gazit@ganelon.usc.edu (Salit) (04/05/88)
I don't know where you had received your education, but answering private e-mail in alt.flame is unethical. Period. In article <1137@deepthot.UUCP> writes: > I received the following private message from gazit@ganelon : # In article <1136$deepthot.UUCP> you write: @ For all practical @purposes, Israel is now a nuclear power, and the Israelis will nuke their @neighbours if they are REALLY threatened. #US will nuke nations on the other side of the globe if it is REALLY threatened. #That's the way the world is. Don't expect Israel to be better than other #nations, fair treatment will be enough. > I am afraid gazit@ganelon is not getting the point. >This is not ``talk.goodness.mideast''. The fact that Israel IS a >nuclear power means that its 1948 borders are SECURE, In 1945 the US used the atomic bomb twice. The US was not in any danger and could win the war without to use it. Later (1946?) the US gave a nuclear threat to the USSR to get out of Iran. Once again there was no danger to the US. The US has a decision to use nuclear weapons if the USSR will invade Europe. Such an invasion will not endanger the US immediate security. Israel was in a real danger in 1967 and 1973. She did not threaten her attackers with nuclear weapons. Why? Our smart guy from deepthot.UUCP did not publish his deep thoughts about the subject (don't confuse him with facts - his theories are so much nicer). Therefore I'll give mine: I believe that there is a decision NOT to use nuclear weapons, unless there is no other choice, i.e. Israel will not use them if she can survive without it. Therefore there should be some other means to deal with less than survival threatening situations. If, for example, a Palestinian state will put a blockade on Jerusalem, nuclear weapons should not be the answer. Therefore there should be a solution that will prevent a blockade on Jeruselam (for your information, there had been such a blockade during the 1948 war, so I am not talking here of hypothetical situations). We call it "security problem", if Areski has a better definition let's hear him. > Due to its nuclear armament, Israel enjoys a level of security >NO OTHER COUNTRY in the Middle East enjoys. The Arab countries can be sure the Israel will not exterminate them. The opposite is not true. Do you know that Israel does not have "second hit capabibility"? That means that all Israel's nuclear weapons can be destroyed in a minute, and a minute is not enough for defense. Why you peace loving guys don't read about the objections to SDI for a change? Some other peace loving guys claim that 30 minutes are not enough for defense. Mr. Areski is sure that it is not a security problem, and we can see what kind of an "expert" he is. > Instead, the State of Israel sees itself as a Middle East Prussia, >( "Un Etat dominateur et sur de lui" as General de Gaulle once put it). Prussia was not willing to talk peace when it was offered. Hitler actualy broke the peace agreements Germany had. Israel has a peace agreement with Egypt, and it does not seem she is planning to break it. Why don't you use you head sometime? Try to learn some history before you teach. And if you don't know what you're talking about then keep your mouth shut. > Prussia has been very successful indeed, but if you look >at a map, you will see that it has taken the Slavic people two centuries >to get rid of it. If Israel has "no security problem" (as you say), then comparing her to Prussia and the Slavic peoples won't help your point. Don't you know that East Prussia is a part of Poland today? If you wish Israel the same fate then say so clearly, so we'll know where you stand. Hillel gazit%ganelon.usc.edu@oberon.usc.edu