Smash Authority


Blog Aggregators: Lebanese | Palestinian | Syrian | Jordanian | Iraqi | Arab | Israeli

 


Iranian vs Israeli nukes
Thursday, March 29, 2007

Whether or not one agrees with Iran's quest for nuclear capabilities and all that it entails in terms of strategic parity vis-a-vis Israel, one must admit that the IAEA and the international community have been hypocritical in their position on Iran -- compared to their position (or rather, lack thereof) on Israel. The farthest they have gone is to call on Israel to "admit" that it possesses nuclear weapons. I mean, wouldn't it have been lovely if Iran would have faced the same amount of "pressure", and nothing more? But no, here we have a situation where people are already sounding the drums and trumpets of war, not in the least alleged "freelance" journalists, some of whom have been at the forefront of defence for Bush's Greater Middle East Initiative and alleged "democratization" agenda. And now, for the good news, this project seems to have spread like a plague, from the ruins of South Lebanon and South Beirut, all the way to Somalia, where democratization is taking form (at the same time as the Arab summit speakers heaped praises on the "interim Somali government").

But back to the topic at hand, the fine line separating the yet-to-be-acquired Iranian nuclear weapons from the decades-long possession of nuclear weapons by Israel. I was watching the proceedings of the Arab summit today, and there was emphasis on the idea of the right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. I could not help but wonder whether it was an implicit reference to the possibility of U.S (secret?) aid to Arab regimes to advance nuclear agendas and projects of their own, especially in light of repeated Egyptian (and other Arab) statements to the effect of: acquisition of nuclear technology is our "inalienable right". You may say this is far-fetched and very dangerous, and so the U.S is unlikely to embark on such a stupid (ad)venture, but this argument fails to explain U.S (direct or indirect) funding to certain religious fundamentalist groups in the region to counter the threat to its interests by certain others. Sure, this is likely to backfire, but the U.S administration has, because of its short-sightedness, invested in its short-term hegemony instead of addressing its long-term interests and presence in the region. All the better, since it hastens the eventual departure of the U.S from the region, and the decline of the American Empire, but this will come with a price, and I would say, a heavy one at that. I'm afraid the alternative in the region will not be much better. That said, in terms of the Israeli conflict, the prospects for an all-out war, I would say, would be much higher, and have a very different impact on Israel than it has ever witnessed or lived under the protective wing of the U.S. Of course, the rise of Iran is portrayed in over-hysterical terms. These apocalyptic assessments of Iranian hegemony are misleading, even if one is to consider it in the context of the absence of an Arab counter-weight (a concept which is much talked about now in policy circles). However, the implementation of such a balance is more complicated than it seems to be, and I think will be manifested in terms of one of the following two available options: 1) the rise of (fabricated) Arab nationalism as a counter to the "foreign" (i.e. Iranian) intrusion in "Arab affairs"; 2) the inter-sectarian card, which will have even more dangerous implications for Shi'ite minorities in Arab countries, and even Shi'ite majorities trapped in "enclaves" throughout the region. From what we can see, there is a cautious indecisiveness in U.S policy as to which of the two to implement, and at the moment both are being used in different places and on different occasions to a certain extent. In Lebanon, it seems the sectarian card will be a far more effective tool, given Hezbullah's immense military power and efficacy, and the failure of Jumblatt's anti-Iranian rhetoric for the most part. Anything short of the threat of a mini-Iraq will be unlikely to place restraints on Hezbullah's domestic and regional agendas and ties, and anything short of the implementation of these threats will be unlikely to create an environment of "constructive chaos" in Lebanon. For its own part, Syria seems to be the last remaining hindrance to the "Arabist" solution to the U.S's "Iranian problem", and one may safely assume that the events leading up to the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon were meant to isolate it from the last "Arab" country that it continued to have significant influence in. But the Ba'ath regime in Syria proved to be far more robust than the U.S thought it was, and I think this miscalculation stems partly from the U.S misreading of the Ba'athist strategy of state-building and regime incumbency (an interesting piece which addresses, in part, state-building in Syria, is David Waldner's State-Building and Late Development, which I must say, is a very difficult and complex read -- nevertheless, I recommend it for the institutional and political-economic perspective it advances, as opposed to the cultural-religious one advanced by the likes of Bernard Lewis, Fouad Ajami, & co.).

At any rate, I strayed a bit from the main theme I wanted to address: the nukes controversy. When I say controversy I do not mean the controversy regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions per se, but the controversy regarding the double standards adopted in viewing the Iranian and Israeli nuclear ambitions. "Double standards" is an understatement to be sure! I have been hearing many saying that the two are incomparable because one is a "democratic" state whereas the other one is a theocratic one with a record of human rights abuses. It is true that Iran's human rights record is not clean (nor is any other state's for that matter), but the utilization of this argument to justify the incomparable nature of the two cases reeks of politicization of the discussion, and what is even worse, a complete whitewashing of Israel's human rights record, which has been far more systematic and large-scale than any other human rights abuses in post-WWII Middle East (I will not say post-colonial since colonialism is alive and kicking in the region).

Very few in fact know much about Israel's nuclear program and the manner in which it was shaped and implemented. Much of this ignorance stems from the deliberate silence of the media on this issue. I suspect that the average American who might feel threatened by the Iranian nuclear ambitions and may support a strike on nuclear facilities, is not even aware of Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, or even if aware of it, might be convinced that it is justified, since it guarantees Israel's existence. But if it does guarantee Israel's existence, and if Iran's nuclear ambitions must be curtailed exactly for that reason, what would explain the decades-long argument that the reason Israel occupied the West Bank & Gaza Strip (other than the standard myth they spread about the Arab armies having attacked Israel in 1967 and Israel having conquered these territories "fair and square") and must not give up on them due to the need for "defensible borders"? Of course the whole defensible borders argument is hilarious in and of itself. If the purpose is to defend Jews and the Jewish state, then isn't it counter-productive to move Jews into the occupied territories to form the new frontier? Wouldn't that subject those Jews (in whose defence the state claims to have expanded its borders) to the risk of murder, violence, and existential threats? What this will give rise to is a self-sustaining loop of expansion and more expansion, all the while as they claim that Israel needs "defensible borders". Will the purpose, after the occupation of the new territories, remain the defence of the pre-occupation borders, or will it shift onto the newly occupied territories and the need of the Jews there for "defensible borders"?

As for Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, a December 1986 MERIP report (no. 143), titled "Recipe for an Israeli Nuclear Arsenal", discusses the stages of Israel's development and testing of nuclear weapons. If I could post the whole thing, I would have, but some excerpts will have to do (anyone who wishes to get their hands on the whole thing -- 7 pages long -- may send me a request by email).

A Textile Factory... Built by France?
Most significant is France's dedication to Israel's nuclear project -- a fact which I am sure will make some elements in Israeli circles who feed on alleged French anti-Semitism, a claim advanced every time France does not do what they desire and expect it to do, fidget uncomfortably in their seats -- a favor paid for, one would guess, by Israel's full collaboration with the French and the British in their elaborate plans to take over the Suez canal, culminating in what became known as the "Suez war" (they were later forced to withdraw following threats by the Soviet Union -- followed by U.S pressure sparked by fears that tensions would erupt in a larger confrontation).
For public consumption, the reactor was a "textile factory." That fiction was exposed in 1960 when a US reconnaissance aircraft photographed the telltale dome characteristic of nuclear reactors. The US government demanded an explanation. Ben Gurion admitted that the reactor existed, but insisted that Israel had no intention of building a bomb. Research at Dimona was for medicine and industry only, he said. In fact, Vanunu has now revealed, France not only supplied the reactor but also helped Israel build the secret 8-story underground plant and actively collaborated with Israel on developing the atomic bomb for two years in the late 1950s.
Ambiguity and Appeasement
Even more ironic is the fact that Israel itself played the ambiguity and secrecy game and was largely appeased in that respect by the U.S (which was not uninformed about its nuclear ambitions and activities), something which it now claims, in the case of Iran, is akin to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.
As reports of an Israeli nuclear arsenal became more frequent, and Washington raised questions, Israel obligingly assumed an anti-nuclear posture in public. Prime Minster Yitzhak Rabin in September 1975 proposed a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East. Israel repeated the proposal in 1980, and again in March 1982 at the United Nations, but it refused to submit to the application of full-scope safeguards at the Dimona plant, and its nuclear program proceeded apace.
American Complicity
There are those who claim U.S innocence from the whole affair; this is, in fact, far from true. The U.S was not a mere passive appeaser; rather, it was an active supporter and funder of Israel's nuclear program.
In 1955, a US-Israeli nuclear agreement allowed Israel to acquire a small American nuclear reactor, its first. The US paid $350,000 of the reactor's cost, and gave Israel a library of 6,500 US Atomic Energy Commission research reports on nuclear topics. Over the next five years, some 56 Israeli nuclear scientists were trained in the US, while 24 others visited Atomic Energy Commission installations here.
Nuclear Technology for Peaceful Purposes?
In the aftermath of Vanunu's exposure of Israel's nuclear arsenal, the French justified their support for Israel's nuclear program based on the idea that it could also be used for peaceful purposes, an argument that Israel -- and France -- find outrageous when used with regards to Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, this is exactly what Iran argues: that its quest for nuclear technology is entirely peaceful. While this may bring forth the argument -- based on Israel's case and its subsequent development of nuclear weapons through the abuse of the peaceful purposes argument -- that the insistence on peaceful purposes is not sufficient to justify and allow for the continuation of nuclear work, the major issue is not the conclusion that Iran should be forced to halt its activities (violently if need be), but that Israel must hand over its nuclear arsenal. Instead (and not surprisingly), the focus is misplaced, and shifted onto those who do not yet have those capabilities, rather than placed on those who do have them, and who have shown willingness to use weapons of mass destruction and perpetrate crimes, as well as impose collective punishment, against an entire population.
A week after the Vanunu story broke, Professor Francis Perrin, France's high commissioner for atomic energy from 1951-1970, admitted to the Sunday Times that France had lied about the extent of its nuclear collaboration with Israel. France built not only the Dimona reactor, he said, but also the secret underground plant for producing weapons-grade plutonium. "We knew the plutonium could be used for a bomb but we considered also that it could be used for peaceful purposes," Perrin said. In 1959, de Gaulle felt "that the French military was starting to work too closely with Israel." He ended collaboration on atomic weapons, but agreed to supply Israel with the secret plutonium plant.
Zionist Theft: Not Just Of Land
The acquisition of enriched uranium from France and other sources was highly limited, and as such there was a need to find alternative sources that would satisfy Israel's "thirst" for uranium. But there was no need to worry. Theft came in handy, as is habitual of Zionism.
In 1966, the US Atomic Energy Commission discovered that over 200 pounds of highly-enriched uranium (enough to make 13 to 20 bombs, by one estimate) was missing. It had "disappeared" sometime before or during 1965 from a private US corporation, the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) in Apollo, Pennsylvania.

NUMEC, according to ABC News, had an "intimate relationship with Israel at the time." NUMEC's president, Dr. Zalman Shapiro, was a research chemist who had been involved in the Manhattan nuclear bomb project. He was also a committed Zionist. During its investigation, the Atomic Energy Commission discovered that 50 to 69 foreigners from around the world annually visited NUMEC's supposedly top-security plant with its stock of thousands of classified government research documents. One of these was Rafael Eitan, then a Mossad officer and more recently the spymaster in charge of Jonathan Jay Pollard, a former US Navy analyst convicted of spying for Israel in 1986. Others included Baruch Cinai, an Israeli metallurgist, and Ephraim Lahav, Israel's scientific attache in Washington. It turned out that Shapiro was co-owner, with the Israeli government, of a firm purportedly working on preserving foods by nuclear radiation. The firm could well have served as a conduit for sending NUMEC uranium to Israel.

At least five federal agencies -- the National Security Council, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, General Accounting Office and Atomic Energy Commission -- investigated, but the US government kept their reports under wraps. Eleven years later, in 1977, an environmental group, Natural Resources Defense Council, secured over 3,000 documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request which revealed that US intelligence agencies had long suspected Israel of stealing the uranium.
Zionism and Apartheid: The Fine Line Between Necessity and Morality
Collaboration with and support of apartheid in South Africa is perhaps the most embarrassing, and sadly perhaps the least publicized of all of Israel's actions. Support for apartheid was present on all levels, and transcended the official apparatus of the State of Israel, to include such organizations as the "Anti-Defamation League" (ADL), which purports to expose anti-Semitism (and anti-Zionism). I included anti-Zionism in parentheses since for ADL anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are synonymous. Zachary Lockman, in his brilliant piece "Critique from the Right: The Neo-conservative Assault on Middle East Studies", points out that
in 1993 a police raid on the ADL's San Fransisco office revealed that with the help of a member of the San Fransisco Police Department's intelligence unit who had access to police and FBI files, the ADL had for years been collecting information ... on local activists in the campaign against South Africa's apartheid regime and on many other organizations and individuals. Subsequent investigations and lawsuits revealed that some of the data on anti-apartheid organizing collected for the ADL had been made available to the South African government. Though it continued to insist it had done nothing wrong, the ADL eventually paid a substantial sum to settle a suit brought by the city of San Fransisco.
Needless to say, the file was closed through financial settlement and the affair was swept under the rug and conveniently forgotten over the years. This was not the first time Zionism had collaborated with apartheid. The fact that Israel's geographic reality restricted its ability to conduct nuclear testing necessitated the quest for an "ally", or rather, an accomplice, who would be willing to "host" such a test, in return for data, expertise and technology. This "need" is almost always -- in the rare case of any discussion on this matter -- cited as a justification for Israel's support for apartheid, which is inherently the same argument used to justify the Zionist lobby's (and Israel's) attempts at not only personal denial, but also the active pursuit of the prevention of the recognition of the Armenian Holocaust: the claim that Israel is in urgent need of "a Muslim ally", and Turkey being the only one available in the region willing to cultivate such ties with Israel, the relationship is marketed as a justified one. If there ever was a natural romance, it is the love affair between Zionism and official Turkish denial of the Armenian Holocaust.

South Africa was in fact the country that played host to Israel's nuclear testing.
On September 22, 1979, a US surveillance satellite designed to monitor nuclear explosions detected a tell-tale double flash over the South Atlantic near South Africa. When this became public a month later, President Carter appointed an advisory committee which concluded that the satellite sighting most likely was caused by a particle of matter hitting the satellite. None of the other groups which subsequently studied the flash found reason to doubt that it was a nuclear explosion. Five months later, an Israeli correspondent for CBS News reported that the flash had been an Israeli nuclear bomb test "which was conducted with the help and cooperation of the South African government." A recent study by Ronald Walters and Kenneth S. Zinn, based on 500 pages of newly-released documents from the US Naval Research Laboratory obtained by the Washington Office on Africa, indicates that the NRL concluded a nuclear explosion had occurred. Walters and Zinn believe the US has deliberately covered up its knowledge of Israeli-South African nuclear collaboration.
Morality? What's that?

Arabs May be Paranoid, but not THAT Paranoid: Mossad's Long Arm
Another controversy took place in 1985 with Israel's illegal acquisition of a device used for triggering atomic bombs. The whole thing was a typical middle-man deal, whereby the owner of a company illegally acquired these devices from the firm that produced them, and exported them to an Israeli firm owned by an arms dealer. The deal was exposed, and the middle-man (a man by the surname Smyth) was apprehended. The Israeli firm owner subsequently denied that these devices were ever exported to his company, and insisted that the middle-man had asked for the wrong export license. Israel then claimed it was unaware that sales of the devices were restricted and said that it had only used them in conventional weapons, and following U.S demands, returned the ones it had not yet used.
Smyth, free on $100,000 bail, disappeared with his wife in August 1985 just before his trial. In May 1986, an old acquaintance reportedly ran into Smyth while on a business trip -- in Israel.
Chamberlain Must be Turning In His Grave: Appeasement II
Israel can be compared to a spoiled kid who has successfully turned his parents into a function of his spoiled nature and his wishes and demands and actions. A kid who has his parents "on a tight leash", as the expression goes: "I will torture the street cat unless you get me a toy." The parents, not knowing what else to say or do, or just not feeling like doing anything, agree to go along, and encourage and appease him by getting him a toy. The only time that the parents retract their decision to appease is when the relatives and neighbors find out about it.
In 1975, the US reportedly agreed to supply Israel with Pershing I missiles, which are designed to carry nuclear weapons, in exchange for an Israeli pullback in the Sinai. Public disclosure of the deal led to criticism which killed it.
Israel's Nukes: A Danger to World Security
That Israel even thought of developing nuclear weapons at a time when none of its adversaries had them or had thought of acquiring them, and at a time when it had the strategic and military high ground and Western support (and continues to do so), and more importantly, that it seriously contemplated using these weapons on at least one occasion, and went as far as assembling and readying the bombs, awaiting for a trigger, is enough to conclude that its possession of nukes is a grave threat to world security and the continuation of human life in this densely-populated region. The refusal of the international community to take any action on the matter leaves one door open: nuclear balance and deterrence. Such a balance is not a new idea: it has been present between India and Pakistan for quite some time now, and even if not conducive to feelings of security, it nevertheless upholds the concept of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (I know many have poked fun at it, including the ever-brilliant James Morrow). One may argue that the Middle East is plagued by madmen far more than any other area of the world (I disagree, I think there are far more madmen in the West; look, after all, where they got us to) and as such nuclear proliferation is akin to suicide, but I tend to disagree with the idea that nuclear balance will lead to proliferation. I do not quite see a proliferation link. The fact that there may be madmen willing to go as far as to provide know-how to clandestine groups or other neighboring regimes to offset the rival's nuclear capabilities, is not the norm, but rather the exception, and in the absence of any effort to strip Israel of its nuclear arsenal, the proper action would not be to prevent Iran from acquiring the nuke, but to prevent the implementation of any "innovative" ideas that Israel -- or its benefactor the U.S -- may have; because that, and not, as claimed, Iran's acquisition of nukes, is what will lead to nuclear proliferation.

Special 2 in 1 Offer: American Tax Dollars and Silence
The piece I have been quoting from says it best on this special 2 in 1 offer.
The massive amounts of foreign aid that flow each year from US taxpayers to Israel's treasury give the US government great potential leverage over Israel. Yet it has failed to pressure Israel in any way to adhere to US non-proliferation policy, and has contentedly accepted Israel's assurances that it will never introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East.

Even the persuasive evidence revealed by Mordechai Vanunu has failed to stir Washington. The verbal warnings the Reagan administration has issued in response to Pakistan's nuclear weapons program have been conspicuously absent when it comes to Israel. Israel's status as a nuclear ally in the region may suit US interests well. Even if Israel publicly acknowledged its nuclear arsenal, it seems unlikely that Washington would punish this defiance of non-proliferation standards. So long as the matter officially remains in the realm of suspicions and deductions, Washington can continue to blithely hand over billions of dollars in military aid to build up a strong force -- even a nuclear force in Israel, capable of intimidating the region with the ultimate threat.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Angry Anarchist @ 3/29/2007 05:50:00 PM,

20 Comments:

At March 31, 2007 at 2:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi there. I've been reading your blog for a while now.

Your thoughts and participation would be greatly appreciated here.

Thanks.

 
At March 31, 2007 at 4:21 PM, Blogger Moussa Bashir said...

anyone who wishes to get their hands on the whole thing -- 7 pages long -- may send me a request by email

May I have a copy, please?
:-)

 
At March 31, 2007 at 6:02 PM, Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

Whether or not one agrees with Iran's quest for nuclear capabilities and all that it entails in terms of strategic parity vis-a-vis Israel, one must admit that the IAEA and the international community have been hypocritical in their position on Iran -- compared to their position (or rather, lack thereof) on Israel.


small point... iran is a sig to the Non-prolif treaty, ISRAEL IS NOT...

small point, iran agrees to treaties and lies...

israel never agreed to anything...

so why lie and make the arguement that iran and israel are the same situation?

 
At March 31, 2007 at 6:04 PM, Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

But back to the topic at hand, the fine line separating the yet-to-be-acquired Iranian nuclear weapons from the decades-long possession of nuclear weapons by Israel.


not a fine line at all...

Iran by signing the NPT legally binds it NOT to develop nukes..

whereas Israel is NOT a signer of the NPT..

does this issue evade your thoughts?

 
At March 31, 2007 at 6:08 PM, Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

the nukes controversy. When I say controversy I do not mean the controversy regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions per se, but the controversy regarding the double standards adopted in viewing the Iranian and Israeli nuclear ambitions. "Double standards" is an understatement to be sure! I have been hearing many saying that the two are incomparable because one is a "democratic" state whereas the other one is a theocratic one with a record of human rights abuses.


no, hamas is a democracy..

there is no double standard, iran is a signer of the NPT, israel is not...

there ya go...

not a double standard, just a legal standard...

iran signed and lied...

israel is not a signer to the treaty.

period

 
At March 31, 2007 at 6:14 PM, Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

If the purpose is to defend Jews and the Jewish state, then isn't it counter-productive to move Jews into the occupied territories to form the new frontier?

great question...

please look at a map...

learn history....

look at the arab world and it's control of 649/650th of the middle east, israel is 1/650 of that land mass...

israel has returned 99.9% of all disputed and conquered lands never heard of the sinai?

let's remember facts, in 1966 israel did not control the sinai, gaza or the west bank or jerusalem and there was no peace...

egpyt used gaza and sinai to attack israel...

west bank was in jordan's hands..

and let's not forget the answer to israel's peace offer after 67 to return all of these lands...

it was the 3 no's by the arab league..

so congrats...

it only took 30 years for the arab world to now want what it was offered...

 
At March 31, 2007 at 6:16 PM, Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

you write so well and yet say absolute bullshit...

are you a professor?

 
At March 31, 2007 at 7:13 PM, Blogger Angry Anarchist said...

you write so well and yet say absolute bullshit...
Well you know, considering I'm not on anyone's payroll, you might have a "point".

Bashir, it's on its way, hopefully it will go through. :)

 
At March 31, 2007 at 7:18 PM, Blogger Angry Anarchist said...

Iran by signing the NPT legally binds it NOT to develop nukes..
Gee, reminds me of Israel's membership in the UN and its duty to respect the some-60 UN resolutions it has been in violation of.

Does THAT, perhaps, evade your thoughts?

why has israel NOT nuked iran if they can?
Non-action at a certain point in time does not mean non-action in the future. Dude. Go sit through logic 101. Instead of Ulpan they should actually give you some logic courses. But then again, I realize that logic is not deemed necessary for acclimatization!

egpyt used gaza and sinai to attack israel...
Well this is news to me. Is this some new theory they came up with at Brandeis?

 
At March 31, 2007 at 7:40 PM, Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

angry great retort, i am so proud of you!

aa: Iran by signing the NPT legally binds it NOT to develop nukes..
Gee, reminds me of Israel's membership in the UN and its duty to respect the some-60 UN resolutions it has been in violation of.

nicely put, however UN resolutions are time based, maybe if the arab world respected the UN resolution that created ISRAEL in the 1st place you'd have a point. AND let's talk about UN resolutions, you are smart enough to KNOW the difference between Security Council Resolutions and General Assembly resolutions? NICE distortion! congrats!


Does THAT, perhaps, evade your thoughts?

me: why has israel NOT nuked iran if they can?

aa: Non-action at a certain point in time does not mean non-action in the future. Dude. Go sit through logic 101.

Ok, so israel has the might to wipe off the planet the arab world and iran and chooses not to, whereas the arab world and islam continue to threaten to destroy israel all the time but have failed to do so for 60 years.

Logic dictates that israels SHOULD have already destroyed the arab world and yet they have not...

me: egpyt used gaza and sinai to attack israel...

AA: Well this is news to me. Is this some new theory they came up with at Brandeis?

Ah so you are now claiming that there was no terror coming from gaza from 1956-1967?

ah yes the peaceful arabs of gaza... yep no attacks on the water carrier by arafat in 1966? nope..

So to be clear, you ACCEPT israel's right to be a state?

And your issue is simply land?

 
At March 31, 2007 at 7:43 PM, Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

aa, you actually THINK i am paid to respond to your bullshit?

thanks for the thought!

but like i said, it costs me time and cash to fight islamic nutjobs and i do it as my hobby!

gee aint america great?

btw i was on tv last year because i purchase fryer oil (soy) for my diesel auto, costs me 3.20 a gallon and the thought that most of it doesnt go to arab or oil companies thrill me...

 
At March 31, 2007 at 10:01 PM, Blogger Angry Anarchist said...

UN resolutions are time based
Doesn't matter, and actually not all are time-based, a great many of them are actually not.

Yes I am sure you are not paid to reply to me -- you seem obsessed enough to post some 6 consecutive posts, talking to yourself, are you?

Anyway my advice to you is: quit spamming my blog with your crap, putting all your replies in one post will do, and anyway it is not that bad, since there is one bottom line, and that bottom line is: Israel good, Arabs/Muslims bad.

But good job with your non-reliance on "Arab oil", that ought to weaken the dictatorial regimes that have aided and abetted Israel in its decades-long occupation.

 
At March 31, 2007 at 10:07 PM, Blogger Angry Anarchist said...

you ACCEPT israel's right to be a state?
"States", my dear, have no RIGHT to EXIST. "States" are in your head. Get over it. Thanks.

 
At April 2, 2007 at 9:54 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

@ T-Marbouta, been reading your post, and my eyes finally hurt!! Will continue tomorrow…

hooray for the colonial/post-colonial" note!! And will try to find that David Waldner's piece.

Oh, and can I have a copy of the whole thing too? :P

 
At April 2, 2007 at 10:44 PM, Blogger Angry Anarchist said...

Hey Sham ;)
I've sent the copy of the Israeli nukes thing. Let me know if you got it.

By the way, T-Marbuta is quite nice, I was there just the other day. I had to sit in the library area as all the other plugs were in use, and I had to endure a whole 2 hours of some weird trio, a guy with a camera and 2 women, one of whom was posing and having her pics taken. :-S hahaha.. Well you won't see that (OK, OK, let's leave some room for exceptions) in USA or Canada, that's for sure. :P

 
At April 3, 2007 at 3:10 AM, Blogger m. said...

ya a.a.,

i must say, you have quite a bit of patience when it comes to replying to comments by a certain commentator :)

anyways, will continue to read your post, but just wanted to note that Abu Dhabi is currently actively looking to build a nuclear power plant, albeit not publicly announced. i have no hard info as to what end they will eventually use that technology, but it is interesting to note that they are currently consulting a few individuals (from the USA) to study the feasibility of such a project.

 
At April 3, 2007 at 10:54 AM, Blogger Angry Anarchist said...

Manar, yes, I seem to be too patient with a certain commentator, especially that patience is not very characteristic of me!

Thanks for the info, it is very interesting. In fact I have been reading a lot of things about Arab countries seeking to build nuclear power plants as of late (since the Iranian 'debacle'). I do not find it surprising in the sense that this seems to be (as I predicted), USA's strategy to get back at Iran, and to prevent a nuclear balance in the Middle East, lest it give the anti-Israel axis an advantage over Israel... What is ironic is that it is the Arabs who will contribute to the death of the idea of a nuclear balance as a MEANS to pressure Israel, or conduct a fight on equal terms... Arab dictators are willing to go to any length to preserve their seats, even if that means selling ALL of Palestine, and condemning the Palestinians to eternal servitude. And then people blame the Islamists!!! I do not blame them, in fact, I support them in so far as they rebel against the dictators and present a challenge to the defeatist sold-out policies of the Arab leaders. It is true that the Palestinian Resistance is now very much localized (in contrast to the 60s, 70s, and 80s, when it was very much based in Jordan and Lebanon), but this does not mean that the Arab countries are irrelevant in the conflict. Far from it. So I think the solution to the woes of the Palestinian Resistance and its prospects is based in the capitals of the Arab world, and not in the progress of the Resistance against Israel and its military achievements.

Anyway, as for Dubai, I am not sure what to think of the attempt to get nuclear capabilities -- on the one hand they are not as politically strong on the Arab scene and the region (they are economically though), but on the other hand their quest might have to do with 1) economic needs and efficiency and future calculations; or 2) an attempt maybe to have a stronger hand in the region, and maybe translate economic growth into political hegemony??
Who knows.....
But whatever it is, it is a very dangerous game, no doubt supported (and possibly even funded) by USA...

 
At April 3, 2007 at 12:44 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At April 3, 2007 at 12:47 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

OMG!! Were the two girls reading a piece of paper and acting in front of the camera??
I was there too, in the library section (I prefer the library for it has a good light to read and it is a bit peaceful)
So I saw you!! Lah lah lah :P
I got the email, thank you.
BTW, I'd like to know your saying on Al-Akhbar newspaper and other Lebanese newspapers..and what do you make of Dr. Azmi Bishara's articles??

 
At April 3, 2007 at 3:48 PM, Blogger Angry Anarchist said...

haha.... I don't know if they were reading a piece of paper, but I think they were posing with some books from the shelves, pretending to be reading them or something... :S I don't know what the hell it was about. I was hoping to get some peace of mind but they just ruined it grrr. :P So you were there??? It would be a huge coincidence haha... wow... unless these same people were there on a previous occasion or something... Were you sitting on the couch with someone by any chance? Or..? As far as I remember, there was the trio, and then there were 2 other dudes next to them...

Now... newspapers...

*Al-Mustaqbal = piece of crap (I don't read)
*Annahar = piece of crap (I rarely read). It is ironic, if you check out the Annahar archives, you will see how Annahar has become transformed... I will post something on this soon.
*Daily Star = piece of crap (I don't read)

and...

Assafir = readable
Al-Akhbar = readable but used to be better... I don't know if it's just me, but I am finding increasingly more and more articles with a sectarian tone...

I don't usually read too many opinions pieces on newspapers, as they tend to be very restricted in their perspective (depending on the politics of the paper), except sometimes in Assafir, and even then, I pay more attention to the theme and approach rather than the author. In other words, I do not follow the logic of: I will read so-and-so's column every week, because I do not agree with pretty much anyone regarding their analyses, and so I do not make it a ritual to read them. :P Plus, lately, I haven't had the time to read much...

I will try to read Azmi Beshara's pieces. Give me a few days, and I will get back to you on that. ;)

For now, I'd have to say Assafir is the best overall.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home