Why Is US Turning A Blind Eye To Israel's Nukes?

[Resistance]

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7974&TagID=2

Following the military action against Iraq, people in many Arab and Muslim countries are fearing implementation of a biased U.S. agenda, especially when it comes to the Arab-Israel conflict or the capabilities of Muslim countries. Washington is now questioning the nuclear capabilities of several Muslim countries or their quest to acquire it.

Turning a blind eye towards the nuclear weapons programme of Israel, the U.S. administration considers it as a measure in "self-defence". For many Arab and Muslim countries this is a "double standard" and they are even viewing the roadmap for the Middle East suspiciously.

"It is, of course, a double standard. Why do they not object to the Israeli nuclear programme?" said Dr. Ibrahim A'shemsi, Assistant Professor at the Department of Mass Communication of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at the UAE University in Al Ain.

The U.S. has been training Israeli nuclear scientists since the1950 s, and providing nuclear related technology, including a small research reactor in 1955 under the so-called "Atoms for Peace" programme. France also helped Israel in building a uranium reactor and plutonium reprocessing plant in the Negev desert, called Dimona.

The biased intentions are clearly evident from the U.S. act of leaving Israel aside and coming down heavily upon the nuclear programmes of first Iraq and then Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. "It means they are giving a free hand to Israel to do what it wants to do," said Dr. Hussar.

[AGiordino]

1. Please see ->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=112363&mesg_id=112363

Our great leaders to whom Gawd speaks di-rectly are encouraging the Israeli State to become the last bastion of the Holy Rapture.

[stopthegop]

2. could it be because...

Isreal has not tried to destroy Arab countries three times..Arab countries tried to destroy Isreal...

Isreal is an actual (elected) democracy allowing citizenship and political office to Arabs....surrounding Arab countries are monarchys or dictatorships with no Jews in their 'legislatures'

just seem like possible reasons...

[tinnypriv]

4. Arab countries tried to destroy Israel 3 times?

I must have missed that. Got any dates?

[stopthegop]

5. dates? sure..

1948...1967...1973...

[tinnypriv]

7. LOL

One half ('73) out of three ain't bad, I'll give you that.

[Darranar]

29. I'd say...

all three times the Arab countries would have destroyed Israel had they had the chance.

[StandWatie]

6. what was '53 and the invasion of Lebanon?

how exactly was Israel *not* the aggressor in those adventures?

[stopthegop]

8. somewhat different

not sure on '53...and Lebanon is arguable as Isreal was being shelled constantly from southern Lebanon...

and Isreal didn't try to destroy Lebanon...do you think if the Arab nations had won in 148/67/73 there would still be an Isreal?

[tinnypriv]

9. The Habib ceasefire held for over 9 months

Clearly in your fantasy world zero shelling actually equals "constant shelling"... :crazy:

[StandWatie]

10. I do know '53

and I also know that Israel was not being shelled constantly before the invasion.

As a matter of fact in order to get the PLO to break the ceasefire Israel had to bomb the piss out of the refugee camps not once or twice but three times before they finally had enough and started returning some rockets.

'53 was UK and French agression in response to the nationalization of the Suez, planned about a year in advance with Israel acting as a willing agent and the UK and French planning to retake the Suez play acting that they were a "peacekeeping" force.

[stopthegop]

11. again

do you think if the Arab nations had won in 148/67/73 there would still be an Isreal?

[tinnypriv]

14. Straw...

..man.

[stopthegop]

15. no it's not...

it was the stated intentions of the Arab states..have a good day

[tinnypriv]

16. You too

Watch out for the shelling!

[StandWatie]

18. there was much "psyops" at the time

Sadat deliberately made alternating beligerent and conciliatory speechs regarding Israel along with erratic troop exercises in an effort to keep the Israeli's off balance.

[StandWatie]

17. depends on "won"

there was supposed to be a Palestinian state and the result of the '48 war was that there wasn't one. '48 is a vexed question and while it's interesting to play at alternate history that's what happened so to invert the question it's a known fact that Israel "destroyed" Palestine in the question.

'67 was also a "preemptive" war, unless someone releases the papers from the time no one will ever be able to give a definitive answer as to Nasser's intention to attack but if he did he certainly wasn't thinking ahead to far given the energy he was putting into screwing around in Yemen to irritate the Saudi's. Nasser also offered Peace with Israel if they would stay out of the pissing match over the Suez and they didn't.

'73 could also probably been avoided if Israel hadn't played cute it's occupation and settlement policies.

Every time Israel went to war they conquered as far as they could, so I imagine an Arab victory would have done the same.

on edit: One more thing, Yom Kippur was picked as the date for a number of reasons but one important one was that weather on the Syrian front would be conducive to a limited encounter vs. total war so no I don't think Egypt intended at all to "destroy" Israel, I think denied a ceasefire they would have overran the whole place if they could but that's different.

[Ruminator]

34. Do you actually think

that Egypt picked the holiest Jewish day of the year because of whether? Give me a break

[StandWatie]

41. I know so..

at least partially, try The road to Ramadan or hell any book you can pick up on the Yom Kippur war since you obviously are just spouting off about something you don't know much about.

[Darranar]

42. I must agree with Ruminator on this one...

Though weather might have been a factor, so was the fact that it was the holiest day of the Jewish year. The Egyptians and Syrians had been crushed in 1967 and had failed in 1948, so without a clear advantage it made no sense for them to attack again.

[raleighdemocrat88]

43. Unlikely

One day out of 365? The Egyptians knew that Israelis would be praying and wouldn't be at battle stations. A perfect surprise attack. Give me a break.

[StandWatie]

46. I said among other reasons

of course knowing that most of the army would be demobilized was a huge factor, but it's a fact that they looked at the probable weather and found it to be an advantage because the aim never was to "destroy" Israel, it was primarily to throw a fit and bring the Soviets back who had been taking detente too seriously and ignoring their clients and secondarily to try and retake Egyptian land that Israel at the time had no interest in bartering for peace.

[Darranar]

47. Had they had the chance...

they would have destroyed Israel. Being as paragmatic as they were, they understood that that was impossible, so their main objectives were indeed the ones mentioned above.

[StandWatie]

48. *shrug*

I suppose that may be true, but Sadat wasn't exactly some great Muslim liberator, he was just a Cold War era politician.

[Darranar]

19. No, no, and no...

but that doesn't excuse Israeli actions in this day and age.

[newyorican]

13. Invasion of Lebanon

was my turning point.

[cherryperry]

12. nah, it couldn't be that!

Isn't it interesting that the one issue that unites almost everyone, left or right, is that they all hate the Jews :puke: ... Nah, it couldn't be that :eyes: ...

[chaumont58]

3. Israel ain't got any oil

Next question!

[Herschel]

20. The answer to the question is so simple

Israel is our ally

[Resistance]

21. Gotta hand it to you Herschel

at least you're honest

[Cassandra]

26. Is Israel aiming nuclear weapons at us?

Should we all run and hide?!

[Yentatelaventa]

22. Israel is not a terrorist nation

They eliminate terrorists - not support them. Israel is a good neighbor and can be trusted with the big ones.

[Herschel]

23. Yes!

Is there no concept here of friend or foe? Good or evil?

[Jim Sagle]

25. No.

[Darranar]

24. Welcome to DU, Yentatelaventa!

n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Pakistan is a terrorist nation??

Wow, that's news to me. Last time I heard, they were the new bestest buddies (thanks to Herschel for new simplistic terminology when it comes to talking about international relations) of the US. Even if I were to agree that Israel eliminates terrorists, which I don't, because the policies of successive Israeli govts has led to the breeding of more and more terrorists and the deaths of more and more innocent civilians on both sides, killing off terrorists isn't any sort of reason for having nuclear weapons. Hell, do you think the US gives its bestest-bestest buddy Israel a pat on the head and tells them that because they killed off so many of those nasty Muslim terrorists, they can have themselves some nuclear weapons with US blessing?

Israel's a good neighbour? Uh, to who? Syria? Lebanon? Eygpt? Good neighbours don't take their neighbours territory by force and then expect the relationship to be all lovey-dovey. If Israel was a good neighbour, it wouldn't have nuclear weapons. 200 nuclear war-heads? What the fuck? Haven't these guys ever heard of the blatantly obvious theory that when one nation amasses military power at a disproportionate rate to that of it's neighbours in order to safeguard its security, it causes the surrounding states to feel insecure and in some cases try to balance things out by amassing more power, which of course leads to the first nation to feel insecure and the whole thing continues to escalate on a tit-for-tat scale? That theory wouldn't work for those who think that the only state that has a right to be secure is Israel and who don't give a shit about the insecurity of surrounding states, but for anyone who stops and thinks about the situation, it makes sense...

I think the Middle East should be a region free of nuclear weapons. All of Israels nuclear weapons should be destroyed. Nukes as a deterrent were only effective by being used as a threat and there being uncertainty on the other side about whether the threat of using them would turn into them actually being used. In Israels case, is there any deterrence value and who are they trying to deter? Groups like Hamas? Maybe if they don't mind frying every settler and Palestinian in the Occupied Territories. Even if another state were to invade Israel and be strong enough to acquire some of it, would it be acceptable for Israel to use its nuclear weapons? Even during the Cold War where there were fears of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe in the 50's (I think), NATO was prepared to fight a conventional ground-war rather than use nukes. The US has been the only nation to ever use WMDs and it's not a coincedence that those sort of weapons have never been used in a war since. What would Israel do in the event of a hypothetical invasion by Syria? Fire some nukes at Damascus and not give a shit about the catastrophic civilian death toll that would happen? Or would it fight back with the conventional military means it already has?

Violet...

[Darranar]

28. The answer is simple, Violet...

WMDs deter WMDs. Had the Soviets conducted a conventional attack on Western Europe, NATO would have responded with a conventional defense. However, if a nuke was used by the Soviets, then NATO would have retaliated with a nuke as well.

Israel's WMD program is for exactly that purpose: in case a rogue Arab nation develops WMDs to use against Israel in force, Israel can retaliate. If it was ensured that WMD would not be built by the Arabs, I think that there's a good chance that Israel would dismantle its nuclear program.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Not so simple, Darranar....

In the case of the Cold War, both sides possessed nuclear weapons and those weapons didnt' deter other weapons, it just spiralled into an insane race where both sides made so many nuclear weapons they could have destroyed the world several times over. In the Middle East there is no other state with nuclear weapons. Having nuclear weapons 'just in case' isn't the same thing. Anyway, I believe it's Israel that opposes the Middle East being a nuclear-free region while other nations all supported it....

Also, correct me if I'm wrong because I've only just had to start reading up on the Cold War, but throughout much of it didn't the US always aim to, and succeed in having a first-strike capability? I'm kind of fascinated by the mentality of the time where they would have 'won' because after the Soviet missiles that were sent on their way before the USSR was turned into a glob of radioactive mush hit the US, the US would have been able to send a second wave of missiles at the command of the war-mongers sitting safely in their bunkers amidst the ruins of the US. Gotta love that doomsday stuff ;)


Violet...

[Darranar]

31. The situation in the Middle East...

is, of course, not the same as the situation that was during the Cold War. As you said, and I agree, both sides built far too many missiles.

I think that during the cold war it was nukes on nukes-in order to "win," as you put it, you needed to cabability to retaliate to a nuclear strike.

In the Middle East, it is, in more general terms, WMDs on WMDs. Though Israel is the only country, as far as the world knows, that has nukes in the Middle East, Iraq did have WMDs, as does/did Iran. The Israelis want the ability to strike back against WMDs with WMDs, and also, of course, in the event that some country acquired nukes, strike back with nukes.

I think WMDs in the world, and the Middle East, only exist to counter themselves; as long as no country has them, none will want them, but as long as some country has them, many will want them.

[Cassandra]

32. Not sure why you're taking a swipe at Herschel

considering that you, too, use "simplistic terminology when it comes to talking about international relations", just with more words.
"Israel's a good neighbour? Uh, to who? Syria? Lebanon? Eygpt? Good neighbours don't take their neighbours territory by force and then expect the relationship to be all lovey-dovey. If Israel was a good neighbour, it wouldn't have nuclear weapons." That sounds pretty simplistic to me.

I think the odds of Israel using nukes is very small because the region is so small that it would be impossible not to damage themselves in the process. It might seem worthwhile to someone if Israel were being "pushed into the sea" but I have trouble imagining it would ever get that far.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Huh??

Well, gosh. Maybe it sounds simplistic because right at the start I said I was borrowing Herschel's simplistic terminology? Wanna explain why that sort of talk when it comes to international relations isn't totally simplistic?

So if the odds of Israel ever using nukes is tiny to zero, and the deterrence factor isn't there, what's the point of Israel having nuclear weapons?

[Ruminator]

35. Good Neighbors

I would hardly expect Israel to be a particularly friendly neighbor to countries which declared war on them and declared that they were going to fight them into the meditaranian three hours after Israel declared its statehood.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Yr taking it up with the wrong person...

It was Yentatelaventa in post 22 who said Israel was a good neighbour. I tend to think otherwise. And if you hardly expect Israel to be a particularly friendly neighbour, why don't you expect the same thing about the surrounding nations? After all, it wasn't the indigenous people of Palestine declaring the Israeli state. It was European zionists who had expansionist plans and were open about transplanting their own bit of Europe into the Middle East thanks to a third party giving away land that didn't even belong to it in the first place...

Violet...

[Herschel]

36. Please!

Simplistic terminology is the problem? Terms such as friend or ally are of no use? Perhaps your problem is the alliance itself, rather than my terminology.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Please right back atcha!

Simplistic talk isn't so much a problem as a source of amusement. I don't recall saying that the term ally wasn't of any use. It is, and alliances are pretty complicated things, but every time I read one of yr posts where yr talking away about 'tiny little Israel' being 'the best friend' of the US and the US being the 'best friend' of Israel, I get this mental image of a big fat clumsy school-yard bully and a smaller kid who sees the big fat kid as a role model swapping friendship bands and hiding in a backyard cubby-house while they use a knife they stole from one of their dads so they could do the blood-brothers thing. And after these 'best friends' have done that, they happily run down the road blowing up letter-boxes...

Alliances are forged out of self-interest, not out of some feeling of kinship and loyalty. The US cares no more about Israel than it does any of its other client states. If Israel ceases to be of use to the US or becomes a nuisance to it, the US would probably ditch that alliance without any remorse. But the way you talk is as though the US puts the interests of Israel even above its own. No state does that. The top priority of every state is to ensure its own security and everything else comes a poor second, including the security of states that some claim are its bestest buddies. Israel has always looked for the protection of one of the major powers, and at one stage would have gone with the Soviets if things had gone that way....

Violet...

[Darranar]

44. I don't think an alliance with the Soviets would have lasted that long...

Simply because the Soviets weren't known for their lack of anti-semitism. A state like Israel would have found it hard to be a friend of the Soviet Union for that reason. Additionally, the Israelis wouldn't have been able to be an enemy of the US in any way, since so many American Jews were with them then and are still with them now.

[Herschel]

45. You tell me the Israeli-American alliance

is out of self interest, to be broken when America no longer benefits. I am also told America does not benefit from the alliance. It cannot be both.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Here's an easy way for you to sort things out...

If I say something, that's what I think and yr welcome to discuss it with me. I'm not responsible for what other people say, and if they don't hold the same view as me, that's fine, but don't sit there and accuse me of contradicting myself when yr comparing something I think to what someone else might think...

violet...

[Herschel]

50. Very well

Will you elaborate on how America benefits in your opinion.

[Ruminator]

33. Alliance

Israel isn't threatening to use them on anyone, especially the US.

[Wonder]

39. Because one day Israel's nukes...

might just come in handy? Just guessing.