Report says Israel should dismantle nuclear weapons

[lovuian]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=bb5b599c11b9a7a5

In order to contain Iran’s nuclear development and prevent a nuclear arms race in the region, Israel must begin nuclear disarmament.

This, according to a recent report, entitled “Getting Ready for a Nuclear— Ready Iran,” published by the US Army War College, commissioned and partially funded by the Pentagon, argues that Iran’s nuclear weapon development cannot be stopped by any current military or diplomatic options.

The report instead recommends that the United States convince Israel to “mothball” its Dimona nuclear reactor and agree to international monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, something it has refused to do.

Israel, to date, has never officially confirmed that it does not have nuclear weapons, nor denied it. Credible reports of Israel’s sizable arsenal of nuclear bombs are well-documented, as well as their stable of missiles and aircrafts to deliver them any where in the Middle East.
more...
Somehow I don't see this happening...

[lenidog]

1. I am kinda in agreement with you

I think hell will freeze over and thaw out before that ever happens.

[Erika]

2. Israel had more U.N. violations against it than Iraq did

I mention that to the right wing whenever they say ignoring U.N. violations was enough by itself to invade and occupy Iraq.

[Sgent]

3. However

the IAEA and the UN have no jurisdiction over any nuclear arms that Isreal may possess. That jurisdiction only happens when a country signs the non-proliferation pact. Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea are all signatories, Isreal is not.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Pesky facts.

Seems some like to forget those.

[Englander]

5. Do you think that's a good thing?

That a country with 75-200 nukes is not a signatory to the NPT,
& various other treaties? I don't.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. I didn't say one way or the other.

The fact is they are not apart of the NPT.

[Englander]

7. See #5 n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

8. See #6. n/t

[Englander]

9. And this that a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing?

Do you think that a country with 75-200 nukes, that has sea, land
& air based capabilities to launch nuclear missiles, is not a
signatory to the NPT? I know Israel does not admit possessing these
75-200 nukes, I wanted to know what yer thoughts were on the matter,
which is why I asked, I was hoping for some sort of response.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. Response

I have no opinion, which is why I said what I did.

The whole issue with Iran would be moot if they were not a member of the NPT. However, unlike Iran and NK, Israel has never threatened to use their nukes (real or not).

Do I think Israel has nuke capabilities? Yes. Have they used them or threatened to use them? No.

[tinnypriv]

12. Actually

A former Israeli cabinet minister threatened to "burn Damascus and Beirut" recently. Presumably that was a reference to nuclear weapons (he made the threat while in the cabinet).

Also, the deputy defense minister of Israel (who is a mengles-style supremacist) hinted a while back that Israel has plans for "comprehensive regional purging" and "non-targeted killing" operations. Maybe that could involve nuclear weapons, although it is hard to say for sure.

Israel also flew nuclear-armed jet fighters over Saudi Arabia in the 1980s (in response to a diplomatic initiative). Surely that was meant as a threat (and it was interpreted as one in the West).

[pelsar]

34. links?

Israel also flew nuclear-armed jet fighters over Saudi Arabia in the 1980s.....

never heard of it....

[tinnypriv]

38. There were a couple of reports

At the time in the Israeli press (Davar I think). You can find the references in Fateful Triangle by Chomsky, with some translated excerpts. Or you could email Danny Rubenstein of Ha'aretz, I think he wrote an op-ed about it back then (that is from memory).

If you would like the exact references, PM me. Or I could direct you to Israel's foremost academic expert on Israeli WMD, I'm sure he would have much more information than me. He could also tell you about Israeli (well Haganah) use of biological weapons in 1948, recently revealed in published eyewitness testimony in Israel. Lots of interesting stuff.

[Charles19]

21. NPT doesn't ban enrichment, stick that fact in your book (n/t)

[Behind the Aegis]

33. But that wasn't the topic, now was it? n/t

[Charles19]

35. This topic

"The whole issue with Iran would be moot if they were not a member of the NPT. However, unlike Iran and NK, Israel has never threatened to use their nukes (real or not)."

Being a member of the NPT has nothing to do with it because they ARE NOT VIOLATING it.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. NK is in violation.

Iran is threatening to be in violation. It is not at this point.

[The Stranger]

23. Actually, that is not true.

Israel has threatened to use its nuclear weapons against the Arabs. Of course you don't want to admit that.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Because you said so? n/t

[negativenihil]

25. yeah right...

"The whole issue with Iran would be moot if they were not a member of the NPT"

Bullshit. If Iran weren't part of the NPT, that would be the key point in the push for war with Iran. I honestly doubt Iran could actually appease the White House with any action at this point.

[DELUSIONAL]

15. Religious fanatics of ANY nation are dangerous

and when the religious fanatics have nukes . . .

Israel should be disarmed -- as should the USA.

[Coastie for Truth]

32. I do not think it is a good thing.

But having worked in the field of pressurized water commercial power generating reactors early in my career - I think there should be total and complete 100% (including UK, US, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, China) nuclear weapons disarmement -- and that there should be total complete 100% open inspection of all electric power generating reactors, all research and university reactors, and tracking of the fuel from the mining on ad infinitum.

And in an era of "Peak Oil" - I support development and deployment of the Integrated Fuel Cycle Nuclear Reactors, see the thread with complete 100% "open kimono" - including Israel inspecting Iranian Reactors and Iran inspecting Israeli reactors, Pakistan inspecting Indian reactors and India inspecting Pakistani reactors, by way of example and not limitation.

I do not single out Israel, Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea, PRC, etc. Each and every one of them.

[jody]

29. N. Korea withdrew from NPT in 2003, perhaps Iran should also. n/t

[almostradical]

37. Actually North Korea is not a signatory.

North Korea left the treaty according to the treaty's own terms when it was referred to the security council.

At that point, it was as far outside of the IAEA and UN jurisdiction as Israel is. In fact, the UN did not issue a resolution because at that point it was not bound by the treaty.

If Iran is referred to the security council, it has the right to stop being a signatory also.

It is not possible to escape the charge of double-standard when dealing with the Iran issue. The NPT that Iran signed does not prohibit and there is a strong argument that it guarantees the right of nations to have the entire nuclear fuel cycle and to be nuclear capable.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. US should dismantle nuclear weapons.

So should Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and the UK...and others who are known to have them.

[PsychoDad]

14. World might be a safer place...

If that were to happen. A ban on all atomic weapons worldwide. (if only we could :) )

Or would it have the opposite effect, and embolden nations to violence which now keep a modicum of civility toward armed world neighbors? (ie: US and Korea, India and Pakistan, et al...)

Problem is, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no easy solutions.

Peace

[negativenihil]

26. Sounds like a fine idea to me n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

39. See my append 32.

[tinnypriv]

13. I personally

Do not think Israel should dismantle its nuclear weapons immediately, but it should submit to (and sign) the NPT and related treaties.

The eventual dismantling (required under the NPT in "good faith") should be in stages, with offensive capacity taken down first. As long as you have the leader of Iran calling for the wiping out of the "Zionist entity", Israel should retain the capacity to counter-attack.

[Peace Patriot]

18. Well, it just may be that Iran is calling for "the wiping out of the...

'Zionist entity'" because the Zionist entity's good bud, George Bush, keeps threatening to wipe out Iran.

The Bushites have turned the Middle East into a tinderbox. They are no friend of Israel. A friend would never have invaded Iraq, and killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and tortured others. A friend would be urging diplomacy, and talk of peace--not belligerence and saber-rattling--and would be counseling wisdom, and generosity, with the goal of the welfare of all Mideast peoples.

Israel as a medieval armed fortress is untenable. It simply MUST find peaceful solutions with its neighbors, or both our democracies are not going to survive. What is the end game of the Bush Cartel? It seems to be, first of all, chaos to create opportunities for looting, followed by Armageddon.

And if Carl Sagan was right ("The Cold and the Dark"), that even a limited nuclear exchange will destroy all life on earth, how can we go on risking that happening?

The trouble is that bad US policy in the Middle East has been brewing jihadists for many decades. We toppled Iran's DEMOCRATIC government and installed the horrible Shah. We support dictators and rich, fat, phony "royalties." Jeez. Is it any wonder they hate us and our ally, Israel?

And the Israel state got created in the Middle East in a very similar way to the Europeans coming into the New World, shoving aside and disregarding and brutalizing the people who were there. Tell me, if Native Americans were still capable of mounting violent attacks upon us, and were of a mind to, would you blame them? Our solution was to wipe them off the face of the earth, in order to steal their land and eliminate any possibility of resistance or just revenge. Well, the Israelis have not gone that far, but their policies of displacement and violent repression have similarities.

The Israelis, however, have as much right to be where they are as the Palestinians do. I don't question that at all. It's the Jewish homeland, their heartland--despite grievous mistakes in how it was set up, and despite some bad western motives in supporting it. I just want to bring some perspective to the long bitter history of mutual injuries between Israelis and Palestinians, and Israel and its neighbors, that seems to be leading to Armageddon. The cycle of paranoia and revenge has to be interrupted. It can't go on. You can't shove people behind a wall, and divide up their farms and steal their land, and subject them to police state tactics, and expect security. Armaments and militarism bring only temporary security; then the situation escalates. It is not called the "cycle of violence" for nothing.

WISDOM. GENEROSITY. PEACE. THE COMMON GOOD. Why do we never hear those words from our leaders' lips?

We know why. They do not serve the Bushite war profiteers and arms dealers.

[tinnypriv]

19. Flawed comparison

I agree with your general sentiment, but the idea that there is a parity of stated threat (putting aside capacity to carry out any threat) vis a vis the US/Iran and Iran/Israel is simply not true.

The US has not threatened to "wipe out Iran". Iran has threatened to "wipe out" Israel.

The US currently recognises Iran as a state, though it obviously would probably quite like to overthrow the current regime, maybe attack the nuclear sites. Iran does not recognise Israel as a state and would not only like to overthrow the Israeli government, but any Israeli government. It would also quite like to murder every Jewish inhabitant of the levant, if the speeches of their leaders are any guide. So the comparison is flawed.

I agree that the US should not be threatening Iran (nor should anyone, since that violates the UN charter) but that is irrelevant since we're talking about Israeli national existence, and its maintenance of a nuclear weapons arsenal for that purpose. I actually don't think those nuclear weapons help a great deal, but that doesn't mean I think unilateral disarmament is a good idea (it was in the mid-90's, and may be again in the future, but that isn't today).

[barb162]

42. A few things

1. The USA is not breeding jihadists there. Remember when we helped Afghanistan against Russia? Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar were there at the time we were helping their side. What happened there after Russia left? The US didn't create the Taliban.

From Husain Haqqani
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17308&prog=zgp&proj=zsa
"snip
Blaming foreigners has become a convenient excuse in Pakistan , and elsewhere in the Muslim world, to avoid condemning the extremist Jihad ists' ideology of hatred. It is not necessary for everyone in Europe or the Muslim world to agree with all aspects of US or British policy to acknowledge that many Muslims have been so consumed by hatred of the West that they have lost their moral compass. Terrorism is reprehensible. Extremist ideologies that feed, justify or condone terrorism deserve unequivocal condemnation.
snip
A booklet by the Lashkar-e-Toiba declares the US , Israel and India as existential enemies of Islam and lists eight reasons for global Jihad . These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain , Bulgaria , Hungary , Cyprus , Sicily , Ethiopia , Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan, and even parts of France . Blaming the US for the delusions of these admittedly small groups confers a degree of legitimacy on Islamist extremists and undermines moderate Muslim struggling for the soul of their faith.

Some of the post-July 7 rhetoric in Pakistan and Britain against the US is based on factually incorrect assertions, such as claims that the current global Jihad ist movement was somehow created by the US or that America created radical madrasas in the Muslim world.

The deliberate ignorance of blame-the-US commentators is pervasive. Left-wing activist Tariq Ali wrote in The Guardian the day after the London bombings that ‘‘the principal cause of this violence is the violence inflicted on the people of the Muslim world.'' He suggested, and other critics of the US agree, that ‘‘it is safe to assume that the cause of these bombs is the unstinting support given by New Labour and its prime minister to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.'

2. Iran. The Shah was not good, but look what they have there now. Definitely no improvement....

3. Although I would like to blame Bush for the Mideast being a tinderbox, the facts don't support that. Warring was going on there way before he appeared on the radar. IS he improving the situation with his invasion of Iraq? Of course not.

4. You wrote "It (Israel) simply MUST find peaceful solutions with its neighbors" If you rephrase that to read Israel and its neighbors must find peaceful solutions... I will agree with you. Peace is not a one way street.
---
A fair amount of USA policy has been based on stability (and tolerance of dictators) and the need for a stable oil supply. That happens to be the policy of about every other country on this planet that needs oil, including other huge users such as China and Japan. And if you drive a car, get your food from the grocery, use heating oil, fly on an airplane, etc., you're contributing to the problem of our dependence on Mideast oil, just like many others on this planet.

[sofa king]

16. This is the unfortunate paradox of nukes.

Is there anyone here who honestly thinks that by having Israel dismantle their nuclear weapons, it will somehow stop Iran from pursuing them?

North Korea has unfortunately proven something which was widely believed before the fact: once a country gets nuclear weapons, they are to a large degree safer than they were without them. With asshole nations like the United States running the table, it appears as if the one way to guarantee autonomy is to get a nuke and announce the willingness to use it.

[leesa]

17. Amen to them dismantling, but it ain't gonna happen.

One rule for Israel, another for the rest of the Middle East.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. "One rule for Israel, another for the rest of the Middle East."

SO TRUE! Others in the ME can attack and be terrorists and it is excused as "understandable." Israel attacks or defends herself and its an abomination!

[leftynyc]

62. Well Put (eom)

[jody]

20. Logical but unlikely. What about the new militant Japan? Japan probably

already has the necessary components to assemble nuclear bombs and their fear is fueled by North Korea's perceived nukes.

[htuttle]

22. A couple of years ago, I read that if Japan wants a nuke...

...they can build one in about 3 weeks (maybe it was 3 months -- not long, anyway).

They lack nothing but the desire to build one, apparently.

[Coastie for Truth]

41. The whole could save a lot of money

quit building their own nukes-- buy better ones cheaper from Japan. Japan could offer everything from a tactical battlefield nuke (call it the Scion or Echo or Insite) to a big block buster (call it the 4Runner or Fuso or Komatsu).

[The Stranger]

24. Dismantling is the only option to Deterrence.

The world has been spared from nuclear weapons for 50+ years by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. It prevented the U.S. from attacking the U.S.S.R. and vice versa. Dismantling is the only option to deterrence.

Iran with some semblence of nuclear weapons, although clearly not an advanced armament or delivery system, would act as a counterbalance to Israeli nuclear weapons in the region. As a corollary of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the two powers (although one is decades ahead of the other) would be prevented from ever acting on the threat of actually using nuclear weapons.

It may also deter invasions and occupations of other countries (such as Syria's Golan Heights and South Lebanon). On the other hand, non-nuclear powers run the risk of being invaded or even being the target of limited nukes or tactical nukes, which the Bush Administration has been seeking, and thus breaking ranks with nearly every previous U.S. administration.

[0007]

27. Anyone that has followed Mordechai Vanunu - The Israel Nuclear Sci

would agree that to have peace in the middle east, it must begin with Israel.

For those of you that don't know who this great man is start by clicking on the links below.

http://www.serve.com/vanunu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

[Coastie for Truth]

28. That is imposing a "If Rape Is Inevitable - Lay Back and Enjoy It"

standard on Israel.

But - and here is the catch - the report envisions a nuclear free zone-

The study also argues that Israel’s action would persuade other Middle East countries, Egypt or Algeria, to “follow suit and mothball their own nuclear facilities,” which would lead to a regional halt to the production of fissile material that would be the most effective method to successfully isolate Iran.

"Fissile" also includes materials used in reactors to generate power

“It should be made clear, however, that Israel will take the additional step of handing over control of its weapons-usable fissile material to the IAEA only when all states in the Middle East dismantle their fissile producing facilities (large research and power reactors, hexafluoride, enrichment plants, and all reprocessing capabilities) and all nuclear weapons states (including Pakistan) formally agree not to redeploy nuclear weapons onto any Middle Eastern nation’s soil in time of peace,” said the report.

Yeah - I am waiting with baited breath

[barb162]

43. Good thing you're baiting the breath and not holding it

[pelsar]

31. let me get this straight.....

argues that Iran’s nuclear weapon development cannot be stopped by any current military or diplomatic options.

iran has threatened to wipe israel off the map...has suicide clubs with israel in mind
israel has survived at least two real attempts to wipe it out...by its neighbors

....and ISRAEL should disarm?

some how the logic escapes me.....

[sabbat hunter]

40. even if

israel now signed the NPT they would be allowed to keep what they have correct?

[tinnypriv]

55. No

The NPT states that signatories should undertake measures to eliminate their nuclear weapons in "good faith", by a process of negotiations and an additional treaty related to "general...complete disarmament".

In other words, those that have signed the NPT undertake not to proliferate nuclear weapons, work to end "arms race" style development, and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons, including their own.

Obviously nobody pays the slightest attention to that clause as long as the major powers (U.S, UK, Russia etc) ignore it. If Israel signed the NPT it would be in effect agreeing to dismantle its arsenal at some point in the future.

[4freethinking]

44. Let me get this straight......

Israel threatens to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities and then purchases(more like given by)laser guided bunker busting bombs from the US that can be outfitted with tactical nukes. Israel does not expect to be threatened back or for the situation not to escalate?

Push will always come to shove.

[pelsar]

45. threatened?

perhaps your confused as to who is actually, physically being threatened with annihilation....perhaps the arab armies of 48 didnt plan on wiping out israel?

perhaps the plan of 67 wasnt to "throw the jews in the sea"

In 73....if they werent stopped.....they would have "yielded on their own?

and now we have iranians president planning on "wiping off israel off the map" a country that has a suicide club, hangs 14 yr old girls for having big mouths, makes its women wear burlap sacks.....

...some of us believe he might actually try.....and some of us believe that iran, a fanatical facist theocracy does not live by western democratic rules, hence its cant be judged by those same values (duh!)....and some of us dont believe israel should do what the jews of past did:

put your head down and pray they dont attack (russian cossacks, nazis....etc etc etc-2,000 years of it, over and over again)

[4freethinking]

46. Both are threatening each other

----perhaps your confused as to who is actually, physically being threatened with annihilation....perhaps the arab armies of 48 didnt plan on wiping out israel?----

And Israel is not threatening to bomb nuclear facilities? Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons and some of those weapons can be used against Iranian nuke facilities. You don't expect them not threaten Israel back or escalate the situation and try to deter Israel from doing that(duh!) How dare any nation say they would respond in kind or for that matter say they will defend themselves from attack!

---perhaps the plan of 67 wasnt to "throw the jews in the sea"

In 73....if they werent stopped.....they would have "yielded on their own?----

Perhaps Israel's possession of nuclear weapons and the US intervention in Iraq is making countries in the middle east less secure? They can't throw Israel into the sea our tax dollars make sure of that.Our tax dollars came to the rescue for Israel in 1973 in the form of F-4 Phantoms and advanced versions of the Shrike ARM
missile.(Israel likes to deny their effectiveness because the terms Israel received them under were not as generous as they are today)

----and now we have iranians president planning on "wiping off israel off the map" a country that has a suicide club, hangs 14 yr old girls for having big mouths, makes its women wear burlap sacks.....-------

And it was wrong for him to say that. But when you push someone don't expect for them not to push back or escalate the situation by shoving you back whether it be verbally or physically. When Israel received the bunker busting bombs they knowingly or unknowningly escalated the situation. You think Israel has the right to attack Iran for it's own survival. Iran has the right to defend themselves and retaliate in kind. That's the way the game is played. Always has been and always will be.


------...some of us believe he might actually try.....and some of us believe that iran, a fanatical facist theocracy does not live by western democratic rules, hence its cant be judged by those same values (duh!)....and some of us dont believe israel should do what the jews of past did:----

Israel does not live by western democratic rules either or have the same values as western demcratic countries. If Israel was democratic citizenship and rights would be equal and universal which they are not because Israel has declared itself ,by way of law and policy, to be a state for Jews.

---put your head down and pray they dont attack (russian cossacks, nazis....etc etc etc-2,000 years of it, over and over again)----

In other words: Say what ever you can to justify a double standard when it comes to nuclear weapons.

[pelsar]

47. are you a psychic?

---perhaps the plan of 67 wasnt to "throw the jews in the sea"

given that thats what they declared....its seems prudent to have believed them.....or do you believe israel shouldnt have called up its reserves and just kinda prayed they didnt "really mean it. (great strategy...it worked for us really good in the 1940's)...and they massing of forces, closing down eilat port was just an exercise in....politics? and 48?....then too they were just "playing politics?

but that does explain your position very well---that israel never was really under a threat....

so israel caused iran to threaten to wipe israel off the map because they receive some big bombs....blame israel for irans hatred and suicide clubs, anti zionist press conferences, paying hizballa.....

...if they chose to say they plan on wiping israel off the map....somehow you know this was just rhetoric?...how?..btw this is the same country that sent children to clear mines with their own bodies....

and again....we tried the "its only rhetoric, they really dont mean it"....like i said, it didnt work out to well....why would we try that again?

as far as israelis democracy goes.....its got more liberal laws than many democracies....its jewish character easily competes with the US as a christian country....democracies are far more complicated than single issues as defining aspect it also includes womens rights, gay rights, etc

does israel need nuclear weapons?....show me another state in the world that its neighbors have invaded 3x in the last 50 years?...and continue with rehtoric to "wipe it out"...that refuse, despite peace treaties, to invite professors to lecture and discuss and breakdown barriers?....on the contrary the rhetoric about the "zionist" conspiracies are alive and well....

none of those countries exacly inspire confidence that they acutally want peace with israel.....

[4freethinking]

50. Debating is a two way street

I'm not going to respond to your arguments when you don't repond to mine directly(like I did with yours) But I will take you up on this:

----as far as israelis democracy goes.....its got more liberal laws than many democracies....its jewish character easily competes with the US as a christian country....democracies are far more complicated than single issues as defining aspect it also includes womens rights, gay rights, etc----

It may have more liberal laws but citizenship and rights are not universal in Israel. US character is not christian nor does the US try and make American a Christian nation by it's laws the way Israel does with it's laws to make Israel a Jewish state .Citizenship and immigration is universal and open to anyone. Israel's immigration and citizenship policies are not open to anyone. Israel uses it's policies and law to secure a Jewish majority so long as Israel exists. That's not democratic. When the leaders of Israel say: "The Jewish character of the state of Israel must be preserved" Just how do you think that is done? Here's a hint: It's not done democratically.

[pelsar]

51. so explain....

---perhaps the plan of 67 wasnt to "throw the jews in the sea"

as i am quite curious what the other plans might have been.....

and yes israel will use "illiberal" methods to preserve the jewish character of the state, that is its reason for being...and its not a utopia...but like i mentioned other democracies fail equally in other aspects of the democratic scale...hence singling out israel as a "non democracy is simply the double standard at play...show me your "democracy"...and I'll then show you how that country is not an actual democracy.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. I'm curious...

From what I understand, Arab states don't open their military archives the way Israeli does, so was the stated aim in 67 to "throw the jews into the sea" or is that some sort of loose short-hand for what I'm wondering might have been much more complex war plans? So are the war-plans available to the public the way the Japanese war-aims from WWII were after the end of that war?

On democracy - there are some aspects when it comes to Israel that aren't particularly democratic, and Israel would lose all claims to being democratic if it annexed the West Bank or forcibly expelled the Palestinians from there. Yes, there are aspects to other democracies that aren't particularly democratic and do use "illiberal" means to do what they want, but acknowledging that doesn't mean that we have to support those things. I don't when it comes to my own country, and I don't support them when it comes to Israel...

Violet...

[pelsar]

53. dont misunderstand me....

i am no fan of israels non democratic methods....nor of any countries....reality and political agendas have a way of sneaking in and influencing life. I 'm just an advocate of the single standard rule.

as far as the westbank goes....israel cant annext if without expelling the palestenains...otherwise it has to give them citizenship..hence it has to go and be returned.

what was the arab aims of 67? who knows?.... The first thing that goes when the guns open up is the original plan....their claims their aims whatever the internal and external political games they were playing is simply not the kind one plays without facing the consequences: They claimed they were gong to throw the jews in the sea....they armed their armies...gassed up the tanks...they were threatening a bunch of people who had a mere 25 years earlier came out of the camps,...and then didnt assumed it was just rhetoric when the nazis started with their antisemetic laws. a people with whom a mere 20 years earlier barely made a country...with 6,000 dead...where failure would have had an even higher cost.

this was not the kind of people to "joke with" or send mixed messages about their upcoming anihilation.....same holds true for iran.....

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Rhetoric and it's effects...

I know you read what I had to say about what the Iranian president said, and the reasons in particular that sort of rhetoric is so dangerous, so we're not disagreeing on rhetoric. I guess what I wanted to find out is where that famous quote about throwing the Jews into the sea originated and who said it...

Violet...

[eyl]

68. I used to know this...

The phrase "throw the Jews into the sea" seems to be most commonly attributed to Ahmed Shukeiry. He himself later denied saying that; though it seems he did imply most of Israel's population would be killed; see here for details.

I've also seen this quote attributed to a Syrian publication in 1996, but I've lost the details.

[eyl]

74. Sorry; that should be 1966

[pelsar]

73. actually i dont know....

its become such a common phrase that was attibuted to the 67 war, that i never actually questioned where it came from. I always assumed it was nasser....but then eyl seems to have done the research.

[eyl]

54. There's a difference

On democracy - there are some aspects when it comes to Israel that aren't particularly democratic, and Israel would lose all claims to being democratic if it annexed the West Bank or forcibly expelled the Palestinians from there. Yes, there are aspects to other democracies that aren't particularly democratic and do use "illiberal" means to do what they want, but acknowledging that doesn't mean that we have to support those things. I don't when it comes to my own country, and I don't support them when it comes to Israel...

That's precisely the point. You may not support them, but you also don't suggest those actions mean the states aren't (as a whole) democratic, or illegitimate.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Yeah, but *I* don't suggest that Israel's undemocratic or illegitimate...

So I'm pretty comfortable in the consistancy of my criticism across the board...

Violet...

[eyl]

67. Yes,

but others are not so scrupulous

[4freethinking]

57. Goes to what your

what your definition of what a modern democracy is
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----and yes israel will use "illiberal" methods to preserve the jewish character of the state, that is its reason for being...and its not a utopia...but like i mentioned other democracies fail equally in other aspects of the democratic scale...hence singling out israel as a "non democracy is simply the double standard at play...show me your "democracy"...and I'll then show you how that country is not an actual democracy.-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Israel's methods are not "illiberal" they are racist and discriminatory in nature and practice. That's why Israel remains outside the idea of what a modern democracy is. Modern democracies are about inclusion not exclusion. When you are saying a state is for a certain race, ethnicity, or religion you are implying exclusion. Israel likes to call itself "the only democracy in the middle east" nothing could be further from the truth. If Israel wanted to be a democracy it would have to stop being a Jewish state. That's why Israel is not a democracy. It's a Jewish state.

[pelsar]

58. and your example...

shall i go and list the discrimintory practices of the US for you?....you'll probably need a couple hours as i go through the list....

if the US wants to be a democracy it will have to clean up its act...or do you suggest that the US is not a democracy?

[4freethinking]

60. Go ahead

but ask yourself this: Is citizenship in the United States universal? In other words is it open to all people and is it inclusive? Do we have laws that make each citizens rights equal under the eyes of the law? Do we have laws that protect against certain things like discrimination unlike Israel where discrimination is legal in many aspects of employment and land ownership. We are not perfect but we are more of a democracy(not just a semblance of one) than Israel ever will be . No comparison.

Go head let's hear a couple of them at least.

[pelsar]

61. start with you being wrong....

where is discrimination in israel in employment?.....if your hinting about the security jobs...you will find the same principles in all countries....not every citizen in the US/UK can work in highly sensitive security jobs...the rest is open.

...as far as the US goes.....gay rights (i wouldnt compare them in israels....the US would lose),

whats with the research problems?...can do stem research in the US because "god doesnt like it?...a bit of religion mixing in a researchers research?...not very liberal of the US

massive descrimination against non citizens.....be it employment, benefits etc

how about the holidays....whats with inability for a city to celebrate the various religious holidays?...a generic celebration is not a celebration....its insulting to the religions.

how about the holldays....whats with showing the ten commandments, christmas trees?...what about the hindus, atheists and their needs?

these are just off the top of my head...

perhaps a better comparison would be the US during a war?...you know when american citiens were toss in to prison camps......
_________________________

israel "basic laws" also provide for the civil rights of all its citizens...just like in the US. and like in the US there is cultural discrimination, illegal but it exists on all levels.

[4freethinking]

63. Okay let's look at what you posted

where is discrimination in israel in employment?.....if your hinting about the security jobs...you will find the same principles in all countries....not every citizen in the US/UK can work in highly sensitive security jobs...the rest is open.

It is not only security jobs in Israel where non-jews are discriminated against. Many jobs and benefits require prior military service. Many non-Jews(mainly Arabs) do not wish to volunteer for the military because more than likely that would involve fighting against their own people.

Security positions in the US are not given or denied based on someones race, ethnicity, or religion. When an applicant applies for a security position in our government a PSI(Personal Security Investigation) is conducted. This investigation is about 1)loyalty
2)character 3)trustworthiness and reliability and is not about someones race, ethnicity, or religion. Here is web page about PSI's
and the guidelines that surround the investigation:

All candidates for security clearances, sensitive positions, or positions of trust are treated impartially and consistently regardless of their gender, race, marital status, age, ethnic origin, religious affiliation, disability, or sexual orientation.

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/od/governmentjobs/l/aa_security_2.htm

...as far as the US goes.....gay rights (i wouldnt compare them in israels....the US would lose),

That's commendable that Israel is ahead of most of the world when it comes to gay rights. It's also commendable that Israel provides asylum to homosexual Palestinians who live in the OP. But that does not equate to non-jews having equal rights in Israel. A gay Arab male/female living in Israel is still going to be subjected to things like overt racial profiling and institutionalized racism like having to have a license plate on their car that identifies them as an Arab.

massive descrimination against non citizens.....be it employment, benefits etc

That is not a form of discrimination because it is not based on someones race, ethnicity, or religion. It's based on a non-citizen's legal residency to live in the US and it applies to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. A non-citizen(entering the country legally) can establish legal residency and can receive both employment and benefits irregardless of their race, ethnicity, or religion.

how about the holidays....whats with inability for a city to celebrate the various religious holidays?...a generic celebration is not a celebration....its insulting to the religions.

how about the holldays....whats with showing the ten commandments, christmas trees?...what about the hindus, atheists and their needs?

Our government does not force business or people to observe legal holidays whether they be secular in nature or religious in nature.
People may choose as they wish as to how they want to celebrate or observe that holiday. There is nothing in our laws that prohibits anyone from doing so.

The issue of hanging of the ten commandments, nativities, and other public displays of a religious nature has to do with the issue of whether or not many local/municipal governments are engaging in an endorsement of a religion. Many suits have been brought against these governments for the reasons you are talking about and the majority of these suits have prevailed in getting these governments to stop with these religious displays. Because of this many local/municipal governments no longer set up these displays.

perhaps a better comparison would be the US during a war?...you know when american citiens were toss in to prison camps......

That is a stain and a scare that will never go away on our countries history. That will not happen again. And I can see it's not happening because we are not interning Arabs or Muslims all together like we did the Japanese Americans. We are detaining some muslims but we are not detaining them just because they are muslims.

israel "basic laws" also provide for the civil rights of all its citizens...just like in the US. and like in the US there is cultural discrimination, illegal but it exists on all levels.

There are basic laws that give civil rights but there is still no Basic Law that guarantees a non-Jews rights to be equal with that of a Jew in Israel.

[pelsar]

69. your misinformed.....

A gay Arab male/female living in Israel is still going to be subjected to things like overt racial profiling and institutionalized racism like having to have a license plate on their car that identifies them as an Arab

you simply wrong...all israelis (arab, druze, bedouin, etc) have yellow plates.


really?
Our government does not force business or people to observe legal holidays whether they be secular in nature or religious in nature....christmas?...it may be called something else..but in reality its being celebrated by the nation. Those who arent christian feel "out of place"...as if they are foreigners.

it may not be "lawful"...but in reality is a christian holiday being celebrated.
__________________

and btw anything "in progress" as you wrote, means the discrimination exists.

israel does not force non jews to celebrate passover etc. and other jewish holidays..so here you are wrong again. (see the US christmas celebrations)

and the other side is that by eliminating displays of religion, which we dont do, the US is being incredibly insensitive to its citizens...that too can be declared discrimintory....we dont do that here.

and yes some jobs request prior army service, Some employeers pefer it for a variety of reasons..some will be discriminatory...but its not illegal to prefer it.

Non jews if they chose can always volunteer as many do...and there are many benefits for those who do the service as a way of paying them back...so the discrimination is actually against the jews in this case.

as far as the security services go...i believe that arab citizens with connections (family etc) to palestenain refugees are a security risk....that would probably include all muslim israelis.... The US also has section called: "trust worthiness and reliability"....i doubt that mr. american muslim x with family connections to the taliban would be considered trustworthy and reliable......his lack of trustworthness would be a result of his culture and family....and since the cia would limit all amerian muslims with taliban connections.....you may claim its not discrimintory because its not in the charter...but it is....(I suspect the cia interviewers would be laughing out loud if such a employment form crossed their desk)

and a little common sense is required as well.


i do believe that CAIR disagrees with this:
We are detaining some muslims but we are not detaining them just because they are muslims.

as in the US:
The State of Israel will . . . foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice, and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex;

http://countrystudies.us/israel/78.htm

the article goes on to explain the problems, its faulty implementation etc...but as in your explanation of the discrimination during the holidays....its a work in progress.

i just think your simply misinformed.....discrimination exists on multiple levels....within the govt, within corporate with the universities....but it doesnt mean its lawful...israel is a work in progress, applying liberal laws during a war....its quite a balancing act.

[4freethinking]

71. You got me

you simply wrong...all israelis (arab, druze, bedouin, etc) have yellow plates.

You are correct. It is only in the OT that Arabs have different license plates.

[pelsar]

72. they are not citizens...

the palestenians in the westbank are not citizens of israel, they live under a military occupation....and as such they have different ID's different laws etc.

[4freethinking]

75. Common sense application

as far as the security services go...i believe that arab citizens with connections (family etc) to palestenain refugees are a security risk....that would probably include all muslim israelis.... The US also has section called: "trust worthiness and reliability"....i doubt that mr. american muslim x with family connections to the taliban would be considered trustworthy and reliable......his lack of trustworthness would be a result of his culture and family....and since the cia would limit all amerian muslims with taliban connections.....you may claim its not discrimintory because its not in the charter...but it is....(I suspect the cia interviewers would be laughing out loud if such a employment form crossed their desk)

When a person is denied a security position in our government they are being denied that position because they are a security risk(like family connections) not because of their race, ethnicity, or religion. Common sense dictates that you are not going to let someone into a intelligence organization or security position when they are a security risk regardless of their race, ethnicity, or religion. Just because someone is a certain race,ethnicity, or religion does not exclude them from that position. Our laws are clear on that. Our intellegence agencies are subject to those laws when it comes to hiring and security positions. Our intelligence agencies in the past few years are activity seeking,recruiting, and hiring Arab Americans.

[pelsar]

76. but excluding jewish americans who speak arabic....

"WorldNetDaily reported that the FBI has rejected, apparently systematically, applications from Jewish Arabic speakers seeking to serve as translators."

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/1056/edition_id/9/format/html/displaystory.html%3Ecolumn (this is a secondary site....)

According to Sephardic community leaders questioned by WorldNetDaily, many of those applicants — all of whom are American — had prior professional experience working for Israeli Radio in Arabic and serving as linguists in the Israel Defense Forces. Indeed, for most of them, Arabic was their mother tongue.

The FBI has offered no official comment on its rejection of the applicants. Sources familiar with the FBI’s vetting process have claimed that the sense was that the Jews “were too close to Israel” and might fail to translate documents in an objective manner. A former FBI official I spoke with said that he could not dismiss the idea that perceived loyalty to Israel would in fact cause a Jew to be rejected by the FBI.
_________________

NONE were hired...that reaks of discrimination

laws can/are circumvented.....we can ask a city black about his being hired in a lilly white neighborhood across the street at the macdonalds. The law may say its wrong..the reality is quite different.

[4freethinking]

77. Again common sense application

According to Sephardic community leaders questioned by WorldNetDaily, many of those applicants — all of whom are American — had prior professional experience working for Israeli Radio in Arabic and serving as linguists in the Israel Defense Forces. Indeed, for most of them, Arabic was their mother tongue.

The FBI has offered no official comment on its rejection of the applicants. Sources familiar with the FBI’s vetting process have claimed that the sense was that the Jews “were too close to Israel” and might fail to translate documents in an objective manner. A former FBI official I spoke with said that he could not dismiss the idea that perceived loyalty to Israel would in fact cause a Jew to be rejected by the FBI.

They were American nationals who served in the armed forces of a foreign government. That constitutes a security risk. They were not denied those positions because of their race, ethnicity, or religion. The issue of dual loyalties arises. It can not be ruled out that they will not engage in illegal activities on behalf of that government. If someone was a American national of Arab decent who served in the armed forces of a foreign government they would also be considered a security risk. That goes for everyone who applies for a security position. PSI's are there to eliminate risks to our security. That is what it does and must do. It has nothing to do with discrimination. The investigation conducted by the FBI has to do with a person's background. If the applicants had not served in the armed forces of a foreign government or had regular contact with officials in that government they would not have been excluded from that position.

[pelsar]

78. i'm not disagreeing...

A former FBI official I spoke with said that he could not dismiss the idea that perceived loyalty to Israel would in fact cause a Jew to be rejected by the FBI

i'm just saying its a very thin line.....and if you want other examples i could jump over the CAIR website, the NAACP etc and find lots of examples of discrimination in action, though not lawful

the "dual loyalty" thing is precisly whats its all about. An arab israeli also identifies himself as part of the larger arab muslim world..which large parts are at war with israel.

common sense of "perceived loyalty"....perhaps the Israeli version is simply more honest.

[Behind the Aegis]

48. Equally?

And Israel is not threatening to bomb nuclear facilities? Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons and some of those weapons can be used against Iranian nuke facilities. You don't expect them not threaten Israel back or escalate the situation and try to deter Israel from doing that(duh!) How dare any nation say they would respond in kind or for that matter say they will defend themselves from attack!

I HATE you! Your loud-ass car, with the faulty muffler, keeps waking my pets! So, I threaten to blow-up your car. You, in return, threaten to burn down my house during the holidays when all my family is here and lock us in so we can not escape. Equal threats? I don't think so! Threatening to blow up a reactor (right or wrong) does not EVEN come close to threatening to completely destroy a nation!

Perhaps Israel's possession of nuclear weapons and the US intervention in Iraq is making countries in the middle east less secure? They can't throw Israel into the sea our tax dollars make sure of that.Our tax dollars came to the rescue for Israel in 1973 in the form of F-4 Phantoms and advanced versions of the Shrike ARM missile.(Israel likes to deny their effectiveness because the terms Israel received them under were not as generous as they are today)

Perhaps the constant attacks by terrorists and sovereign nations is making Israel feel less secure? You speculate they can't "throw Israel in the sea," yet they keep trying and the blame gets placed...not on the terrorists...but, on Israel! Gee, I wonder why the little nation is so fucking defensive. Oh, and why you are throwing around money numbers, look at how much money goes to Israel from other countries...little to ZIP! But, look at the money shuffled around to fund illegal terrorism against Israel. Seems to me, dollar for dollar, the battle is still pretty equal.

And it was wrong for him to say that. But when you push someone don't expect for them not to push back or escalate the situation by shoving you back whether it be verbally or physically. When Israel received the bunker busting bombs they knowingly or unknowingly escalated the situation. You think Israel has the right to attack Iran for it's own survival. Iran has the right to defend themselves and retaliate in kind. That's the way the game is played. Always has been and always will be.

How magnanimous of you to admit what the leader of Iran said was wrong. Since you are new, and I don't know you, I can only guess that if the Israeli president had said the same thing you (and others) would be screaming for international sanctions. I also love how the accepting of "bunker busters" "knowingly or unknowningly escalated the situation." So, even if "unknowingly" it is STILL Israel's fault! You say: "Iran has the right to defend themselves and retaliate in kind." So, wouldn't the prudent thing be, "if they take out our reactor, we will take out their's?" As opposed to, "if they take out our reactor, we will destroy their entire nation and its people too?"

Israel does not live by western democratic rules either or have the same values as western demcratic countries. If Israel was democratic citizenship and rights would be equal and universal which they are not because Israel has declared itself ,by way of law and policy, to be a state for Jews.

And yet, you seem to be willing to excuse Iran for not having those 'rules,' but not Israel. If neither have those 'rules,' why do you have a problem with Israel having nukes? It could also be that you don't understand the true nature of Israel because you seem to think that Israel is only for Jews.

In other words: Say what ever you can to justify a double standard when it comes to nuclear weapons.

When Israel is threatening to wipe Iran off the map and I say nothing, then it will be a double standard. If Iran wants to use nuclear power for electricity and the like...go for it!

[4freethinking]

59. It's about escalation by both sides

-------------------------------------------------------------------
----I HATE you! Your loud-ass car, with the faulty muffler, keeps waking my pets! So, I threaten to blow-up your car. You, in return, threaten to burn down my house during the holidays when all my family is here and lock us in so we can not escape. Equal threats? I don't think so! Threatening to blow up a reactor (right or wrong) does not EVEN come close to threatening to completely destroy a nation!------
-------------------------------------------------------------------

It goes to my point about escalation. Israel threatens to blow up Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran makes a few comments about retaliation. Israel then receives weapons from the US that can be used against these facilities.Israel and America let it be known to the world and Iran that these weapons have nuclear capabilities. You don't think that is an escalation? Now what do you expect Iran to do? You don't see a pattern here?


--------------------------------------------------------------------
---Perhaps the constant attacks by terrorists and sovereign nations is making Israel feel less secure? You speculate they can't "throw Israel in the sea," yet they keep trying and the blame gets placed...not on the terrorists...but, on Israel! Gee, I wonder why the little nation is so fucking defensive. Oh, and why you are throwing around money numbers, look at how much money goes to Israel from other countries...little to ZIP! But, look at the money shuffled around to fund illegal terrorism against Israel. Seems to me, dollar for dollar, the battle is still pretty equal.----------

--------------------------------------------------------------------

That may be the justification why Israel needs nuclear weapons. The justification that Israel uses ,no matter what it may be, gives justification for other countries in the region to have them. There is no guarantee that Israel won't use them in a first strike(like laser guided bunker busting bombs equipped with tactical nuclear warheads. Sound familiar?)

Look how much money Israel gets from us and how much other countries that are more deserving of our charity get. Israel has a standard of living that is in the top 20 world but receives more aid from us than all of the sub-saharan African countries(the poorest in the world) combined. That's disgusting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

----How magnanimous of you to admit what the leader of Iran said was wrong. Since you are new, and I don't know you, I can only guess that if the Israeli president had said the same thing you (and others) would be screaming for international sanctions. I also love how the accepting of "bunker busters" "knowingly or unknowningly escalated the situation." So, even if "unknowingly" it is STILL Israel's fault! You say: "Iran has the right to defend themselves and retaliate in kind." So, wouldn't the prudent thing be, "if they take out our reactor, we will take out their's?" As opposed to, "if they take out our reactor, we will destroy their entire nation and its people too?"------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The purchase of bunker busting bombs was not carried out in a covert
manner. It was deliberately carried out in an overt manner to change Iran's position on the use of it's nuclear facilities. The US and Israel intended to let Iran know that these weapons had nuclear capabilities by telling the press and other sources. That is a fact. They knowingly and deliberately(I will take back unknowingly based on my research) escalated the situation to try and force a change in Iran's position. Israel ,in an indirect way with the coperation of the US, is threating to use nuclear weapons. Iran inturn, in an indirect way, is telling Israel that it will use nuclear weapons if Israel uses nuclear weapons. Again do you see a pattern here?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

----And yet, you seem to be willing to excuse Iran for not having those 'rules,' but not Israel. If neither have those 'rules,' why do you have a problem with Israel having nukes? It could also be that you don't understand the true nature of Israel because you seem to think that Israel is only for Jews.---------

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I don't excuse Iran from rules nor do I excuse Israel from the rules.
If we hold other countries to the same standards in regards to nuclear weapons Israel should be also held to that same standard. But being Israel is the center piece of our double standard foreign policy I don't expect that to happen.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

---When Israel is threatening to wipe Iran off the map and I say nothing, then it will be a double standard. If Iran wants to use nuclear power for electricity and the like...go for it!----

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Israel ,in an indirect way, is threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran. We(the US) would be more creditable if we held Israel to the same standard(which we don't) when it comes to nuclear weapons.

[Behind the Aegis]

64. not really.

It goes to my point about escalation. Israel threatens to blow up Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran makes a few comments about retaliation. Israel then receives weapons from the US that can be used against these facilities.Israel and America let it be known to the world and Iran that these weapons have nuclear capabilities. You don't think that is an escalation? Now what do you expect Iran to do? You don't see a pattern here?

It doesn't really go your point of escalation. Escalation would have been, "Israel threatens Iran nuclear plant. Iran threatens same AND military base." But, Iran jumped to the "triple dog dare." (Watch A Christmas Story and you will get that reference.) Iran did not make comments about retaliation, they made comments about destroying a sovereign nation, completely! In all the years that Israel has had nukes, I have yet to hear any sane politician declare they were going to "wipe a nation off the face of the map." The ONLY pattern I see is a continuation of Judeophobic bullshit and acceptance of it from people because it is "killing the right people." I have heard the same thing about AIDS (killing the right people...fags (of which I am one) and the current illegal war in Iraq, "kick their ass, take their gas" from the right-wing fanatics)!

That may be the justification why Israel needs nuclear weapons. The justification that Israel uses ,no matter what it may be, gives justification for other countries in the region to have them. There is no guarantee that Israel won't use them in a first strike(like laser guided bunker busting bombs equipped with tactical nuclear warheads. Sound familiar?

Look how much money Israel gets from us and how much other countries that are more deserving of our charity get. Israel has a standard of living that is in the top 20 world but receives more aid from us than all of the sub-saharan African countries(the poorest in the world) combined. That's disgusting.

Again, Israel has never threatened to wipe an entire nation off the face of the earth. Israel has been attacked time and time again, yet has not launched aggressive wars against her neighbors (although some will dispute that). There are no guarantees in life and Israel is well aware of that. Look at some of the posts here where people don't even care if Israel is destroyed because they have no vested interest in her. Sound familiar? Nazi Germany springs to mind.

Your second paragraph is part of the problem. You say: "Look how much money Israel gets from us and how much other countries that are more deserving of our charity get." Israel should be blamed?! I think the blame here falls squarely on the US! But, no, it is placed on Israel! Because more deserving countries don't get the aid, it is Israel's fault? This is the problem to which I am speaking. It doesn't matter who the real perpetrators are, if Israel is involved it will be her fault!

The purchase of bunker busting bombs was not carried out in a covert manner. It was deliberately carried out in an overt manner to change Iran's position on the use of it's nuclear facilities. The US and Israel intended to let Iran know that these weapons had nuclear capabilities by telling the press and other sources. That is a fact. They knowingly and deliberately(I will take back unknowingly based on my research) escalated the situation to try and force a change in Iran's position. Israel ,in an indirect way with the cooperation of the US, is threating to use nuclear weapons. Iran in turn, in an indirect way, is telling Israel that it will use nuclear weapons if Israel uses nuclear weapons. Again do you see a pattern here?

You say that Israel is "in an indirect way with the coperation of the US, is threating to use nuclear weapons." Maybe, just maybe, they are saying, "we have the means to protect ourselves, with the blessings of other nations?" You and I are in a border dispute about the fence line in our respective yards. You have said: "I will kill you if you put that fence on ONE piece of my property." The next day, I but a gun and make sure that the delivery is very obvious. You now know I have a gun. Does this mean I am going to come to your yard and shoot you? Or does it mean if you try to kill me because of the fence placement I will respond with force?

I don't excuse Iran from rules nor do I excuse Israel from the rules. If we hold other countries to the same standards in regards to nuclear weapons Israel should be also held to that same standard. But being Israel is the center piece of our double standard foreign policy I don't expect that to happen.

Israel is not a member of the NPT. She cannot be held to the same standards. If Iran is referred to the Security Council over this and leaves the treaty (also her right), then we will be in a similar situation. The rules, right now, are not the same! However, the real double standard comes from supposed liberals who would deny Israel protection, but cheer Iran's wanting to "protect" herself.

Israel ,in an indirect way, is threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran. We(the US) would be more creditable if we held Israel to the same standard(which we don't) when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Nothing I have seen is an indication that Israel has indirectly threatened Iran with nukes! We (the US and others) should stop trying to make a country that is not a member of the NPT comply to something she hasn't signed, but pretend a nation that has signed deserves different rules because it suits "us."

[Tom Joad]

56. God Bless Mordechai Vanunu. The man who told the truth about

Israel's Nukes, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Israel introduced Nuclear Weapons to the Middle East.
Unless the earth gets rid of those, we have no hope of getting other nations in the Middle East to not develop their own stockpiles.

No US military aid to nations that violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It's not only a good idea, it's the law!

[Coastie for Truth]

70. Israeli is not a signator to the NPT

That's what they teach at Stanford - I really don't know what they teach at Boalt.