Israeli Apologists: Justify This

[Ziggy Stardust]

the problem with any country having nuclear weapons is that crazies can take over the government and decide to launch a nuclear holocaust on another non nuclear nation and by the time any response can be made there is nothing to be done. it will come at he cost of international credibility but there are some people who don't really care about that and they're generally the ones who'll use nukes.

The problem with this is once the crazies end up in power they ussually get a bad case of self-preservation. Absolute political power also corrupts religious motivations to meet one's maker.

 

[Flying Pig]

The idea behind it being that the new government is just that, a new government. That means they get a clean slate and should enjoy the privilege of cherry-picking which obligations of the old government they wish to continue to honor.

Yes, but in the interests of sanity it's generally assumed that the old government's agreements stand unless they say otherwise, rather than forcing them to renegotiate umpteen thousand trade agreements and minor details of policy.

 

[warpus]

I just wish Israel wasn't continually playing the "What nuclear weapons?" game.

Everyone knows they've got them.. but for some reason they refuse to admit this. It makes them look silly. And nobody trusts a liar.

 

[Commodore]

When did treaties become void after a government change? and wouldn't this apply to all treaties at the same time? So if Iran is still a UN member even though it entered prior to the revolution why should other treaties become non-binding?

As for Israel: the non-proliferation treaty is still a voluntary measure originally designed as a a trade with civil technology being exchanged for forgoing military technology. There is no treaty most certainly not the UN charter forcing anyone to enter into the non-proliferation treaty, it does lack a get-out clause though.

There is much that can be criticized about Israel's politics and policies with quite valid grounds, including their threats against real or perceived enemies (Iran which routinely calls for attacks on Israel may not be the best example) - but Israel actually adhering to the UN charter and the non-proliferation treaty (as in choosing to not follow the recommendations of the General Assembly [and per the UN charter the GA cannot do more than issue recommendations] and as in choosing to not sign the treaty) is not really something you need to be an apologist for to point out as not being one of the valid causes of criticism.

Like I said, the new government should reserve the right to cherry-pick which agreements and treaties they wish to honor, so obviously the new Iranian government chose to maintain membership in the UN. Plus, the Iranian government still flatly denies developing nuclear weapons and insists their facilities are for the generation of nuclear power only. So until definitive incontrovertible evidence is brought to light that shows the Iranian government is lying, then Israel has no basis for its threats and is threatening to destroy a nation for attempting to develop a sustainable energy source.

That seems like the action of a rogue state hell-bent on military conquest; not a modern, civilized member of the international community.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Is there any way to fund the maintenance of the Israeli nukes?

 

[Commodore]

Is there any way to fund the maintenance of the Israeli nukes?

There's actually a special fund for it that I know of. Just PM me your email and I'll give you the info for where you can send the money.

 

[Hygro]

I'm not an Israel sympathizer or apologist. I think.

But here's my best guess at the answer: because Israel sees itself in a uniquely vulnerable position and feels threatened by most of its immediate neighbours.

Meanwhile, the 2nd country in the "Axis of Evil" has US troops in almost most counties surrounding it, most specifically Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Borachio]

Well, yes, that's true.

 

[jackelgull]

Meanwhile, the 2nd country in the "Axis of Evil" has US troops in almost most counties surrounding it, most specifically Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, but you don't understand it's America, so obviously any country that is their enemy doesn't deserve weapons because America is the paragon of justice and never can do wrong on the international stage

Just in case somebody thinks I'm serious.

 

[Ephesian429]

Meanwhile, the 2nd country in the "Axis of Evil" has US troops in almost most counties surrounding it, most specifically Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are you saying Iran faces the same existential threat as Israel? The US leader has not threatened to wipe Iran off the map or anything. In fact, hasn't he declared a pending withdrawal from Afghanistan?

 

[Tahuti]

The very problem of the OP is that it insists on calling those who disagrees with the presented views on the Middle East most loved country "apologists".

 

[Hygro]

Are you saying Iran faces the same existential threat as Israel? The US leader has not threatened to wipe Iran off the map or anything. In fact, hasn't he declared a pending withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Iran's current regime faces a greater existential threat than Israel does as a country, at any rate. I'm sure the Iranians have noticed we have been slowly lopping off the tops of most the countries the PFANAC hoped for, including into Obama's presidency. Iran is definitely on the short list.

 

[Tahuti]

Iran's current regime faces a greater existential threat than Israel does as a country, at any rate.

Emphasis on bolded part. None of Iran's enemies say consider partitioning Iran and then clear its ethnic Iranian populace physically as a serious point, fortunately.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Are you saying Iran faces the same existential threat as Israel? The US leader has not threatened to wipe Iran off the map or anything. In fact, hasn't he declared a pending withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Two years ago a man ran for president of the United States with instigation of regime change in Iran as a basic component of his platform. While he did not win he came frighteningly close. There is no reason for the regime in Iran to think they will not be attacked by the US in the future, possibly the near future. While that may not be an 'existential threat' like the Israelis are always prattling about with images of the holocaust for backdrop, it certainly justifies the regime in Iran wanting to prepare a defense.

 

[Zelig]

I think Commodore meant 'government' in the American sense and not the British sense, Borachio. What we call government is the US federal government which as been the same since the adoption of our Constitution back in the 18th century. Your usage of government would be more in line with our usage of administration.

FWIW, Stephen Harper has branded Her Majesty's Government as the "Harper Government" in official media communications.

 

[tetley]

None of Iran's enemies say consider partitioning Iran and then clear its ethnic Iranian populace physically as a serious point, fortunately.

No, usually the exact words I hear--from Americans--is "turn it into a sea of glass".

 

[Ajidica]

Are you saying Iran faces the same existential threat as Israel? The US leader has not threatened to wipe Iran off the map or anything. In fact, hasn't he declared a pending withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Iran faces a greater threat than Israel, however small that threat is. None of Israel's neighbors are militarily capable of threatening the existence of the State of Israel and with the exception of Syria, have recognized Israel's existence and cooperate on maintaining regional stability. Even Syria's refusal to recognize Israel stems more from Baathist legacies than any real policy goal.
The entire 'threat' Israel is under right now is due to twenty years of the Israeli government's refusal to cooperate with the government they themselves set up to facilitate the independence of Palestine.

Let's not forget that during the 2012 election every Republican hopeful was trying to out-hawk each other on their desire to bomb Iran. It was seriously looking like they had already decided to declare war and were merely trying to decide upon which target they wanted to strike first. Even after that Netanyahu kept trying to drag us into a "Let's go bomb Iran" plan with his silly speech to the UN and the cartoon bomb graphic he used. "Dash Capacity" in Iran's nuclear program is something to be concerned about, but IIRC according to the 'worst case' estimates of the IAEA it would still take Iran around decade to get a functioning warhead. (Plus, their missile tech is comparatively primitive making it difficult to get said warhead on a missile. Nuclear warheads aren't light.)

Israel has nukes, it is an open secret. I feel the least they could do is sign on to the NPT.

 

[tetley]

So...Israel is hiding weapons of mass destruction?

 

[Ajidica]

So...Israel is hiding weapons of mass destruction?

Not so much hiding as being the Elmer Fudd of nuclear weapons.
"Be vewwy vewwy quiet.... I have nuclear weapons."

Err, the joke sounded better in my head.

 

[caketastydelish]

Try Israel defender. I don't apologize on Israel's behalf, that's something up to them.