IN THE NEWS
Armchair Generalist rightly points out that our government usually omits Israel when discussing the nuclear arms race in the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. While you might dismiss the omission, I think it's worth holding the US government's feet to the fire on this point. First of all, our public diplomacy in the Middle East has proven ineffective since 9/11, in large part because of the Bush Administration's tilt (more like a tree falling, actually) in the direction of Israel.
Of course, Israel developed this program because of multiple attacks on its territory, often aiming to wipe Israel off the map. Of course, you could easily justify the United States refusing to bring it up when it was still unconfirmed. However, everyone knows that Israel has a nuclear weapons program, so what's the point of overlooking it, other than to cement the impression that the Bush Administration sees little or no wrong in Israeli policies?
Mentioning the Israeli nuclear program in the same breath as its Iranian program can only
help Israel. The Israelis started the program when they faced the risk of losing a conventional war of national survival against Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and any other Arab country that wanted a piece of the action. It continued it through the time when the Ba'ath regime in Iraq was pursuing its own nuclear program at the same time it was trying to whip up pan-Arab support with aggressive anti-Israeli statements. And now, Israel has a deterrent against the Iranian bomb. Even if you think that the Israelis were wrong in how they pursued their nuclear ambitions--for example, they collaborated with the apartheid regime in South Africa, which gave them the rights to test a weapon off the African coast--you can still see why the Israelis felt they needed The Bomb.
What benefits to Israel do you think are likely?
Posted by: sammler | 01/18/2006 at 02:27