Increasingly Paranoid and Isolated, Dominated by Fundamentalists, Armed with Over 200 Nukes

[depakid]

After Israel’s lethal attack in international waters on a civilian flotilla carrying relief supplies to Gaza, a troubling question arises: Have Israeli authorities, who possess a major nuclear arsenal, become dangerously erratic?

This question can't be posed publicly in the American mainstream news media nor in U.S. political circles, where fear of the pro-Israel lobby remains strong. But it is a concern that is being discussed quietly by foreign policy analysts around the world.

Even as America’s commentariat again generates the predictable excuses for Israeli latest actions, the political reality inside Israel is one that is shifting more and more toward a society dominated by Jewish fundamentalists, including an aggressive and racist settler bloc. The ultra-Orthodox Shas Party is now in the Likud ruling coalition and holds important Cabinet posts such as housing. Shas leaders have made it clear that they favor a country segregated not just between Arab and Jew but between secular and ultra-Orthodox Jews.

If these fundamentalist elements continue to consolidate their political power, the world could soon be facing an isolated and paranoid religious state with some 200 to 400 nuclear warheads along with a sophisticated collection of chemical and biological weapons. One Israeli émigré, who spent his young adulthood working for the Israeli government, told me that he fears Israel is becoming like North Korea, except qualitatively more dangerous because Israel has an advanced nuclear arsenal and sits in a more strategic part of the world.

The current government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also appears excessively confident that Israel’s sophisticated propaganda network and its American neoconservative allies can overwhelm any criticism of Israeli actions in Washington and ensure eventual U.S. backing for a military strike on Iran.

More: http://www.alternet.org/world/147089/israel_--_increasingly_paranoid_and_isolated%2C_dominated_by_fundamentalists%2C_armed_with_over_200_nukes/

[Go2Peace]

1. at first I thought this was about the US

LOL. But then I saw only 200 nukes.

[LARED]

2. To even it out lets arm

Hamas with 200 nukes. Good idea right?

[LakeSamish706]

4. Iran and Hamas with 200 Nukes each would be much better than what we have right now.

Israel is a very dangerous State with Nukes, and the US gave them the Nukes.

[LARED]

5. So you believe a MAD strategy

involving Hamas and Iran would stabilize the area and improve security for Israel?

[LakeSamish706]

6. Who said anything about Hamas? Where was that in anything that I posted?

But I will tell you what, Israel with Nukes doesn't make me feel any better than Hamas with Nukes, frankly. We have an Israel that refuses to sign the NNPT and bedamn the rest of the world. Israel with it's current Government is as dangerous as the US was with Bush/Cheney were.

[LARED]

8. See title of post 4

[LakeSamish706]

9. Your right, you got me, and what the hell they couldn't be much worse than Israel is right now.

You play with fire, you get burnt. Now we all know that any country with Nukes is going to think twice before they use them, we hope. The way that Israel has been treating the Palestinians has been abysmal to say the least. So along comes Hamas and begins to stand up to Israel, and suddenly they are the terrorists? Sorry, not buying it.

[LARED]

15. So your view is Hamas would act responsibly if provided nukes?

Just checking.

[Wizard777]

24. Israels nukes are a open secret. Everyone knows about them.

The deterrent effect doesn't work if no one knows you have them. As we saw with Saddam Hussein's Big Bluff. The deterrent effect can even work if everybody knows you have them and you really don't. But that can backfire. This is the real question. What happens when Netanyahu's paranoia is no longer secure with the deterrent effect? What happened when he needs something more solid to placate his paranoia?

:nuke:

[chrisa]

25. That would be a disaster.

Unless if the definition of "better" has something to do with 200 nukes blowing up millions of civilians around the world. Hamas shouldn't even be trusted with a weed whacker.

[LakeSamish706]

7. That seems fair to me, given what Israel has shown it is capable of. Not sure what your defence of

what Israel has recently done is, but I don't want any part of it.

[LARED]

10. I have a different view

If you get the crap beat out of you with pipes and other assorted weapons when legally boarding a ship carrying paint ball rifles and something bad happens, it not entirely clear to me that Israel created this mess. I am not justifying the death of innocent victims, but I'd rather blame Hamas first until all the facts are known.

[LakeSamish706]

11. Well there is where the problem lies! They did not board those ships legally, so that ends your

argument right there. The ships were in International waters, and the only way that they could/should have been boarded was with permission from the captain of the ship. The Blockade by Israel is illegal, so there should be no argument at all. So Israel killed innocent people, and they should be held accountable for that. I have no idea why Obama/Clinton are standing with Israel instead of standing with a fellow member of NATO (Turkey) on this, but they will pay the price down the road for this.

[LARED]

13. Bullpucky. Israel has every right to the blockade and to board and inspect

those ships.

Show me where I am wrong.

On edit here is a link explaining the legality of the Blockade and Boarding.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602

[depakid]

14. Show you where you're wrong? OK- here you go. Do be good enough to read it

with an eye toward objective application of the law(s).

Author:

Ben Saul is Co-Director of the Sydney Centre for International Law at The University of Sydney, a barrister, and a leading international authority on terrorism in international law. Dr Saul teaches the law of armed conflict and has been involved in such cases in The Hague, the Israeli Supreme Court, and in the Balibo coronial inquest.

Israel's response to the Gaza flotilla is another unfortunate example of Israel clothing its conduct in the language of international law while flouting it in practice. If you believe Israeli government spokesmen, Israel is metabolically incapable of violating international law, placing it alongside Saddam Hussein's Information Minister in self-awareness.

Israel claims that paragraph 67(a) of the San Remo Manual on Armed Conflicts at Sea justified the Israeli operation against the flotilla. (The San Remo Manual is an authoritative statement of international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea.)

Paragraph 67(a) only permits attacks on the merchant vessels of neutral countries where they "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture".

Israel argues that it gave due warnings, which were not heeded.

What Israel conveniently omits to mention is that the San Remo Manual also contains rules governing the lawfulness of the blockade itself, and there can be no authority under international law to enforce a blockade which is unlawful. Paragraph 102 of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade".

The background to that 'proportionality' rule is the experience of past world wars where naval blockades had devastating effects on civilian populations.

There is little question that Israel's blockade of Gaza is disproportionate in legal terms. The proportionality rule requires an assessment of the military advantage against the harmful effects on civilians. Israel claims that the blockade is necessary to prevent Hamas from mounting indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

Such attacks were well documented by the UN's Goldstone Report and are a serious security threat to Israel. Israel has every right to protect its civilians from indiscriminate terrorist attacks by Hamas.

The proportionality principle requires, however, that Israel's security cannot come at any price. A balancing of interests is necessary to ensure that civilians should not pay too dearly for the security needs of others.

Safeguarding the precious lives of innocents and respecting their dignity as fellow humans is the necessary burden that international law imposes on war. That is why Israel reveals its contempt for international law when, for example in the past, its leaders have pledged to "destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired".

The harmful effects of the blockade on Gazan civilians have included the denial of the basics of life, such as food, fuel and medicine, as well widespread economic collapse.

The UN agency on the ground, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), has described a "severe humanitarian crisis" in Gaza in relation to human development, health, education, "the psychological stress" on the population, high unemployment (at 45 per cent) and poverty (with 300,000 people living beneath the poverty line), and the collapse of commerce, industry and agriculture.

Such effects are manifestly excessive in relation to Israel's security objectives and cannot possibly satisfy the conditions of a lawful blockade. Disrupting wildly inaccurate rockets from being fired at relatively underpopulated areas of southern Israel cannot possibly justify the acute disruption of the daily lives and livelihoods of more than one million Gazans. Nor is it lawful to seek to pressure Hamas by instrumentally impoverishing its civilian supporters.

It seems that Israel is the only entity incapable of recognising the effects of its blockade. The United States, European Union and numerous independent sources have deeply criticised the disproportionate harm to Gazan civilians.

The UN Secretary General has condemned the "unacceptable suffering" caused by the blockade. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has criticised it for violating the law of armed conflict. The UN Human Rights Council, UN Humanitarian Affairs Coordinator, Oxfam and Amnesty International have all strongly condemned it.

The UN's Goldstone Report found that blockade may even amount to international crimes: "Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country… could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed."

More: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2915343.htm

[LARED]

16. Well you found one mans biased opinion

that believes the blockade is disproportionate. He does do a very good job at showing how the blockade denies the basics of life, such as food, fuel and medicine, as well widespread economic collapse.

I would make the argument that the governing body Hamas is the cause of those ills.

[depakid]

17. How did I know you wouldn't respond in good faith-

Much like the right wing government in the nation you seem to hold harmless.

Here's a clue- Dr. Saul is a barrister, professor and expert experienced in international law- who cites you chapter and verse in response to the question you posed.

In short, he showed quite objectively how you were wrong.

Whether you accept it or not won't change that fact.

[LARED]

19. The fact are the the blockade is legal. He has an opinion that it

should not be. He is entitled to his opinion.

[depakid]

20. The objective application of facts to international law says otherwise

Of course, if one doesn't accept that there ought to be any such laws- that's quite another thing.

[LARED]

21. Nice try at reframing to insinuate I think international laws should not be accepted.

Again it's an opinion at this point

[depakid]

31. I didn't insinuate- I made a valid claim based on your posts and the facts as outlined above

In your opinion, international law should not be applied to Israel's behaviors- and they should never be held accountable to it.

[LARED]

32. No wrong again

In my view (and many others) international law is already being followed.

[depakid]

33. You haven't expressed a view at all based on the applicable law!

You've simply categorically denied that there are violations, despite all of the facts proving otherwise.

What else would one conclude?

[LARED]

34. Well you have not established, even remotely,

there have been violations of the treaty. I have conclude you are simply spouting an opinion. Which is fine

Here is a link to the law you believe Israel is in violation. http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument

See paragraph 102 and 103.

Below is the primary complaint of the article you posted with my comments in bold and red

Safeguarding the precious lives of innocents and respecting their dignity as fellow humans is the necessary burden that international law imposes on war. respecting their dignity is found nowhere in the law That is why Israel reveals its contempt for international law when, for example in the past, its leaders have pledged to "destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired". interestingly Hamas pledge to destroy Israel gets lost in the analysis, and this pledge by Israel is not material to the blockades legality anyway.

The harmful effects of the blockade on Gazan civilians have included the denial of the basics of life, such as food, fuel and medicine, as well widespread economic collapse. Economic collapse is the fault of Hamas and should be squarely placed there. Denying the basis of life is pure bs. There is no starvation, basic medical supplies are entering the Gaza. Again if Hamas was not at war with Israel the blockade would not exist.

The UN agency on the ground, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), has described a "severe humanitarian crisis" in Gaza in relation to human development, health, education, "the psychological stress" on the population, high unemployment (at 45 per cent) and poverty (with 300,000 people living beneath the poverty line), and the collapse of commerce, industry and agriculture. The law say nothing about these things. and based on a disproportional argument, if the blockade was not in place and Hamas was free to bring in weapons that would make good on their promise to eradicate (read genocide) Israel almost anything Israel does to protect itself would be proportional

Here is the law.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

Basically the root cause of this issue is Hamas. They are the governing body and they are indifferent to the people that elected them and that rely on them to provide a civil society.

[bernynhel]

26. The blockade poses no damage to any civilian population...

...so the blockade is legitimate and legal. Israel is not restricting humanitarian goods in the blockade. If Hamas cowards didn't jeopardize their own people by hiding behind the aprons of civilian mothers and their children for no other reason than to inflict as much pain and suffering to gain the world's sympathy, perhaps I would have a little more empathy. Under the circumstances, Israel is practicing restraint far over and above what should be expected of any nation in a similar situation.

[depakid]

30. WOW- now I expect Americans to spout off outright lies and delusional beliefs

from time to time- but occasionally, they shock even me.

Those views you expressed might as well have come the gestapo -as they really are the moral equivalent of that sort of sick and twisted thinking.

[bernynhel]

27. Why should those whose only intent is to paint Israel in a funky light,

no matter the events of the day, be restraind by facts, all of a sudden?

[Ken Burch]

12. Is that any different than the U.S., before Camp David

selling arms to Israel AND Egypt? We were arming both sides in a war on that one, too.

[LakeSamish706]

3. "U.S. backing for a military strike on Iran." And I have wondered since Monday if this was a run up

to a strike on Iran! This was a rehearsal to what may come in the not to distant future with a strike, Nuke or otherwise on Iran. I would bet all that I own on this. They were testing the water to see what the flack would be to hit Iran. Oh, and my bet is that the US will go along with this and once again back Israel.

A very dangerous game as far as the rest of the world is concerned. And of course the US doesn't give a shit about it's NATO partners in this, ie: Turkey.

[bernynhel]

28. Better to let Ahmadinejad know now that the US would support Israel

if and when an attack becomes necessary than to go on with the fantasy that there's any chance that Israel would not attack. That is the only deterrent that can be taken seriously and it's silly to go on masquerading the notion that sanctions are regarded by all parties as anything but meaningless.

[EFerrari]

18. Well, it's a relief to know someone else thinks that the Israeli government

has lost its fricken mind.

[IndianaGreen]

22. and mentally ill to boot!

Even pets in Israeli get tranquilizers.

[bernynhel]

29. Uh huh ill like in '81 in Iraq

and '07 in Syria. Israel will, eventually, be heralded, again, after the dust settles over Iran. And there isn't an middle eastern nation, other than Syria, Iran's nuclear partner, that won't be more than just a little relieved if and when it happens.

[Wizard777]

23. At least it can't be discussed at DU. My topic on that was not locked. It was Deleted.

As in don't even mention it. But I am discussing that in depth at the Baltimore Sun. So it can be discussed at some media outlets. Just not here at DU.

[Moochy]

35. Oubliette