Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search "Jewish Current Issues"

Israel News

  • Israel News Ticker

Boker tov, Boulder!

Blog powered by Typepad

« The Gaza Disengagement Deal: An Addendum | Main | Defunding Hamas »

February 14, 2006


Shane Szarkowski

Professor or not, that's just silly.

There is one important, undeniable difference. Israel has no "Soviet Union." No other country in the region has nuclear weapons, no other country in the region has a viable option of gaining nuclear weapons. Israel's conventional military has proved more than enough to protect itself. Anybody who prescribes to the Realist school of international relations understands that the greater military capability one state has, the more urgency other states in the region will feel to upgrade their own military capability. In this case, nuclear weapons. Britain and France were merely arguing the case that they ought not be made to put themselves at a much lower level of capability than another regional power. There is no comparable situation with the Middle East. In fact, telling Iran not to develop nuclear weapons is more along the lines of what Britain and France should rail against, with a historical perspective. Considering how dangerous every other state in the region considers that sort of move, the only viable option is, in fact, a nuclear free Middle East. If nobody has any nuclear weapons, and Israel has the military backing of the United States, what reasonable concern do they have for their security? None. So what's the REAL problem?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Article Archive