International Israel - Iran Conflict: PEACE DEAL CONFIRMED

Choose the following that best describes your position

  • I do not support Israel attacking Iran

    Votes: 223 61.6%

  • I support Israel attacking Iran, but do not support America becoming directly involved.

    Votes: 93 25.7%

  • I’m for America directly involving itself in the conflict.

    Votes: 46 12.7%
  • Total voters
    362
  • Poll closed .
not-even-200-days-into-his-presidency-and-its-already-aged-v0-1lxiyzcchl7f1.jpeg


<{Heymansnicker}>
 
Tatra said:
Yes, and the Zionists are known for their honesty.



They gave Sinai back over 45 years ago. The ultra religious Jews were yet to gain any strength in Israeli politics then. This is a very different era for Israel. The ultra religious terrorists are increasingly dominating Israeli politics and they will steer Israel in that direction. If Israel lasts that long.
Click to expand...
ah, keep coming with the tropes.....

you guys are great!
 
Tatra said:
They gave Sinai back over 45 years ago. The ultra religious Jews were yet to gain any strength in Israeli politics then. This is a very different era for Israel. The ultra religious terrorists are increasingly dominating Israeli politics and they will steer Israel in that direction. If Israel lasts that long.
Click to expand...
One of the many problems with your admittedly amusing theory is that most of Israel is secular, including those on the right. And as for Israel's "ultra-religious", many of them aren't even zionists. And the idea that a majority of Israel's population would go along with an attempt to make the country several times bigger because a few psychos have that vision, is of course complete nonsense. As if the Israelis aren't sick enough of war as it is. And they're happy to have a tiny country. They just want to be left alone.

Also, I think you know what decimated the country's left and moved everyone to the right: Constant attacks from Arabs. Do you blame the Israelis for having had enough of that shit? Which country's population do you think would have reacted differently?

It's honestly quite puzzling how you people are completely unable to see this from the Israelis' point of view. Is it autism or something? Something is definitely missing, that's for sure.
 
kflo said:
lol.

so you're in favor of iran having nukes. got it.
Click to expand...

Im in favor of no country having nukes. If you're so anti iran having nukes then why tear up the deals we were working on with them? Because Obama, that's why. If Trump is such a great deal maker he should have been able to make such a better deal in 2016.

Are you in favor of north Korea, Pakistan and Russia having nukes?
 
Big Nasty Edison said:
Im in favor of no country having nukes. If you're so anti iran having nukes then why tear up the deals we were working on with them? Because Obama, that's why. If Trump is such a great deal maker he should have been able to make such a better deal in 2016.

Are you in favor of north Korea, Pakistan and Russia having nukes?
Click to expand...
Are you ok with Iran having nukes? Why is this so hard to answer?
 
Tatra said:
Yes, and the Zionists are known for their honesty.



They gave Sinai back over 45 years ago. The ultra religious Jews were yet to gain any strength in Israeli politics then. This is a very different era for Israel. The ultra religious terrorists are increasingly dominating Israeli politics and they will steer Israel in that direction. If Israel lasts that long.
Click to expand...

What Z-i-o (the full word is not allowed on this forum, true story) never say is that they gave Sinai because Eisenhower made them.

He was the last American president that put his foot down and treated them like a superpower treats a lesser ally.

After him came Johnson who was basically proto-Biden and the story unfold with great American submissiveness until today.

Oh of course there was JFK between the two but he was assassinated as we all know. And he had an interesting heated correspondence with Ben Gourion about the israeli development of nuclear weapons.

After a long battle of nerves Israel submitted to American visits to verify that they weren't developing plutonium for weapons in their Dimona reactor. He was killed a few weeks before the first visit and then the visits were scrapped off by Johnson who gave them carte blanche to do anything they please.

A relatively long but interesting read :

The Battle of the Letters, 1963: John F. Kennedy, David Ben-Gurion, Levi Eshkol, and the U.S. Inspections of Dimona | National Security Archive

Washington D.C., May 2, 2019 - During 1963, President John F. Kennedy was preoccupied with issues such as Vietnam, the nuclear test ban negotiations, civil rights protests, and Cuba. It is less well known, however, that one of his most abiding concerns was whether and how fast Israel was seeking...
nsarchive.gwu.edu nsarchive.gwu.edu
 
A summary of the article above from ChatGPT for those who won't read it :

Here’s a summarized breakdown of the archived content about the 1963 "battle of letters" between JFK and Israeli leaders over the clandestine Dimona nuclear reactor:



📜 1. Background: U.S. Concerns & Early Inspections​


  • Throughout the early 1960s, the U.S. suspected Dimona, Israel’s secretly built reactor, could produce plutonium for weapons, raising fears of a Middle East nuclear arms race .
  • Kennedy had already arranged limited American inspections in 1961 and 1962 through Atomic Energy Commission experts, but concerns persisted over possible concealment .


📩 2. April–June 1963: JFK’s Demands and Israeli Pushback​


  • April 2, 1963: U.S. Ambassador Barbour formally demanded twice-annual visits to Dimona with full U.S. scientist access .
  • April 26: PM David Ben‑Gurion replied with a seven-page letter invoking existential threats—referencing “another Holocaust”—and proposed broad security guarantees, hinting at Dimona’s true purpose without explicit admission .
  • May 4: Kennedy rejected Ben‑Gurion’s diversionary strategy, emphasizing his demand for reliable access and warning that continued U.S. support could be “seriously jeopardized” otherwise .
  • Ben‑Gurion faced criticism internally for being “sick” (in Hebrew), fearful Kennedy might even use military force. Ultimately, he resigned mid-June .


🤝 3. Eshkol's Succession and the "Ultimatum" Letter​


  • Shortly after taking office, PM Levi Eshkol received the same stern letter from Kennedy—effectively an ultimatum—threatening U.S.–Israel relations if inspections were blocked .
  • Eshkol hesitated, eventually drafting several replies over six weeks. His August response agreed to “regular visits,” but tactfully avoided JFK’s twice‑yearly schedule .


🔍 4. Outcome: Inspections Begin, But U.S. Concessions Made​


  • The first U.S. inspection under these terms took place in January 1964, a few weeks after JFK was assassinated. Though scheduled as a two-day review, it took only one day and reportedly found no proof of weapons-related work .
  • Washington pressed for bi‑annual inspections, but after JFK’s death, Lyndon Johnson softened the approach. Annual visits from 1964–1969 did take place, but lacked the rigor JFK had demanded .


🧭 5. Broader Significance​


  • The 1963-64 exchange illustrates Kennedy’s strong stance against nuclear proliferation and fear of failings in his wider non‑proliferation efforts .
  • From Israel’s view, Dimona represented existential security—a strategic hedge against regional hostility. Ben‑Gurion and Eshkol viewed restraints on it as a direct threat to national survival .
  • When U.S. enforcement softened after 1963, Israel advanced facilities for plutonium separation, while maintaining a deliberate policy of nuclear ambiguity .


🔚 In summary, the “battle of letters” was a pivotal confrontation in 1963 wherein JFK demanded robust inspection of Israel’s Dimona reactor. Israel’s leaders, citing profound security fears, staved off strict verification, leading to modest concessions. Though inspections occurred, they fell short of JFK’s non‑proliferation standards—ultimately allowing Israel's near-completion of a nuclear-weapons capability under a policy of ambiguity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Scheme
International Azerbaijan - Armenia war over, peace brokered by US, leaders call for Trump Nobel Peace Prize
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Scheme
Scheme

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,442
Messages
58,284,754
Members
175,994
Latest member
Doomer

Share this page

Back
Top