5 ms·

God forbid some other country in the region acquire nuclear technology. I find it exceedingly hypocritical and pathetic that Israel wants to stop the spread of

by beedogs 14y ago

God forbid some other country in the region acquire nuclear technology. I find it exceedingly hypocritical and pathetic that Israel wants to stop the spread of nuclear arms in the Middle East when it's sitting on the only (massive) stockpile.

blvr 14y ago
Maybe. But it's pretty easy to understand why Israel and the Western world would want to stop Iran getting nukes.
patrickaljord 14y ago
> I find it exceedingly hypocritical and pathetic that Israel wants to stop the spread of nuclear arms in the Middle East when it's sitting on the only (massive) stockpile. Israel neighbors have made it pretty clear that they want to destroy the state of Israel and have tried many times. Iran is the top sponsor of Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah that launch rockets daily on Israel. Israel on the other hand has never called for the destruction of any of its neighbors. So it seems fair that Israel doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons while at the same times it's understandable that Israel wants to defends itself by getting nukes for themselves for deterrence reasons. I'm from Syria by the way (half)...
- Volpe 14y ago
  > Israel on the other hand has never called for the destruction of any of its neighbors. Not true. But this political debate is probably not for HN
  - adventureful 14y ago
    How about one single quote from a leader of Israel stating that Iran must be completely wiped from the face of the Earth? And that the Muslim people must all be murdered, because they're a cancerous blight. Can't find a quote like that? Didn't think so.
    - seclorum 14y ago
      Spot quiz: whats the difference between "the Zionist regime" and "Israel"?
      - ori_b 14y ago
        since "Zionist" is defined as the movement that believes Israel should exist, you can perform the substitution, and come up with "Wipe the regime that believes Israel should exist" off the map. I don't think there really is a distinction.
        seclorum 14y ago
        Nice try, but Zionism refers to the movement which believes that Israel should be a purely Jewish state - i.e. if you are not a Jew, you don't belong in Israel, or at least: you have a lesser status than Jews. Its nice for your argument to conflate Israel with Zionism - and after all, 80% of the population of Israel do this too - but its not nice for the few million non-Jews living in Apartheid conditions as a result of this movement. And that is the point of Irans official position.
      - Terretta 14y ago
        > Spot quiz: whats the difference between "the Zionist regime" and "Israel"? I realize you're trying to make the point that the quote was "wipe the Zionist regime" off the map, not "wipe Israel off the map". Unfortunately, for this particular context of your spot quiz, the two terms are by definition linked: > "Zionism is a form of nationalism ... that supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel." Your pop quiz is trying to make a difference between the head of the snake and the body of the snake. Either way, the idea is to get rid of the snake.
ori_b 14y ago
Israel is in a position of strength. Why do you find it surprising that they want to maintain that position? Countries struggle for power. It's how politics works.
yk 14y ago
It is not hypocritical, nuclear politics has nothing to do with playing nice. And in the Israeli case this is complicated by geography, since Israel would be cut in half by a single bomb.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Going the extra mile to prevent a country which is your avowed enemy and an avid supporter of major international terrorist organizations is not "hypocritical" it's the very definition of sanity. The Iranians are decent people on the whole. The Iranian regime is not the sort of organization you want having control of anything sharper than a crayon.
- wellwellwell 14y ago
  Our terrorists are better than theirs !!! You seem like a nice guy smart enough to differentiate between the Iranian people and the Iranian regime. Continue this path and one day you will differentiate between we, the nice people of the west, and our democratically elected "regimes" that are not much better than theirs. It's a clash between the interests of two or many "regimes". Some "regimes" are more blunt and sadistic than others (yes, they kill people in public places, we kill them in specialy designed rooms), but all the regimes will paint the other regimes blacker than they really are and will justify themselves with a nice propaganda. If you see this, and resist the temptation to join one side or the other with passion, you are a wise man.
  - wellwellwell 14y ago
    No, seriously, our terrorists won in Libya and Tunisia, and Allah is about to give them a nice victory in Syria too. So believe me, ours are much better (and they pick much nicer names like "freedom fighters")!
- wellwellwell 14y ago
  Russians are somewhat nice people too, but their regimes from 1900 until now, scares the sh*t out of me, more than any other regime, ever. I think we should take their nukes away from them as soon as possible.
_djo_ 14y ago
It's not hypocrisy, it's sound International Relations theory. Israel, for various reasons, is not a power-projecting entity in the Middle East as it has displayed no strategic desire to exert hegemonic influence over the surrounding region. Its strategic posture is primarily defensive, so accordingly its nuclear strategy is also defensive. This is why Israel's neighbours are not massively concerned about its nuclear stockpile. Iran's government and military on the other hand have openly stated the country's regional hegemonic strategic ambitions. It wishes to weaken the Sunni Arab balance of power (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc) that has held sway over the region for the past few decades. Hence it should be regarded as a state which wishes to project power over its neighbours and become the primary influence in the region. That difference in strategic outlook makes all the difference in the world, because it means that Iran is likely to use its nuclear capability as a protective umbrella under which it can undermine the Middle East's most powerful countries without fear of retaliation. This is why the Wikileaks memos showed that most strong Arab powers were secretly in support of American or Israeli action against Iran. An unbalanced Middle East and an Iran free to use its proxies such as Hezbollah against whoever it chooses represent grave strategic threats to every established power in the Middle East. Any additional chaos in turn is dangerous for Israel, as are an unleashed Hezbollah and Hamas. That's why it makes perfect sense for Israel to oppose Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons despite having an arsenal of its own and why other countries, including most of the EU, are more concerned about Iran building nuclear weapons than they are about Israel already having them.
- seclorum 14y ago
  Israel, for various reasons, is not a power-projecting entity in the Middle East as it has displayed no strategic desire to exert hegemonic influence over the surrounding region. Rubbish. Are the Palestinian people nothing to you?
  - _djo_ 14y ago
    Not in the geopolitical sense being discussed here, no. Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Sinai in the '67 war all make sense as a strategic measure to acquire a defensive buffer. The 1973 war proved its necessity, as with the forces arrayed against it Israel came close to defeat and may well have lost had it not possessed the additional territory. Bear in mind this has nothing to do with whether a country is morally right or wrong in its actions. One can disagree strongly with Isreal's treatment of the Palestinians and demand reform while still recognising the strategic imperatives that led to its actions and its inherently defensive strategic posture.
adventureful 14y ago
I don't recall Israel stating an intention to obliterate the people of Iran with nuclear genocide. In fact, Israel has shown superhuman levels of restraint, when faced with a psychotic theocracy that talks about mass murdering Jews every day of the week. If Israel had desired to do so, they could have glassed the entire Middle East a long time ago, and there is nobody that could or would do anything about it. Samson says so.

by beedogs 14y ago

blvr 14y ago

Maybe. But it's pretty easy to understand why Israel and the Western world would want to stop Iran getting nukes.

patrickaljord 14y ago

> I find it exceedingly hypocritical and pathetic that Israel wants to stop the spread of nuclear arms in the Middle East when it's sitting on the only (massive) stockpile. Israel neighbors have made it pretty clear that they want to destroy the state of Israel and have tried many times. Iran is the top sponsor of Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah that launch rockets daily on Israel. Israel on the other hand has never called for the destruction of any of its neighbors. So it seems fair that Israel doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons while at the same times it's understandable that Israel wants to defends itself by getting nukes for themselves for deterrence reasons. I'm from Syria by the way (half)...

Volpe 14y ago
> Israel on the other hand has never called for the destruction of any of its neighbors. Not true. But this political debate is probably not for HN
- adventureful 14y ago
  How about one single quote from a leader of Israel stating that Iran must be completely wiped from the face of the Earth? And that the Muslim people must all be murdered, because they're a cancerous blight. Can't find a quote like that? Didn't think so.
  - seclorum 14y ago
    Spot quiz: whats the difference between "the Zionist regime" and "Israel"?
    - ori_b 14y ago
      since "Zionist" is defined as the movement that believes Israel should exist, you can perform the substitution, and come up with "Wipe the regime that believes Israel should exist" off the map. I don't think there really is a distinction.
      - seclorum 14y ago
        Nice try, but Zionism refers to the movement which believes that Israel should be a purely Jewish state - i.e. if you are not a Jew, you don't belong in Israel, or at least: you have a lesser status than Jews. Its nice for your argument to conflate Israel with Zionism - and after all, 80% of the population of Israel do this too - but its not nice for the few million non-Jews living in Apartheid conditions as a result of this movement. And that is the point of Irans official position.
    - Terretta 14y ago
      > Spot quiz: whats the difference between "the Zionist regime" and "Israel"? I realize you're trying to make the point that the quote was "wipe the Zionist regime" off the map, not "wipe Israel off the map". Unfortunately, for this particular context of your spot quiz, the two terms are by definition linked: > "Zionism is a form of nationalism ... that supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel." Your pop quiz is trying to make a difference between the head of the snake and the body of the snake. Either way, the idea is to get rid of the snake.

ori_b 14y ago

Israel is in a position of strength. Why do you find it surprising that they want to maintain that position? Countries struggle for power. It's how politics works.

yk 14y ago

It is not hypocritical, nuclear politics has nothing to do with playing nice. And in the Israeli case this is complicated by geography, since Israel would be cut in half by a single bomb.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Going the extra mile to prevent a country which is your avowed enemy and an avid supporter of major international terrorist organizations is not "hypocritical" it's the very definition of sanity. The Iranians are decent people on the whole. The Iranian regime is not the sort of organization you want having control of anything sharper than a crayon.

wellwellwell 14y ago
Our terrorists are better than theirs !!! You seem like a nice guy smart enough to differentiate between the Iranian people and the Iranian regime. Continue this path and one day you will differentiate between we, the nice people of the west, and our democratically elected "regimes" that are not much better than theirs. It's a clash between the interests of two or many "regimes". Some "regimes" are more blunt and sadistic than others (yes, they kill people in public places, we kill them in specialy designed rooms), but all the regimes will paint the other regimes blacker than they really are and will justify themselves with a nice propaganda. If you see this, and resist the temptation to join one side or the other with passion, you are a wise man.
- wellwellwell 14y ago
  No, seriously, our terrorists won in Libya and Tunisia, and Allah is about to give them a nice victory in Syria too. So believe me, ours are much better (and they pick much nicer names like "freedom fighters")!
wellwellwell 14y ago
Russians are somewhat nice people too, but their regimes from 1900 until now, scares the sh*t out of me, more than any other regime, ever. I think we should take their nukes away from them as soon as possible.

_djo_ 14y ago

It's not hypocrisy, it's sound International Relations theory. Israel, for various reasons, is not a power-projecting entity in the Middle East as it has displayed no strategic desire to exert hegemonic influence over the surrounding region. Its strategic posture is primarily defensive, so accordingly its nuclear strategy is also defensive. This is why Israel's neighbours are not massively concerned about its nuclear stockpile. Iran's government and military on the other hand have openly stated the country's regional hegemonic strategic ambitions. It wishes to weaken the Sunni Arab balance of power (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc) that has held sway over the region for the past few decades. Hence it should be regarded as a state which wishes to project power over its neighbours and become the primary influence in the region. That difference in strategic outlook makes all the difference in the world, because it means that Iran is likely to use its nuclear capability as a protective umbrella under which it can undermine the Middle East's most powerful countries without fear of retaliation. This is why the Wikileaks memos showed that most strong Arab powers were secretly in support of American or Israeli action against Iran. An unbalanced Middle East and an Iran free to use its proxies such as Hezbollah against whoever it chooses represent grave strategic threats to every established power in the Middle East. Any additional chaos in turn is dangerous for Israel, as are an unleashed Hezbollah and Hamas. That's why it makes perfect sense for Israel to oppose Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons despite having an arsenal of its own and why other countries, including most of the EU, are more concerned about Iran building nuclear weapons than they are about Israel already having them.

seclorum 14y ago
Israel, for various reasons, is not a power-projecting entity in the Middle East as it has displayed no strategic desire to exert hegemonic influence over the surrounding region. Rubbish. Are the Palestinian people nothing to you?
- _djo_ 14y ago
  Not in the geopolitical sense being discussed here, no. Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Sinai in the '67 war all make sense as a strategic measure to acquire a defensive buffer. The 1973 war proved its necessity, as with the forces arrayed against it Israel came close to defeat and may well have lost had it not possessed the additional territory. Bear in mind this has nothing to do with whether a country is morally right or wrong in its actions. One can disagree strongly with Isreal's treatment of the Palestinians and demand reform while still recognising the strategic imperatives that led to its actions and its inherently defensive strategic posture.

adventureful 14y ago

I don't recall Israel stating an intention to obliterate the people of Iran with nuclear genocide. In fact, Israel has shown superhuman levels of restraint, when faced with a psychotic theocracy that talks about mass murdering Jews every day of the week. If Israel had desired to do so, they could have glassed the entire Middle East a long time ago, and there is nobody that could or would do anything about it. Samson says so.