Israel recoils as US backs nuclear move

[Aunt Spiker]

So many posts - so little time.
Here's what I'm thinking:

A) On one hand we have people telling us that Israel is really a big bully and perpetrating problems rather than merely defending their selves. . . statistics, really, prove this.

B) On the other hand we have people telling us that Israel is victim and we aren't supporting them enough in the act of being their ally.

Ok - if both are true (which they seem to be, to me) - then WHY is it unacceptable for us to require our own Allies and enemies to all adhere to a certain standard or code?

Just because Israel is Israel and Pakistan is Pakistan doesn't in any way make it OK for one to adhere to any type weapons-nature treaty and the other not to. Isn't it just ensuring a fair fight AND fair support?

C) Obama never EVER in anyone's dreams claimed to support any country (including ours) being nuclear-wielding in ANY way - this includes Israel. The Democratic Party Platform which he adheres to quite faithfully is VERY much against nuclear power, weapons and even energy.

Why anyone would expect Obama to give Israel a slide on this is beyond me :shrug:

Do we want "peace in the Middle East" like everyone claims to have faith in or "big bullies with bigger sticks" in the Middle East? :shrug:

D) "The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical."

I do agree, here, that it is extremely hypocritical to call out ONLY Israel and NOT Iran (or anyone else for that matter) on this subject. . . however, Iran has been under heavy scrutiny, opinion and fire for YEARS.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

are you kidding? by nuking Israel they usher in Paradise on Earth where they will be immortal heroes attended by those 72 nubile virgins.

we're talking about Iranian Shia fundamentalists; these are the people who brought us the Suicide Bomber - Al Quada learned it from these guys. we are truly talking about people who don't mind destroying themselves and a good hunk of the world because they think they will come out ahead from that bargain.



no, it doesn't. the world is not dependent upon Iranian oil.



Iranian ally.

THose who do not distinguish between warfare and terrorism might say so, especially if they support the terrorism.

In truth, however, anybody who seeks to engage in mass murder of innocent civilians is a terrorist. In order to qualify as geurilla war, the targets need to be miltary and strategic, not civilians killed for being civilians.

So when the Marine barracks in Lebanon were blown up it was not terrorism correct?

 

[Apocalypse]

So when the Marine barracks in Lebanon were blown up it was not terrorism correct?

No, it was guerrilla warfare.
Doesn't make it any more right.

 

[Andalublue]

No, it was guerrilla warfare.
Doesn't make it any more right.

Clearly it does if your name is Menachim Begin.

From wiki: "Jewish underground
Main article: Irgun

Begin quickly made a name for himself, both as a fierce critic of dominant Zionist leadership for being too cooperative with British ‘colonialism’, and as a proponent of guerrilla tactics against the British, which he saw as a necessary means to achieve independence. In 1942 he joined the Irgun (Etzel), an underground Zionist group which had split from the main Jewish military organization, the Haganah, in 1931.[8] In 1944 Begin assumed the organization's leadership, determined to force the British government to remove its troops entirely from Palestine. Giving as reasons that the British had reneged on the promises given in the Balfour Declaration and that the White Paper of 1939 restricting Jewish immigration was an escalation of their pro-Arab policy, he decided to break with the Haganah. Soon after he assumed command, a formal 'Declaration of Revolt' was publicized, and armed attacks against British forces were initiated.

Begin issued a call to arms and from 1944–48 the Irgun launched an all-out armed rebellion, perpetrating many attacks against British installations and posts. Begin financed these operations by extorting money from Zionist businessmen, and running bogus robbery scams in the local diamond industry, which enabled the victims to get back their losses from insurance companies."

 

[Apocalypse]

Clearly it does if your name is Menachim Begin.

From wiki: "Jewish underground
Main article: Irgun

Begin quickly made a name for himself, both as a fierce critic of dominant Zionist leadership for being too cooperative with British ‘colonialism’, and as a proponent of guerrilla tactics against the British, which he saw as a necessary means to achieve independence. In 1942 he joined the Irgun (Etzel), an underground Zionist group which had split from the main Jewish military organization, the Haganah, in 1931.[8] In 1944 Begin assumed the organization's leadership, determined to force the British government to remove its troops entirely from Palestine. Giving as reasons that the British had reneged on the promises given in the Balfour Declaration and that the White Paper of 1939 restricting Jewish immigration was an escalation of their pro-Arab policy, he decided to break with the Haganah. Soon after he assumed command, a formal 'Declaration of Revolt' was publicized, and armed attacks against British forces were initiated.

Begin issued a call to arms and from 1944–48 the Irgun launched an all-out armed rebellion, perpetrating many attacks against British installations and posts. Begin financed these operations by extorting money from Zionist businessmen, and running bogus robbery scams in the local diamond industry, which enabled the victims to get back their losses from insurance companies."

That's absolutely irreverent to the definition of terrorism.
Guerrilla warfare can be right and can be wrong, I'm not going to engage in a debate over whether his actions were right or wrong because frankly my opinion is quite neutral about him.
However the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut by Hezbollah was definitely unjustified and was an unprovoked act of war, like pearl harbor.

 

[mac]

Israel likely doesn't even have them, just the threat of them. Like Saddam's claim to have biological WMDs to keep Iran at bay. Opening up Israeli facilities for inspection would likely reveal this and eliminate it's largest deterrent.

Great way to back up our allies.

 

[spud_meister]

THose who do not distinguish between warfare and terrorism might say so, especially if they support the terrorism.

In truth, however, anybody who seeks to engage in mass murder of innocent civilians is a terrorist. In order to qualify as geurilla war, the targets need to be miltary and strategic, not civilians killed for being civilians.

just out of curiosity, where would the nuclear attacks on japan stand on that scale?

 

[Shayah]

Clearly it does if your name is Menachim Begin.

Or George Washington.

 

[Andalublue]

Or George Washington.

Good point! Or George Washington.

 

[Jail Com of 300]

This is top tier mind control propoganda.

Did someone say 'Obama's' foreign policy has been error free. So one of the first orders Obama carried out on his first day as president, which was to bomb Pakistan, was that agreeable?

 

[MSgt]

In recent history (ie post WW2) It was the Tamil Tigers who introduced suicide bombing. They are hindu's not muslims.

In recent Islamic history it was Khomeini that sanctioned suicide bombing (circa 1980s) and labeled it as favored by God. The Sunni were appauled by the act and condemned the Shia even as they schooled their own fanatics to counter the Khomeini fundamental threat. However, in even more recent times, the Shia have abandoned such tactics as the Sunni gravitated towards it. Of course, the lords of terror are there once again to legitimize it as an act for God. Of course, the greater number within both tribes condemn its use for exactly what it is and agree that their is nothing Islamic about it, despite what their own home grown radicals and extremists call it.

The Tamil Tigers have nothing to do with any of this.

Suicide bombing is just a tool that is used in warfare, typically when better methods are not avaliable. I am sure that if military strategists using Suicide bombing had cruise missiles, they would be using cruise missiles instead

Oh, no, no, no. Working around the issue doesn't change the issue. Suicide bombing, in the perspective that it is used here, is terrorism. The Japanese employed Kamikazis in the end out of desparation. However, they targetted Naval military vessels. Later, your Tamil Tigers employed suicide vests to target economic and military targets to damage the government.

What you are attempting to do is extend acts of war or stated conflict towards Islamic terrorists who don't walk up to military compounds or banks or government buildings. There is no organized sense of campaign and there is no earthly practical goal intended as a result. These are the cowardly acts of the desperate, which are sanctioned by no Arab government, and solely designed to leave the misery of this world in a bang. They have failed in life and seek to make their deed count for succes in the afterlife. The lords of terror are all too accomodating to these lost souls, because they can use them to appaul the world and create attention. They instruct them that it is always best to go out as a martyr (preached for centuries in the Islamic Arab world by fundamentalists) and assure them that Allah will be pleased. They find a nice crowded bazaare or bus (nothing military) and detonate to the glory of God leaving civilian body parts all over the canvas.

This is, in fact, terrorism. It has nothing to do with lacking methods. Al-Queda developed IED factories in Iraq. The Tali-Ban use IEDs in Afghanistan. Palestinians have launched a ridiculous amount of rockets into Israel off and on. The terrorist vest has nothing to do with lacking other methods. It's a psycological event directed at the media.

 

[danstevens80]

You are omitting an important fact of the story, although I totally agree with your assessment of it. Regardless of the fact that this is non-binding resolution and merely "calls" for an action and therefore is powerless, the US should have stuck to its Bush era policy of not backing any resolution that so narrowly focuses on Israel while claiming to cover an entire region. But Obama did say "The greatest threat to proliferation in the Middle East, and to the NPT, is Iran's failure to live up to its NPT obligations." "We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel, and will oppose actions that jeopardize Israel's national security," said President Obama, adding that the U.S. supports the idea of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East but that a comprehensive and durable peace in the region "are essential precursors for its establishment."

As much as Im all for a nuclear free world, I'd agree Obama made too big of a compromise for goodwill in the Middle East by still voting for this resolution when he is also stating how terrible the thing is in the first place. It makes him come off as weak in a way.

HOWEVER, just for a little political theorizing. Remember that these are simply statements and non-binding resolutions. The US so far as taken no real, ie enforceable, actions which are negative towards Israeli policy. Both the nuke issue and settlements have cause disagreements but have not been backed with any real threat from the US, in other words we've been playing soft-ball with Israel on this. If Israel really trusts the US more than it will officially state at this point, than all this loud noise from Israel and the US may be just for show. If the two can convince some of the Middle East that they are on bad terms, without either taking any real action as they haven't so far, it may open up a few unrealized opportunities in the Middle East for the US to negotiate which would be in line with both Israeli and US goals.

Thats a lot of what ifs and maybes I know, and I'm not advocating that's whats really going on, but I thought it was an interesting line of thought.

Well said, and duely noted - a narrow angled report it is, and we are facing a lot of possible develompents (none of which provide adequate options of recourse, unfortunately)