me for months now. I understand that you don't like me, and I'm ok with that. Life will go on. LOL! I have no animosity towards you.

    I guess we both want what's best for the US and the world.

    I will continue to read your posts about your views on how best to achieve that with great interest.

    Peace,

    Nate

  • emy the infidel
    emy the infidel

    Nvr Posted,

    "It is time for the U.S. to sponsor a multinational force to physically separate and protect Israel and Palestine from each other, and to then convene an international conference to impose a final settlement. The settlement would include an end to the occupation, evacuation of the settlements, reparations for Palestinian refugees (and also for Jews who fled Arab lands), recognition of Israel by surrounding Arab states and an end to all acts of terror and violence. This is the goal of thousands of American Jews and our non-Jewish allies--who have recently formed the Tikkun Community--a progressive pro-Israel organization. Unwilling to be considered traitors and no longer sure that Jewishness is worth preserving if it means the Jewishness of Sharon, we have joined together because we are not willing to allow our culture and religion to lose its prophetic message of generosity, compassion and open-heartedness. ("Thou shalt love the stranger.") No surprise that we have been greeted by some Jews with their favorite mantra: You are self-hating Jews. "

    "separate and protect Israel and Palestine from each other"------they already are, fences and barriers work well.

    "convene an international conference to impose a final settlement".--Impose? How would that be done? International ? (that ends up meaning the US and Allies) wtf?

    "reparations for Palestinian refugees" -- reparations for the "Palestinians"? Or are they the booted out nomads of neighboring countries?

    "Israel by surrounding Arab states and an end to all acts of terror and violence" Okay, sure, but what about our Caliphate?--Hezbollah asks.

    Nvr, when you post comments, its assumed you agree unless otherwise stated.

  • dust
    dust

    We all know that the only country that is qualified to have nukes is the one that has shown that they know how to use them. ;)

  • Gregor
    Gregor

    I can definitely see why the US doesn't want Iran to have them but in my opinion Israel is just as dangerous as Iran!

    Blue, Oh, so you didn't say you saw no difference between Israel and Iran having nukes? You feel I was twisting what you said above? My apology.

    Nvr. I don't know you personally so please don't jump to the conclusion I don't like you. All I have to go by on the above subject is what you have posted. I have read many of your posts on other subjects that I got a kick out of. Look, I'll even put in some emoticons to prove how much I like you. and finally..

    (PS. The jury is still out on the Blackwater incident but with some people the accusation settled the matter)

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk

    Nvr, when you post comments, its assumed you agree unless otherwise stated.

    Hello, emy.

    I posted comments from a Jewish Rabbi's explanation of how one can be critical of the actions of the state of Israel without being anti-semitic.

    This I did in response to a personal accusation that I feel was unfounded and unfair.

    My introduction to that Rabbi's comments was...

    I appreciated the following comments:

    In my mind, that means I think said comments are useful to this discussion. I imagine that most reasonable people understand that one can post an article for the purpose of discussing it or because one believes it contains some good points, without suggesting that one is in complete agreement with every opinion expressed in it.

    I thank you for pointing this out to me, emy, and I will exercise more care when presenting the words of others in my posts.

    I think the issues being discussed are complex and it's of no use to label those that disagree with us "haters" of this or "haters" of that.

    If you ever observe me expressing myself in that way, please let me know.

    Peace,

    Nate

    Edited to add:

    and finally..

    Back at you, Gregor.

    See how easy it was to win my vote for Romney?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit