Nukes in the Middle East
In all the speculation about an American response to Iran's nuclear program no one seems to have suggested the obvious.
We understood India's need for a bomb once Pakistan had it and that any reduction of tension on the subcontinent would require reciprocal measures from both parties. Why is Israel's nuclear bomb capability rarely mentioned in the context of Iran's drive for a weapon? Why is Iran's response to Israel's arsenal more objectionable than India's response to Pakistan's?
Let us hope Barack Obama has the wisdom to see that peace in the Middle East lies in ridding the area of all nuclear weapons - even Israel's.
Joe Boyd, London
Well, Dear Mr. Boyd,
Wisdom indeed would be welcomed. For your information, Israel has not threatened Iran or any other Arab state with destruction with talk about they having no right to exist. Israel does not dredge up anything at all parallel to Iran's Holocaust denial stories and arranged conferences on the subject. And Israel's nuclear capacity is in response to an Arab threat for the past four decades, way before the 1967 war, so how can anything be done to please Iran, including the ending of Israel's administration of the territoires, when that situation didn't exist when the threat was first made?
Israel is no danger to anyone, with or without its supposed nuclear arsenal. Iran, though, was a danger to Iraq, is a danger to its own citizens, is a danger to American troops in training terrorists to cross over into Iraq now and a few other "little" things including training and arming Hezbollah terrorists and killing Jews in Argentina.
Mr. Boyd, I hope you don't mind me thinking you either an idiot, an Iranian agent or the typical self-delusional radical save-the-worlders.
But don't worry, we in Israel aren't like that.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment