Israel official: Strike on Iran possible

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Yes they were secret but I guess they became declassified. It was on the History channel and they interviewed the pilots, the men behind the plan and they outlined how the plan worked and how they pulled it off. The pilots said it was a suicide mission and that they were prepared to die, and they probably wouldn't be coming back, there was a chance they could have ben shot down going over hostile territory and they had to fly below radar and drop the extra tanks in foreign territory at the risk of being traced back to them.

Ok, cool. So do you remember them specifically discussing ingress and egress routes, with maps showing the routes? I'd be surprised if they divulged that, and in the process admitted to violating whoever's airspace. Or, admitting it and then as a consequence involving another country in the plot.

I'd like to see positive proof of this accusation that in fact Iran has a weapon and they intend to use it on israel even though a religious Fatwa was issued by the supreme Mullah of Iran that they will not produce Nuclear weapons. (That they won't believe only because its inconvenient)

First, I never said Iran HAS it now, as a fact, so I'm not sure where you are getting this statement from. But of course you'd like to see proof positive. So would Israel and the rest of the world. If Israel had the proof, I don't think there'd be a question as to what would happen next. But if Iran continues its public threats, and Israel obtains any solid evidence that Iran has acquired a nuclear weapon, it's all over but the crying.

My way is to let the people who would know do their thing...not the Mossad, not some exiled dork who is dying to get back at the iranians, and not some politician thats out to appease AIPAC..let IAEA do their job and keep the inspectors there, keep the cameras going and the inspections constant.

Again, under normal circumstances, I would completely agree. But if you think about it, there are few parallels in recent history where a country has publicly stated so boldly its intention to annihilate another country off the map, repeatedly. I can only wonder what would happen if say Russia or China stated the same thing against the US. Not anything less than that. I mean the real deal. Yeah there are disputes, yeah there is hatred, yeah there are differences. But this case with Iran is extreme and over the line, and that changes the picture. Completely.

I really hate to keep repeating this but are we to take the word of a country that knowingly and willingly committed fraud in order to gain Nuclear technology and equipment and does not submit to any treaty or inspections whatsoever, offers no inspections of her nuke sites, no nuclear disposal information and no idea as to the conditions of their plants or safety precautions. How would you like living next door to that? Chernobyl contaminated 61,780 square miles of area....how big is Israel? 8019 sq miles in area. Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria. Great neighbors those Israelis.

I want to be clear that I in no way endorse what Israel does or has done. I don't agree with Israel's special treatment either, at all, and you have good points here. On the other hand, if the IAEA and international diplomacy were so effective, then it surely didn't prove so with North Korea.

And all of this doesn't change where the situation stands right NOW, after all that has happened. I will be amazed if Israel settles for IAEA inspections, when it has been clear that Iran, just like North Korea, will take all the time they need to stall talks and expel inspectors, as often as they wish, and in the meantime continue covertly with their development. Israel won't ultimately allow Iran to test a nuclear weapon at all. Especially in Tel Aviv. With or without the IAEA, Russia, US, China, or whoever. It just ain't gonna happen.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Ok, cool. So do you remember them specifically discussing ingress and egress routes, with maps showing the routes? I'd be surprised if they divulged that, and in the process admitted to violating whoever's airspace. Or, admitting it and then as a consequence involving another country in the plot.

Hey it took me a little while but I did find it!! Wow there was a lot more to this documentary that I had forgotten about. The Mossad terrorized scientists working on the project, poisoned them and bludgeoened one to death. They even blew up the plant manufacturing the reactor core in France with a precision bombing. Interesting to see again.


www.youtube.com...


Seeing this video reminded me a lot about why I feel the Mossad had a hand in 9-11. They would be the only people capable of pulling off something of such precision and the only people with the determination and true belief in their cause that the people involved would never leak or talk about it. They always had convenient patsies that always vanished afterwards.





[edit on 13-11-2006 by ThePieMaN]

Pie man


I agree with you there, isreal need america to do the job for them if not at least get america on their side to get around the world court. and demonize thier neighbors even more.
But this has been brewing for a while check out this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

I also found this link which may give a litlle more weight to the claim Mossad had a hand in 9/11

What really happened

softly softly Now

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I'd like to see positive proof of this accusation that in fact Iran has a weapon and they intend to use it on israel even though a religious Fatwa was issued by the supreme Mullah of Iran that they will not produce Nuclear weapons. (That they won't believe only because its inconvenient)

The IAEA can not conclude Iran’s program is for peaceful purposes; furthermore proving Iran posses a nuclear weapon is impossible…even for world intelligence agencies and the IAEA…

The “fatwa” issue that is rarely brought up (out of convenience) is below the next article posted.

Washington (AFP) Jan 15, 2006

UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview released Sunday that he is so far unable to confirm whether Iran's controversial nuclear program is peaceful.
In an interview with Newsweek magazine, ElBaradei, who along with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) won last year's Nobel Peace Prize, said Iran would only be a "few months" from building a nuclear bomb if it has nuclear material at the same time as a weaponization program.
"For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the (nuclear) program," he was quoted as saying in the US weekly.
AFP Source Link

Ayatollah Yazdi and Yadi’s ‘group’ began earlier in 2006 for laying the theological premise and justification for the state ownership and possible use of Nuclear weapons…immediately following the Iranian elections.

However, Khameini’s fatwa was contradicted by a fatwa from the extremely radical Hojjetiah sect leader - and Ahmadinejad mentor - Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, whom the UK’s Telegraph called “a hardliner to terrify hardliners.”

In February 2006, shortly after Ahmadinejad’s election as president, Ayatollah Yazdi pronounced that it is “only natural” for Iran to have nuclear weapons as a “countermeasure” against its enemies who possess them (Israel and the United States).

A spokesman for Ayatollah Yazdi, Mohsen Gharavian, elaborated at the time that “for the first time that the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to Sharia. When the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-measure. According to Sharia too, only the goal is important.”
Sourceemphasis added

This as also discussed on ATSNN Here

BTW…even according to your linked History Channel video…Israel was right about Iraqi intentions in the end…no?

What makes you so sure they are not also right about Iran?...


mg

Originally posted by missed_gear


BTW…even according to your linked History Channel video…Israel was right about Iraqi intentions in the end…no?

What makes you so sure they are not also right about Iran?...


mg

Could it be proven if they blew up the plant even before it was ready to go online? The pre-emptive strike is just that, they "thought" he was going to attack. They had no proof then and no proof now. It wasn't right then and it wouldn't be right now. Unless they can show conclusive proof then by rights anyone could do the same thing to them since they already have the bomb, and maybe just because they are not going to use it right now maybe they will use it one day in the future.


If you watched the video then you see the way they conduct themslves as though they were the mafia, blowing things up in other countries, murdering people, threatening peoples lives in order to force them to their will. These are the same people who have possesion of a nuclear weapon and they are to be trusted as a reliable and trustworthy holder of such a dangerous knowledge and power?
They were quite proud of their operation as bloody as it was. Thats very troubling to me and its always attributed to their defense when its actually an offensive move.


Pie

If you watched the video then you see the way they conduct themslves as though they were the mafia, blowing things up in other countries, murdering people, threatening peoples lives in order to force them to their will.

Well…according to the documentary, Israel attempted diplomacy over a period of a few years first…no one listened.

The French knew the real purpose of the facility and did nothing….nor did the Italians.

Allegedly the Israeli’s blew-up the reactor parts while in France…at no loss of life.

And the assassinated/threatened physicists are not endemic to the Israeli-Iraq conflict…better be ready to point the finger around the globe, the cold war was rife with these kinds of acts.

Could it be proven if they blew up the plant even before it was ready to go online? The pre-emptive strike is just that, they "thought" he was going to attack. They had no proof then and no proof now. It wasn't right then and it wouldn't be right now. Unless they can show conclusive proof then by rights anyone could do the same thing to them since they already have the bomb, and maybe just because they are not going to use it right now maybe they will use it one day in the future.

Since you liked the documentary, Dr. Khidir Hamza covers this in his book (Saddam’s Bombmaker by Jeff Stein). The statement/question you pose was not covered by the documentary.

Hamza states the IAEA overlooked the weapons program and the French knew the real purpose of the reactor (which is congruent with the documentary) and Ziffereos compromised position concerning Iraq and IAEA.

Hamza, as an aside, contends Suddam was conducting human testing in chemical and biological warfare post 1976 through to the Iran-Iraq war and that Suddam would have used a nuclear weapon during the Iran-Iraq war based upon the number of bombs Suddam had requested. Up from the two to three Suddam wanted for Israel prior to 1981.

Jafar was also accused of intentionally dragging his feet during the early Iraq program…something Hamza agrees on…Suddam would have used the weapons once obtained.

So yes, I think it would have been possible to show that he was preparing to use the bombs at that time. Hamza also states that Israel and the US knew much more about the program and the programs direction than the IAEA or “international bodies” at the time. Would this have been advertised? No…

These are the same people who have possesion of a nuclear weapon and they are to be trusted as a reliable and trustworthy holder of such a dangerous knowledge and power?

Israel had its first nuke before the NNPT was penned….not to mention…

Do you honestly believe without continued US and British support Israel would still exist today?

You don’t trust them….why should Israel?


mg

Originally posted by missed_gear
Well…according to the documentary, Israel attempted diplomacy over a period of a few years first…no one listened.

The French knew the real purpose of the facility and did nothing….nor did the Italians.

Allegedly the Israeli’s blew-up the reactor parts while in France…at no loss of life.


And the assassinated/threatened physicists are not endemic to the Israeli-Iraq conflict…better be ready to point the finger around the globe, the cold war was rife with these kinds of acts.

Ok so they have been complaining about Muslims for ages now particularly Palestinians, if nothing was done back then, even though they went into France which is not their country and blew up a reactor part , then what would stop them from coming here and blowing up several buildings in order to force us to see something we didn't see before in order to change our minds?

Wether there was loss of life or none at all...They get Qassams lobbed at them for over 1 year with ZERO loss of life yet they take over 500 lives in return and its defense. They used explosives on foreign soil, did anyone punish them?

Hamza, as an aside, contends Suddam was conducting human testing in chemical and biological warfare post 1976 through to the Iran-Iraq war and that Suddam would have used a nuclear weapon during the Iran-Iraq war based upon the number of bombs Suddam had requested. Up from the two to three Suddam wanted for Israel prior to 1981.

Iran, Iraq as well as Israel all have Chem-Bio programs this much we know. Israeli companies were caught selling Chemical components to Iran. Israel is also not part of any CBW treaty as well, so I would assume they are well versed in that field.

Israel had its first nuke before the NNPT was penned….not to mention…

Israel handed South Africa its first weapon...they turned around later and rescinded their nuclear ambitions. Israel is perfectly capable of doing the same and joining the NPT. They choose not to.

Do you honestly believe without continued US and British support Israel would still exist today?

Yes and thats the problem. They fooled the brits into thinking that helping them to form a state they could act as a bridge between the Middle East and the West, and they have absolutely no understanding of the ME even to this day, they are strangers to the ME since they don't even get along with any of their neighbors and the last time they even lived in the area was over 2000 years ago. They perpetuate their need by causing issues in which they seem to be necessary, but in reality if there was no involvement by them there would be no issues that we would have to support them with.

Think about it, if we were fair in our treatment in the Middle East and we had better standing over there, if we had issues with Iraq, we would not need Israel, Iran, Syria and lebanon would all contribute gladly and more then likely at a much lower cost with better results. Oil would not be a concern because we would be on good terms, Russia would not have a footing in the ME, nor would China. Admit it, the majority of Middle Easterners love the American people and our country, but its our government they hate and our unwaivering support of Israel even when they are in the wrong that they absolutely hate. Israel has had 60 years to get on its feet, Its seems like its more of a money pit and a liability more then it is a state.
I wonder how many Americans would mind supporting their own kids financially for a period of 40 years much less some strangers in a state halfway across the globe.


The gist of it is, Israel is tarnished...they can not be our spokesmen in the ME any longer nor should they be our eyes and ears, their vision is failing and they are partially deaf , not to mention not to be trusted, its time we did our own handshaking and go back to being who we were and make friends again. We shouldn't have an ally that does these kind of things to our neighbors, and also to us when things don't go their way.

America First!

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
…even though they went into France which is not their country and blew up a reactor part , then what would stop them from coming here and blowing up several buildings in order to force us to see something we didn't see before in order to change our minds?

This is a claim made by others…also an environmentalist group took responsibility…one can not prove Israel blew-up these parts…or am I missing something? Is this not the same argument you used concerning the attack on Osiraq?

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Iran, Iraq as well as Israel all have Chem-Bio programs this much we know. Israeli companies were caught selling Chemical components to Iran. Israel is also not part of any CBW treaty as well, so I would assume they are well versed in that field.

With that please include as regional non-party members of the CWC: Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, (Palestine for that matter)…and last I read on the BWC Syria and Egypt never ratified the conventions… not exactly enticing for Israel.

Especially since these conventions are “self governing/policing”…which does not seem to work to well in Iran.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Israel handed South Africa its first weapon...they turned around later and rescinded their nuclear ambitions. Israel is perfectly capable of doing the same and joining the NPT. They choose not to.

Israel is under no obligation to join the treaty…(but she abides by many of the IAEA protocols and requests)...but for that matter does Pakistan or India?…

Furhtermore Iran had a covert nuclear program for nearly two decades as a member of the NPT…which apparently means nothing...what exactly are the demands on Pakistan? Where is the grief here?

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Yes and thats the problem. They fooled the brits into thinking that helping them to form a state they could act as a bridge between the Middle East and the West, and they have absolutely no understanding of the ME…

The British attempted to use Israel, the French as well…the Zionist movement was spun in Europe by Europeans long, long before the state was created.

Both the early British and French uses for the new state of Israel was for self gain…gasping at the loss of colonial influence and provinces….

…even to this day, they are strangers to the ME since they don't even get along with any of their neighbors and the last time they even lived in the area was over 2000 years ago.

Very few of the ME nations “get along”…and this is not so easily laid at Israel’s feet.


mg

Originally posted by missed_gear

Israel is under no obligation to join the treaty…(but she abides by many of the IAEA protocols and requests)...but for that matter does Pakistan or India?…

Furhtermore Iran had a covert nuclear program for nearly two decades as a member of the NPT…which apparently means nothing...what exactly are the demands on Pakistan? Where is the grief here?

Make no mistake about it. I am of the thorough belief NONE of these countries are responsible enough to be in possesion of ANY WMD's whatsoever, that includes India, Pakistan, N. Korea, and any Middle Eastern country. However, you cannot look aside when it comes to 2 or 3 and concentrate on one because one of the others that you overlooked has a problem with it. Either put up or shut up if you have it, then don't complain...if you don't then you are more then entitled to be terrified and more then welcome to pre-emptively attack it. Because you wish to hold the balance in your favor is hardly a good excuse in my opinion.

The chances of a radical coming into power in Israel are just as good as the same thing happening in an arab country. There are people equally devious, equally bloodthirsty, as religiously fanatical, equally sadistic and equally as irresponsible on either side of the Jewish or Arab token.

If we Americans were smart, we would encourage the iranians to give up any ideas of military applications of nukes if they are planning it, and at the same time engage the Israelis on their nuke program and give them reason to stand down. They have more then enough weapons that could produce massive amounts of destruction as it is.

Lets just suppose it gets into someones mind (And I have seen these comments on Israeli talkbacks and boards) if they were to be attacked their response would be to strike the heart of Islam and hit Mecca, along with the enemy country? What then? If we are the "World Police" and we looked past this possibility , then should we not be held responsible?

I agree, the ridiculous ‘idea’ of need for all WMD possession by governments, theocracies and despots in the ME (in its’ totality) is basically ‘sold’ as a means to counter a planted and perceived threat….this prevailing thought is somewhat culturally endemic in a region where peoples continue to believe they are victims because their respective governments and theocratic leaders say, “it is so”.

That said…and without ‘picking scabs’…I agree with the following with a few exceptions:

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
If we Americans were smart, we would encourage the iranians to give up any ideas of military applications of nukes if they are planning it, and at the same time engage the Israelis on their nuke program and give them reason to stand down. They have more then enough weapons that could produce massive amounts of destruction as it is.

If we Americans were smart, we would pressure our government to have Israel come clean on nukes posthaste…and immediately ratify the NPT…if not “clean”, cut them off completely. (Personally I would force the French into divulging their involvement publicly first to ease the strain…or publicly shame them for all their actions in the ME and Africa) Simultaneously apply pressure on Iran via diplomacy and martial threat. Make it known at this point no double standard exists…rather a single ‘standard’ exists for the region....(which leaves the Paki's and Indians aside)

However, if…if Israel gave it nuclear weapons over to the IAEA (and the international community) for disposal and came perfectly clean…would that stop the attempts in gaining nuclear armament in the region? Imo, no. Would there be a change patterns in researching WMD (all NBC’s)?...Imo, no. Israel will still be an excuse….a unifying platform.

The goals are much greater than just Israel, the problems in the region are beyond that of just Israel…admittedly, it took me a very, very long time to look past Israel as the catalyst to problems in the region…if find Israel little more than a small participant in the grand excuse….


mg

Originally posted by DeMitsuko
TrueAmerican

you got a WATS from me.
I am from israel and you've made a good prediction. israel can not ignore iran's nuclear development process and their threats for destruction of my country.

I think that the US should have nuked Russia into the stone age as soon as the US found out that Russia was working on the bomb.

But then again it is a good thing they didn't do that? any lessons learned here?

Originally posted by missed_gear


However, if…if Israel gave it nuclear weapons over to the IAEA (and the international community) for disposal and came perfectly clean…would that stop the attempts in gaining nuclear armament in the region? Imo, no. Would there be a change patterns in researching WMD (all NBC’s)?...Imo, no. Israel will still be an excuse….a unifying platform.


mg

MG
Iran would have absolutely no foot to stand on if Israel was nuke-free. There would be absolutely no way that anyone would allow Iran to have nuclear weapons if Israel didn't. I still believe that Iran has financial intentions rather then military intentions with their nuke plants but even if they did want to militarize I think its fair. Yes Iran has made threats, but why can't people see Israel's having WMD's as a threat in itself of annihilation? Its an unspoken threat but it still exists.

Why is it even in this forum the first thing blabbed out is "turn that place into a parking lot" or "a big sheet of glass" even used if the idea of having the bomb shouldn't be viewed as a threat? I really don't see it as an excuse. I think its a viable reason rather then an excuse. What was our main concern with North Korea having nukes? Wasn't it Nuclear buildup in Asia? So why would The Middle East be any different?


Pie

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I still believe that Iran has financial intentions rather then military intentions with their nuke plants but even if they did want to militarize I think its fair.

Here is where, unfortunately, I must disagree almost without question.

Each and every one of the points raised thus far are in no doubt valid despite agreement and/or disagreement…but at the end of the day it boils down to this one issue alone.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Yes Iran has made threats, but why can't people see Israel's having WMD's as a threat in itself of annihilation? Its an unspoken threat but it still exists.

This speaks directly to my earlier point of overt threats and perceived threats.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
So why would The Middle East be any different?

Are the issues really the same? Are the goals the same? Are the cultures even remotely similar?....on and on and on and on…Imo, there are far too many differences in both these opposing theaters to draw superficial parallels.

Thanks for the thought provoking comments and conversation.

mg

Originally posted by missed_gear

Are the issues really the same? Are the goals the same? Are the cultures even remotely similar?....on and on and on and on…Imo, there are far too many differences in both these opposing theaters to draw superficial parallels.

Thanks for the thought provoking comments and conversation.

mg

MG
In the ME I would say a big yes to the culture similarities especially the male culture. Just look at Saddam Hussein. The man had gold plated weapons, and cars. They are all competitive of each other. One shiek gets a Bugatti Veyron and they all get Veyrons. One Airforce has a new jet and the rest want to buy new jets. Technology, Weapons, Cars so why not Nukes. When it comes to Israel I would say the majority of them have a "Keep up with the jones" attitude. Israel has UAV's so Hizbollah went and got UAV's.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

So how would Israel accomplish limited strikes on Iran, with such a great distance to cover? Many swear the US would have to be involved, but I am not so convinced. I believe Israel could just barely pull it off unassisted by flying through one of several possible routes:

Consider that Israel is going to have some of the best pilots on the planet, who with the most resolute orders would even, I believe, shoot down any aircraft attempting to intercept them. They'd probably fly extremely low, avoiding radar, and refueling is a major concern. A couple of those routes could be flown without in air refuels, as fuel capacities for some of their F16's can handle the job, allbeit with minimal deviations or combat. Then there is also the possibilty of Israel attacking by submarine positioned in the Persian Gulf. A combination of both would likely be the most effective: planes hit the closest targets in northern Iran, and subs take care of everything else.

What is troublesome to me is that Iran would gladly sacrifice so many innocent lives to achieve Israel's total destruction, not to mention the damage to the environment. Depending on which way the wind happens to be blowing that day, think of all the countries that could be affected by the fallout of such an Iranian nuclear attack. Hell, their own allies Hezbollah in Lebanon could pay a deadly price, as well as Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, and Egyptians. But hey it's all worth it, of course, because Allah is Great.

Great post American.

Israel would have to violate one of their neighbors airspace first though, with the threat of being fired upon (who wouldn't when hundreds of jets fly over!) so Syria and Turkey is out of the question.

Jordan on the other hand is no friend of Palestine, no friend of Iran and has relatively close ties with America (as far as that region goes anyways...) and would be advised by our people of Israels plans if they where to launch an attack.

Iraq would be open airspace of them, and would be a direct flight into Iran. However, I wouldn't doubt if Iran was given notice by Iraq's government or even Jordan's that an attack is coming. Israel could get there, but they may not have the element of surprise behind them when they get there. After the first sweep of sorties, Jordan will have to close it's airspace (cannot appear to have aided Israel and would like to stay in the middle) and Iran will be on full alert by the time another wave of aircraft come back.

I doubt America will stand by while Israel did it though, we would either take the lead or do it our selves (We don't like Jews attacking people.. could causes another 6 day war, which is why Israel is not allowed to help in Iraq or Afghanistan)

The response would be, depending on what was hit, why it was hit and how much damage was cause, typical of Iran. Either a full scale political backlash in which we will face an infuriated world.. which I think would be worse then a full scale war on Iran.. We are talking sanctions on Israel, independent boycotts (Arab League will surly blockade everything) and a complete OPEC embargo to America and Israel and anyone who participates (most likely Britain) Not to mention the domestic out cry, anti war protest, calls for resignations.. we apparently don't want any more wars here

A war, if lead by generals and not civilians making key decisions which lead to the Iraq fiasco.. would be fought defensively.. fighting at the border, destroying Iranian infrastructure and missile batteries.. basically what we did to Iraq in Gulf War 1. Inspire the people to rise up, yada yada but not actually go into Iran, never set a boot into Tehran (except maybe special forces).. once the army is destroyed (a few days, maybe weeks) Iran will surrender and then again we still have the political backlash to deal with.

We cannot keep destroying countries if they don't listen to us.. The world will only take so much of our arrogant attitude, Europe is not an ally set in stone, loosing their relations would hurt.. remember after Iraq, Bush in all his wisdom separates us from Germany and France.. the British public don't even care for our government and we consider them our closest ally.

I think that two things have to happen here: one is that Iran needs its own bomb to counteract Israel in the middle east. Two that both countries be forced to submit to international inspections of their entire nuclear industry and armaments.

I think that two things have to happen here: one is that Iran needs its own bomb to counteract Israel in the middle east. Two that both countries be forced to submit to international inspections of their entire nuclear industry and armaments.

You seem to have a loose understanding of how this works. Iran is only subject to inspections because they are signatories to the NPL. Israel is not. You cannot just decide that a country should be inspected, it violates some of the most basic tenets of the nation-state philosophy. You can enforce treaties or agreements that a nation has agreed to beforehand by threatening to place embargos and other punishments on the rouge state. But we usually reserve that treatment for the worst offenders.

So, unless you have one hell of a good reason you can not violate a nations soveirgnity. And a policy of deliberate ambiguity is not anywhere near a good enough reason. Which brings me to my second point. No one really has any idea whether Israel has any nukes for sure. They probably do. Possibly they don't. But that is the whole point of having a policy of ambiguity.

You are looking at this from the point of view as to what you think "should" happen according to your sense of fairness. But this is not a question of equality, it is a question of Law. This is why other nation, India for instance or Pakistan, are not being approached to open up to inspectors. There is no standing to make that request.

All this NPT crap shouldn't exist. Every country with any nuclear program should open their facilities to the UN or get bombed. Period. Israël or not.

[edit on 15-11-2006 by Vitchilo]

Why? Who made the UN ultimate arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not? You are making the assumption that the UN works towards the greater good. In truth it is more a series of changing coalitions that shift according to different nations changing interests.

You might as well be saying that we should do away with nation-states altogether and live in a global socialist utopia. The world's not fair, dude. Stop trying to hold it to an impossible standard and focus on the most serious threats or you'll go nuts.