SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: craig crawford who wrote (13487)4/15/2003 1:24:21 AM
From: ForYourEyesOnly  Respond to of 21614
 
Shiite Clerics Move to Assume Control in Baghdad
Religious Leaders Seek to Restore Services, Keep Distance from U.S. Forces

By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 14, 2003; Page A01

BAGHDAD, April 13 -- Ali Shawki, a Shiite Muslim cleric with the swagger that a gun on each hip brings, strode through the no man's land that Baghdad has become and, in words and action, left little doubt that there's a new authority in town.

At the Prophet Muhammad Mosque, where he resides, the 47-year-old Shawki led prayers in a room stuffed with booty confiscated from looters rampaging through the city. His guns stayed on. With an armed retinue -- one guard carried a heavy machine gun with rounds slung around him, bandolier-style -- he pressed the flesh at a health clinic that he had ordered open after it was closed for days by war.

He described his plans for the sprawling slum once known as Saddam City: armed patrols at night that he would lead, a curfew by 8 p.m. on the turf he controls, and orders that no gunfire was allowed, which he would broadcast by mosque loudspeaker.

"We order people to obey us. When we say stand up, they stand up. When we say sit down, they sit down," Shawki said, his black turban framing the long beard of religious study. "With the collapse of Saddam, the people have turned to the clergy."

In this neighborhood on the eastern edge of Baghdad, awash in sewage and littered with trash, the clergy of Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority have moved to fill the void left by the ouster of Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party government. With encouragement from their leadership based in Najaf, the Shiite holy city, they have set up about 100 roadblocks to deter looters and put men in charge of safety of hospitals and the security on the streets.

Mosques have filled up with confiscated loot, popular committees are being organized by clergy to restore civil services and order and some prayer leaders have taken to patrolling their neighborhoods, forcing bakeries to feed people. The words of the new order are written on the walls. Slogans hastily painted in black convey a less-than-subtle message: "Stealing is forbidden by God." Across the city, graffiti has cast away the 28-year-old name of Saddam City in favor of "Sadr City," in memory of a leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq Sadr, who was assassinated by Hussein's government in 1999.

"Sadr City welcomes you," a young man painted in green today on the neighborhood's entrance along Habibiya Street.

To the approval of residents, the clergy claim credit for preventing the bloodshed many feared would erupt in the tattered sector of 2 million people, which for decades bore the brunt of repression wielded by Hussein's government. But the rise of the clerics hints at the formidable challenges that may face any new government in Baghdad: Sunni-Shiite disputes, the specter of warlords seizing and administering their own territory, and the potentially dangerous jockeying for position with U.S. forces that have become the lone power in Baghdad.

The clerics are among the first to articulate their postwar intentions: a government shaped, if not controlled, by religious leaders who enjoy respect and authority among Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority.

"The clergy are taking over," Maher Abdel-Hassan, a 42-year-old prayer leader in the neighborhood, said with a mix of hope and satisfaction. "There's no other authority. The people will only obey the orders of the religious men."

The neighborhood, cast in the dreary browns of poverty, was long the soft underbelly of Hussein's rule. Envisioned as a huge housing development, it was built in the early 1960s by Iraq's military strongman, Gen. Abdel-Karim Qassem. Its original name -- Revolution City -- spoke to its ambition. But waves of poor Shiite Muslim immigrants swept across its broad avenues in search of subsidized housing, transforming it into a ghetto that embittered residents believe was willfully neglected by Hussein's government.

There were moments of dissent, most spectacularly when riots raced through its streets after the assassination of Sadr. But under the suffocating surveillance of the Baath Party, it remained quiet during the war, only to erupt in celebrations that bordered on anarchy when Hussein's government collapsed last week.

The clergy's response was swift. Mohammed Fartousi, a lanky 30-year-old cleric from Najaf, toured the neighborhood today in two cars with guards carrying AK-47 assault rifles. His followers said he was a delegate from the leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and in an interview, he claimed authority over the dozens of mosques in the neighborhood.

Hurried along by his armed retinue, he signed orders for dispensing medicine at the local hospital and carried a clear plastic bag packed with rounds of ammunition to distribute to young guards. He was calm and assured, with an air of intimidating authority.

"We don't need the Americans," he said at the hospital. "They got rid of Saddam -- nothing more, nothing less."

In streets still jittery with the crackle of gunfire, Fartousi's writ seemed to go only so far. At points throughout the neighborhood, islands of authority were emerging, testimony that politics, even in Baghdad, remains very local.

"I'm in charge, only for the sake of God," said Sayyid Sadeq Aalaq, 60, the leader of the small, modest Imam Ali Mosque, the first to be built in the neighborhood. But he added, "I don't covet power or authority."

Claiming control over six of the neighborhood's 79 districts, he seemed to have both, and he worked with an enthusiasm that belied his age. Since Hussein's fall, he has used the mosque's loudspeaker -- powered by a generator during Baghdad's lingering blackout -- to broadcast an edict by Sistani forbidding looting. He has organized meetings with former police officers and is eager for them to return to their jobs. He has also started forming popular committees that would oversee the return of electricity, water distribution and food handouts, once the task of the Baath Party that crumbled hours before U.S. troops captured the city.

On his own initiative, Aalaq organized a meeting Saturday for leaders of the neighborhood's mosques. Among their priorities is to ease tensions between Sunnis and Shiites that erupted Friday at Abrar Mosque -- a rare Sunni place of worship in the neighborhood. In the dispute, a gun battle broke out that lasted four hours, until dawn. Although no one was killed, it was a sobering reminder of underlying tensions.

In days regulated by the call to prayer, Aalaq said, he is driven every two hours by a neighbor in a battered 1980 Toyota to inspect checkpoints in his territory. This morning, he went to bakeries, insisting they make bread available to residents. "I had to order them," he said, leaning on a cane and draped in a gray cape with gold trim. "I had to be forceful. They said, 'Okay, we'll bake.' "

In Aalaq's remarks are signs of what will be required for credibility in postwar Iraq -- a record of resistance to the Hussein government and independence from the Americans. He said his authority was derived, in part, from his family's suffering. Seven of his relatives were executed in 1982 for membership in the Dawa Party, an outlawed Shiite group that, for a time, waged a bloody struggle against the government. He never saw their bodies. Over a three-month period, his family was simply handed their death certificates by the neighborhood Baath Party official, the names Kadhim, Hussein, Salam, Adnan, Hassan, Hayat and Mohammed scrawled across the top.

His son, Mortadha, fled the neighborhood after the riots in 1999, and was smuggled into Lebanon for about $250.

"Everybody likes me. They follow my orders," Aalaq said. "They know we are good people, and they know we have suffered."

With far less bitterness, he carries the same reticence in dealing with U.S. forces, refusing to meet any as long as they stay in Iraq.

"The Americans asked to talk to me, but I refused," Aalaq said, sitting in an office at the mosque. Overhead was a portrait of Ali, the prophet Muhammad's son-in-law whom Shiites believe was his rightful heir. "If I met with them, my popularity would collapse."

That same independence, he said, doesn't go for Shawki, the gun-toting mosque leader who is similarly exerting his authority. He insisted that Shawki was too close to the Baath Party for too long, and suggested that he was too eager to cooperate with U.S. forces.

At his mosque, overflowing with confiscated hospital beds, copiers, car batteries, rotary telephones and a kitchen sink, Shawki acknowledged that he used to visit Baath Party officials once a week, but insisted that it was out of fear. Shawki said he was warned by the party's enforcers that they would "rip out my mouth" if he didn't pay homage to Hussein in his weekly sermons on Friday.

He has little of that fear now. His armed guards are posted outside the mosque entrance, one standing on the roof. More men are inside, all carrying AK-47s. He said they have a stockpile of rocket-propelled grenades, "just for an emergency." And inside the mosque and outside, he wears his two 9mm pistols, placed in a leather belt draped around his waist.

"I pray with my guns," he said, with barely a smile.

Like Aalaq, he claims authority over six districts, home to what he estimates are 60,000 people, perhaps twice as many. His 200 men patrol his turf and are readying for an 8 p.m. curfew confining everyone to their homes unless they know the new password he will devise each day. Repeatedly, he insisted his job was not to supervise prayers but to act as a "military, political, social and spiritual leader."

"True?" he asked the young men gathered around him at the mosque.

"True, true," they answered.

Shawki stopped short of saying how far that leadership would go, although others were more forceful. Abdel-Nabi Badeiri, 30, a leader of the Imams Mosque, said the clergy themselves should inherit the state.

"We wish from God for an Islamic government," he said. "We want a clergyman to be president of the state."

Shawki was less vigorous but -- for U.S. officials who will help shape that government -- perhaps more direct.

"The Americans," he said, "should not neglect the place of the clergy."



To: craig crawford who wrote (13487)4/15/2003 1:41:30 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 21614
 
MORE ANTI-SEMITIC FILTH From: craig [THE JEW-HATER] crawford
_______________________________________________________

>> Its clear who is in charge.....and its not Rumsfeld.... <<
you're right. it's his deputy wolfowitz who is in charge, at the behest of ariel sharon.



To: craig crawford who wrote (13487)4/15/2003 1:49:12 AM
From: rrufff  Respond to of 21614
 
USA victorious - We beat your hero's sorry arse. Your buddies are in disgrace. It's killing you.

You will suffer the same fate as Uday.



To: craig crawford who wrote (13487)4/15/2003 1:50:59 AM
From: ForYourEyesOnly  Respond to of 21614
 
Nuke Nation
Israel's weapons of mass destruction
by John Steinbach
CovertAction Quarterly, April / June 2001

In the first months of 2001, efforts to secure peace in the Middle East were hit by two dangerous developments. Right-winger Ariel Sharon was elected to power in Israel, the world's neglected nuclear nation. And President George W. Bush's first foreign policy adventure saw Iraq bombed by U.S. and British forces, in what was justified as a "defensive" act.
Since the Gulf War in 1991, much attention has been Lavished on an alleged threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction while the major culprit in the region, Israel, has been largely ignored.
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel, population 6 million, recently supplanted Britain as the world's 5th Largest nuclear power. It may now rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal.
Possessing chemical and biological weapons, an extremely sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and an aggressive strategy for their actual use, Israel provides the major regional impetus for the development of weapons of mass destruction, and represents an acute threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.
The hypocrisy inherent in the condemnation of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the obsessive focus on "rogue states" such as North Korea, while totally ignoring Israel's provocative arsenal, is breathtaking.
The existence of the Israeli nuclear program is a serious impediment to meaningful nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. The time is long overdue for citizens concerned about sanctions against Iraq, peace with justice in the Middle East, and
nuclear disarmament, to confront directly the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction.
THE ISRAELI BOMB
The Israeli nuclear program began in the Late 1940s. It was established at the Department of Isotope Research at the Weissman Institute of Science under the direction of Ernst David Bergmann, "the father of the Israeli bomb," who in 1952 established the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission.
From the very beginning the U.S. was heavily involved in developing Israel's nuclear capability, training Israeli nuclear scientists and providing nuclear-related technology, including a small "research" reactor in 1955 under the "Atoms for Peace" program.
It was France, however, that provided the bulk of nuclear assistance to Israel, culminating in construction

of Dimona, a heavy water-moderated, natural uranium reactor and plutonium reprocessing operation situated near Bersheeba in the Negev desert.
Israel had been active in the French nuclear weapons program from its inception, and provided critical technical expertise. Dimona became operational in 1964 and plutonium reprocessing began shortly thereafter. Despite Israeli claims that Dimona was "a manganese plant, or a textile factory," the extreme security measures employed belied the bogus claims.
In 1976, Israel shot down one of its own Mirage fighters, and in 1973 shot down a Libyan civilian airliner that approached too close to Dimona, killing 104.'
There is substantial credible speculation that Israel may have exploded at Least one, and perhaps several, nuclear devices in the mid-1960s in the Negev near the Israeli-Egyptian border, and that it participated actively in French nuclear tests in Algeria.
By the time of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel possessed an arsenal of perhaps several dozen deliverable atomic bombs and it went on full nuclear alert.
Possessing advanced nuclear technology and top nuclear scientists, Israel was confronted early with a major problem-how to obtain the necessary uranium.
Israel's own uranium source was the phosphate deposits in the Negev, totally inadequate to meet the need of a rapidly expanding program. The short-term answer was to mount commando raids in France and Britain to successfully hijack uranium shipments, and in the 19673 "Plumbatt Affair," to collaborate with West Germany in diverting 200 tons of yellow cake (uranium oxide). These clandestine acquisitions of uranium for Dimona were subsequently covered up by the countries involved.
There was also an allegation that a U.5. corporation, Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC), diverted hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium to Israel from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s.4 Despite an FBI and CIA investigation, and congressional hearings, no one was ever prosecuted, although most other investigators believed the diversion had occurred.
In the late 1960s, Israel solved the uranium problem by developing close ties with South Africa in a quid pro quo arrangement whereby Israel supplied the technology and expertise for the "Apartheid Bomb," while South Africa provided the uranium.
SOUTH AFRICA AND THE US In 1977, the Soviet Union warned the U.S. that satellite photos indicated South Africa was planning a nuclear test in the Kalahari desert. The apartheid regime backed down under pressure from the Carter administration.
On September 22, 1979, a U.S. satellite detected an atmospheric test of a small thermonuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean off South Africa, but because of Israel's involvement the report was quickly whitewashed by a carefully selected scientific panel, kept in the dark about important details. Later it was Learned through Israeli sources that there were actually three tests of miniaturized Israeli nuclear artillery shells.
The Israeli/South African collaboration did not end with the bomb testing, but continued until the fall of apartheid, especially with the developing and testing of medium range missiles and advanced artillery. In addition to uranium and test facilities, South Africa provided Israel with Large amounts of investment capital, while Israel provided a major trade outlet undermining the international economic sanctions imposed on the apartheid regime.
Although the French and South Africans were primarily responsible for the Israeli nuclear program, the U.S. deserves a Large part of the blame.
An observer remarked the Israeli nuclear program "was possible only because [emphasis in original] of calculated deception on the part of Israel, and willing complicity on the part of the U.S." Beginning with the provision of a small reactor in the mid-1950s, the U.S. played a critical role in Israel's nuclear plans.
Israeli scientists were trained largely at U.S. universities and were generally welcomed at the nuclear weapons Labs. In the early 1960s, the controls for the Dimona reactor were obtained clandestinely from a company called Tracer Lab, the main supplier of U.S. military reactor control panels, purchased through a Belgian subsidiary apparently with the acquiescence of the U.S. intelligence community.
In 1971, the Nixon administration approved the sale to Israel of hundreds of krytons, a type of high speed switch necessary to the development of sophisticated nuclear bombs. And in 1979 President Carter provided Tel Aviv ultra-high resolution photos from the KH11 spy satellite, which were used two years later to bomb the Iraqi Osirak reactor. Throughout the Nixon and Carter administrations, and accelerating dramatically under Reagan, U.S. advanced technology transfers to Israel continued and continue to the present.
THE VANUNU REVELATIONS
Following the 1973 war, Israel intensified its nuclear program, while continuing its policy of "nuclear opaqueness." Until the mid-1980s most intelligence estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal were of the order of two dozen, but the explosive revelations of Mordechai Vanunu, a nuclear technician working in the Dimona plutonium reprocessing plant, changed everything overnight.
A leftist supporter of Palestinian rights, Vanunu believed that it was his duty to humanity to expose Israel's nuclear program to the world. He smuggled dozens of photos and valuable scientific data out of Israel and in 1986 his story was published in London's Sunday Times.
Rigorous scientific scrutiny of the Vanunu revelations Led to the disclosure that Israel possessed as many as 200 highly sophisticated, miniaturized thermonuclear bombs. His information indicated that the Dimona reactor's capacity had been expanded manifold, and that Israel was producing 1.2 kilograms of plutonium a week, enough to make 10 to 12 bombs per year, and that it was producing advanced thermonuclear weapons.
Seymour Hersh, an investigative journalist and scholar on U.S. intelligence, commenting on the Vanunu data said: "The scope of this is much more extensive than we thought. This is an enormous operation."
Just prior to the publication, Vanunu was Lured to Rome by an Israeli-American Mossad "Mata Hari", and was beaten, drugged and kidnapped to Israel. following a campaign of disinformation and vilification in the Israeli press, Vanunu was convicted of treason by a secret security court and sentenced to 18 years in prison. He served over 12 years in solitary confinement in a 6 by 9 foot cell, according to Amnesty International, the longest known modern solitary imprisonment.
After a year of modified release to the general prison population-he was not permitted contact with Arabs-Vanunu has been from the year 2000 subject to punishment spells in solitary and faces more than three years' further imprisonment. The Vanuatu revelations were largely ignored by the world press, especially in the United States, and Israel continues to enjoy a free ride regarding its nuclear status.



CRUISE CONTROL
There is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world's most sophisticated and are largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle East.
A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are neutron bombs, miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long-term radiation-in essence designed to kill people while Leaving property intact. Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow, cruise missiles, Land mines-in the 1980s Israel planted nuclear Land mines along the Golan Heights-and artillery shells with a range of 45 miles.
The Sunday Times (London) reported in June 2000 that an Israeli submarine had launched a cruise missile, hitting a target 950 miles away. Israel had become only the third nation after the U.S. and Russia with this capability. It will deploy this year three of these virtually impregnable submarines, each carrying four cruise missiles. The nuclear bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" Larger than the Hiroshima bomb to tactical mini-nukes.
Regardless of its size and scope- and it would be a serious mistake to underestimate Israeli capabilities- the Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any reasonable need for "deterrence."
Israel also possesses a comprehensive arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. According to the Sunday Times, Israel has produced both chemical and biological weapons with a sophisticated delivery system. A senior Israeli intelligence official acknowledged: "There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapon... which is not manufactured at the Nes Tziyona Biological Institute.'' The same report described F-16 fighter jets specially designed for chemical and biological weapon payloads, with crews trained to Load the weapons on a moment's notice.
In 1998, the Sunday Times reported that Israel, using research obtained from South Africa, was developing an "ethno-bomb." "In developing their ethno-bomb,' Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying a distinctive gene carried by some Arabs, then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus... The scientists are trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes."
Dedi Zucker, a Leftist Member of Knesset, the Israeli parliament, denounced the research saying: "Morally, based on our history, and our tradition and our experience, such a weapon is monstrous and should be denied."
NUCLEAR AGGRESSION
In popular imagination, the Israeli bomb is a weapon of last resort, to be used only at the Last minute to avoid annihilation. This strategy, described by U.S. journalist Seymour Hersh as the "Samson Option," is backed by many supporters of Israel.
Whatever truth this formulation may have had in the minds of the early Israeli nuclear strategists, today the Israeli nuclear arsenal is inextricably linked to and integrated with overall Israeli military and political strategy. As Seymour Hersh says in classic understatement: "The Samson Option is no Longer the only nuclear option available to Israel.''
Israel has made countless veiled nuclear threats against the Arab nations and against the Soviet Union and by extension Russia since the official end of the Cold War. One chilling example comes from Ariel Sharon, now the Israeli Prime Minister: "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."
In another example, Israeli nuclear expert Oded Brosh said in 1992, "...we need not be ashamed that the nuclear option is a major instrumentality of our defense as a deterrent against those who attack us."
Israeli academic Israel Shahak commented in 1997: "The wish for peace, so often assumed as the Israeli aim, is not in my view a principle of Israeli policy, while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence is." He added: "Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of averting domestic change not to its Liking, if it occurs in some or any Middle Eastern states... Israel clearly prepares... to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones."
Israel uses its nuclear arsenal not just in the context of deterrence or of direct war fighting, but in other more subtle but no less important ways. For example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction can be a powerful lever to maintain the status quo, or to influence events to Israel's perceived advantage, such as to protect the so-called moderate Arab states from internal insurrection, or to intervene in inter-Arab warfare.
In Israeli strategic jargon this concept is called "non-conventional compellence" and is exemplified by a 1962 quote from Shimon Peres: "Acquiring a superior weapons system [read nuclear] would mean the possibility of using it for complement purposes-that is forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands, which presumably include a demand that the traditional status quo be accepted and a peace treaty signed."
Robert Tucker asked plaintively in a 1975 Commentary magazine article in defense of Israeli nukes: "What would prevent Israel... from pursuing a hawkish policy employing a nuclear deterrent to freeze the status quo?"
Another major use of the Israeli bomb is to compel the U.S. to act in Israel's favor, even when it runs counter to its own strategic interests. As early as 1956 Francis Perrin, head of the French A-bomb project, wrote: "We thought the Israeli Bomb was aimed at the Americans, not to launch it at the Americans, but to say, 'If you don't want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us; otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs"'
During the 1973 war, Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon to airlift massive amounts of military hardware to Israel. At that time the then Israeli Ambassador,

Simcha Dinitz, is quoted as saying: "If a massive airlift to Israel does not start immediately, then I will know that the U.S. is reneging on its promises and... we will have to draw very serious conclusions..."
One example of this scenario was spelled out in 1987 by Amos Rubin, economic adviser to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. "If Left to its own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense which will endanger itself and the world at Large... To enable Israel to abstain from dependence on nuclear arms calls for $2 to $3 billion per year in U.S. aid." Since then Israel's nuclear arsenal has expanded hugely, both quantitatively and qualitatively, while the U.S. money spigots remain wide open.
IMPLICATIONS
It is clear Israel has no interest in peace except that which is dictated on its own terms, and has absolutely no intention of negotiating in good faith to curtail its nuclear program or discuss seriously a nuclear-free Middle East.
Israel Shahak notes: "Israel's insistence on the independent use of its nuclear weapons can be seen as the foundation on which Israeli grand strategy rests.'' Seymour Hersh says "the size and sophistication of Israel's nuclear arsenal allows men such as Ariel Sharon to dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East aided by the implicit threat of nuclear force."
There is an abundance of evidence to Lend credence to this analysis. Ever Weizman, Israel's ex-President, said: "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum [and the] next war will not be conventional."
Ze'ev Shiff, an Israeli military expert writing in Ha'aretz, said: "Whoever believes that Israel will ever sign the UN Convention prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons... is daydreaming." And Munya Mardoch, Director of the Israeli Institute for the Development of Weaponry, said in 1994: "The moral and political meaning of nuclear weapons is that states which renounce their use are acquiescing to the status of vassal states. All those states which feel satisfied with possessing conventional weapons alone are fated to become vassal states."
As Israeli society becomes more and more polarized, the influence of the radical right becomes stronger. According to Shahak: "The prospect of Gush Emunim, or some secular right-wing Israeli fanatics, or some of the delerious Israeli Army generals, seizing control of Israeli nuclear weapons... cannot be precluded... while Israeli Jewish society undergoes a steady polarization, the Israeli security system increasingly relies on the recruitment of cohorts from the ranks of the extreme right."
During a future Middle Eastern war -not at all unlikely given the ascension of Ariel Sharon, an unindicted war criminal with a bloody record stretching from the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Quibya in 1953 to the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Sabra and Shatila in 1982, and beyond-the possible Israeli use of nuclear weapons should not be discounted.
Seymour Hersh warns: "should war break out in the Middle East again... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."
FLAWED STRATEGIES
Many Middle East peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies.
But placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly on the table would have several salutary effects.
First, it would expose the primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to each seek their own "deterrent."
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Syria and North Korea for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit.
Third, exposing Israel's nuclear strategy will help focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate in good faith.
Finally, a nuclear-free Israel could reasonably be expected to result in a Nuclear-Free Middle East, making a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely.
Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program, it is unlikely there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel is apparently counting on as the Sharon era dawns.



To: craig crawford who wrote (13487)4/15/2003 8:13:59 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21614
 
Funny. And how does Wolfowitz exercise his control over Rumsfeld and Bush?

Wouldn't it be simpler to assume that Rumsfeld hired Wolfowitz cause he thinks similar to Rumsfeld?