[Peptobismol]

Obama targets Israel for nuclear disarmament, right when he's agreed to allow Iran the bomb which will in turn drive an atomic arms race among the Sunni Mideast.

Hmm What's wrong with this picture?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137346
From news article:
The United States is working with both Egypt and Russia to rid Israel of its nuclear weapons, as part of a comprehensive plan to neutralize Iran’s nuclear power.

Reports of this nature are being reported in various news media. The Guardian (London) reports that the US and Russia have drafted an initiative to ban nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, while the Wall Street Journal says the Obama Administration is considering support for a “nuclear-free Middle East.”

[Drugmachine]

Israel's official policy has always been that they won't be the first ones to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East. Whatever that means ...

The real question is whether Obama is prepared to pressure Israel to submit to inspections. Of course, legally Israel is not obliged to agree to that seeing that it has not signed the NPT (the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty). But then again, when it suits the "big boys", legality is not an issue for them. And the bigger question still is: What can Israel do, should Obama and his cronies decide to resort to bullying tactics, are there any countermeasures available to Israel? If not, then it is facing troubled times ahead. One thing is for sure though: Israel should NOT capitulate under any circumstances because if it does, then Israel would be finished. It would only be a question of time ....

[Fegasderty]

Israel's official policy has always been that they won't be the first ones to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East. Whatever that means ...

The real question is whether Obama is prepared to pressure Israel to submit to inspections. Of course, legally Israel is not obliged to agree to that seeing that it has not signed the NPT (the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty). But then again, when it suits the "big boys", legality is not an issue for them. And the bigger question still is: What can Israel do, should Obama and his cronies decide to resort to bullying tactics, are there any countermeasures available to Israel? If not, then it is facing troubled times ahead. One thing is for sure though: Israel should NOT capitulate under any circumstances because if it does, then Israel would be finished. It would only be a question of time ....

I agree. Now, I think Clinton also pushed for a similar resolution in 1995. The conference back then said that the ME should be free of nukes, etc. Consequences? None. The topic wasn't even mentioned in 2000 I think.

[TorryJens]

This is just not going to happen. It doesn't matter what declarations are made, what initiatives are proposed, or what bullying tactics they might employ. Israel will not be giving up its nukes in the foreseeable future.

[Lillie_Steins]

I think we should push for the US and Russia to be nuke free. Anyone is welcome to try to pry the nukes from our cold irradiated hands. The logic fails. You dont threaten a Nuclear state that has global reach. Period.

[Paul Bunyan]

Obama actually claims to be an atomic abolitionist. I believe he would prefer to see a world where the ONLY people who have atomic weapons are the 'developing' nations.

[S.T.D.]

This is just not going to happen. It doesn't matter what declarations are made, what initiatives are proposed, or what bullying tactics they might employ. Israel will not be giving up its nukes in the foreseeable future.

Basic common sense says that when all the surrounding nations want you wiped off the map, you should be the LAST, not the first to give up your one trump card. I can understand that Obama might not be the biggest fan of Israel, but SURELY he must realize even our leaders stupidity has limits.

[Paul Bunyan]

bararallu

Saw this post in some forum. What do you think about this ?

There will never be any peace deal with Muslims by Israel, simply because, Muslims do not want peace with Israel - they want to finish off the existence of Jews as a separate theology and sect. Both Christianity and Islam sees continued existecne of Judaism a problem - because bothe derive their legitimacy from Judaism. Unless they can liquidate or erase the Jews, their own claim to absolute legacy is jeopardized.

As long as Israel maintains its own existence, Christians will support them because they will not want the Muslims to be able to claim sole legacy of the Judaic traditions. This is basically a fight to the finish of Christianity and Islam, and it is crucial for India to help in Israel's existence. Peace there means eventual overrunning of Israel by Muslims and turning attention to Ghazwa-e-Hind. Some in Indian political circles will probably drool at the possibility of gathering a harem and the absolute power given under Maulanas to satisfy all perversions in the safety of the zenana - and so welcome such a ghazwa. But Israel's low intensity war with the Muslims should be considered a second battlefront that divided Islamic attention away from India.

Those in the west trying to weaken or muzzle Israel are actually helping Islamists - knowingly or unknowingly.

[Big A]

I think we should push for the US and Russia to be nuke free. Anyone is welcome to try to pry the nukes from our cold irradiated hands. The logic fails. You dont threaten a Nuclear state that has global reach. Period.

It might be time for a celebration -- here's an issue where we are absolutely in complete agreement. For now, nukes are the ultimate deterrent and trump card. I've already said that the logic behind the argument that the US could pressure Israel to give up its nukes is... well... utterly non-existent. The primary purpose of the US relationship is to keep Israel secure. The moment the US begins to challenge Israel's ultimate instrument of security - its nukes - the US relationship is undermined. Nothing that they say or offer can possibly make it desirable for Israel to give up its nukes.

But it should be said that conceivably there may come a time when we no longer need them, since we are able to cripple Israel's neighbours without too much difficulty conventionally. Even today, a single squadron of Israeli F-16s could probably bring Egypt to its knees by bombing the Aswan Dam, which would be just as devastating as a nuke. The Jordanian economy relies on international confidence for business/banking/services which in itself is a deterrent to war with Israel, compounded by a fragile monarchy which Israel could easily undermine. Lebanon can be reduced to civil war without much effort. Syria is more problematic because it doesn't have an easy single target that would ruin the country, but a bombing campaign targeting infrastructure, especially dams, would severely harm agriculture and create problems for its growing population in the long run.

And the advantage of targeting dams is that it would also create political issues with their neighbours if they ever tried to rebuild them, e.g. Iraq would object to Syria rebuilding its dam on the Euphrates, the Nile states would object to (whatever is left of) Egypt rebuilding the Aswan dam, and so on.