Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Razgovory]

Also, and this might sound prejudicial, but I don't want the Palestinians to have access to Israeli nukes.  Cause, you know...

[Valmy]

Also, and this might sound prejudicial, but I don't want the Palestinians to have access to Israeli nukes.  Cause, you know...

They strike me as the enemies of Israel least likely to want to nuke Israel though.

[crazy canuck]

Also, and this might sound prejudicial, but I don't want the Palestinians to have access to Israeli nukes.  Cause, you know...

They strike me as the enemies of Israel least likely to want to nuke Israel though.

Yeah, I wonder what the "cause, you know" is referring to.  I don't actually know who the Palestinians would nuke if they had nukes.

[Razgovory]

Also, and this might sound prejudicial, but I don't want the Palestinians to have access to Israeli nukes.  Cause, you know...

They strike me as the enemies of Israel least likely to want to nuke Israel though.

The enemy of Israel least likely to nuke Israel is Tyr.  I remember a poll back in 2006 where 65% of Palestinians supported Al-Qaeda attacks in the US and Europe.  https://web.archive.org/web/20120611152620/http://almashriq.hiof.no/general/300/320/327/fafo/reports/797.pdf

[Grey Fox]

Other Muslims? Probably Saudi Arabia.

[Jacob]

The US?

There's also the increased risk of proliferation.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think that there is any doubt that a one-state solution was possible in the post-WW2 period, but I am convinced that:
1. The Jews did not want that because they wanted a Jewish homeland where Jews had the power to prevent the incessant violent antisemitism that was widespread, not just in Europe.
2. The Palestinians would have accepted it.  The stories about Palestinians massacring Jews are not all incorrect, but they are overblown and fail to comprehend the actual cause of the problem (that being that Jews were buying land from absentee Ottoman/Turkish/Arab landlords and turning out the existing Palestinian farmers, who had been renting the land for generations).
3.  A power-sharing arrangement would inevitably break down, as we saw in Lebanon. Those arrangements don't withstand the changes that passing time bring.

There's a fascinating detail in Avi Shlaim's biography of King Hussein, Lion of Jordan, about King Abdullah trying to persuade Golda Meir to accept an autonomous Jewish canton within Jordan.

[crazy canuck]

The US?

There's also the increased risk of proliferation.

What groups would gain access that could not gain access through Russia or China? 

In years past I would have said Iran, but given the recent cooperation between Russia and Iran I am not sure that is accurate anymore.

[Josquius]

Surely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?

[Grey Fox]

In today's world? That would make them a target instantly.

[Razgovory]

Surely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?

Yeah, I imagine the Jews casting aside their weapons would make final decolonization much easier.

[Valmy]

Surely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?

Only a truly insane country would voluntarily give up nukes after what happened to Ukraine, the only country to ever do so.

[Sheilbh]

Only a truly insane country would voluntarily give up nukes after what happened to Ukraine, the only country to ever do so.

Well not nukes but also Libya gave up its WMD program.

South Africa too.

[grumbler]

Is Kazakhstan no longer a country, or was Ukraine not the only nation to de-nuclearize?

[grumbler]

Surely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?

Indeed.  In a hypothetical one-state solution, the country would not need nukes.  There would be no nations determined to destroy it.