On air: Should Israel be a special case in the nuclear debate?

Israel has the right to remain silent on the nuclear weapons because if it admits that it has the weapons it will encourage other Arab states to acquire the nuclear weapons as a deterrent from Israel attack.

Yesterday Russia was expressing concern about Iran's nuclear programme, even though they deny trying to make a weapon. Surely Iran is more likely to feel that it needs nuclear weapons if Israel possesses them. Israel's weapons run counter to the good work the USA and Russia are doing to limit such devices.

It is time to make it abundantly clear that the same rules will apply to all in the region and everyone will be held accountable for their actions.

Ben Moscovith also needs to define what a "rogue nation" is. Here's one definition: A nation that consistently ignores and flouts international law and UN resolutions, and is accused of war crimes, and threatens a "greater holocaust" on a beseiged people.

It's harder to destroy Israel if she has nuclear weapons to deter attacks.

Sure they should be "upfront", why not!
But then again I guess they can do what they want, they are thier own counrty and who is going to make them. Should all the counties who helped them get a nuc program be upfront about thier role, Sure, but then again who is going to make them?
So there you are, should haves and could haves.

I wish Israel would promote partnerships and businesses as a deterrent to nuclear mayhem. The world really needs to get past this cold war mentality and start building, helping people's lives improve. Israel could be a very positive force in the region.

"A nation that consistently ignores and flouts international law and UN resolutions, and is accused of war crimes, and threatens a "greater holocaust" on a beseiged people."

Iran.

Should the BBC World HYS team put up a Middle East article that for once does not criticise Israel?

I seem to remember that both Britain and The USA helped Israel start their nuclear programme. We are therefore somewhat to blame for the unrest felt in the region. It is time for all to come clean about nuclear abilities but sadly unlikely to happen.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Salaam gang,
If Israel can have nukes, then Iran and other Middle Eastern countries can have nukes as well, why the double standards ???? Either this or promoting for an entire Middle East that is nuke-free... Israel should never be made a ''special case'' and should never be given the impression that she's above the law... After all if you are given the impression that no matter what you do you'll always get away with it then you'll surely start to get arrogant and misbehave at some point... With my love... Yours sincerely, Lubna N in Baghdad...

For years now Iran has been arming training and funding Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad for terror attacks on Israel, matching with deeds the obsessive rants of Iran's president. The danger, of course, is that Iran would supply terror groups with nukes to be used against Israel.

I think it was Binyamin Netanyahu who pointed out that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip to be rewarded with an Iranian backed terror enclave 60 kilometres from Tel Aviv. Those who are keen on seeing a nuclear-armed Iran are basically calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Should Israel be a special case? It already is, unless you can think of any other country under similar attack.

No, Israel, nor any other country, should be a special case. Either everybody should have nukes, or nobody should have nukes. Of course, this won't happen, just saying what should be.

There should be no special cases.....all nuclear weapons should be destroyed. Israel continues to be the sole justification for nuclear balance in the region and should be de-nuked by those who set them up. The cryptic almost sarcastic reduction to 1550 each in Russia and the US has done nothing but set a ceiling for everyone else to follow.

Declaring Israel a special case would make it quite difficult to convince other nations with sound arguments to relinquish their nuclear programmes. It would most likely also jeopardize all diplomatic efforts towards non-proliferation and global nuclear disarmament. Admitting that Israel, like every nation, has the right to defend itself against agressors, this is more likely to be achieved in a world where nuclear arsenals are gradually diminished, than in a world of nuclear proliferation.

Why is Israel singled out? Why not ask the same thing about India, North Korea and Pakistan (a Muslim country by the way)?

All those people you hear complaining about Israel's alleged nukes are silent on Pakistan, why?

Besides, if Israel has nukes, it acquired them in the 1960's. Back then the non-proliferation treaty didn't exist yet (devised in 1968, came into force in 1970) and nobody was sanctioned for developing nukes (China and the UK also developed nukes in the 1960's and were never sanctioned for it).

I know that in the US and all other democracies a person cannot be convicted for a felony committed in a time when that act was not yet illegal (no "ex post facto laws" allowed). I assume the same goes for the non-proliferation treaty. Yes, it means the US, Russia, Israel, UK and China get away with possessing nuclear weapons, but that's just the way it is.

The case of Israel is no different than that of the other "early adopters", therefore if Israel can be sanctioned then every nuclear power can, including a nuclear Iran.

No. Why? Because Obama is promoting double standards. India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran are all sovereign states. All of them have the right to use nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Just as every other state.

But nobody calls the Israeli govt. on their actions. Do they have weapons or not? Did they assassinate a Hamas official or not? At times it's almost like the Python "wink wink, nudge nudge" sketch. And nobody does anything because "that's the way the real world works".

I don't buy that.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What have done to desist/restrict Pakistan from clandestinely acquiring the nuclear technology from some countries (we well nigh know which ones), and then passing/smuggling it on to certain fundamentalist countries ?
Israel has never done all that; like India, it has a very good track record against any proliferation.
The reason for Israel's withdrawal, from participation in the Summit, is Iran's open declaration of a nuclear threat, specifically to Israel.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Should Israel be a special case??? the answer is no. They are member of the global community and a country that holds nuclear weapons that is a threat to the way of life of all of us on this planet.What makes them so special.
I have nothing against the country but as of late for country that cannot be described as uncivilized , their actions of late seem to depict that type of society. A country that is constantly on the offensive with no aim of trying to come to some sort of amicable agreement or compromise.
With Benjamin Netanyahu Governments' refusal to 1) sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT)and 2)the refusal to attend the nuclear security summit simply because Egypt and Turkey plan to raise the issue of its nuclear weapons are not signs of a country that wishes peace within its region let alone the well being of the planet.

In short: Israel, like the US, Russia (USSR back then), China and the UK all developed their nuclear weapons before the non-proliferation treaty ever existed, therefore they cannot be sanctioned for violating it, furthermore Israel never signed the treaty, unlike Iran, so that's again a reason they cannot be sanctioned. Additionally India has never been sanctioned, never ratified the treaty, but developed it's nukes after the treaty came into effect. In other words India is more of a special case then Israel is (and has been more prone to using them as well). Israel is no more special than the US, UK, Russia or China and I expected the experts at the BBC to actually know that Israel developed it's nuclear weapons before the treaty existed, making this whole discussion moot.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

the differenec between israel and lets say Iran is that israel is not threatening to destroy an arab state, whereas iran has clearly declared that it wants to destroy israel and it's persistant support for terror groups show this. mark this is not aimed at iranian people. i am just very suspisiouse of instable and fanactial regiems wanting to aquire nuclear weapons

They're not THAT special. They're free to do what they want, but for the last 60 years the reality has been that possession of nuclear weapons insures your destruction, not your survival. I'm sure that Israel is also aware that, in the event of things getting out of hand some day, not signing on to the non-proliferation treaty makes it a rogue state among nuclear nations and a liability to the U.S.
The truth is that 6 decades of support would mean nothing if they decided to make a preemptive strike at Iran or anyone else. They would be totally on their own and at the top of everyone's targeting list, INCLUDING ours, and it is wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
I'm not saying their fear is unjustified - I'm saying that fear can lead them to make bad decisions, and thinking we would risk destruction so that they could do something outside the rules isn't just naive, it's stupid.

@Jens

Maybe no one in Israel is trying to use nuclear weapons at the present time but there is no guarantee that this will not happen in the future. Every state should have nuclear weapons or no state should have them.

Perhaps it is time to bring this man into the limelight again.

http://www.vanunu.org/

Mordechai Vanunu

Fighting for a Secure Israel and a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

Of course the rules are different as each nation has the absolute right to self defense especially after having been been repeatedly attacked and invaded by an overwhelming number of hostile forces.
However no one knows for certain whether or how many nukes Israel possesses, perhaps none but is playing high stakes poke and is bluffing its opponents. Remember Israel has never attacked anyone but is repeatedly attacked and one of its attackers is developing nukes to perhaps better their odds of winning in the next attack.
Obama may want to sign away America's right of keeping nukes and open America up to nuclear attack but Israel is a sovereign nation that can make its own self defense posture.
What Obama's nuclear summit in Washington was, is nothing more than an ambush of Israel.

Israel should not be a special case for anything. It needs to abide by the same laws that the rest of us do. When Israel violates the sovereign territory of another country, it should be condemned and penalised. When Israel kills hundreds of civilians, it should be condemned and penalised. And Israel should be just as accountable as anyone else for the hundreds of nuclear weapons that it has.


Regarding Iran, it would be utter insanity for Iran to nuke Israel. Deploying a nuclear weapon against Israel is the same as nuking Palestine. No-one in their right mind who supports one or the other would attack the other or the one. We saw what happened when we allowed one or two countries to bully the rest of the world into pre-emptively attacking a country suspected of building WMD. Let's let the international process work here with Iran. We don't need another useless, costly, and bloody war.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

On a theoretical level, it's a state like any other. So we actually shouldn't treat it differently.
But in real life, we will and should treat it differently. It holds a unique position in the middle east. It's isolated itself from its surrounding over the past decades and has become more unpredictable and therefore dangerous not just for the little peace they have in their surrounding but also for global stability.
I just hope they don't overplay their cards.

@mordenJan

Jan gets your facts right, actually India did face sanctions after their nuclear test in Pokhran in 1998.

Please read the news below from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9805/13/india.us/

Talking of Vanunu, in 2003 the BBC produced a documentary, 'Israel's Secret Weapon', on the subject of 'whistleblower' Vanunu's 'disclosure' of Israel's alleged nuclear weapons programme. The tone of the documentary was one of dark foreboding, Israel being painted as a lurking threat to the Middle East. The actual threat to Israel herself and attacks on the country from her neighbours and from Iran was not mentioned at all, as if Israel acts in a vacuum. The government was furious and withdrew cooperation from the BBC.

Now, BBC, you might ask if Israel is a special case, but you should understand that it is reporting such as that documentary that helps make it so by continually portraying Israel as the rogue nation and putting the blame for the lack of peace in the region on the Jewish state.

What I don’t understand is why governments even consider nuclear weapons as something to use on their next door neighbours, has no one ever heard of fallout?
In such a crowded place as the Middle East Israel nuking Iran or vice versa would effectively sign their own death warrant – the ultimate in suicide bombing.

@modernJan

That is a very interesting point and also highlights some weaknesses of the NPT. The NPT only recognises US, UK, France, China and US as the nuclear powers who can "get away with it". Israel is not on the list. If Israel (or any other country) today declares that they have nukes, but that they were developed before the NPT, will the NPT be updated to include those countries in that list of "get away with it" countries, or will they be treated as new nuclear powers? (and who decides)
And under what monitoring do non-NPT nations fall? If Iran (or any other country) withdraws from the NPT, are they then allowed to build nuclear weapons like India and Pakistan? This will be an issue for those countries who want a level-playing field in the region.

I don't think that Israel is a special case. The case is very similar with India and Pakistan and in some way also with North Korea. All these stated have nuclear weapons and no western government really complains about it. I am sure the same would be the case with Iran if they had a nuclear weapon.

The one think Israel is special is the fact that they do not admit their possession of nuclear weapons. That is somehow funny as normally you want your opponent know that you posses this kind of weapon.

The fact that Israel is not being held to the same standards as everyone else is one of the main problems of the Middle East conflict. We don't hesitate to criticize nation states all over the globe when it comes to human rights abuses, war crimes and nuclear proliferation, but Israel always gets singled out as a "special case". It is not a special case. It is a nation state like any other, that conveniently uses its past to justify their illegal actions. This cycle needs to stop. The rules apply to everyone.

Israel is an ultra special case, assuming she has nuclear weapons, Israel is surrounded by beligerant states, Iran, syria, Lebanon and the terrorist entitiy Hamas, all seeking to destroy Israel. All the past wars Israel has been involved in , not once Israel used a nuclear response which shows that Israel is a responsible sovereign State. Iran determined to produce nuclear weapons has openly stated she intends for the destruction of Israel, in a way 'putting the cart before the horse', in which case Israel has the right to self defence.
The United Kingdom, U.S.A, Russia, China, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. The non-proliferation treaty on nuclear weapons was signed after Israel may have acquired nuclear weapons, Israel were not required to sign.
Assuming Israel has nuclear weapons,to be realistic, there is no way till kingdom come will Israel give them up.
History tells us, be weary if you are threatend with destruction, be first to strike, and strike as required with all your might.
U.S.A, Russia, U.k, China, Pakistan & India will not give up its nuclear arsenal, for they all fear being attacked, one way or the other including being attacked by a new entitity a terrorist organisation like Al-Quida, it is known trying to acquire a nuclear device.

Unless the U.S.A, Russia, Unitad Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan gives up all their nuclear weapons, there is no hope in hell Israel will give up its nuclear weapons. Israel has not threatened any country, Iran has openly stated it seeks to destroy Israel and is pushing ahead with its nuclear production, Iran is also a threat to the whole region, also supplying terrorist organisations with arms, if allowed to develop nuclear weapons, Iran may well supply them to organisations like Al-Quida

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

There's no question that Middle East tension is exasperated by Isreal's refusal to declare it's nuclear arsenal and refusal to participate in nuclear disarmament talks. How can a negotiation with Iran or any other neighboring country be plausible if Isreal has a special status?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Israel is a special case, discuss.
The creation of the modern state of Israel was the result of European guilt over the Holocaust, which the US exploited to install an ally near those essential oil fields and never mind the people living there in the first place.
Israel was threatened with annihilation by Arab nations but won.
After the psychological trauma experienced by Jewish people during WW2, followed by USSR persecution and the above Arab aggression, it was only to be expected that Israel would be more than a little paranoid, so it needed time.
BUT all the above events happened well over 40 years ago. So does the special case argument still apply?
The failure by Israel’s supposed allies to make it see some sort of sense and be magnanimous in victory, reaching a settlement based on ’67 borders has pulled all the high moral ground out from underneath Israel, particularly given the rise of Zionist fundamentalism. Israel’s behaviour in the last 20 years seems to support the “abused turned abuser” thesis.
Now the concept of nuclear weapons as “self-defence” rings utterly false and is the one card the Iranians can pay in any ostensibly logical argument to support its own nuclear arms.

Why should Isreal be a special case, with the present state of tension and unrest in the region their attitude will only add to the problem.

After all they are a major contributor to the trouble and bloodshed.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@Pink Muslim
If we lived in a utopian world your comments would make a great deal of sense but since we live in the real world and Israel has been repeatedly attacked and NEVER attacked any other nation, it operates on a higher moral plane and it uses its weapons as a deterrent against another holocaust.

First thing first, nobody knows for sure whether Israel has nuclear weapons. It might be that Israeli gov't just want everyone to believe that it has nuclear weapons in order to protect itself from serious war offence.
But even if Israel does has nuclear weapons, yes it should be a special case. And here is why. Firstly, Israel never claimed it wants to wipe out other country from the face of the Earth. It never helped terrorists, illegal forces, never gave money to them. Secondly, Israel is a democracy. It's definitely has more democracy than Russia, China, Egypt and countless others nuclear non-proliferation treaty signatories. Israel has arab muslims in parliament. They elected because it's a democracy even though elected arabs MP want the world to think otherwise. Despite their accusations they can and do create new lows and have political power. Thirdly, Israel needs others to believe in its nuclear proliferation so that such lunatics like Ahmadinejad will think twice before "wipe it out". And he certainly would have done it if he was sure Israel can't defence itself.
Finally, if you think Israel is like any other country, go and live for a while in Sderot. And then talk.

The state of Israel faces great danger from other middle east nations such as Iran Syria, and Lebanon etc,and more so, the Israelis suffered during the holocaust when Hitler persecuted and massacred them, its only fair first if israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons for deterrent and defensive purposes and also it should be included in the nuclear talks, because this will erase their fears of attacks and will make other enemies to fear them.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I am confused why people think that if Israel revealed its hand that the world would have a higher moral stand to negotiate with Iran when Iran refuses to negotiate at all?
In a poker game no one wins by showing their hand first.

Israel's arsenal should be discussed fully. Israel should declare what weapons it has and should be fully transparent. Israel should not be given special treatment. This is a real stumbling-block.

The difference between India, Pakistan, and Korea and Israel as that for the first three nations, nobody questions their right ot exist, or wants to see their nations ceaes to exist or be destroyed. The same cannot be said of Israel. Israel's enemies want it gone. Nobody wants India or Pakistan gone.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No.

I would like to have all nuclear materials regulated, registered, and regularly inspected by an International agency, probably the IAEA. We have to be suspicious of anyone who hides nuclear materials for whatever reason.

Government leaders might be currently trusted but everyone has the possibility of becoming untrustworthy and so transparency would be best for everyone.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Someone just called in and mentioned that Israel needs to start playing by the same rules as the other countries in the area. If Iran is having a special Nuclear Day today and blatantly developing weapons despite the international move AWAY from such weapons, why should Israel give up any of it's potential weapons. And if we're moving towards Israel needing to be more like it's neighbors, should they develop terrorism and inhibit their current democratic government? I don't think anyone wants (at least in the Western world) wants Israel to become more like the other countries in the Middle East!

Neither Israel nor the United States has any credibility in their arguments to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons so long as Israel is disingenuous. The whole problem people have had historically with Jews is they think they are a special case.

"A nation that consistently ignores and flouts international law and UN resolutions, and is accused of war crimes, and threatens a "greater holocaust" on a beseiged people." Iran? I don't think so. Iran has invaded nobody in 280 years, while Israel has invaded and occupied the land of all its neighbors and started 19 wars in its brief existence. Israel is the object of over 100 UN resolutions of censure that it wholly disregards despite its duties as a UN member state, routinely violates 16 of the 29 articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, numerous provisions of the 4th Geneva Convention, and its own pledges upon which its admission to the UN was conditional: permitting return of the Nakba refugees and internationalization of Jerusalem. In an EU survey a few years ago Israel was rated the #1 threat to world peace. It is only due to their nukes and bellicosity that Iran would want or need a nuclear deterrent. Israel has nothing that Iran, one of the most self-sufficient countries on the planet, possibly needs other than protection from them.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Whys does everyone say that Israel is trustworthy when it has a record of an unprovoked bombing of an Iranian nuclear facility a few years ago? Will the next Israeli bombing of an Iranian nuclear facility be done with a "non-existent" Israeli nuclear weapon?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Oh, well, I'm out of here: too many posts get censored while I can't imagine them being offensive in any way.

@ Irene: Frankly I find it offensive that you are going to take something that you feel the nation of Israel is doing wrong and apply it to Jews all over the world, "The whole problem people have had historically with Jews is they think they are a special case." And also, I don't feel Israel is looking on itself as a special case, merely trying to defend itself from its unfriendly and threatening neighbors which is especially difficult now that it is lacking support from the US.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Yes, Israel is a special case. The country is always way ahead of others in realising potential threats to itself as well as to the world. In the early eighties, when Israel took out Iraq's nuclear reactor, the Americans were furious but the Israelis new what nuclear weapons meant in the hands of a madman like Saddam Hussein. And in late 2007 Israel took out a reactor that Syria was building with the aid of North Korea. For some reason the Syrians wont let UN inspectors near that ruined site.

Someone a few comments up claimed Israel bombed an Iranian nuclear facility but no, that hasn't happened, yet. But if Israel's record in nipping nuclear proliferation in the bud is anything to go by, it's likely that it will. When you think about it, the world should be thanking Israel profusely for keeping these terrible weapons from madmen and rogue states. And if it can keep them from the rulers of Iran, with their obsession to destroy the Jewish state and anyone else they feel deserves destruction, Israel will be doing the world a great favour.

Doesn't look like anyone else is going to do anything about it.

@modernJan
I think they're censoring them if the post is too long (well mine anyway!)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

but israel IS a special case, unfortunately. because it´s the only state on this planet whose right to exist is being constantly questioned, and in case of some openely denied. sorrounded by states who want it being destroyed, israel should keep the weapons as a threat. no matter how much i as a jew emphatise with democratically thinking opressed citizens of some other countries in the region - who surely have no interrest in destroying anyone and only wish to live in peace, but - sadly - have no controll about their governments - we all have seen what has happened and still is happening after the manipulated elections in iran this june.

Lisa in PA
How is being disingenuous defending yourself?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Israel never lied about their nuclear weapons, just close not to give information about the topic either way.

And I thought we were discussing that it's wrong for Israel to keep producing/holding on to such weapons? I was trying to make the point that they need those weapons for protection.

80. Irene in Texas wrote:

"Lisa in PA
How is being disingenuous defending yourself?"

Israel's ambiguity about nuclear weapons is a clever strategy, when you think about it. Keeps her enemies guessing. And Israel doesn't lack enemies thirsting for her destruction. In war you don't tell your enemy what weapons you have and where they are stored.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Israel lies in a very volatile region. i think that any nuclear program is for protection from unwarranted attacks though it must be subjected to search by the I.A.E

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@PilotDan - comment number 49

What makes you say Israel has never attacked anyone? Have you read about the war in 1967 knows as the six-day war during which they took over the Sinai peninsula of Egypt, Golan heights, Gaza strip and West bank illegally to complete their Zionist dream for the state of Israel while disregarding the UN resolution of 1947 where boundries were drawn up for Palestine and Israel state.

Israel has too few nukes and should strive to manufacture more. Jews in general and Israelis in particular have no illusions about the human race and what it was capable of, these last 2000 years or so.

As an example, today, many countries have the petulance to dispute Israel's right to exist. The only response to this genocidal query is: "YES, WE WILL SURVIVE. And we will grow like no other nation on this planet."

People that bother to read about and learn the history of the Middle East know only too well what Israel's neighbors are capable of. Also what the Europeans were able to do, especially the British Government before, during and after WW2. To be more precise, the considerable help these countries and their governments provided the Nazis with, in order for them to achieve the 'Final Solution' to the 'Jewish Problem'.
These data are easily available to anyone interested in perusing the secret documents that are now open to the public.

Israel is now a de-facto nuclear power. it will be impossible to ask it to destroy its nuclear weapons which it uses as deterrent against any possible attack. But its nuclear weapons that must have motivated Iran to have its own to stand up to Israel or at least to make it feel less secure.

But according to international law, it should have its nuclear sites open to inspection, at least for the world to know their quantity.

Nuclear weapons will become meaningless and worthy of destruction when nations trust each other. But in politics, there are no permanent close friend or sworn enemy. Nuclear weapons will remain to support on which the countries that possess them lean on in times of need.

The only thing that makes Israel special is AIPAC donation of campaign funds to our politicians in Washington. Those who support Israel can expect a good size contribution. I believe if other countries can have nuclear weapons, I see no reason why Iran cannot. The Secretary of State & the President have often stated that the US would give its undying support to Israel. Now, my question how many countries has Iran invaded versus the US in the last 60 years? We need honesty regarding the Nuclear Program and threating countries who do not comply with the US will not solve problems but will create more. The US doesn't own the world even though it believes it does.

the issue of nuclear energy shouldn't be limited to Israel or some other countries, if Israel should have then all should develop but i strongly believe that all countries should dismantle their nuclear weapons for us to have a better world. some countries are holding on to thier nuclear threat just because they want to bully the smaller countries let the convention be no more nuclear power

Israel will never share with the world information about her nuclear weapons. Why should she? Who would benefit from such knowledge?

Israel could, if she wanted, destroy her enemies, smite them all, and take their gold and property, and never use a nuclear weapon. But Israel doesn't want to take over the world.

@ Pilotdan
" and Israel has been repeatedly attacked and NEVER attacked any other nation,"

You must have missed it but Israel attacked....
Egypt 1956
Egypt 1967
Lebanon 1982
Lebanon 2006
Who repeatedly attacked them? And don't say 1973 because the Israeli forces that were attacked were on land stolen in the 1967 war. Israel itself was never touched.

I would like to re quote Ibrahim in the UK:
Ben Moscovith also needs to define what a "rogue nation" is. Here's one definition: A nation that consistently ignores and flouts international law and UN resolutions, and is accused of war crimes, and threatens a "greater holocaust" on a besieged people.
I you are interested in the politics of Israel the scholarly article and link by Victor Kattan below is well worth a look. BBC, Ibrahim and Ben Moscovith would no doubt find it interesting?
To quote the 3 Stooges: “all for one and one for all” on nuclear weapons.

JURIST Guest Columnist Victor Kattan of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, says that morally, legally, and politically the Obama administration is on solid ground in its confrontation with the Israeli government over its refusal to stop constructing settlements in East Jerusalem....

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2010/04/us-israel-standoff-over-settlements.php

Interesting reading all the blogs, the question is about disclosure, not about who did what or who will do this or that. Yes I am guilty of falling into the same trap. But none the less it is all interesting particularly Pilot Dan’s fist post then compared to Jack Dresser. Jack has obviously done his research but Pilot Dan, sorry old chap your heart is probably in the right place but your way off the mark. UTube is not a bad starting point and the Jewish scholar, Professor Noam Chomsky could be a good start, he seems to me like he has both feet on the ground.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The sad fact is that Israel is a special case. We are a nation of 7 million people, who have been constantly promised anihilation by most of the Moslem world for the last 62 years. Faced with overwhelming numbers seeking our destruction we have no choice but to maintain a technological advantage. In an ideal world we would not be "ignoring UN decisions", but then in an ideal world the Moslem countries and their anti-democratic allies would not be abusing their automatic numerical superiority to pass resolution after resolution condemning us for defending ourselves. Placed in an impossible situation, we sometimes have to take actions that we would rather not take. But since we have now theoretically had bombs for 50 years, the track record points towards a certain level of stability. There can be no question but that we are facing existential danger and need to protect ourselves. Dare one ask what danger Britain is facing that supports its nuclear arsenal?

what is very clear right now is that Turkey has made a strategic move to join Syria, Hizbollah and Iran in their anti-semitic tirades, eliminating any possibility of their being considered an honest broker in peace talks over the Golan, and begging the question of why Europe would even consider taking on the burden of the turkish economy when their President would rather join the unellected president of Iran in its move to start a new Calipha.