Sanding our assholes with 150 grit. Slowly. Lovingly.

Israel and WMD

From New York Times:

"In what amounts to a reinterpretation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Mr. Bush now argues that there is a new class of nations that simply cannot be trusted with the technology to produce nuclear material even if the treaty itself makes no such distinction."

I'd say US and the world should focus on Israel which has piles of WMDs - as opposed concentrating on stories fabricated by neo-cons about Irainian government's intention in building WMDs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Permalink Dan Denman 
March 15th, 2005
Are you referring to this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13covert.html?ex=1111554000&en=57cd7d3f54ed97a0&ei=5070
Permalink scouring the net 
March 15th, 2005
Visit:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/

Look at the archives for the photos of the week. You are able to watch the construction of hardened nuclear facilities via public imagry.
Permalink Duff 
March 16th, 2005
Ah, George is up to his old tricks re-defining words again. It's really hard to keep up with that guy. Sure they signed the treaty, but that doesn't matter, because they should not be trusted even though they DID sign the treaty.

He just wants to hit Iran SO HARD that Democracy will break out. Hasn't he ever heard the story of the Sun and the Wind? The harder the Wind blows, the more the man tries to keep his hat and coat. When the Sun comes out, the man takes off his hat and coat because he doesn't need them any more.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 16th, 2005
Yeah, those filthy Jews are the real enemy, right Dan?
Permalink You fucking idiot 
March 16th, 2005
I love this quote from the Wikipedia:

"The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny that it has a nuclear weapon program, and it has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Israel is the only Middle Eastern country not to sign or ratify (since Oman acceded on January 23, 1997) the NPT."

Uh... hasn't EVERY Middle Eastern country been going after nukes regardless of the treaty?

Saddam was in 1981 and even the NYT admits that he was again until 2003. Iran admits they're doing it now. Syria was involved with Saddam.
Permalink KC 
March 16th, 2005
---"Uh... hasn't EVERY Middle Eastern country been going after nukes regardless of the treaty?"----

No. Iraq and Iran seriously yes, though Iraq pretty well seemed to have given up after the first Gulf war.

And bearing in mind that Israel has the bomb, who can blame them?

Incidentally the Israeli bomb can well be blamed on De Gaulle and the French, except of course Americans only like to blame the French when they do something right.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 17th, 2005
The French are equal opportunity fuckwits. They built Saddam's reactor as well... or were trying to, until they sold him out by letting the Israelis blow it up.
Permalink Aristides 
March 17th, 2005
I presume if they got paid for it, they wouldn't really care if they got paid afterwards.

Considering Israel's notorious record of selling arms, training and expertise to both sides in an armed conflict, it is somewhat hypocritical of you to object to the French doing the same.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 17th, 2005
Israel? what about us? if you are going to get pissed at countries for aiding our enemies then really we deserve to be at the top of the list, from training bin laden to selling saddam arms and training him in their use...from toppling irans democractic government to buying their oil and keeping the current lot in power filthy rich, we're at the top of the list of baddies.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 17th, 2005
And I think it deserves to be said that not only does Israel deny they have nuclear weapons (probably not true), AND that they did NOT sign the treaty (which would be dishonorable if they really did have weapons) but that Israel does not threaten their neighbors with first use of a nuclear weapon -- or invasion, or terrorism, for that matter.

I don't think the same can be said of Israel's neighbors, who threaten the existence of Israel all the time. And threaten America's existence over OUR support of the nation of Israel.

Thus I propose that Israel has proved their ability to keep nuc's as a deterrent, and not use them as bargaining chips for foreign policy as other nations (Iraq, North Korea, China, India, Pakistan) want to do.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 17th, 2005
----"but that Israel does not threaten their neighbors with first use of a nuclear weapon -- or invasion, or terrorism, for that matter.

I don't think the same can be said of Israel's neighbors, who threaten the existence of Israel all the time. And threaten America's existence over OUR support of the nation of Israel."----

Israel doesn't threaten other countries with invasion, it just invades them, and then expels the inhabitants and confiscates their land. As for terrorism the Israelis have been using it since the 1930s up until now. Begin was an ex-terrorist and Sharon is an unreformed one.

When Israel's neighbours offer full recognition of the 1967 borders, which are the internationally accepted ones and represent 78% of the British mandate in Palestine instead of the 48% granted by the United Nations in 1948, the Israelis laugh at them.

And if the US unconditionally supports a terrorist state intent on expanding its borders and expelling the population of its neighbours, then it can hardly be suprised when the victims of that policy view it as hostile.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 17th, 2005
Israel has nuclear deterrents?
Permalink Li-fan Chen 
March 17th, 2005
Wait, maybe I should check my high-school text, but did Israel START a conflict? I am reading these replies and I am scratching my head....
Permalink Li-fan Chen 
March 17th, 2005
Israel has successfully managed to win the propoganda war and make believe that it was only defending itself but the conflicts are as follows:
1948 - Ben Gurion unilaterally declares an Israeli state and Israeli militias including the Stern gang move in on territory occupied by Arabs. You could claim that this was pre-emptive action, but certainly not that the Arabs started the war. As a result the Israelis annexed half of the territory granted to Arabs under the UN partition plan, taking their share of Palestine up to 78%, from the original 48%. It is this 78% incidentally which Egypt, Jordan and the PLO have accepted as the legitimate frontiers of Israel, and which the Saudis proposed in 2002 should be accepted by all Arab states as Israeli territory in return for Israeli withdrawal from the territories it has illegally occupied since 1967 in contravention of International law and the numerous UN resolutions that even the US was ashamed to veto. The Israelis have been refusing to implement a solution based on this despite having agreed to it in principle in Oslo.

1956 Israel, in combination with Britain and Francce invaded Egypt. They were forced to withdraw after Eisehnower put the US on the side of the Egyptians.

1967: Israel invaded Syria and Egypt, according to them pre-emptively though it is not at all clear that there was any imminent threat of an Arab invasion. They took over the West Bank of Jordan which they still hold from Jordan, and Gaza and Sinai from the Egyptians, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The only territory returned was Sinai, which they had aggressively colonized but decided to return to Egypt as a result of the Camp David agreement.They also had previously offered the Egyptians the Gaza strip, but they refused it on the grounds that it was part of Palestine and not Egypt.

1973: This was the one time the Israelis did not start the war. Egypt and Syria invaded Israel, and it was only the collapse of the Syrian front, and the action of the US that allowed the Israelis to replace their damaged planes with new US aircraft from aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean (many of the planes still had the American insignia on them) that resulted in the war being a stalemate. It was this war, that opened the Israelis up to the possibility of defeat, and persuaded the Egyptians that total victory was not going to be possible that led to the Egyptians making a separate peace in Camp David in 1979. This peace accord also had provision for a resolution for the Palestinian problem that was completely ignored by Israel.

1982: The Israelis decided to invade Lebanon to crush the PLO that was there. They launched a vicous bombing attack on Beiruit that killed scores or hundreds of civilians daily (The Canadian ambassador at the time said that it would make Berlin of 1945 look like a tea party").It was at that time that Sharon ordered his troops to allow the Lebanese militia to enter the refugee camps of Chabra and Shatilah and massacre all there, including women and children. The Israelis maintained an cccupation force in the lebanon up to the year 2000, as well as using the Christian phalangists as thier proxy army who would keep prisons and torture camps on behalf of the Israelis. In 1982 the Shias of Southern Lebanon initially welcomed the Israelis. but their attitude soon changed and Hezbollah, backed by Iran and to a lesser extent Syria, became the dominant force in the South, eventually tiring the Israelis down by attrition, and causing their withdrawal.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 17th, 2005
Stephen, I never said the Israelis were exempt from the same criticism, yet you have called me a hypocrite. In fact I agree the standard applies to them also, and many other countries. It was tangential to my point.
Permalink Aristides 
March 18th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics