The 6th Largest Nuclear power in the world refuses UN arms inspections
October 4, 2002 2:25 AM   Subscribe

 
the problem with israel is that its current existence (theocratic democracy? what?) and mandate (from god? who?) defy -- nay, defile -- logic, so any attempts to support it (the united states) or destroy it (the arab world) are equally illogical. i'm not sure what israel is supposed to be anymore. people either grant it too much leeway or shackle it with impossible expectations. misbegotten in every sense.
posted by donkeyschlong at 2:38 AM on October 4, 2002


The first counterpunch story linked ony theorises that Sharon will retaliate (not initiate) with nuclear weapons if Iraq attacks Israel.

However I doubt the US wants a nucelar exchange in the area and just as in the Gulf War where they prevented Israel from attacking despite +- 30 Scuds falling on Israel, the US will put some heavy pressure for Israel to stay out of the Iraq conflict.

If Israel gets involved it would it would be the excuse other Arab countries have been looking for to attack Israel directly, leading to all out war in the region.

Israel had nukes in '91 and never used them, but I seriously hope that even thouugh it's a more conservative government in Israel, they'll realise nukes are only useful as a deterrent. If they're used, all hell will break loose.
posted by PenDevil at 4:00 AM on October 4, 2002


Israel has always stated it would not use nukes unless attacked by WMD, and Egypt, in 1967 had flown a sortie or two directly aboive where the nuke are said to be--in olther words, no big secret. Israel thus far has always done jhust abuot whatever the US has said it should or must do. I would worry more about a mess developing between Pakistan and India at this juncture.
posted by Postroad at 4:05 AM on October 4, 2002


"the problem with israel is that its current existence (theocratic democracy? what?) and mandate (from god? who?) defy -- nay, defile -- logic, so any attempts to support it (the united states) or destroy it (the arab world) are equally illogical. i'm not sure what israel is supposed to be anymore. people either grant it too much leeway or shackle it with impossible expectations. misbegotten in every sense."

What does your senseless blabbering have anything to do with the topic of this discussion?

I'm with Postroad on this one. If Israel is attacked with weapons of mass destruction, then and only then will they strike back. Israel possesses nuclear weapons solely for preventive purposes.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 5:08 AM on October 4, 2002


The supposed purpose of Israel's possession of Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction is irrelevant under international law. Israel can change their policy at any moment, as the US recently did when it renounced the old policy of only using nuclear weapons as a deterrant, and switched to an aggressive policy that allows using them as offensive weapon against non-nuclear states. India and Pakistan also possess nuclear weapons purportedly for defensive purposes, yet once it became known that they had them in violation of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the US, in accordance with the law, enacted strict sanctions against them.

Furthermore, Israel has refused to sign the BWC (biological weapons convention) unlike most of its arab neighbors, refused to sign any nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and has signed, but refused to actually ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. It has been condemned by the UN for its illegal nuclear cooperation with South Africa during the apartheid era. If that's not rogue behavior then I don't know what is.

If anyone out there is still wondering why the US lacks credibility as a fair and balanced catalyst for peace in the middle east, then perhaps they should ponder some of these inequities in the enforcement of US and International law.
posted by Babylonian at 5:35 AM on October 4, 2002


It's hard to fault a country who is surrounded on three sides by bitter enemies, the fourth side being a sea into which all of the enemies would push them if given the chance. I think that Israel would, if provoked, control the situation "by any means necessary" (maybe even without being attacked in some cases). Some people agree (about midway down).

Israeli intelligence is first rate, and they use that to neutralize threats that they see. If Iraq were really a danger to Israel, Israel would have already bombed them. They've done it before, after all. They don't care about UN resolutions, US involvement, or any other country's strategic advantage. That's just how it is.
posted by zpousman at 6:11 AM on October 4, 2002


Israeli intelligence is first rate, and they use that to neutralize threats that they see.

This is one of the reasons that I don't think we have to do anything about Iraq: We have Israel to take care of that problem. The fact that the Israelis have nuclear weapons, to my mind, makes it less likely that the Iraqi leader would give any toys he might have away to terrorist groups.
posted by moonbiter at 6:37 AM on October 4, 2002


RFC: Postroad

However much I disagree with your opinion, I certainly respect it. What do you think about the fact that Israel won't sign treaties, and reserves the right to use its weapons as it sees fit? I do agree that it pretty much does whatever the US wants it to, and I don't believe that it'll use nukes in the area (tantamount to suicide, I believe), so why won't it undergo the same process that it's reserving for Iraq?

RFC: Stumpy McGee

Israel possesses nuclear weapons solely for preventive purposes.

Is that a legitimate reason to possess nuclear weapons? Unlike the cold war, when the US and Russia kept each OTHER in check with nukes, Israel has no reason to have any, because no other "enemy" country has them. Oh, Iraq MAY be NEAR to having a nuke program, but AFAIK they don't have any nukes. So what's the real reason? So they can have overwhelming superiority? Methinks that's the reason. And I'll ask you the same question I asked Postroad: Why won't Israel sign treaties or submit to weapons inspections?
posted by taumeson at 6:42 AM on October 4, 2002


Hmm, Babylonian. A quick question - just how much do you think Israel's Arab neighbors signing that particular treaty will inhibit their attempts to develop WMD (biological or nuclear)? Honestly. That type of treaty structure only works if everyone is trustworthy - I would argue that many of the Arab autocracies (not all, but some) lack credibility and their signatures on the treaty are worth about as much as the paper their written on.

As far as chemical weapons go, the only two significant powers that I am aware of that used them extensively in the region are Iraq and Egypt. Egypt receives massive US aid. Do you therefore argue that the US has a double standard favoring the Arab states?

As far as the WMD programs at Israel go, they began when Israel was first created, for obvious reasons. Perhaps the current situation is different from the pre-1990s situation and Israel no longer needs them. Perhaps not - on some level they are a guarantee, I believe, that should a new war come it will be a territorial war, not one of genocide.

That being said, is it a double standard? Absolutely. Can double standards be justified? Absolutely. Why? Well, Israel tends, as a rule, to get attacked or respond to attacks, not decide out of the blue to go and wipe out its neighbors. Simple solution to Israel's nuclear threat: Don't attack Israel. You clearly believe this deviation by the US from its stated posture (and international law, although I'm not certain there are any of parts of international law that the US gov't particularly cares about, Middle East and Israel aside) on proliferation of nuclear weapons is wrong; I would disagree.

As far as India and Pakistan go, the US was as perfectly aware of their nuclear situation as they are of Israel's, but I don't believe the US did anything until they actually tested live devices. Which makes the situation similar to that of Israel - should Israel test a bomb maybe it would likely face the same sanctions as India/Pakistan.
posted by fluffy1984 at 6:48 AM on October 4, 2002


taumeson: They way I see it Israel's nukes would counterbalance the size of all the surrounding Arab nations combined conventional armies.
posted by PenDevil at 6:51 AM on October 4, 2002


....and even though Israel's defence forces have superior equipment (although the Arav nations equipment now is probably better than the shoddy Soviet weapons in the 60's and 70's) and training, a large enough Arab force could probably still overpower them given enough manpower and the element of suprise.
posted by PenDevil at 7:00 AM on October 4, 2002


should Israel test a bomb maybe it would likely face the same sanctions as India/Pakistan.

Israel is believed to have tested a nuclear device in partnership with apartheid-era South Africa in 1979, though it was never conclusively proven. An article in the Israeli paper Ha'aretz implied that the test might have been conducted with Israel.
posted by Babylonian at 7:11 AM on October 4, 2002


Can double standards be justified? Absolutely.

i read that as a double entendre! :D
posted by kliuless at 7:26 AM on October 4, 2002


Well, Babylonian, there you have it: it hasn't been proved (although, like you I assume, based on the article it sounds likely there was a test & Israel could have had a part in it). Just like the case in India/Pakistan, unless it's really in-your-face, the US tends to ignore the actions of its friends/important trading partners.
posted by fluffy1984 at 7:30 AM on October 4, 2002


It's highly doubtful that South Africa detonated any of it's bombs. While the then NP government (who built and then dismanteld the bombs) might want to cover up some kind of test, the current ANC government would have no reason to do so given that we no longer have bombs. They demanded full disclosure from the NP government officials over the weapons program once they came into power.

Although current Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad initially claimed it was a test he later came recanted saying he meant a "strong rumour it was a test". And knowing Aziz Pahad I can believe it. The man sometimes talks totally without thinking at all.

In 1977 they were were planning a full scale underground test in the Kalahari (desert region in the north west) but didn't due to US and Soviet pressure. A surface test is easily noticable, and would have been extremely foolish.
posted by PenDevil at 7:32 AM on October 4, 2002


It seems to me, that the major criteria for freaking-out is not if the nation has (and is willing to use) weapons of mass desctruction, but whether they're willing to use them on their own people. Plainly most western countries will nuke anyone that gets in their way, but only rogue states are prepared to nuke/gas/genociditize themselves. Hence (usually) the value of democracy in keeping those sorts of things at bay.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:34 AM on October 4, 2002


Well, Babylonian, there you have it: it hasn't been proved

True, but it has been alleged by South Africa, by Israeli whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu who has served 16 years of an 18 year jail sentence for blowing the whistle (details in the first link in this thread), by Jane's Intelligence Review. And lastly but most credibly, Shimon Peres, Israel's foreign minister, discloses for the first time details about Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons in a television documentary broadcast in the arab world obviously meant as intimidation.

from that first link:

"The dossier on Iraq's nuclear weapons, on which Blair rests his case for armed intervention, relies explicitly on information from Iraqi whistleblowers."

Why is information from Iraqi whistle blowers (who obviously have an axe to grind with Saddam) enough to go to war over, but information from South Africa, Janes, Israeli whistleblowers + an admission from Shimon Peres enough to do nothing over Israel?

Again, this takes us back to the post-9/11 question of "why do they hate us"

It seems to me, that the major criteria for freaking-out is not if the nation has (and is willing to use) weapons of mass desctruction, but whether they're willing to use them on their own people.

That's an interesting theory. It's also one that I've never heard before, and has no basis in International law.

But I always get kind of perplexed when someone refers to the Kurds as "Saddam's own people".. I think it's a canard - and here's why: That would be like saying that when Israel bulldozed Jenin, they "bulldoze their own people". The Kurds are an ethnic minority in Iraq who speak a different language, and are kind of break-away rebel secessionists and have fought against Saddam for years. They are not Saddam's people any more than Palestinians or Israeli Arabs are Ariel Sharon's people. I don't buy that the USA cares a bit for the Kurds, since if the US did, then why didn't it do something about it at that time the revalations about gassing the Kurds came out, when at that very time a certain man by the name of Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq meeting with Tariq Aziz? It seems to me that if you truly care about people, you don't want until 20 years after they have been slaughtered to raise your voice.

As far as what Ariel Sharon would or would not do to the Palestinians, I wouldn't really put anything past him.

Finally, the real kicker from the first article in this thread:

"This month, the Vanunu committee in Israel will test Tony Blair 's transatlantic influence by asking Kofi Annan to apply the same UN arms inspection requirements that it is applying to Iraq, to Israel. Egypt has been making this demand for some time. It's a demand that requires support in the security council."

As you know, Egypt has been at peace with Israel since the Carter administration, and they are not "trying to push Israel into the sea"

Tony Blair recently drew a parallel between Iraq's refusal to honor UN resolutions and Israel's refusal so I hope that this can be dealt with fairly for the good of the region and the rest of the world.
posted by Babylonian at 10:58 AM on October 4, 2002


What does your senseless blabbering have anything to do with the topic of this discussion?

i was addressing the perception of a double standard.
posted by donkeyschlong at 11:15 AM on October 4, 2002


Babylonian -

Of course Israel has nuclear weapons. The point about proof/not proof was in relation to whether Israel has tested a nuclear weapon, and was in response to the point regarding India and Pakistan - i.e., I was trying to point out that the double standard extended to India & Pakistan as well as Israel, before they went and tested a device.

Second, why should Israel and Iraq be treated the same? I believe there should be a double standard. I have no argument with the US or Britain having nuclear capabilities, nor do I have an argument with Israel having nuclear weapons. Iraq's military history (Kurds, Iran, Kuwait, Israel, Israel again, etc.) could lead a reasonable person to be concerned regarding what its regime would/could do when given the protection of a nuclear deterrent. We can disagree on numerous issues regarding Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but I hope you're not concerned that Israel has plans to conquer its various neighbors colonial-style.

In re. Eqypt: one wonders about how exactly a regime with the human rights record of Egypt manages to get on a high horse about UN resolutions. Of course the corollary concern is why no one seems to care about what Arab regimes do to their people.
posted by fluffy1984 at 11:25 AM on October 4, 2002


Second, why should Israel and Iraq be treated the same? I believe there should be a double standard.

The reason Israel and Iraq should be treated the same, is under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, they fall under the same category - that of non-nuclear nations.

The 5 nuclear weapon states - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States are one category.

Every other country falls in category 2, non-nuclear states.

It has nothing to do with "do we like this country", or "is that country evildoers". There are simply nuclear nations and non-nuclear nations, and the purpose is eventual disarmament.

Iraq's military history (Kurds, Iran, Kuwait, Israel, Israel again, etc.) could lead a reasonable person to be concerned regarding what its regime would/could do when given the protection of a nuclear deterrent.

Then why are all of Iraq's neighbors against intervention?
Under Saddam, how many countries has Iraq attacked in the past 22 years? Three. Kuwait, Iran and Israel.

How many countries have we invaded or attacked? Well, let’s see. There’s Panama and Grenada and Haiti and Lebanon and Libya and Sudan and Somalia and Yugoslavia and Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s 10 to Saddam’s three. So I don't think the US is in any position to criticize Saddam on that level.

We can disagree on numerous issues regarding Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but I hope you're not concerned that Israel has plans to conquer its various neighbors colonial-style.


Well Israel does have a history of grabbing land and trying to hold on to it, such as the Sinai from Egypt and most of what was designated as Palestine in the 1948 partition.

Saddam only grabbed Kuwait and was immediately jumped on by the coalition under the authority of the UN.
Again, this seems like a double standard, since Israel held the Sinai for some years and has held much of Palestine for over 30 years
posted by Babylonian at 12:29 PM on October 4, 2002


oops I forgot to mention that Israel also holds disputed lands from Lebanon (Golan Heights/Shebaa Farms) and held other land in southern Lebanon throughout the 80s
posted by Babylonian at 12:40 PM on October 4, 2002


Babylonian...you paid good attention in Chomsky's History of the World course, but not in actual history.

I don't support everything Israel does, but there was no land grab. They were outright invaded by Egypt. Egypt lost. Israel held land so that they wouldn't do it again. When Egypt made peace, they gave it back.

Iraq outright invaded Kuwait without provocation, invaded Iran somewhat legitimately (Iran did publicly aim to take over Iraq) and fired missiles at Israel without provocation.

The US has invaded 0 countries without provocation, arguably since 1848 and at worst, since 1898 unarguably. In nearly all your examples, there was worldwide, UN-based, support for our actions. In Grenada, they have a holiday to celebrate the arrival of the US troops there.
posted by Kevs at 1:06 PM on October 4, 2002


Babylonian -

Israel didn't seize the majority of what was supposed to be Palestine in 1948. Interestingly enough, I believe Jordan did. Israel conquered the majority of what was supposed to have been Palestine (i.e., the West Bank and Gaza) in 1967 as a response to aggression from, oh, basically almost all of its neighbors. Ditto for the Golan. Ditto for the Sinai (which they traded for peace with Egypt). And perhaps they would be happier returning the Golan if it wasn't for Syria's rather troubling habit of lobbing artillery shells & missiles from it onto the Northern towns and communities. It might seem to Israelis like giving Al Quaida airplanes.

Israel invaded Lebanon in response to the fact that Palestinian terrorists were basically given free run of the place. It conquered a portion (not the larger one) of what was to have been Palestine in 1948, after it was attacked by all of its neighbors.

I sense a pattern developing.

Israel is clearly in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. There is no question. The point is, I guess I don't care.

Regarding other Arab coutries backing Iraq, the internal politics of the Arab regimes in re. their dealing with the West is incredibly different to parse out. The one constant is no regime wants to be seen as backwards in opposing the West. In many way the '67 war, for instance, was actually created by a battle of wills between Arab countries, fearful of the reaction of sections of their populace should other regimes seem to be at the forefront of the anti-Israeli/anti-American movement. What they say in public and their real sentiments are often different; an Arab regime backing the 'West' in the invasion of an Arab state (absent the excuse that said state attacked another Arab state) would likely be committing political suicide. However, the point that if the US starts with Iraq, where will it stop is probably at the forefront of many minds there as well; and maybe they just prefer the devil that they know.

Regarding the point about Iraq only warring with 3 countries, follow your logic: you shouldn't be complaining about Israel (a minor offender, really) but about the US' nuclear arsenal. Or if the key point is international law, once again is Israel's nuclear capability more of a crime than the murder, torture, repression,etc. going on in Syria, Egypt and Iraq?
posted by fluffy1984 at 1:09 PM on October 4, 2002


Israel didn't seize the majority of what was supposed to be Palestine in 1948. Interestingly enough, I believe Jordan did.

"The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts...[Jordan's King Abdullah] promised [the Israelis and the British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements...Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off "the overwhelming hordes' of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified." "Our Roots Are Still Alive," -the Peoples Press Palestine Book Project.

Israel conquered the majority of what was supposed to have been Palestine (i.e., the West Bank and Gaza) in 1967 as a response to aggression from, oh, basically almost all of its neighbors. Ditto for the Golan. Ditto for the Sinai (which they traded for peace with Egypt).

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."

Regarding the point about Iraq only warring with 3 countries, follow your logic: you shouldn't be complaining about Israel (a minor offender, really) but about the US' nuclear arsenal.

I do. Just not in the context of this thread. Also the US has to disarm in relation to its obligations under the Non-proliferation Treaty, as a nuclear state. But it seems unlikely that anyone can force or persuade us to do so
with anything short of a full sanctioning by much of the world, as was done to South Africa. Maybe if the US does end up using nuclear weapons as has been repeatedly threatened that will come to pass. As much as it would damage the US, I think the world would be better off if it did happen.

Or if the key point is international law, once again is Israel's nuclear capability more of a crime than the murder, torture, repression,etc. going on in Syria, Egypt and Iraq?

That's a very difficult point to debate, and a good point you bring up. However at least in the case of Egypt, the US has linked future Aid to their performance in regards to Human Rights laws. However the US has taken no such steps in regards to Human Rights, or WMDs in Israel.
posted by Babylonian at 1:36 PM on October 4, 2002


But I always get kind of perplexed when someone refers to the Kurds as "Saddam's own people".. I think it's a canard - and here's why: That would be like saying that when Israel bulldozed Jenin, they "bulldoze their own people". The Kurds are an ethnic minority in Iraq who speak a different language, and are kind of break-away rebel secessionists and have fought against Saddam for years. They are not Saddam's people any more than Palestinians or Israeli Arabs are Ariel Sharon's people.

The funny part is that as far as the Israeli's are concerned, the Arabic peoples living under their auspices are "their own people." At the very founding of the Israeli state they openly acknowledged that there would always be an Arabic component in their country and they had no opposition to it. They accorded them all the rights and privledges that any Jewish citizen had. The response? Attack Israel mere hours after the UN pulls out. Then gather a coalition of states (everything is acceptable if you have a coalition) and attack them again some years later. And attack again. In the quiet times in between they exploded bombs and sent gunmen in to cause havoc. Yet, the highest standard of living, best jobs, best living conditions, most freedom and the only democratic representation that the common Arab can hope for in the entire Middle East is where? You guessed it: Israel.
posted by RevGreg at 2:37 PM on October 4, 2002


Aaargh. Babylonian, I wrote a long and fairly detailed response to your quotes & points (appreciate the research, btw, that's class - even if I disagree and believe the historical record support my side of the story) but then I clicked on your stupid link (stupid because I clicked on it, not a comment on the link itself) and when I went back to the blue my response was gone. Frankly, it's Friday, it's almost 6, I don't have a computer at home, and I want to get the fuck out of the office and into a cold drink so I'm going to shelve this discussion for the moment, unless you would like to continue it via email (which I am happy to do) or just wait for the inevitable next I/P thread.

If you're interested in the Six Day War, I recommend Michael Oren's recent book. It's superb - details the decisions/situation/rationales for various actions of the various Arab regimes, the US, the Soviet Union and Israel. Amazing stuff.
posted by fluffy1984 at 2:42 PM on October 4, 2002


someone else just pointed out to me this article from the Sydney Morning Herald (AU) where The former chief weapons inspector in Iraq Richard Butler has lashed out at United States "double standards", saying even educated Americans were deaf to arguments about the hypocrisy of their stance on nuclear weapons.
posted by Babylonian at 3:13 PM on October 4, 2002


"Is that a legitimate reason to possess nuclear weapons? Unlike the cold war, when the US and Russia kept each OTHER in check with nukes, Israel has no reason to have any, because no other "enemy" country has them."

Yes, it is. A small country surrounded by hostile states that greatly outnumber it in terms of population and size needs to have an edge. Otherwise, they would've been overrun and exterminated by a coalition of Arab armies a long time ago.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 3:57 PM on October 4, 2002


Babylonian,

Chomsky is a professor of linguistics, not political science or history, while his demented buddy Israel Shahak (whose works and quotes are found mostly on neo-Nazi and Islamist sites) was a chemistry professor before he passed away.

If you want to cite serious historical scholars to support your argument, I suggest you find more appropriate sources, i.e. works authored by trained historians, not dilettante crackpots.

Sincerely,

Stumpy McGee
posted by Stumpy McGee at 4:18 PM on October 4, 2002


"i was addressing the perception of a double standard."

I see.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 4:25 PM on October 4, 2002


Chomsky is a professor of linguistics, not political science or history, while his demented buddy Israel Shahak (whose works and quotes are found mostly on neo-Nazi and Islamist sites) was a chemistry professor before he passed away. If you want to cite serious historical scholars to support your argument, I suggest you find more appropriate sources, i.e. works authored by trained historians, not dilettante crackpots.

Though, your point that they are not trained historians may be true, taking ad hominem pot-shots at Chomsky and Shahak (and in a round-about way, me) doesn't in any way invalidate their quotations from the mouth of the former Israeli Commander of the Air Force on military issues, or Ben-Gurion on Zionism. I took those quotes from a booklet by Jews for Justice in the Middle East, and so I think your comment about neo-nazi and islamicist sites is kind of uncalled for, and kind of a cheap shot. If you have anything to say of substance, say it.
posted by Babylonian at 4:34 PM on October 4, 2002


The former chief weapons inspector in Iraq Richard Butler has lashed out at United States "double standards", saying even educated Americans were deaf to arguments about the hypocrisy of their stance on nuclear weapons.

What nullifies this supposed "hypocrisy" is that even idiots like Richard Butler cannot stand by the position that more countries obtaining these weapons is a good thing. That the initial construction of nuclear weapons by the US was a strategic necessity should be fairly clear. That the ensuing Cold War made dismantling them unthinkable at the time should likewise be obvious. That having them now is more of a burden than a relief for the most part is painfully obvious. That too many countries have them now should also be obvious - since one having them is too many. Unfortunately, once you've opened Pandora's Box you can not put back in what came out...but you can try to keep the other damn fools from opening it again.
posted by RevGreg at 4:53 PM on October 4, 2002


"Though, your point that they are not trained historians may be true, taking ad hominem pot-shots at Chomsky and Shahak (and in a round-about way, me) doesn't in any way invalidate their quotations from the mouth of the former Israeli Commander of the Air Force on military issues, or Ben-Gurion on Zionism. I took those quotes from a booklet by Jews for Justice in the Middle East, and so I think your comment about neo-nazi and islamicist sites is kind of uncalled for, and kind of a cheap shot. If you have anything to say of substance, say it."


What I said is of substance - neither Chomsky nor Shahak are scholars in the academic fields that they write/wrote many of their books in. That is central to understanding their biases and ideology. While that fact surely doesn't disprove some of the quotations used in their writing, it does put both Chomsky and Shahak's works in perspective. They don't/didn't have the training necessary to pen an historical work: they are amateurs.

I don't read academic works written by amateurs. I don't read chemistry textbooks authored by historians, syntax primers written by chemists, or history/political science books churned out by linguists and chemists. I just don't. It's called common sense.

As for your Jews for Justice in the Middle East - they're left-wing ideologues who regurgitate anti-Zionist propaganda from the 60's. There's nothing scholarly or objective on their site or in their booklet.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 5:17 PM on October 4, 2002


couldn't you sort of take a "second amendment" view of WMD? that weapons themselves are value neutral, ie not a good or bad thing -- even that it doesn't matter if the people who possess them are good or bad people. what matters is their actions and, if there's sufficient proof, their intent.

obviously, nations have a right to self-defense. unfortunately, reaching nuclear parity from a realpolitik perspective is the only way to achieve this. i agree with Babylonian that non-proliferation is the only sane alternative, otherwise "strangelovian logic" takesover.

the scenario RevGreg paints "to keep the other damn fools" from attaining WMD i thought was addressed real well by revbrian :D portraying the concept of "neo sovereignty" -- now that we're ahead, we better prevent anyone else from catching up.

i'm afraid that that might not be possible, eg china helped out with pakistan's aresenal. russia helped out with india's. will we to go war with russia and china? i certainly don't dismiss it! i think there's defensible arguments on either side.

on the one hand, better the US than any other country and deterrence after all has worked pretty well the last half century. on the other, you're still looking at a long run (possibly multi-polar) arms race, and you're back to square one, but worse.

in other words, the responsible grown-up thing to do in the sense of nation-states is to pursue non-proliferation, de-escalation and continue to strike disarmament treaties as well as abide by and enforce existing ones. also, as an alternative, i think it'd be prudent to concentrate on economic development to bring more countries into mutually beneficial arrangements that make it much less likely they'll want to risk their prosperity, new found or hard won, on the destructive consequences of war* -- a sort of neo-marshall plan if you will.

*war is i think fundamentally bred out of desperation, when there's nothing left to lose. sure there are political motivations and an element of opportumism involved, but i think mobilizing populations/citizens nowadays (as opposed to the mercenary conception of warfare) requires the prerequisite of clear and present danger.

terrorists poach from "failed states" whether the state acknowledges it or not (see afghanistan, saudi arabia, egypt etc.) which makes it all the more imperative that the US promote development, hence the recent CIA warnings about the growing AIDS epidemic for example. it really is the economy! :D

like even "rogue states" like n. korea are beginning to come around based on the carrot of a better standard of living. and encouragingly, so too, iran. it's debateable whether democracy should come first or not. i think US engagement with china has for the most part been successful, while privitisation "shock therapy" before all else in russia has been less so. altho i concede the final word on this "experiment/control" has yet to be written.
posted by kliuless at 6:40 PM on October 4, 2002


As for your Jews for Justice in the Middle East - they're left-wing ideologues who regurgitate anti-Zionist propaganda from the 60's

I'll note that you continue by using ad hominem attacks on the sources of quotes from Ben Gurion and General Weitzman while ignoring the actual quotations
posted by Babylonian at 7:04 PM on October 5, 2002


I'll note that you continue by using ad hominem attacks on the sources of quotes from Ben Gurion and General Weitzman while ignoring the actual quotations.

I don't think you understand what I'm driving at. I'm not ignoring either Ben Gurion's or Weitzman's quotes that you provided; I'm merely discounting both Chomsky's and Shahak's analysis of the political reality in the Middle East. Israel is not located in a vacuum.

What do you know about Nasserism, political Islam in its various manifestations, and the pan-Arab Nationalist Socialist (you read that right) Ba'ath Party (currently ruling both Syria and Iraq, and powerful in Lebanon and Jordan)? Maybe if you knew what Israel's neighbors are up to politically, you would be able to place their rhetoric and actions in the appropriate context.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 2:52 AM on October 6, 2002


« Older The Push For War (by Anatol Lieven).   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments