[OreoCookie]

In a TV interview, Prime Minister has admitted Israel has nuclear weapons. Apparently there was a rather harsh reaction in Israel about this, he was criticized strongly for `admitting' (in quotation marks since his spokespeople claim he was misquoted) what everybody knows to be true.

Can somebody explain why there was such an outrage after disclosing this `secret?'

PS I don't want to have yet-another-thread about Israel vs. Palestine or so.

[Kevin]

Can somebody explain why there was such an outrage after disclosing this `secret?'

Not me, How many people has Israel threatened to wipe out since it has gotten them?

[vmarks]

Actually, you can read the quote in such a way that in stead of an admission of posession of nukes, it includes Israel in the list of cultured countries.

"The prime minister said that the difference was that those countries were ”cultured nations" who did not threaten the world’s principles with nuclear destruction."

The text of the interview says that he went on to admit posession, but I haven't seen anyone link to the actual video yet, so who can be sure that the writer didn't write what they wished? Why no direct quote of the admission?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, you can read the quote in such a way that in stead of an admission of posession of nukes, it includes Israel in the list of cultured countries.

Just like you can read Kerry's infamous joke in such a way that instead of insulting the troops, it was a jab at Bush. If Olmert misspoke, then it was one hell of a misspeak, because that's just not a reasonable or intuitive way to interpret what he said.

Then again, Israel hasn't been fooling anyone with its ambiguity over the years, just as Iran isn't fooling anyone with its "Our nuclear DEATHTOISRAEL ambitions are strictly CRUSHTHEZIONISTS for peaceful DENYTHEHOLOCAUST purposes" act nowadays.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, you can read the quote in such a way that in stead of an admission of posession of nukes, it includes Israel in the list of cultured countries.

"The prime minister said that the difference was that those countries were ”cultured nations" who did not threaten the world’s principles with nuclear destruction."

The text of the interview says that he went on to admit posession, but I haven't seen anyone link to the actual video yet, so who can be sure that the writer didn't write what they wished? Why no direct quote of the admission?

"Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

Photo Slideshow | Reuters.com

And for the video.

http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoSto...RelatedVideo-3

You're welcome.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

How many people has Israel threatened to wipe out since it has gotten them?

You have completely misread what I have written.

Edit: Thanks for the video.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, you can read the quote in such a way that in stead of an admission of posession of nukes, it includes Israel in the list of cultured countries.

Nevertheless, it was interpreted as an indirect admission by the media.
I don't want to argue whether or not this interpretation is correct. I want to know why, at least according to German news outlets, this paragraph has caused quite a stir in Israel. I'm aware that Israel's official policy on that subject is `neither confirming nor denying' the existence of a nuclear arsenal. But these days, there are no doubts about its existence. Hostile nations don't need to wonder whether there might be a nuclear response to threats.

Israel hasn't signed the non-proliferation treaty, so no legal obligations arise once it admits what everyone knows. To me, this insistence seems obsolete, but perhaps somebody can outline the reasoning as to why Israel should stick to its ambiguous stance of the past.

Edit: I've just watched the video and this `admission' (note the quotation marks in my OP) is very vague at best.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

How many people has Israel threatened to wipe out since it has gotten them?

You indeed misread the title of the thread. It's not meaning "Hey Israel admitted to have nukes, where is the outrage?", but instead it's meaning "Olmert admitted Israel has nukes, why is everyone outraged?".

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Nevertheless, it was interpreted as an indirect admission by the media.
I don't want to argue whether or not this interpretation is correct. I want to know why, at least according to German news outlets, this paragraph has caused quite a stir in Israel. I'm aware that Israel's official policy on that subject is `neither confirming nor denying' the existence of a nuclear arsenal. But these days, there are no doubts about its existence. Hostile nations don't need to wonder whether there might be a nuclear response to threats.

Israel hasn't signed the non-proliferation treaty, so no legal obligations arise once it admits what everyone knows. To me, this insistence seems obsolete, but perhaps somebody can outline the reasoning as to why Israel should stick to its ambiguous stance of the past.

Edit: I've just watched the video and this `admission' (note the quotation marks in my OP) is very vague at best.

Israel also claims that it will not be the first country to introduce nukes to the middle-east.

Taliesin

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Israel also claims that it will not be the first country to introduce nukes to the middle-east.

I think this is the key thing here. Israel does not want to give anyone a pretext for "pre-emptive" invasion, so they continually emphasize the fact that they will not use nukes first in the region, without addressing whether or not they have nukes. The simple act of admitting they have nukes might prompt some to call for an invasion to remove those nukes from the region.

Also, I think that there are consequences under the NPT for becoming a "declared" nuclear power. Israel wants very much to keep their "undeclared" status. I don't know exactly what the PM said, but I imagine if Israel ever feels the need to become a "declared" Nuclear power, they will do it in a more formal fashion than a TV interview.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You have completely misread what I have written.

No. It was to the response of the people in outrage. I will go back and fix it so it makes more sense.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

You indeed misread the title of the thread. It's not meaning "Hey Israel admitted to have nukes, where is the outrage?", but instead it's meaning "Olmert admitted Israel has nukes, why is everyone outraged?".

Taliesin

Read above

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

ICan somebody explain why there was such an outrage after disclosing this `secret?'

My guess is because if it becomes a publicly known fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, the US will be bound to insist that Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, binding how Israel can use it's nuclear weapons.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No. It was to the response of the people in outrage. I will go back and fix it so it makes more sense.

He's criticized in Israel for disclosing that they have nuclear weapons and not abroad. So it doesn't make sense. There is no criticism, because Israel has nuclear weapons.

So no, it doesn't make more sense than before.

[selowitch]

I'm reminded of the old Jewish joke that goes something like this:

Two Jews were sentenced to die by firing squad. The rifles were cocked, and just before they fired, one of the condemned spoke up and said, "Excuse me, I believe we are each entitled to a cigarette and a blindfold." The other man immediately turned on him and said, "Ssshhhh!! Max, don't make trouble!"

I think whatever outcry there is says more about the public's low opinion of Olmert than about the nuclear issue itself.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Then again, Israel hasn't been fooling anyone with its ambiguity over the years, just as Iran isn't fooling anyone with its "Our nuclear DEATHTOISRAEL ambitions are strictly CRUSHTHEZIONISTS for peaceful DENYTHEHOLOCAUST purposes" act nowadays.

Did he go to the Kevin Nealon's School of Subliminal Reporting?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

My guess is because if it becomes a publicly known fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, the US will be bound to insist that Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, binding how Israel can use it's nuclear weapons.

So Israel hasn't even signed the NPT? That makes sense. As long as its' nuclear program is secret, Israel can get away without signing it (and opening their facilities up to periodic inspections), because Officially they have no reason to sign it. One of the provisions of the NPT (from memory, please let me knopw if I remember this correctly) is that non-nuclear states that sign it get civillian nuclear technology from the Nuclear Powers in exchange to promise to not build nukes of their own. Israel seems to have the technology already, so there's no reason to sign the treaty.

But once they declare they have nukes, there will be a strong push form the International community (not just the US) to sign the treaty.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Also, I think that there are consequences under the NPT for becoming a "declared" nuclear power. Israel wants very much to keep their "undeclared" status. I don't know exactly what the PM said, but I imagine if Israel ever feels the need to become a "declared" Nuclear power, they will do it in a more formal fashion than a TV interview.

Yeah, Pakistan and India are paying such a stiff penalty for their nukes...

And isn't it interesting that the Kashmir problem has been so stable since the acquisition?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

So Israel hasn't even signed the NPT? That makes sense. As long as its' nuclear program is secret, Israel can get away without signing it (and opening their facilities up to periodic inspections), because Officially they have no reason to sign it. One of the provisions of the NPT (from memory, please let me knopw if I remember this correctly) is that non-nuclear states that sign it get civillian nuclear technology from the Nuclear Powers in exchange to promise to not build nukes of their own. Israel seems to have the technology already, so there's no reason to sign the treaty.

Correct. Israel has not signed the NPT
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Dork. 

But once they declare they have nukes, there will be a strong push form the International community (not just the US) to sign the treaty.

Yes, the international community will push for them to sign, but I think only the US would be able to get them to sign.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ink 

Yeah, Pakistan and India are paying such a stiff penalty for their nukes...

And isn't it interesting that the Kashmir problem has been so stable since the acquisition?

Had they already signed the NPT before they publically "came out" as possessing Nukes?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

So Israel hasn't even signed the NPT? That makes sense. As long as its' nuclear program is secret, Israel can get away without signing it (and opening their facilities up to periodic inspections), because Officially they have no reason to sign it. One of the provisions of the NPT (from memory, please let me knopw if I remember this correctly) is that non-nuclear states that sign it get civillian nuclear technology from the Nuclear Powers in exchange to promise to not build nukes of their own. Israel seems to have the technology already, so there's no reason to sign the treaty.

But once they declare they have nukes, there will be a strong push form the International community (not just the US) to sign the treaty.

On the other hand, the outcry would be very hypocritical. Germany for instance has delivered some new conventional subs to Israel and they have replaced the standard torpedo tubes with ones that are wide enough for nuclear torpedos -- basically a clear violation of German law (which prohibits the sale of material that can be used to build nuclear weapons and places restrictions on dual use technology). Also the US knows about it and to push Israel to sign the non-proliferation treaty only after they were to publicly acknowledge the existence of a nuclear program is exactly on the same lines.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

On the other hand, the outcry would be very hypocritical. Germany for instance has delivered some new conventional subs to Israel and they have replaced the standard torpedo tubes with ones that are wide enough for nuclear torpedos -- basically a clear violation of German law (which prohibits the sale of material that can be used to build nuclear weapons and places restrictions on dual use technology). Also the US knows about it and to push Israel to sign the non-proliferation treaty only after they were to publicly acknowledge the existence of a nuclear program is exactly on the same lines.

It is 100% hypocritical. Yet, that's the way diplomacy is done. As long as Israel doesn't publically admit they have nukes, their neighbors don't have a valid reason to support a pre-emptive invasion. However, since their neighbors are quite sure that Israel does have nukes, it also acts as a deterrant, because any large-scale invasion of Israel that threatens the existance of the country will invoke, quite literally, the nuclear option. And since they haven't signed the treaty, there can be no inspections to establish the fact of the matter. Although Israel has vowed not to be the first to "introduce" nuclear weapons into the ME theater, they're a small country, and if they're attacked in a way that causes wide destruction to whole cities, you can bet that whether or not the attack is nuclear in nature, Israel will retaliate with everything they have.

It's the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" form of International Policy.

[vmarks]

As OreoCookie notes, there's not much admission in the so-called 'admission.' But thanks for the video that shows there's no real admission here.

What is the outrage? An unknown is more dangerous than a quantified known. Having the nations that are sworn to Israel's destruction question Israel's nuclear capability and remain in fear of it is better than having them know for certain that there is a capability - because then the next thing is to gather intelligence and determine whether it is 1 weapon, 2 weapons, 10, or 200. Or 400. Or more.

And then there's Mohammed El-Baradei, that useless head of the toothless IAEA - who for all practical purposes has told Iran it's okay to build nuclear weapons as long as they let him watch. Because he likes to watch.

So why would people be upset that Olmert possibly admitted something? Well, there are two reasons why he might admit something like this: One, to show how open and modern and cultured Israel is, how responsible that it doesn't use such things despite being attacked from outside every day of its existence (ceasefire continues to be violated by Hamas and HizbAllah, thank you very much) - OR to play a game of "who wants to be crazy, Iran?" in the thought that Iran can't do crazy unintentionally as well as Israel can with intent.

But it isn't the second, it's going to be the first, and as Olmert and Sharon gave away Gaza, and now plan to give away Yesha (your 'west bank' for those who don't understand the meaning of 'disputed territories') then this is seen as Olmert endangering the State of Israel and her people by giving away land for no peace in return and giving away ambiguity that defended Israel.

Understandably, people are upset at an elected leader endangering us.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

As OreoCookie notes, there's not much admission in the so-called 'admission.' But thanks for the video that shows there's no real admission here.

What is the outrage? An unknown is more dangerous than a quantified known. Having the nations that are sworn to Israel's destruction question Israel's nuclear capability and remain in fear of it is better than having them know for certain that there is a capability - because then the next thing is to gather intelligence and determine whether it is 1 weapon, 2 weapons, 10, or 200. Or 400. Or more.

And then there's Mohammed El-Baradei, that useless head of the toothless IAEA - who for all practical purposes has told Iran it's okay to build nuclear weapons as long as they let him watch. Because he likes to watch.

So why would people be upset that Olmert possibly admitted something? Well, there are two reasons why he might admit something like this: One, to show how open and modern and cultured Israel is, how responsible that it doesn't use such things despite being attacked from outside every day of its existence (ceasefire continues to be violated by Hamas and HizbAllah, thank you very much) - OR to play a game of "who wants to be crazy, Iran?" in the thought that Iran can't do crazy unintentionally as well as Israel can with intent.

But it isn't the second, it's going to be the first, and as Olmert and Sharon gave away Gaza, and now plan to give away Yesha (your 'west bank' for those who don't understand the meaning of 'disputed territories') then this is seen as Olmert endangering the State of Israel and her people by giving away land for no peace in return and giving away ambiguity that defended Israel.

Understandably, people are upset at an elected leader endangering us.

A moderator not respecting what another moderator asked for...... Fun to watch.

Originally Posted by Oreocookie

PS I don't want to have yet-another-thread about Israel vs. Palestine or so.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

As OreoCookie notes, there's not much admission in the so-called 'admission.' But thanks for the video that shows there's no real admission here.

Although to me, it makes matters even stranger: is Olmert in such a weak political position that even such a small incident is blown out of proportions?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

What is the outrage? An unknown is more dangerous than a quantified known. Having the nations that are sworn to Israel's destruction question Israel's nuclear capability and remain in fear of it is better than having them know for certain that there is a capability - because then the next thing is to gather intelligence and determine whether it is 1 weapon, 2 weapons, 10, or 200. Or 400. Or more.

But isn't that more of a question of the exact nuclear capabilities rather than acknowledging the existence of a nuclear weapons program. I don't expect Israel to quantify anything, but I don't see how acknowledging its existence is worse than leaving people in the dark about it. On the contrary, I would interpret leaving people in the dark in this situation as a sign of weakness.

Or do you think that Israel does not want to bear the (hypocritical) pressure by other nations to sign the non-proliferation agreement, etc.?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

2 reasons to be upset with Olmert …

I got lost a little here: these two reasons are not directly connected to what has happened now. From the media coverage of Israel, I understand Olmert hasn't been in the public's favor for a long time now, but this is `yet another reason why' and doesn't have a connection to this latest incident.

So just to be safe: your argument is that the reason everybody is so touchy is a general dismay of Olmert and his politics.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

On the other hand, the outcry would be very hypocritical. Germany for instance has delivered some new conventional subs to Israel and they have replaced the standard torpedo tubes with ones that are wide enough for nuclear torpedos -- basically a clear violation of German law (which prohibits the sale of material that can be used to build nuclear weapons and places restrictions on dual use technology). Also the US knows about it and to push Israel to sign the non-proliferation treaty only after they were to publicly acknowledge the existence of a nuclear program is exactly on the same lines.

Actually, no, that news story about the torpedo tubes comes up every few years. It surfaced in 2003, with the LA Times publishing the story claiming the US put nuclear harpoon missiles on the Dolphin Sub. The three (yes THREE) Dolphin subs were sold to Israel in 1999.

At the time that LA Times ran that story, it was already 16 months old.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ21Ak02.html


"On June 15, 2002, the Washington Post published a page 1 article by Walter Pincus titled "Israel Has Sub-Based Atomic Arms Capability." It read in part: "Israel has acquired three diesel submarines that it is arming with newly designed cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, according to former Pentagon and State Department officials, potentially giving Israel a triad of land, sea and air-based nuclear weapons for the first time. The US Navy monitored Israeli testing of a new cruise missile from a submarine two years ago off Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, according to former Pentagon officials. A book published this week by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reported that Israel was attempting to arm its diesel submarines with nuclear cruise missiles. 'Probably the most important nuclear-related development in Israel is the formation of its sea-based nuclear arm', wrote Joseph Cirincione, director of the Carnegie Endowment's nonproliferation project and a former staff member of the House Armed Services Committee who served as chief author of the book."

What's new then in the LA Times and Der Spiegel reports? Pretty much exactly nothing - except for the intriguing verbatim (!) Spiegel quote from an Ariel Sharon cabinet order to the Mossad. Congratulations, colleagues! That's quite an astonishing feat in investigative journalism. "

Basically, all these reports were meant as deterrence to Iran. That's why they were leaked, and that's why the same report comes up from time to time as gullible reporters thing they're telling us all something new about that terrible terrible (shock! horror! fear! sarcasm!) danger to world peace, Israel.

Of course, there is an order for two more Dolphin subs. Germany expects to deliver those in 2010.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Although to me, it makes matters even stranger: is Olmert in such a weak political position that even such a small incident is blown out of proportions?

This is Israeli politics. EVERY incident is blown out of proportion.

But isn't that more of a question of the exact nuclear capabilities rather than acknowledging the existence of a nuclear weapons program. I don't expect Israel to quantify anything, but I don't see how acknowledging its existence is worse than leaving people in the dark about it. On the contrary, I would interpret leaving people in the dark in this situation as a sign of weakness.

Once there is acknowledgment, the door to quantification has been opened. Pandora's box.

Or do you think that Israel does not want to bear the (hypocritical) pressure by other nations to sign the non-proliferation agreement, etc.?

Darn right. There's enough hypocrisy as it is, with the French UN force meant to be enforcing the UN resolution that requires HizbAllah to disarm, and the French too afraid to go out at night to enforce it. Instead, they observe Syria re-arming HizbAllah, and have decided that rather than enforce the resolution, they'd prefer to fire on the the Israeli air force that is flying over observing for itself until the UN force does its job.

I got lost a little here: these two reasons are not directly connected to what has happened now. From the media coverage of Israel, I understand Olmert hasn't been in the public's favor for a long time now, but this is `yet another reason why' and doesn't have a connection to this latest incident.

It's connected. Olmert is doing disastrous things to endanger the citizenry in example (a), and is now doing disastrous things to endanger the citizenry in example (b).

So just to be safe: your argument is that the reason everybody is so touchy is a general dismay of Olmert and his politics.

Putting it lightly. Olmert has some calculation in his head where this makes sense. No one else seems to know what that equation is.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, no, that news story about the torpedo tubes comes up every few years. It surfaced in 2003, with the LA Times publishing the story claiming the US put nuclear harpoon missiles on the Dolphin Sub. The three (yes THREE) Dolphin subs were sold to Israel in 1999.

Actually the German government has paid for two-and-a-half of them (I've only found a link in German). The legal implications from the German point of view are far from trivial, but I think this is another question (for another thread).

All I was saying is that I find it hypocritical that states often act as if Israel hadn't nuclear weapons, but on the other they would feel obliged to `act' if it was made official.

[Jawbone54]

Slip up? Perhaps. Surprise? Not at all.

Olmert is under fire simply because Israel has a long-standing policy of not giving a clear indication (officially) of whether or not they have nukes. The outrage is from Israel. No one else is surprised. I'm not really sure this changes anything.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

This is Israeli politics. EVERY incident is blown out of proportion.
... Putting it lightly. Olmert has some calculation in his head where this makes sense. No one else seems to know what that equation is.

Ok, I understand … kind of reminds me of the French-German war of 1871: the formal trigger was a diplomatic document (Emser Depesche). You wouldn't be able to understand why unless you know what you are looking for -- at least from a 21st century point of view

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Actually the German government has paid for two-and-a-half of them (I've only found a link in German). The legal implications from the German point of view are far from trivial, but I think this is another question (for another thread).

All I was saying is that I find it hypocritical that states often act as if Israel hadn't nuclear weapons, but on the other they would feel obliged to `act' if it was made official.

If they were sold years before any rumored (and that's all it is) conversion, then Germany can't really be liable, can they?

And Germany, in spite of nearly killing us all back in the 40s, in spite of bungling the Munich Olympics Palestinian terrorism in 1972, in spite of these things, has become a pretty strong friend of Israel.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

If they were sold years before any rumored (and that's all it is) conversion, then Germany can't really be liable, can they?

Yes, they can.
There are two relevant parts of German law: (i) sale of weapons to an area of active conflict and (ii) selling nuclear and dual use technology. If a German company wants to sell weapons to foreign countries, the sale (and the delivery) have to be approved by a special body of the government. The second part is not to be underestimated.

After the latest wave of violence, Israel's request for weapons (e. g. parts for Merkava 4) have been turned down. With `low tech' items such as the above, Israel can simply choose a different supplier. However, the technology built into U212 and U214 class submarines is top of the line (arguably the most advanced conventional subs around) and unique. There is no other supplier.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, they can.
There are two relevant parts of German law: (i) sale of weapons to an area of active conflict and (ii) selling nuclear and dual use technology. If a German company wants to sell weapons to foreign countries, the sale (and the delivery) have to be approved by a special body of the government. The second part is not to be underestimated.

After the latest wave of violence, Israel's request for weapons (e. g. parts for Merkava 4) have been turned down. With `low tech' items such as the above, Israel can simply choose a different supplier. However, the technology built into U212 and U214 class submarines is top of the line (arguably the most advanced conventional subs around) and unique. There is no other supplier.

Well, that just goes to show that no matter how strong a friend Germany may be, Israel is on its own when times get tough.

And people wonder why Israel plans as if it can't rely on the world.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Well, that just goes to show that no matter how strong a friend Germany may be, Israel is on its own when times get tough.

And people wonder why Israel plans as if it can't rely on the world.

No, that's not it. Friends don't have to agree all the time nor are friends real friends if the other has to join into anything the first one does.

As you can see from the pretty sweet deal Israel has gotten on those submarines, Israel has received a lot of support. But that doesn't mean this friendship in unconditional and unilateral. The US has also halted its shipments of cluster bombs when it became clear that they have been used aggressively in the Lebanon campaign this year. Both of these examples have received little press coverage (for obvious reasons). Obviously you may interpret it as either putting pressure on Israel to defuse the situation or a friend preventing another friend from doing something stupid (in the sense you don't let a drunk friend drive).

I'm not one for sugarcoating, though. I think it's good and necessary to have friends to hold you back before doing something stupid or dangerous.

[subego]

My dad was interviewed by Israeli TV right after the final launch of the Space Shuttle Columbia, the one with Ilan Ramon (which for those who don't know, was involved in the bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor in the 80s).

My dad didn't mention anything about that, but did off-handedly mention that Ramon used to be in the Israeli Air Force, and how this must make them proud.

My dad's friend (who was Israeli) got very nervous, and afterwards leaned over to the interviewer and said "you can take that part out, right?"

My dad, when he told me the story, 3/4 jokingly said me he was worried he had precipitated an "international incident"

If this is the attitude about something that you can find on Wikipedia, imagine what the attitude is about nukes.

[OreoCookie]

@subego
Really, they are that touchy about it? It's not exactly uncommon for astronauts to be former fighter pilots … 

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@subego
Really, they are that touchy about it? It's not exactly uncommon for astronauts to be former fighter pilots …�

Well, I only have this one anecdote, but yeah, it seemed a little over the top.

[edit: but the attitude certainly makes more sense with nukes]

[vmarks]

HizbAllah launched a war from civilian positions. It fired missiles from alongside UN positions and from the homes of otherwise non-combatants.

"the use of cluster munitions against built-up areas was done only against military targets where rocket launches against Israel were identified and after taking steps to warn the civilian population." -- IDF admits targeting civilian areas in Lebanon with cluster bombs - Haaretz - Israel News


Your analogy of friends that don't let a friend drive drunk is a bad one. A better one is of friends that walk away when one of us is mugged and assaulted, leaving that one to fight back.

Pressure to defuse a situation failed miserably. Israel is still attacked by HizbAllah and the UN forces threaten to attack Israel as well.

But then, we have a history of friendships like this with other countries. The French ambassador Daniel Bernard is reported to have spoken about "that shitty little country Israel".

BBC News | EUROPE | 'Anti-Semitic' French envoy under fire

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Your analogy of friends that don't let a friend drive drunk is a bad one. A better one is of friends that walk away when one of us is mugged and assaulted, leaving that one to fight back.

No, that's not really it. If even the US -- arguably Israel's closest friend and ally -- (discretely) tells you this is not a good idea and that they will not support these actions, you should start thinking about what you do.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Pressure to defuse a situation failed miserably. Israel is still attacked by HizbAllah and the UN forces threaten to attack Israel as well.

UN forces threaten to attack Israel? When did that happen?

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by subego 

My dad was interviewed by Israeli TV right after the final launch of the Space Shuttle Columbia, the one with Ilan Ramon (which for those who don't know, was involved in the bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor in the 80s).

My dad didn't mention anything about that, but did off-handedly mention that Ramon used to be in the Israeli Air Force, and how this must make them proud.

My dad's friend (who was Israeli) got very nervous, and afterwards leaned over to the interviewer and said "you can take that part out, right?"

My dad, when he told me the story, 3/4 jokingly said me he was worried he had precipitated an "international incident"

If this is the attitude about something that you can find on Wikipedia, imagine what the attitude is about nukes.

It reminds me of the fact that it's a very serious offense in Israel for a soldier to lose his weapon or uniform because they might be used by terrorists to disguise themselves. Israelis have always been more than a little paranoid. But then, if I lived in a tiny country the size of New Hampshire with my back to the sea and enemies all around, I'd be a bit on edge, too.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Had they already signed the NPT before they publically "came out" as possessing Nukes?

No, neither they nor Israel have ever signed. North Korea had, but withdrew.

[Macrobat]

In related news, Oreo cookies have cream filling.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, that's not really it. If even the US -- arguably Israel's closest friend and ally -- (discretely) tells you this is not a good idea and that they will not support these actions, you should start thinking about what you do.

Let me know when Israelis elect people in the US.

Condaleeza Rice came to Israel in the middle of Israel's evacuation of Gaza.

In the middle of that painful extraction, she insisted that Israel drop everything and give up territory to Lebanon.

But the question of land and Lebanon is settled. The UN (remember them?) declared Israel in compliance with the resolutions (UN425 and 426) on that from 2000.

So Dr. Rice was politely told to mind her business as no one had elected her in Israel.

UN forces threaten to attack Israel? When did that happen?

December 5 2006.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...ticle/ShowFull

French soldiers in Lebanon who feel threatened by aggressive Israeli overflights are permitted to shoot at IAF fighter jets, a high-ranking French military officer told The Jerusalem Post.

Wednesday, several days after meeting with an IDF general in Paris to discuss what he said was a "blatant violation of the cease-fire"

Last weekend, Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan, head of the IDF Planning Directorate, traveled to Paris and met with military officials to explain why the IAF flies over Lebanon despite the UN-brokered cease-fire.

Nehushtan, new to his post and previously deputy commander of the air force, told his French counterparts that Israel was conducting the flights to collect intelligence on Hizbullah positions in southern Lebanon.

According to the French officer, Nehushtan apologized for an incident on October 31 when an IAF fighter carried out a mock bombing run over a French UNIFIL position in southern Lebanon, almost prompting troops to fire anti-aircraft missiles.

"There was a reality on the ground and it was important for us to reaffirm what we had seen and explain clearly what are the orders of the French soldiers to protect themselves," the French officer said.

The French told Nehushtan they would view further aggressive flyovers as a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

"No assurances were made to us that they [the IAF] would stop [the flights]," the French officer said. "The orders that the [French] soldiers have is that their weapons are for self-defense and if a commander will feel threatened, as it was about to happen on the 31st of October, he would have the right to use force."

Milos Strugar, spokesman for UNIFIL, supported the French position, saying that according to the UN resolution, UNIFIL had the right to use force in self-defense, even against Israeli aircraft.

"UNIFIL has the right to take all necessary action to protect UN personnel in self-defense," he said.

France's furor at the overflights was not divorced from French domestic political considerations, government officials in Jerusalem said Wednesday.

France is scheduled to hold the first round of presidential elections in April, and one of those reportedly considering tossing her hat into the ring is Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie.

According to these officials, taking a tough stance toward Israel on the issue - a position that grabs headlines in France - helps her raise her profile.

-------

There's more, but I won't quote it all.

The summary is, the French comprise the UNIFIL forces. They won't enforce UN 1701 against HizbAllah, but they're happy to fire on Israeli planes while the Israeli Air Force gathers intelligence on HizbAllah's actions (actions that wouldn't occur if the resolution were enforced.)

And what sort of intelligence is that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/wo...nd&emc=rss

The kind which shows how HizbAllah systematically fired from civilian areas and used them for cover.

The kind which track what HizbAllah is amassing so as to be ready for HizbAllah's next war against Israel.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

It reminds me of the fact that it's a very serious offense in Israel for a soldier to lose his weapon or uniform because they might be used by terrorists to disguise themselves. Israelis have always been more than a little paranoid. But then, if I lived in a tiny country the size of New Hampshire with my back to the sea and enemies all around, I'd be a bit on edge, too.

It has actually happened that terrorists have impersonated soldiers.

It isn't paranoia if it's in response to a real event.

I remember in 2000 when an arab person wearing an Israeli uniform opened fire on the streets of Tel-Aviv. He didn't last long.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

One, to show how open and modern and cultured Israel is, how responsible that it doesn't use such things despite being attacked from outside every day of its existence (ceasefire continues to be violated by Hamas and HizbAllah, thank you very much) - ...

I agree, Israel is very open, modern and cultured because Israel has refrained from using nukes as a retaliation for palestinians and lebanese firing Katjusha- and Qassam-rockets.


Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

French soldiers in Lebanon who feel threatened by aggressive Israeli overflights are permitted to shoot at IAF fighter jets, a high-ranking French military officer told The Jerusalem Post.

UN-forces pondering about firing at israeli jets flying over Lebanon's airspace means not what you said, ie. that the UN attacks or wants to attack Israel.

Taliesin

[Macrobat]

The French could screw around and get their butts kicked in sideways down there - seriously. Shooting at Israelis can be detrimental to your health.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

In related news, Oreo cookies have cream filling.

So does your Micro-bat.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The French could screw around and get their butts kicked in sideways down there - seriously. Shooting at Israelis can be detrimental to your health.

given that they're messing around with La Fayette class frigates and troops likely armed with Mistral, the Israelis are likely to get more than they bargained for if the French do open fire.

The French are quite good at SAMs.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

French soldiers in Lebanon who feel threatened by aggressive Israeli overflights are permitted to shoot at IAF fighter jets, a high-ranking French military officer told The Jerusalem Post.

So, French soldiers are permitted to fire on Israeli fighter jets when those jets are threatening French forces? Sounds fair to me.

[vmarks]

No, IAF are not threatening French forces. They're doing surveillance as they ought to, since the French UN forces refuse to enforce the resolution.

Perhaps the French ought to be vinters and bakers if soldiering is too scary.