Cut Israel Off

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IHR News and Comment
A free public service of the Institute for Historical Review
November 26, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~






The Middle East's Secretive Nuclear Power
George Monbiot -- The Guardian (Britain)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comme ntisfree/story/0,,2213814,00.html

George Bush and Gordon Brown are right: there should be no nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The risk of a nuclear conflagration could be greater there than anywhere else. Any nation developing them should expect a firm diplomatic response. So when will they impose sanctions on Israel? ... So when will our governments speak up? When will they acknowledge that there is already a nuclear power in the Middle East, and that it presents an existential threat to its neighbours? When will they admit that Iran is not starting a nuclear arms race, but joining one? When will they demand that the rules they impose on Iran should also apply to Israel?





Cut Israel Off
Charley Reese
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/? articleid=11920

It is long past time for American politicians to quit carrying water for the state of Israel and its powerful U.S. lobby. Congress' craven obedience to the lobby is a disgrace. America's strategic interests in the Middle East lie with the Arab countries. Israel is a strategic and economic liability. The U.S. government's slavish support of Israel brands us as a hypocrite and is responsible for most of the hostility toward the U.S.

 

Israel is not a party to the Non- proliferation treaty. Iran is. We did not impose the rules on Iran, they agreed to have them imposed on themselves when the signed.

 

Have you forgotten? Israel can do no wrong, AIPAC says so.

 

Then that speaks poorly for Israel, doesn't it? Why did they refuse to sign the treaty? America needs to join the rest of the world in shunning and boycotting the "****ty little country" that "rules the world by proxy" and letting it shrink away and die. The world doesn't need nukes in the Middle East at all, especially in Israel, the agitator nation.

 

I agree completely. Unfortunately AIPAC wields way too much power in this country.

The Economist magazine makes the point that AIPAC holds a great deal of responsibility for America's uneven Mideast foreign policy, stating, "Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right." The Economist also says that AIPAC's claim to represent Jewish opinion in the U.S. is not without question, and that AIPAC is often too willing to "close down the debate with explosive charges of anti-Israel bias".

Actually, it appears AIPAC is more in line with the Likud party of Israel. You wouldn't know it, but there is a left wing in Israel. However, in the US, if you criticize Israel or AIPAC, the charges of anti semitism are sure to follow.

 

I am generally indifferent when it comes to Israel issues. The worst kept secret in international politics is the existence of nuclear weapons in Israel. I have little doubt they were given to Israel by a western ally, probably the US. Proof is what is missing. But regardless, considering the neighbors Israel has, it would be prudent for them to have a small deterant/self defense arsenal. I would imagine that thier only use would be done with permission of the US.

 

Why does Israel need a 'small deterrent/self defense arsenal' if no other nation in the ME has nukes?

P.S. - 200-300 nuclear warheads isn't 'small.'

 

Yeah cause they really provoked the war in '67. By you know, existing.

 

Lets see, Israel has an estimated 200-300 nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, we have informed Iran they're not allowed to have any. In fact, nobody but our good buddies, the country that can do no wrong, Israel, can possess them in the region. Double standards, a distinct bias in favor of Israel, and we wonder why we're hated by so many.

 

The fact that Israel has had them so long and not used them, is proof they can be trusted not to use them for no reason.

You name me a government in the ME aside from Israel that is stable enough to trust with nukes?

 

Perhaps because they are surrounded by a number of nations that have called on their total and complete destruction and have attempted to carry this goal out in the past?

 

The point is, who set us up as the judge of who can be trusted.

Are we to be trusted with nukes? By your standard, the answer is no. Since we are the only country in the history of war to have ever used them.

 

So that necessitates Israel's 200-300 nuclear warheads, when none of the others have a single one?

 

They are out numbered tremendously. Given a conventional war, they could concievably need to rely on the threat of nuclear weapons to stave off their own annihilation.

Yes, this is a real possibility. Whether you'd like to accept it or not, the leaders of Iran and Syria as well as Palestine are capable of a genocide. This isn't speculation on my part. Its their own leader's words.

I would like you to name me a country in the world that has had hundreds of people come from an outside land and kill its citizens, which has demonstrated a more paitent and careful response than Israel.

 

We haven't used them for longer than Israel has had them. And we weren't trying to wipe out the Japanese.
We killed almost as many German civilians with conventional bombs.

Ideally I would agree that the U.S. shouldn't have nukes. But there's no real way for us to disarm. We can't trust Russia or China to disarm and they can't trust us either.

The answer is not to try and get everyone on Earth a stockpile.