Sign into an existing account

Why does that jew have a French accent?

its telling they think they have all the rights and others dont. i dislike the mullahs but the issue here is that pakistan a muslim country mind you already has them so i dont hear israel crying so much about this. in theory no countries shouldnt have these of weapons but the genie is out of the bottle and i suspect that more countries are going to get it because of deterrence

yes the israelis are hypocrites

https://xcancel.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1933662443776946279#m

Because US allows them and actively helps them do it. The same answer for every question about Israel

jewish men are bitches.

kek

https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lawsuit-claims-aid-to-nuclear-israel-illegal-under-symington-glenn-amendments/

"A lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. claims that United States aid to Israel is illegal under a law passed in the 1970s that prohibits aid to nuclear powers that don’t sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)."


Cut off all foreign aid and sanction them into compliance. Like we've done with every other country. Same for traitors in Congress.
This free ride should end.
We have our own people to think about. And that was specifically written into the founding article of incorporation.

One trick ponies

"Is it because of the holocaust you (Israel) should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?"

I think thats a fair question, that only someone who was arrogant would refuse to answer.
Any nation and their representative that was being intellectually honest, would be willing to answer such a question.

The fact that they weren't actually says TWO things:
1. israel does have a nuclear program
2. the holocaust is an excuse for such, and they know as much.

As far as excuses go, no sovereign nation needs any for what it decides to do internally. Each nation is free, or should be, to follow whatever policies its ruling regime sees best for their own interests.

On the otherhand, when you agree to an interview, and then refuse to deal honestly, thats on you.

And I'll explain why he didn't want to:
It's a have-your-cake-and-eat it moment.
Answering honestly presuposes a fairness doctrine, that if israel were allowed to have weapons, why shouldn't any other nation?

And second, to avoid that, the only out here is "yes, because the holocaust", which doesn't work because 1. it was more than half a century ago and its a distant abstraction now, not merely to new generations, but even to most living politicians and world leaders.
And 2. a card used too many times is a card overplayed and easily exhausted when most parties today, individually, have no culpability in the holocaust, feel like they owe nothing in any given negotiation because of this very lack of culpability, and are tired of heavy-handed negotiations and one-sided policies that end in the inexplicable and obviously absurd reason of "because the holocaust, thats why."
Like what does the fucking holocaust have to do with a yearly mega-ton turnip tarrif trade agreement between Indonesia and Israel? Absolutely fucking nothing to Indonesia.
And yet I guarantee you, at some time or another, there have been dozens or more likely several hundred agreements and negotiations and policy disputes between organizations and nations involved with israel, and when the chips were down, the final card was "agree with us because the holocaust."

They've tuned it out. And it becomes easier, year on year, for people to shut that down, at least in internal discussions, and say "look, every nation and group of people has experienced hard times. It doesn't give you or permit special privileges status due to victimhood."

And privately I'm sure theres been a lot of discussion in negotiations that amounts to "can you believe these people? And how many fucking Israelis on wallstreet and in london FINANCED hitler?"

It's like some kids dog dying, and two years later, dad's like "your dog died timmy, its time to fucking get over it, and mow the damn lawn instead of using it as an excuse to get out of chores."

Fundementally if Israel doesn't want to lose further legitimacy, it must grow into maturity, and do the hardwork of appearing respectable on the world stage, and dealing with its allies, let alone opposition, plainly.

"we have a nuclear program to protect ourselves. And obviously it is against our national interests that opposition nation's have their own, nations which have also expressed hostility to western nations like america and britain"

would have been a far more honest, and respectable answer, befitting a mature nation and its spokeperson, than shutting the conversation down like a teenager afraid to answer simple and direct questions.

Irrespective of what other people's opinions on Israel are, talking simple pragmatics, if Israel is going to last it has to grow up, and engage in discourse that makes sense.

You know who engaged in ultimatums, total war, and arrogance? Ghangis Khan. He was famous. He was a badass. He is remembered now, centuries out. Ghangis Khan died. His empire disintegrated, and was changed and absorbed beyond all recognition, as well as much of his culture.

Because while being the biggest badass on the block is cool an all, its teenage shit, and eventually beyond force, you have to project legitimacy if you don't want opponents to team up against you when they grow tired of the bravado.

Nations are young because they often don't last, like stars that flare up and burn out quickly from how hot they burn. And in the process of nation building, it is like old men in professions where men die young: They build quiet confidence, that inspires respect. They don't need to shut down interactions, because they have the answers, and strength to back it up.

This spokesman projects none of those qualities, and ill-serves his host nation because of it.