Israel wants a nuclear war... sigh!

And how do you know this?

I can only shake my head at the potential yet our leadres seem to feel Isreal has the right to do anything it wants to.

Anti Isreal forces of the world unite

Claude, what the Israeli minister said was ill-advised indeed, and certainly did help cause oil prices to jump to 1398 dollars a barrel, as well as the Dow Jones Index to drop precipitously. But, please, Israel doesn't WANT a nuclear war. No sane rational actor nation state, and Israel fits into that category, wishes for nuclear annihilation for themselves and others. You are jumping from a provocative if....then....statement, as in, "If Iran develops nuclear bombs, Israel will attack pre-emptively to destroy those nuclear sites manufacturing nuclear weapons", to a lust for nuclear war. That's a huge leap. That sort of sensationalist drawing of the absurd conclusion is like pouring gasoline on a fire. You're right to highlight the clumsiness of the Israeli official statement, no question about it, but you're just being unnecessarily inflammatory in your statement, Israel is planning a nuclear attack on Iran. That's a totally ridiculous, false claim.

Thanks everyone for your comments on this arguably sensible matter.

The goal here is to DISCUSS stuff since we're NOT in charge of anything, let alone some shinny red button that could instantly wipe millions of human beings from the face of this planet.

Here's one source of Israel's intention to attack Iran and here's another one on the same matter — it's basically all over the mainstream news, including TV and radio.

Those who believe I'm the sole human being on Earth to blow the whistle are mistaken, I'm voicing my own concerns about seeing a supposedly mature country, that would be Israel, threaten another sovereign country (in this case, Iran) of nuking them if they don't do as THEY say!

In all fairness, if Israel would've been nuked every time it went against international concensus regarding its internal politics, there would be nothing left but a huge radioactive hole where the Holy Land is currently located.

Get this, even mighty Russia doesn't threaten (let's say) Georgia with nuclear weapons, even though the ex-Russian state has openly partnered with the US which could easily provide them with such life-ending artillery, if it came to that.

But there's another interesting twist to this because Israel has always "officially" denied that it had any nukes in its possession (although everybody knows they do) so the fact that Shaul Mofaz has "officially" threatened another sovereign country with a nuclear attack basically confirms the nukes are there, in an "official" manner.

Of course, I realize Iran's approach to foreign relations can seem somewhat harsh but in the same way everybody in Israel isn't like Shaul Mofaz, the same way everybody in Iran isn't like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — so nuking an entire country because a few people can't get along is utterly immature, in my view.

If I had nukes, I'd be very careful before openly threatening other people —or nations— with them because even though I'd "win" a (very short) conflict, the radioactive poison would quickly come back to haunt me too, for the next few billion years... which would make not sense at all, in the end.

And why doesn't this Shaul Mofaz get arrested? Think about it. If little old YOU threaten someone else with nukes, you'll be arrested and questionned.

Anyway, this is all over our heads... yet, we have the luxury to "gather" and discuss it while the Iranians might only have the option of assisting to their own armageddon because some immature Israeli "trigger-happy" official didn't like the some equally immature Iranian leader combed his hair, or so to speak.

Iran isn't the first country to (allegedly) have nukes and it's certainly not the last.

Israel should get with the program and deal with the new Iranian reality which has greatly evolved in the last few years and if they have nukes as much as Iraq has WMDs, Israel is going down a very slippery path, indeed.

Whichever way one looks at this diplomatic mess, I know full well it's "complicated"...

Uh Oh! I can smell the end of the world (I really hope not)! This could be the beginning of the end. Again, I certainly hope not! We're to hope in God and, at the same time, work for and pray for PEACE. Love and Peace.

sure that doesn't happen

I hope this is not the end of days....

It only stands to reason...that it will haappen sooner or later. Nuclear weapons are in so many unstable countries around the world. And then there's the U.S., who's to say we won't be the ones to set it in motion?

This is so silly and antisemitic.
A: How do you know Israel is planning a nuclear war?
B: Why don't you mention all the threats against Israel coming from Iran.
Promises like wiping Israel from the face of the earth.
Now why can't you mention that, and don't you think that gives Israeli defense officials pause?
Blaming high gas prices on Israel is downright stupid.
Might as well blame them for the plague, yellow teeth and bad shoes.
Iran is begging Israel and the US to attack them. Their constant threats against Israel, their refusal to live up to UN inspections, all lead people to quietly distrust their intentions.

I wonder if Israel wants to bomb the nuclear sites?

While it was mentioned as a possibility the other day, I suspect it is a small group in Israel who feel this way. Perhaps it is a good time to broach the subject. With both US and Israeli elections looming, it may cause voters to listen more carefully to candidate predeliction to war statements.

I will not sign on to the Host's view that Israel is responsible for our high gasolene prices. The developing world, our high rate of consumption, foreign instability in Nigeria and the Middle East have all combined to drive up demand and prices.

That being said, there are some reasons to look again at the U.S.-Israeli alliance. Here are a few:

The Israeli-Palestinian debate has never emerged from the murky backwaters of moralism. On the Right, Christian and Zionist apologists portray the Israeli-American alliance as a moral imperitive, founded in our common Judaic-Christian (i.e. European) heritage and democatic values. On the Progressive Left, the Israeli occupation is blamed for the erosion of economic and civil liberities in the Palestinian territories.

Neither of these positions should be of any concern to American foreign policy and the millions of American citizens whose duty it is to shape that policy. If Israel finds its demise in an imperialist struggle to recapture the ancient dream of a bronze age people, then so be it. If the would-be Palestine is gobbled-up piece meal by the slow creep of Jewish expansion on the West Bank, then so be it. Americans need to realize that it is our nation that is the great people. We cannot exercise a sentiment that even remotely resembles patriotism when we speak first of the interests of other nations and only later consider what intersts remain for our own consumption.

To be blunt, the Israelis and the Palestinians are two insignificant peoples presently at loggerheads over what is, by any reasonable standard, a dried up, filthy strip of land. Could we, for once, set aside our moral posturing (i.e. charges of anti-semitism, non-combatant targeting, etc) and simply treat these peoples as geopolitical assets or liabilities, nothing more nothing less? Could it be that we shun this instrumental perspective because of our various brands of moral favoritism? Is it possible to reconcile these moral favoritisms with a patriotic sentiment that puts American interests before those of any other nation? Can this alliance be characterized as anything other than one of the most unproductive and one-sided in world history?

Undeniably, the dominant moral favoritism in American foreign policy has tracked the interests of the Israeli lobby. It may well be that one can explain how the U.S. has gained any net utility from casting its lot with a nation that is only the size of metropolitan Cairo. The decades and millions spent in single-minded support of Israel no doubt have improved returns on that rather odd bet. But its wisdom is still far from apparent. If any journalist wishes to be serious on this matter, he/she need only try to spill a few words on how America is likely to gain or lose measurably (not morally or faithfully) from our present alliance. How has the alliance aided us in Iraq? How has it been of any aid to our interests in Afghanistan?

Lastly, I would say that in pursuing this national inquiry we must, most of all, remember that this is a dialogue on national policy, and that it is analytically of singular significance for the individual. Electoral politics is of no matter. Each individual facing these questions--that is all questions affecting national security--must be made to answer them from the perspective of what is good for the nation (America), not from the perspective of their party, their church, or their secret nation of foreign allegiance. Those who choose to follow these other dictates of conviction should be openly chastised as having chosen to ally themselves with parochial or foreign interests over those of the nation.