What makes you folks think that Persia would use the bomb the moment they can? The real Israeli concern is that the “Islamic bomb” would open up the path again for a conventional war. Back in 1973 the Israelis were stumbling head-on into a attrition defeat and hence the end of their state, only the threat of a nuclear attack against Egypt ended the war. In those last decades a conventional war against Israel was impossible since they would use the bomb before defeat. An operational Persian nuclear attack capability would change the equalition.

Addition: That a tactical nuclear strike is the only way to take out the Persian facilities is no secret. Options and scenarios were discussed here in this forum for about a year now (or longer). Use search function.

The idea of an islamic bomb is a fantasy. Pakistan has the bomb, Pakistan is an islamic country but Pakistan has certainly not hinted that it would use its bomb to defend/promote islam writ large. It has the bomb to promote its own interest, that is those of Pakistan as a country.

The same would apply to Iran, should it develop such a capacity. Considering the relationship among muslim countries, it is hard to believe that shiite Iran would be willing to engage its nuclear capcity (and therefore stake its own security) to support the acts of a sunni muslim country, even if that latter should act against Israel.

To speak of an islamic bomb is an illusion, as is to speak of arab and/or muslim solidarity. I would also add that no arab country has, or will have the capacity, to attack Israel in conventional terms in the short or medium term.

The problem is, in fact, rather the opposite. Should Iran develop a nuclear capcity, this will not create an islamic bomb but compel many arab countries, starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to develop a similar capacity.

It was the French Parliament that voted on the bill – the government did not actively support it. .

Yep, the french government did not pull the stops, let the process go thru in Parliament and took the risk that France loose military contracts. The British government just did the opposite.

Even if there was, I have very serious doubts whether it would be in the public interest to rake up old matters.
“[/i]

That is one of the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard.

I suppose that Nixon could have used the same line to prevent the juridical forays into Watergate. Or the French for the arms deal with Taiwan, or for the collaboration during WW II for that matter.

Thus far, I was not aware that the British legal system worked on the assumption that the law should only be applied when and if it doesn’t challenge the interests of the state. Thanks for making it clear.

Concerning this lease agreement, could someone clarify a point for me: does the US have any veto on the use of Tridents by the Brits?? Do they have any capacity if they so decide to prevent the Brits from launching those missiles?? Or is such a suggestion ludicrous ?????

Possibly: but what you’re implying would be national suicide. You do realise that attacking the French navy in the Mediterranean (i.e. in the NATO area) would oblige the USA to declare war on Israel, if France requested it? 😀 But even without that, the resulting EU embargo would cause the almost immediate collapse of Israels economy.

I believe you are mistaken. Article 5 of Nato’s Charter clearly states that the principle of collective self-defense will apply in case of an armed attack against one of them occurs “in Europe or North America”…. The article clearly limits itself to an armed attack against the territory of one of its members, and excludes from its field of application the attack on soldiers overseas.

One may also add that when the article was written in 1949, it was drafted in such a way as to exclude from its field of application the colonial possesion
of European powers (i.e. UK and France).

So an hypothetical attack of IDF on French troops in Lebanon would in no way activate article 5 (as article 5 was not activated when French troops got attacked by the Ivory Coast forces or when IDF attacked UNIFIL in 96 (Canaah) or this Summer (in both cases, soldiers from NATO countries were participating in Unifil).

[B]Clearly, the actions of a few idiot soliders indicate that us Americans are bloodthirsty people who love to torture their captives………

What planet are you on?

I’m pretty sure I can name at least 20 nations that have a track record of human rights violations that are many times as bad as what the United States has done….

Stop bringing your anti-American nonsense into this thread which is about Israel and the Arabs……I don’t want to listen to it.

You are very funny – it is about israel and the arabs, according to you, and you bring up the case of Iran!? Well I have news for you mate, Iran is not an arab country – but dont worry, I dont expect you to understand this.

Now, as to the US and torture goes, I am the one on planet earth. Above and beside the Abu ghraib case, the US has set up several detention centres (including Gitmo but not only) where it has been ruled ok to torture people. Members of the US administration have not only owned up to that fact before Congress, they have also claimed that this was necessary to the US war against terrorism.

So you may want to equate stating the simple truth as being anti-american, but this is your America, not the one I respect.

Iran has a bad reputation for torture. .

Humm, Iran and the USA have then at least one point in common !

The Arab countries at the time of the invasion in 1948, demanded that the residents leave their homes. The multiple Arab armies that invaded, wanted to have the option of free maneuver within the towns and outskirts. This is why the people vacated their homes. Morocco alone had 600,000 Jews, with this # from one Arab country, you can see that the # of Jews who lived in Arab countries, was not so trivial.

Some more of your usual propaganda. All surveys put Moroccan jewish population at around 265,000 in 1948 (and I challenge you to prove otherwise). And since Morocco was not independent until 1956 and then prohibited jews to emigrate to Israel from 1956 to 1961 (if I recall well), you are speaking plain b*llocks.

As to the arab inhabitants leaving their houses in 1948, the policies of ethnic cleansing implemented by the israelis (and the terrorists shamir, begin et al.) is today fully and well recorded.

Rabin never went anywhere as far as Barak. Barak’s offer was the best that the Palestinians could have obtained. The Palestinians traded ongoing peaceful negotiations, foreign investment, for more backwardness, missed opportunities, and further conflict. The Palestinian issues, will lose international recognition and credability, as the first world nations, eventually phase in alternative energy, in the not too distant future.

If, as already mentionned, your best offer to the Palestinians is to return only part of what does not belong to you and a non-sovereign state (no control over borders, air space, maritime space, israeli indefinite control over more than 10% of its territory), dont expect them to say that they accept your generous offer. The day you will get serious maybe so will the palestinians.

I fail to see this. Actually the Palestinian state is a complete myth. As you can see, Jordan is Palestine, and Palestine is Jordan. The Palestinian problem, was created by the Arab League, after the Six Day War, for the sole purpose of descrediting Israel internationally.

Their was NO Palestinian drive for independence from Egypt in Azza, and from Jordan in The West Bank between 1948-1967. No calls for independence from their masters. Their was also no drive for independence from the Turks. – and before the Turks. – on and on etc… However their was always a Jewish presence on the land.

From 1948 to 1967, Jordan occupied the West Bank. Jordan sought to annex this territory and claimed it as its own. The community of States rejected the claims of Jordan, and told them that this territory had been set aside to create a an Arab State for the former inhabitants of mandated Palestine. This still applies today, except that what was said to Jordan is today said to Israel – and that is not an Arab League position, but that of all the 197 members of the UN except israel and the US to an extent.

Agreed. However I do feel that Israel has tried to let the Palestinians work things out for themselves in Azza. At this point, their is no drive for investment in industry. The government is interested in building explosive labs and Qassam missile shops. The government is not interested in building computer assembly plants, fax machine component assembly shops, and investing in hi-tech agriculture. I understand that some greenhouses were vacated in the Azza Strip by Israel, that were immediately destroyed purposely by the Palestinians :confused: .

Mate, I dont know what you are smoking, but it seems to be dead good. People in Gazza have no control over their external borders, you have bombed away their airport (that, btw, I paid with my european taxes, so again thank you) as well their deep sea port, Israel shuts the borders of Gazza day in day out and the Palestinians should be setting up industries so that they could produce and export stuff !!!!! And I am not even speaking of the fact that Israel would blow up the first decent factory that would be set up as punishment for whatever. I mean, please, grow up a bit. If you want to peddle your propaganda, use at least half serious arguments.