6 ms·
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 displ
by _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 agoIsrael, 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 agoNot 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.
- seclorum 14y agoThis is like saying you would have been okay with Hitlers whole plan to get some Lebensraum if only he hadn't killed all those people to get it. Face the facts: Israel is promoting apartheid conditions in the region, upon a mass of population that it has no legal right to do so. Why on earth would anyone who lives in the region, who wants stability in the region, trust the nuclear-armed state of Israel if it is continuing to kill innocents in its quest for power?
- _djo_ 14y agoI'm disappointed that Godwin's Law appeared so soon, the circumstances are not even remotely comparable. As I said above, this isn't about morality or whether Israel is right or wrong to occupy the West Bank, because that is not a real factor in this particular geopolitical strategic situation. This is purely about relative strategic postures and their implications for the Middle East. There is no cognitive dissonance in holding the views that Israel is a defensive nuclear power posing no threat to its neighbours, but its treatment of the Palestinians is wrong, and Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons. In fact that's the view held by many EU member states. It can be argued that the Palestinian situation contributes to instability and should be fairly resolved for that reason alone, but that does not and should not factor into an objective assessment of Iran's nuclear program. Iran seeks nuclear weapons because it wants to become the dominant power in the region and assume hegemony over its Arab neighbours, not because it worries about Palestinians. The fact that most of the Arab powers in the region are more afraid of Iran's nuclear program than they are of Israel's existing arsenal should be evidence enough of how those who live in the region, want stability in the region and have something to lose are willing to trust Israel's nuclear posture.
- seclorum 14y agoI'm disappointed that Godwin's Law appeared so soon, the circumstances are not even remotely comparable. Well, I beg you to see it from the perspective of the men, women and children who are currently imprisoned in the worlds largest open-air concentration camp. And frankly, that you cannot see the similarities belies a lot about your bias in this argument. As I said above, this isn't about morality or whether Israel is right or wrong to occupy the West Bank, because that is not a real factor in this particular geopolitical strategic situation. This is purely about relative strategic postures and their implications for the Middle East. Israel could solve all of its foreign policy problems if it let the populations in the West Bank have access to fresh, clean water. If they stopped encouraging the criminal settlers from encroaching on the lebensraum of the populations who were there before them (i.e. gave back the homes stolen). There is a lot more that could be done by Israel to settle tempers in the Mid East, besides writing viruses and attacking other, peaceful nations, rights to clean nuclear power.