• @RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13
    edit-2
    20 hours ago
    • racism
    • white supremacy
    • imperialism
    • judeo-christian values
    • western civilization
    • only democracy in the middle east

    take your pick

    Israel violates international laws and has been since 1948, invades its neighbours and commits genocide, and western media still portrays it as a victim.

    • @Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      616 hours ago

      being persecuted for decades/centuries priors helps shield them from any criticism, because they can claim anti-semitism every time.

      • Mythra
        link
        fedilink
        English
        112 hours ago

        The persecution isn’t even theirs. Sure they’d likely have relatives affected by the Holocaust of WW2, but these are the the Jewish people who were rich enough to escape it. Actual Holocaust of WW2 survivors live under the poverty line in Isn’treal.

    • @viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      418 hours ago

      I’ll throw post WW2 apologetics into the ring. Can’t blame Israel publicly without risking career suicide, both in politics and corporate.

  • @WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    321 day ago

    We should welcome an Iranian bomb. Honestly, it’s what the Middle East really needs to bring it to stability.

    The biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East is Israel. They’re a destabilizing force because they’re an expansionist nuclear-armed power with no hard borders. Their borders aren’t actually fixed; they’re in a decades-long process to slowly expand them. For those who forget, Israel’s MO is to:

    1. Destabilize border regions of neighboring countries and foster the creation of militant groups within them.
    2. Use those destabilized regions as justification for military occupation of the territory of neighboring countries.
    3. Announce the creation of border “buffer zones.”
    4. Allow their civilians to move into what is supposed to be a DMZ-like buffer zone.
    5. Again have civilians in the line of fire of militants, demanding further border expansion.

    Israel has been expanding like this for decades, and there’s no end in site. Their immediate neighbors are all to weak and destabilized to resist this process of slow Israeli lebensraum. The people in the Middle East are rightly afraid that they’ll be next under the Israeli boot, and they’ll find themselves reduced to the plight of the Gazans.

    Israel is out of control. It’s an expansionist military power hellbent on gobbling up its neighbors. The reason they’re able to get away with this is because they have nuclear weapons. No Arab nation can invade them without the threat of being nuked in return. Israel uses its nuclear arsenal to conquer its neighbors.

    Another nuclear power is desperately needed in the region to hold them in check. A nuclear Iran would serve this role well. They wouldn’t be able to wipe Israel off the map, as that would result in them getting nuked in return. What a nuclear-armed Iran can do is to finally put a check on Israel’s endless military expansion. We need powers that can stand up to the Israelis as equals and say, “no. Your borders are fucking big enough. You’re not taking one more square meter of land.”

  • @MTK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    Pretty simple. Currently not all nations have nukes, out of those who have, a few have enough to completely destroy a rival nation. This means that the nations with the big nuke stocks are the ones calling the shots as to who should have nukes and how much. Iran being mostly against the US is not allowed nukes, Israel being mostly a US ally is allowed nukes.

    This is the unpolitical explanation.

  • @Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    271 day ago

    Iran needs nukes to defend itself from a nuclear armed aggressor. Everyone needs nukes for that reason. Greenland needs nukes to protect itself from the US.

    • @the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      110 hours ago

      Greenland is part of Denmark, which is part of NATO and the EU. That means they technically have UK’s, France’s, and the US’s nukes.

    • @jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 day ago

      Probability of nuclear war rises with number of states having nukes. It’s best to keep that number as low as possible, so I would not think it wise for Greenland to have nukes. It would not be a sin for Iran to have them, though, given Iran’s allies aren’t exactly offering a nuclear umbrella.

      • @Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        624 hours ago

        That is the conventional wisdom. Wisdom written by people with nukes who can’t stop bullying everyone else.

        • @jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          220 hours ago

          the conventional wisdom checks out to me. Sometimes bullies happen to be right.

      • @outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        best to keep the number low

        Yeah it would be cool if Ukraine was a positive example of what happens when you surrender your nuclear weapons.

        How about we all just agree to glass any religious fanatics, especially ethnostates, that get their hands on the things?

    • @nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      with extinction technology, i don’t know what the answer is. i think you either need a high level of trust and cooperation between all wielding parties which never goes away, or you need a singular world government which has no reason to arm itself with such a thing.

      the stalemate situation where all enemies have a gun to point at one another so that nobody fires a shot is crazy. that can’t be the solution.

  • Chloé 🥕
    link
    fedilink
    English
    441 day ago

    because they’re trying to manufacture consent for a war with Iran

  • YappyMonotheist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    57
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Why won’t the mainstream media of the Western bloc, a well known propaganda apparatus that will always spin things in favour of capitalists and Western imperialism, mention Israel’s (a Western colonial project) nukes? Gee, I wonder why. 🤔😅

  • @sudo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1252 days ago

    Because then the US any every other IAEA signatory would be obligated to sanction Israel which would be the end of Israel’s economy.

    No news media dares mention it because they have no proof and would both loose any insider access and get buried in libel cases.

    • @sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Hahha there is tons of proof, if you use the standard the US used to claim Iraq had WMD and then invade them.

      Difference being that Israel actually has nukes and does everything they can for a very long time to stop the IAEA from getting assigned to look at them…

      …and Saddam actually let weapons inspectors in, because the only chemical weapons he still had were old artillery shells we fucking sold him in the 80s, ageing and leaking in a few armories that had been cordoned off as hazardous waste dumps.

      Howabout the fact that Israel has a nuclear weapons doctrine?

      That you can find random essays written by West Point grads in 30 seconds of websearching… that are about Israel’s nuclear doctrine?

      https://mwi.westpoint.edu/israel-samson-option-interconnected-world/

      Despite Israel also having a ‘nuclear ambiguity’ policy?

      Despite also Ephraim Katzir, Moshe Dayan, Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert all actually making public statements that Israel does have nuclear weapons?

      That they caused a giant fucking scandal back in the 60s by stealing actual fissile material from NUMEC, a US company that uh, refines weapons grades uranium?

      Look up ‘Apollo Affair’.

      That the CIA believed Israel had working nukes back in '75?

      That they conducted a nuclear test in cooperation with South Africa in '79?

      ‘Vela Incident’.

      That the French helped them build an enrichment facility outside of Dimona in the Negev, that an unclassified US report released in 1980 concluded its had working, functional capacity since 1965?

      https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011997288&view=1up&seq=433

      Why?

      Why doesn’t the world openly call out this bullshit?

      Well it certainly couldn’t have anything to do with Mossad and Jeffery Epstein, no sir, nothing like that, definitely not that.

      • @sudo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        321 hours ago

        Sorry for the confusion when I said “no proof”. I meant “no official sources”. Everyone knows Israel has nukes they just have to pretend they aren’t for the legal reasons I stated.

        • @sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          21 hours ago

          I get what you are saying but there are extensive, publically released offcial documents from the US government that the US has been very much convinced Israel has had nukes since the 60s.

          What… what kind of … what can be more official than a declassified CIA document that says ‘yeah we’re pretty sure Israel has nukes’?

          From all the minutes (transcripts) of Congressional hearings about the Apollo Affair, which also had FBI reports and CIA reports and I think the NSA as well?

          I am not asking this rhetorically, to just belabor a point for emphasis.

          I am asking you: If all this shit doesn’t meet your ‘official source’ criteria… what does?

          • @sudo@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            221 hours ago

            Its not my criteria, its about what will legally hold up in a US court against an AIPAC or ADL libel case. Remember, we’re talking about reasons why news sources don’t mention it. Not what I personally think is adequate proof.

            • @sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              20 hours ago

              Ooooh ok your framework is media don’t say due to fear of being sued for libel.

              Uh well, that…

              Well ok.

              If we pretend the rule of law still exists at that level, which it doesn’t…

              Then uh, all the media has to do is just bring up all this stuff, all these documents, have Seymour Hersh on to talk about it, read the quotes from former Israeli PMs, show the unclassified documents and just always give context and caveats… and then just ask ‘Why is nobody taking this seriously? Why do we not have definitive answers?’

              Assuming the rule of law as we knew it in say, 2018 existed, they’d be fine. Maybe the ADL or AIPAC could try to sue them, but it wouldn’t work.

              But this is all moot because if somebody, MSNBC or whatever, did that, today, what would happen is a Scientology style intimidation/terror/ruin your life campaign x100 on everyone something like 2 or 3 direct personal connections away from everyone speaking in that news segment, orchestrated by Mossad.

              And/Or, the entire Republican apparatus doing the same. And then directing stochastic lethal terrorism at them, or just fuck you, executive order says you in particular go to CECOT, bye bye!

              Or the Supreme Court just makes another completely nonsensical ruling that goes against centuries of precedent and effectively destroys the first ammendment.

              Thats the actual reason why no one does this, at this moment.

              The ‘state of Israel’ has no legal standing to… sue the US for reputational damages or making false claims.

              They would also… in this hypothetical, you know, have to actually prove, in court, that… that they are being lied about.

              AIPAC or the ADL would have to attempt to construe it as hate speech. Which wouldn’t work in 2018 land where the law and legal system still exist and work and stuff.

    • @LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Forced by who? The Republican Congress would likely say Iran deserved it, and even if they didn’t Trump would dismantle any group the executive branch is supposed to use to enforce them as he was pushing for with Russia .

      Their biggest trading partner is China … not sure what they would do

      • @kayky@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        232 days ago

        It has nothing to do with a ‘republican’ congress.

        Democrats wouldn’t stand up to Israel either and you’re delusional if you think otherwise.

            • @LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              You know that they put the sanctions on Russia right, even with a Republican Congress. Or do you forget how the sanctions were held until Trump came into office and stopped allowing the executive branch to uphold them?

              • @kayky@thelemmy.club
                link
                fedilink
                English
                112 days ago

                That means democrats would stand up to Israel?

                This is what I mean by delusion. You people are so far gone you can’t even realize it.

                • @LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  4
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Sanctioning Israel if they dropped a nuke on Iran? Absolutely. I’m not even a democrat but you are living in another world if you think they wouldn’t. What realm of insanity are you living in.

                  Post a nuke being dropped Iran only gains sympathy for standing up for the Palestinians.

                  Democrat Congress members are idiots who were way behind on what their constituents wanted and had money funneled to them. But there is no way they would be able to support Israel after that and ever be elected again

                • @LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 day ago

                  I know, that’s the part where I said the Democrats congressmembers were slow and had been funneled money from Israel for their campaigns. When they were elected into office support for Israel was over 50% in the U.S. in 2023 it was still over 50% so it was borderline rediculous. In 2025, support for Israel is only over 50% by one of those 2 parties. As for the other guy saying I’m moving goal posts… The post is about Israel having nukes and the media not mentioning them while discussing war with Iran, so I didn’t find it off topic to say this was about Israel possibly using nukes on Iran, but oh well. We’ll just have differing opinions.

                  Hope you have a good day

      • @sudo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 day ago

        I’m talking about the present, where everyone knows Israel has nukes but not officially. Not some future scenario where Israel nukes Iran.

        • @LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 day ago

          Why would you think they would need to be sanctioned for not using them? China and India both have nuclear weapons and have small skirmishes (granted not as big as this) and we don’t discuss sanctioning both of them for it. I would think threatening to use or using them would be the only scenarios where sanctions would be “forced hand” for lack of a better term.

          • @sudo@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            221 hours ago

            Any state that signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is obligated to sanction any other state that didn’t but has nuclear weapons.

            China is an authorized to have nukes in the NPT as NWS. However, neither India nor Pakistan are NPT signatories and get mixed sanctions based on who is doing it. The US has sanctions on Pakistan but overt nuclear deals with India. China has deals with Pakistan. Australia had sanctions on India until recently.

            Basically international law is only enforced if politically expedient. It shouldn’t surprise you that Israel certainly wouldn’t actually face any actual sanctions if they declared they had nukes. But they are legitimately afraid of getting the Apartheid South Africa treatment so they don’t give any ground on the issue.

            • @LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              121 hours ago

              Yeah I don’t see why anyone would care bout that treaty if people can ignore it. Shit the U.S. /India have 1.5 billion dollar satellite being launched into space this week from India. I don’t see why we would be sanctioning people and building future endeavors with them.

          • @mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 day ago

            China and India both have nuclear weapons and have small skirmishes (granted not as big as this) and we don’t discuss sanctioning both of them for it.

            nor india and pakistan. that’s the conflict I worry about more.

            • @LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 day ago

              I saw elsewhere that Pakistan stated they would be attacking Israel back with nukes if Israel used them against Iran. Which is why I assume it’s a given they won’t be used and we won’t have to worry about them coming into play

              • @mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                124 hours ago

                Which is why I assume it’s a given they won’t be used and we won’t have to worry about them coming into play

                yeeeah, I do wonder about that. the world has seen what a few madmen can get away with for a decade here and there… doesn’t seem to be stabilizing.

    • @BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 days ago

      I think the West has already demonstrated that they’re perfectly happy to just ignore obligations like that, as evidenced by them all refusing to inforce the arrest warrant against Netanyahu.

    • Maeve
      link
      fedilink
      182 days ago

      Plus they killed the last people who were telling.

  • @Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    181 day ago

    MSM has talked about Israel’s nukes. Can’t remember which channel it was, but yesterday they were doing a comparison between Israel’s and Iran’s offense & defense capabilities.

    • @scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 day ago

      Not just an interesting read: also a good example of the media mentioning Israel’s nukes, like OP seems to think they never do.