Tough, if they did not want Palestinians to have nukes when they were in the same state, they should not have gotten nukes.
We have nukes, the UK has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, Israel has em', all kinds of people in that area do... we have no right to tell Iran they can't have em'. If we want to stop doing business with em' over it... so be it.

I would suggest we stop telling them they can't have them and set one off with a special ops team from the Mossad at their factory, tell everybody it was an accident in their processing plant. Might put an end to the issue.

Opposing the expansion of Israel means you oppose the existance of Israel? No. You can oppose the settlements and support Israel's existance.That's anecdotal, and in any case it just shows one direction. An antisemite in the Middle East is likely to be anti-Zionist (As I mentioned, an American or European antisemite could just as easily be a gung-ho Zionist). But anti-Zionism doesn't imply anything about antisemetism.

And opposing expansion says nothing about either.

The rest of what?

A pretty rare position, but one that I support.

I think we have established that we disagree on that issue. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. You have not made your case to me in that respect.

In international relations the whole notion of "rights" kinda goes right out the window. Without an established body of law, a governing organization, and international police, the basic disagreement about what "rights" are actually granted to various states is a big mess. It's sorta like, you have the "right" to walk through Harlem with a sign saying "I hate niggers" (ala Die Hard 3), but without policing, you can expect that your right really doesn't apply at all, and will be taken from you. Sure, your natural right still exists but your actual, real-life right will be revoked, along with many others of your rights.

I'm sorry, what position do you supoprt? That
Opposing the expansion of Israel means you oppose the existance of Israel?

If so, then at least you admit that's a rare position. We can therefore remove opposition to expansion from your "flock".

The fact that we disagree is evidence for my position, as I am able to consider the issues separately and your position is that doing so is impossible.

Negative. You are wrong again. I support the right of Israel to exist in its present form. No I do not admit that it "rare", only not mainstream. "My flock"???? what the fuck are you talking about? The fact we disagree provides no evidence for your position. Don't be an idiot. You can consider what ever the hell you want. Nothing you have stated makes you more correct than me. :rolleyes:

Nice try though. :D

Rare was your word, not mine.

Flock was your word, not mine.

You are unable to maintain a coherent argument.

No, there is a big difference. Jews are people, Zionism is an ideology. I am against Communism but I don't hate Communists. I am against the ideology of Neo-conservatism but I don't personally hate Neo-conservatives. I am against most forms of Zionism but I don't hate Jews.

This is a good idea but I don't think it will work. For one, there are so many Israeli settlements in both in the 1967 borders and in the West Bank.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/01/0080361

There are too many Jews outside the 1948 borders to have an "ethical" moment or peaceful moment for that matter. The lines are so blurred with Arabs in Israel and Israelis in Palestine, the chances of a fair border being picked is basically impossible. Also to move the 230,000 Israelis and the many more outside the 1948 borders is just as bad as Israel forcing Palestinians out of their homes. It would be so much easier for the entire state to integrate fully.

I don't trust Iran but the real leader of Iran is a lot less extreme than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Also, Iran has to know that if they nuke Israel the, in return, will be sent back to the stone age. I am not saying that they would never nuke Iran, but all logic says different. But lately, it seems all the world leaders have stopped using logic a long time ago.

And directly messing up other people's plans and blaming it on them will help us how? I believe things like this are the reason why Iran hates us in the first place.

Pierce, did I not remark that fascism can have quite a bit of kid appeal? Did you miss that sentence? There's your answer. The callow and the youthful are the ones most readily seduced by fascism. Old bulls like me have the mental wherewithal to tell its proponents where to get off, where to go, and what to do once they get there. (It involves palletloads of Ex-Lax.)

Yeah, right: allow the antilibertarian opposition the first strike.

Define fascism for me. You say I'm a fascist but do nothing to back it up. How am I a fascist?

Their lil' hobby has been making others move, they can move.

Someone who doesn't think that the US should invade and occupy every dictatorship on Earth.

DAMMIT! UG was right. :D

Sorry to be cliche but two wrongs don't make a right. We can't just tell them to move just like the Native Americans can't tell us to move. While I wouldn't be overly opposed to forcing moving the Jews back to Israel, but it seems like it will cause more problems then it will solve.

If we split Israel into a bi or tri-national state and then slowly combine it into one-state, both Palestinians and Israelis can together.