After you, Albion

[Blitz]

So here's a question that must confront every decent Briton this week: If Libya can do it, why not the UK? We are referring, of course, to Libya's recently announced decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear program. And we are paraphrasing a headline in The Guardian, which asks, "If Libya can do it, why not Israel?" In fact, both questions are equally apt, and both merit a similar response.

. . .


To begin with: Israel's nuclear option is a function of the failure of the non-proliferation regime, not a source of that failure. Israel is the only country in the world whose destruction by nuclear weapons has been an open subject of speculation. "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped , the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate, because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damage in the Muslim world." Thus spake Iranian Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani in December 2001.

. . .

Rafsanjani is right that Israel will always be more threatened by nuclear weapons than the countries it seeks to deter. But this just confirms the relationship; Israel is seeking to defend itself, not threaten any other nation. It is the refusal to make a distinction between types of governments, between rogue regimes and those threatened by them, that is the main structural impediment to a successful nuclear non-proliferation regime.

. . .

In Israel's case, what is needed is to make the region in which we live a less threatening place, in which case we would gladly go the way of those free nations that need no deterrent force, and can invest their limited resources in plowshares, not swords. Until then, if the UK and France need nukes in Europe, we surely need them here.



more:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1072066384195

[bluesoul]

1. Then so do

Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq... Who says a crazy guy like Sharon or even some new Likuds wacko wouldn't use it against another country. I wouldn't feel secure if I knew such people were in power. If Israel can have them, the so should other Arab countries. Or it's about double standards and hypocrisy..

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Governments

Actually, this makes a point that is at the heart of the problems of the UN, it "is the refusal to make a distinction between types of governments, between rogue regimes and those threatened by them." That is why the UN is continually doomed.

[dudeness]

3. On the contary muddle..

it is the constant use of veto powers within the SC and abstaining of votes that are seen as moral victories that undermine the effectiveness of the UN..I await an alternative to be presented before joining in the condemnation..

cheers..

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. There is no alternative, the UN is unworkable

It assumes all world governments are worth dealing with. They are not.