Syria, Egypt: Israel Must Give Up Nukes

[DuctapeFatwa]

Syria and Egypt dismissed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's call for Arab nations to follow his lead and get rid of weapons of mass destruction, insisting Wednesday that Israel must first eliminate its suspected nuclear arsenal. Gadhafi's remark was seen as being aimed at Syria.

In a statement at the end of the summit, Assad and Mubarak stressed "current developments in the Middle East demonstrate the need to declare the Middle East a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction including all states and Israel."

Gadhafi said on CNN that if other nations were to follow the example of Libya, which announced its abandonment of weapons of mass destruction last week: "This would tighten the noose around the Israelis so that they would expose their programs and their weapons of mass destruction."

Gadhafi did not name any other nation in the interview.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031224_1228.html

[aquart]

1. Yeah? Or what?

Does no one remember the point of mutually assured destruction? Everybody has 'em, so no one dares use 'em?

[Terwilliger]

5. ummm

only Israel has them...which is the point of the story

[Dhalgren]

2. You can no longer blame any nation for hanging on to its WMDs.

Recent events have shown that countries without WMDs are sitting ducks for American aggression. Israel will never get rid of its nukes and other WMD, so other nations should keep theirs. There is no "great" power or group that can be trusted now - it's every man (nation) for himself. Sad, but true, IMO.

[mmm]

6. and those countries who don't have any better get some

and fast

[bvar22]

18. "Every man for himself !"cried the elephant ....

...as he danced among the chickens."---Charles Dickens

[2cents]

3. lol...

...Gadhafi: "I'm not a wimp, so stop saying that! The pants around my ankles is an anti-Israeli strategy"

[psychopomp]

9. I honestly believe losing his daughter changed him

and now he knows that violence begets violence. Of course, he "knew" this truism before, as almost anybody does; but the experience of losing his daughter brought it home. Over time, this has given fruition to this turnaround: Lockarbie, WMD's, overtures to the world for trade, etc. Should also be seen in light of his efforts to unite Africa under the AU. Now is the time to think, work things out and avoid direct confrontation.

[Just Me]

47. I believe change is always possible,...

,...but, have witnessed the resistance of those whose hunger for power seems to never be gratiated. BUT, I hope you are correct in your assessment, I really do. My perspective is unlike yours, though, since this guy received a shipment of arms cultivated by this administration during that time that the administration was aiming for its endeavor in Iraq. I am sick of the predatory policies of this administration.

[hellhathnofury]

4. Iran and Syria

I would only expect Israel to disarm when the Iranians end their nuke program and Syria gets rid of their chemical and biological progams.

[meti57b]

7. Pakistan would also have to disarm and that would mean India, too.

[hellhathnofury]

10. On India and Pakistan

Pakistan is not a direct threat to Israel and thus can be seperated from Syria/Iran.

An Iran with weapons means the prospect of nukes in Hezbollahs hands with the permission of Syria.

[toopers]

43. Not a threat, except

for the terrorists that run freely through the nation.

[mbperrin]

17. Why everybody else

first?

[hellhathnofury]

20. Its not everyone else first.

In tandem, but thats not what Syria and Iran want. They want the Israelis to unilaterally disarm while they pursue weapons.

[pinto]

21. yeah, ought to go both ways. Do you support unlateral action

by Israel against Syria? Seems like they (Israel)may be taking that stance.

[hellhathnofury]

24. Frankly, I don't think anyone should be shooting at anyone else right now.

Threats are fine. I don't think Israel would unilaterally attack the Syrian government itself. I wouldn't be surprised though by strikes against "terror" targets like we saw in the summer. Hitting those targets symbolically hits the Iranians too since a large amount of the funding and training is provided by the Iranians. An actual strike against Iran itself is near impossible considering the geography of the region and US opposition to such a strike.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Just against Iran

To prevent it from getting nukes. Israel really has little choice.

[hellhathnofury]

28. Would that actually be possible

With the Osiraq operation they simply flew under the radar to Iraq. I don't see them wanting to risk flying over Iraqi, Saudi or Turkish territory. The only way would be to completely fly around the Arabian peninsula, that would require alot of tankers. Does Israel have missiles capable of reaching Iran?

[pinto]

8. ME as "WMD-Free Zone"....complete with UN inspections, mutual

transparency, etc. Would love to see this debate in the UN.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Yeah, like THAT will happen

The only final guarantee of safety Israel has is the nuclear program. It won't give it up, even if the U.S. says so. And certainly not if the UN says so.

[pinto]

13. Yeah, WMD-free zone won't, but I'd still love to see the debate happen.

on another point, it seems a key to Israeli security is their relationship with the Palestinians.

I don't see nukes as a deterrent to internal uprising, unless they expect to hold Syria hostage for Palestinian action.

[Blitz]

15. Israel is defining and resolving their relationship with the Palestinians

by physically separating from them, as they should have done years ago. The Palestinian uprising has caused death and discomfort but it is, in fact, getting better thanks to Israeli action and the construction of the Security Fence. Once separation is complete, the uprising will effectively end (you see very little terrorism from Arab-Israeli citizens; you also see very few attacks coming from Gaza, because there has been a fence there for years). In any event, the Palestinians, in the short term, were never a threat to Israel's very existance, as the various Arab nations would be the moment that Israel gave up its nuclear deterrant.

[pinto]

16. I thought the one state plan (Arab/Israeli) seemed workable at one time

given the original coexistence of Palestiniams and Israelis. I remember when Israel was first established, a framework of sorts, for a multi cultural state. What do you think has changed? Or do you think it was ever "doable"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. It was a fantasy then, it is ridiculous now

The hatreds on both sides run too deep.

[pinto]

27. then what? Partition? endless partition has been a Brit modus operandi

and we seem to be moving down that same road. I would like to see other answers from the ME itself. The much maligned Geneva plan was thrown off the table pretty quickly.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Partition is the only solution

Two states -- one for each side -- might work. One will not.

[the_boxer_]

35. According to you, perhaps.

Many think the one state solution is viable, however. And as much as you may want to think otherwise-it's gaining support from both left and right elements.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. The one-state solution

Is largely a fantasy by held closely by those who wish to destroy Israel. Israelis by and large oppose it because it would lead inevitiably to them holding minority status in their own nation.

[sistersofmercy]

45. And you just

dismissed your first assertion with your second more truthful one. It's all about power, baby. Peace.

[GRClarkesq]

11. The only opinion that matters to Isreal is the US

and it does not matter much on this issue.

[Blitz]

14. That's pretty rich

coming from two dictatorships that just got done broadcasting virulent anti-semitic propaganda on their state-controlled Television stations and where such lovely pieces of literature as Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are perpetually on the best seller list. Countries that spread anti-semitism in the government controlled press and, in the case of Syria, is still technically at war with Israel and overtly sponsors anti-Israeli terrorism.

Yup, Israel should immediately give up its nukes and make it safe, once again, for Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Lebanon, et al. to try to destroy Israel through massive conventional warfare.

But that would never happen because, of course, the U.N. would immediately jump to Israel's defense. Of course.

[Malva Zebrina]

19. naturally and any small country should do the same

that much is certainly obvious, is it not? If I were a small country there in the ME and vulnerable to the attacks of the mighty US and concurrently the nuke capable Israel, I would do the best I could to defend myuself with an equally as horrific, nuke program. To do elsewise would be to give up muy country and subject it to the likes of a narcissistic fascist like Bush

[Blitz]

29. Israel is not Oman

No one is actively trying to destroy Oman or Kuwait (especially now that Saddam is out of power) or the UAE or any other "little" country in the Middle East EXCEPT for Israel, which its neighbors have repeatedly tried to destroy and which its neighbors say that they will destroy at the first available opportunity. Would you like an example? Here:

A prominent Iranian official (the former Iranian President) has publicly advocated using nuclear weapons against Israel:

Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

How much clearer can this be? Israel's enemies will destroy Israel at the first opportunity. They say as much openly and regularly. If they could have done so with conventional weapons, they certainly would have (Lord knows they've tried). One of the only things that restrains them is the certainty that, should they come close to approaching their goal, they, too, will be annihilated. This is not a scenario facing the other "little" countries of the Middle East or, for that matter, any other country on earth (with the possible exception of Taiwan, which China wants to reclaim but not destroy).

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP32502

By most estimates, Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades. And yet, they have never so much as publicly threatened to use them against their many enemies. Does anyone seriously believe that Iran or Syria would have sat on such a weapon for a year, much less decades before succumbing to the temptation to use them for blackmail, actually use them or provide them to one of the many, many organizations (e.g. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Tanzim, Abu Sayyaf, DFLP, PLF, MEK, Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, Fatah, etc.) that would use them? Israel will be able to give up its nuclear deterrant only when its enemies have relinquished, once and for all, their stated desire to destroy Israel and al of its people. That day is not here yet (acknowledging Israel's right to exist would be a step in the right direction).

[the_boxer_]

30. Yeah right. All the nations want Israel gone.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

:eyes:

[Blitz]

32. Um, you don't believe that Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran

Iraq (pre-war), Lebanon, the PA and virtually every other nation and entity in the region want Israel destroyed? Are you at all aware of the history of that region over the past 55 years? Did you read the quote from the former President of Iran advocating the nuclear annihilation of Israel, even if it costs millions of Muslim lives? No, of course. Israel is just imagining things to win victim points.

I mean, that's why its founders made up the Holocaust, right? The Nazis weren't really out to get them either.

[the_boxer_]

33. Hmmm..No...I don't..

Especially when the Arab Nations (which of course doesn't include Iran) has made many overtures to peace. Don't let that stop your fantasies though. Do carry on.

Your last question is so ridiculous, it doesn't deserve a response...well...yes it does, do you believe there was no Holocaust? Your sarcasm isn't even making a point.

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. Overtures of peace?

Israel has made peace with the more sensible Arab states. But the peace most recently proposed by the others entailed the total destruction of Israel. Funny how Israelis don't consider that peace.

[the_boxer_]

39. You may want to confuse the Arab's league call for normalizations

with Israel, that is your right, but please, don't make fools out of those in the know.

None of it called for the destruction of Israel.

[sistersofmercy]

34. Bringing up the holocaust in this debate is completely

a red herring. There is no parallel between what is going on in ME now in regard to Israel and what happened in Germany. Israel, on more than one occasion, has been the aggressor towards Lebanon.
Personally, I believe if stupid Saddam (he was VP but for all practical purposes was running the country) had not defied the 73 OPEC oil embargo and sold the US oil, there would be no I/P issue today. The US would have placed its own interest first.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Try telling that to the Jewish people

I doubt they will agree.

They suffered abuse for 2,000 years with the Holocaust only one recent example. They know that many of their enemies are fully committed not to peace but to the destruction of Israel.

Somehow that would-be massive destruction of Jewish lives and the Holocaust seem awful similar.

As for America's interests in the Middle East, this nation has only one reliably ally in that region and that is Israel. So backing Israel IS in our best interests.

[The Stranger]

41. Demonstrably false.

So backing Israel IS in our best interests.

Not when Israel continues to bring war to the region, expand in violation of treaties, international law and even the very simple requests made by the U.S. government, while collecting billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars, and using U.S.-made weapons to attack unarmed civilians and subjugate other peoples. Israel, in actuality, currently acts almost entirely in violation of everything the U.S. stands for.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Demonstrably false

The Middle East never needed Israel to bring war and chaos to the region. It's been that way for a very long time and remains so. The only difference is the quality of weapons and the use of new tactics like suicide bombings.

I won't respond to the rest of the comment because I don't want the post deleted.

[sistersofmercy]

44. I understand perfectly that

some will undoubtedly reference the Holocaust as a defense for the actions of the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT. But if one were to do a survey of the previous five decades in the region, one would find evidence that there has been a systematic removal of and deliberate destruction of one people who have had their property confiscated and/or demolished.
I am quite tired of the holocaust and defense against terrorism being used an excuse for the Israeli government's actions. There have been plenty of nasty little deeds that have gone without penalty for years on its part.
Did you know there are accounts of Israeli soldiers who were near the borders of the countries involved in the 67 war, who have publicly stated that the Israeli government purposely did maneuvers to provoke those countries? One I distinctly recall reading involved driving farm tractors over the border as a display of expansionism.
Many cultures throughout this world can claim victimization of abuse and genocide at the hands of oppressors. Christians were targeted in previous centuries in various regions of the world. The Armanian genocide also comes to mind. The native American Indian also comes to mind, read about the trail of tears.
Nazi Germany committed the Holocaust against the Jewish people there not the Palestinians. I think the American government at the time was guilty of depraved indifference in part for not entering into the war sooner and also sending back Jewish refugees who sought asylum. Especially, since the US government was aware of the atrocity that was taking place.
About the Palestinian terrorist, yes they need to be stopped but victimizing innocent civilians is not the way to do it. Not all Palestinians are terrorist. I think in error that is the approach of the Israeli government, currently. I sort of view it as if, after Timothy Mcvey blew up the OK building, our government had decided to go after all anglo rednecks.
Syria just received an unprovoked attack from Israel to view it otherwise is erroneous.

[The Stranger]

40. My Likud Party Line Alarm is ringing. . . .

Care to link all of the Israeli settler groups advocating ethnically cleansing the West Bank and other Arab lands, like the Golan Heights? You don't think they'd use nukes if it would make it easier?

Also, this statement skews things quite a bit:

If they could have done so with conventional weapons, they certainly would have (Lord knows they've tried). One of the only things that restrains them is the certainty that, should they come close to approaching their goal, they, too, will be annihilated.

Your conclusions about nuclear weapons are demonstrably false. The problem in the region is that Israel is occupying her neighbors -- and has been doing so for decades -- while holding these territorial possessions as the only nuclear power. Another nuclear presence in the Middle East would set up a deterrent to Israel's continued territorial expansion.

And stating that if another country in the region had nuclear weapons, it would immediately launch them could be one of the most asinine things posted on these boards. The other nuclear power would create a balance and a deterrent to Israel -- they would never launch because they know they would be annihilated, as would Israel. Remember the concept of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION? That is the principle by which the U.S. and Russia still exist.

Also, this statement is incorrect:

And yet, they have never so much as publicly threatened to use them against their many enemies.

Isreali Likud leaders are on record stating something to the effect that although the Arabs have the oil, the Israelis have the matches to light the oil, obtusely referencing Israel's status as the world's fifth most powerful nuclear-armed nation and its use against the Arabs.

This is also wrong:

Israel will be able to give up its nuclear deterrant only when its enemies have relinquished, once and for all, their stated desire to destroy Israel and al of its people. That day is not here yet (acknowledging Israel's right to exist would be a step in the right direction).

The Palestinians and other Arab Nations -- as recently as the Saudi Arabian proposal at the Arab League meeting last year -- have relinquished and renounced and repeatedly begged Israel to recognize their recognition of it, but the Likud continues to claim that everyone wants to destroy it and refuses to acknowledge any such acceptance. The problem is once Sharon and Likud admitted that people are not obssessed with their destruction, they would lose their justification for violating international law on a daily basis and would have to join the rest of the neighborhood of nations.

[sistersofmercy]

46. Excellent post

Also the fact that Israel's right to exist is a continual demand while a Palestine state is not.

[flaminbats]

22. A Democratic President would take advantage of this opportunity.

The opportunity for the U.S. to cut its nuclear stockpile by 2/3's if Israel, Egypt, Syria, India, Pakistan, China, and Russia will do the same. The opportunity to lessen the possibility of a future holocast, and a chance to put the U.N. in charge of securing and protecting the nuclear material used in those warheads. This can be seen as just another east-west conflict, or it can be approached as an opportunity to prevent terrorism and nuclear wars for the new century.

[pinto]

23. remember mutual disarmament!........n/t