Regime Change in Israel?

by G D River Wed Jul 01, 2009 17:48

There is only one way to ensure a regime change in Israel that is compatible with the democratic principles of the US and the EU and that is to STOP ALL AID AND TRADE for so long as there is a hard-line, right-wing Likud government in power.

Nuclear Israel in the hands of the Likud Party is a contingent danger to the international community and to the world.

But regime change is required urgently in order to re-open peace talks for the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian state with its own international airport and sea port on the Mediterranean, both fully under its control.

But most importantly, the US must STOP arms shipments to what is already the fifth most powerful, secret, nuclear state on earth. One that is undeclared and uninspected and refuses to be a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty and the IAEA of the UN - unlike 180 other countries of the community of nations, including the US, UK and Iran.

by Sceptic Wed Jul 01, 2009 22:29

The US administration’s policy of nudging Israel under its present government towards a two state solution is more likely to bear fruit than your regime change policy to be brought about by isolation and coercion.

The nuclear status of Israel does not trouble its neighbours as they are a defensive mechanism only. Israel’s Arab neighbours are much more worried about prospective Iranian nuclear weapons – that regime is much more unpredictable and in the grip of religious dogma than the Government of Israel which is genuinely elected.

You should note it is not a breach on international law to be a nuclear power and not in the NPT. The NPT is voluntary. What is a problem is an NPT member like Iran developing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme.

One has to understand the suspicions of the Israeli electorate about a two state solution. Implementation of 242 is not acceptable to Israel unless it is accompanied by security. That part of 242 that has been implemented is full military and civilian withdrawal from Gaza but this was followed by numerous rocket attacks on Israel. They cannot take the risk of a withdrawal from the West Bank too and a similar situation with attacks from Iranian proxies. If the security situation were resolved peace could be clinched.

by G D River Wed Jul 01, 2009 23:38

The nuclear non proliferation treaty, the NPT, is 'voluntary' in as much as it is impossible to force Israel to sign this vital treaty notwithstanding that virtually the entire community of nations around the world are signatories.

There are only 4 nuclear states worldwide who refuse to sign this important treaty: they are; Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India. But Israel is the only state that refuses to admit to its nuclear arsenal and its estimated stockpile of warheads at up to 400 WMD, which is the most deadly of all these nations.

Unfortunately, Israeli politicians are not known for their integrity - nearly all having being investigated for corruption in recent years - and that is a very dangerous position for both the Middle East and for Europe.

Furthermore, if Israel has secretly built nuclear weapons purely for its own defense, as it claims, it is not clear why she requires a nuclear arsenal sufficient to wipe out half the world.

by Sceptic Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:06

It is not known how many weapons Israel has and the construction of an argument based on the groundless figure of 400 is untenable. It’s more likely to be about twenty.

It’s not the existence of nuclear weapons that matters or their number but who has them. Thus a very small Iranian or North Korean arsenal is far more worrying for the international community than a very large arsenal in the hands of the US for example. The existence of a small Israeli arsenal does not bother the international community or Israel’s neighbours.

The Israeli weapons have been in existence since the early 1970s and don’t trouble the region as there is a tacit recognition that the country’s lack of strategic depth and positioning makes dependence on conventional weapons alone for defence risky.

There is no obligation to disclose the possession of nuclear weapons by a non-NPT member. That is the simple legal position. It is odd that you are finding virtue in the recent North Korea belligerence on this score. That is a threat most certainly felt in South Korea and Japan.

At least there is a free press and accountability in Israel and financial and sex scandals can be exposed. That is a lot more than can be said for any Arab state in the region or for Iran or North Korea. Trying to suggest that an Israeli politician would destroy half the world with nuclear weapons because he is discovered having a liaison with his secretary is a bit far fetched even for card carrying Israel haters.

by AntiSeptic Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:34

Septic, back and up to your old tricks again eh? :-)
AFAIK the accepted figure for israeli nukes after mordechai squealed and other facts came to light is >=200 nukes
during the gaza attack, a huge ship full of weapons was caught on its way to israel
It is suspected that bunker buster bombs were part of that cargo. possibly nuclear too.
anyway 20 is a ridiculous estimate. It's almost as if you looked at the actual accepted figure and removed a zero!! You didn't did you? :-)

I guess we should be grateful that at least you are not completely denying the existence of nukes in israel like the establishment you always so zealously support!

welcome back

by AuntieNuke Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:07

The only country that so far has shown a willingness to use a nuclear weapon on a civilian (or any other) target is not some nutty little religious fundamentalist state with no freedoms, but actually the so called guardians of the free world, the USA.

To say that the only countries we need to worry about are places like Iran or north korea is clearly contradicted by the facts

Many respectable sources are dubious about the need for and motives behind dropping the first nuke on Hiroshima, never mind the second one on Nagasaki. It is well known that japan had already agreed to surrender if they could keep their emperor as a way of saving face. The US outright refused this trivial (since he no longer had any real power) concession knowing full well the Japanese would be angered, thus giving them an excuse to make their point to the russians and anyone else that they were top dogs and at the same time get a proper field test of the tech they had invested so much in on a bunch of yellow people that didn't matter.

Recently, the indirect propagation of uranium dust by the widespread use of depleted uranium weaponry in Iraq is a very grey area indeed. Guess who? not Iran or north korea.

So we DO have to worry about ALL nations possessing nukes. And the most pressing worries are probably our good friends in pakistan and india with their daft border disputes and internal problems. Not Iran or north korea.

In fact north korea just need help sorting out their problems feeding the people etc.All the US seem to do is impose sanctions, freeze their assets and goad them. The north korean situation is one that could actually be solved if the will was there.

The NPT applies to all and the US needs to start dismantling their 7000+ nukes which to this day remain on hair trigger despite the cold war being long over.
The russians have yet again made public overtures about this recently to a muted US response. Not good enough

And Israel having nukes is downright scary considering how willing they are to dispense with rules about using banned weaponry and their expressed views about how Iran should be dealt with.

by Sceptic Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:44

AuntieNuke – South Korea does not have any problem feeding its people or being one of the most prosperous and thriving countries in the world. The problem in the north (no less well endowed with resources) is a totalitarian communist regime which puts its own preservation above all else even as millions starve.

Going on about Hiroshima based on inaccurate history is irrelevant. Truman and Marshall had a mortal conflict to win preferably without a contested land invasion which would have led to millions of deaths. Very much less Japanese people were killed by the A bombs then would have been killed in an invasion so millions of Japanese as well as US lives were saved that way. Harry Truman has the responsibility in his time - he had to make the judgments. You do not have such responsibility nor could you imagine it nor do you really care if half a million US lives were saved by the use of the bomb. But Truman had to. Besides the US nuclear doctrine was not formed then and despite being involved in a number of wars since then, the US has never used nuclear weapons against a nation which did not them and led the putting in place of a system for the regulation of such weapons among such nations as do have them. The Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations were also heavily involved in the nuclear disarmament process with the USSR. There is a case for deeper cuts which the present US administration has already proposed.

I agree there are problems with the Indian and Pakistani nukes as well as unfolding matters in Iran and North Korea. But singling out Israel in this as in many other respects is the mark of prejudice. It is not in Israel the problem lies.

by G D River Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:40

02 July 2009 1200 Hours GMT BBC NEWS

Israel's Defence Ministry's arrogant retort to charges of war crimes reported today by AMNESTY International:

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?
WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES?
WHO DID THEY SPEAK TO?
WHERE IS THEIR EVIDENCE?

Perhaps someone could inform the Israeli Defence Ministry that Amnesty is an international human rights organization that works to bring to the attention of the world the abuse of human and civil rights. That includes such atrocities as the slaughter of 300 children and 115 women in Gaza earlier this year by the IDF.