Netanyahu Slams Ban Ki-Moon's 'Occupation' Remarks

Nov 22, 2014 18:21:14 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I certainly agree with your assertion that the US may disentangle itself from the UN by simply getting out of it--I have long advocated something along the lines of that 1960s-era bumper sticker: Get the US Out of the UN, and get the UN Out of the US"--although I regret that you consider those of us who think that way as mere "nutcases."

Let me rephrase my remarks so as to not be offensive.

Anyone that believes that any Congress or any President, past, present or future, seriously wants to withdraw the United States from the United Nations is a nutcase. We would never give up the power we wield in the United Nations as one of the five permanent members.   

Nov 24, 2014 19:02:52 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I am aware of no American president--either past or present--who has seriously wished for the US to withdraw from the UN. But one may always hope.

The only real "power" the US has, as a permanent member of the Security Council, is to shield Israel from punishment by its ubiquitous critics.  But we should really not be tethered to any organization that requires us to sacrifice even one scintilla of our total, unalloyed national sovereignty...

In truth the United States has protected Israel from it's gross violations of international laws and customs in dozens of cases and has also prevented any enforcement of those laws and international customs even when allowing the few UNSC resolutions identifying those violations. For example the US has never endorsed addressing nuclear non-proliferation related to Israel but we do back UN enforcement of nuclear non-proliferation related to N Korea and Iran. We reflect hypocracy in our stance on nuclear non-proliferation.

The United Nations has never imposed any actions related to the national sovereignty of the United States and, because of the US veto power, is incapable of doing so. In fact the UN Charter prohibits intervention in the sovereign affairs of a nation except in extreme cases of attrocities where the UNSC authorizes such interventionism. Rarely has the UNSC intervened even then as most atrocities committed within the territorial soveregnty of a nation go virtually unaddressed. The cases of the UNSC authorizing intervention are so rare that it refused to authorize the US invasions of Aghanistan and Iraq when the US believe there were reasons to justify those invasions.

We violated the UN Charter, and our treaty obligations to abide by it, by invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. In 1967 Israel violated the UN Charter, and it's treaty obligations, by invading Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and we know today the problems created by Israel's invasion in 1967 (i.e. 47 years of violent conflict).  

Nov 26, 2014 21:25:20 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I suppose it is just too much to hope that we ever might see eye-to-eye as regarding the genesis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. So it is probably just as well to quit trying.

At one time, there were just five nuclear powers--the US; Russia; Great Britian; France; and China. But that has changed, over the past 50 years or so. And it is not just Israel, either. What about India? And Pakistan?  Do you believe that it amounts to mere "hypocrisy" that the US tolerates these nuclear states? 

And our merely being a member of an organization that is designed to constrain our actions--including international actions--is, inherently, a compromise of our national sovereignty... 

As I addressed in one of our other threads the goal of the Zionist movement from it's inception had to evict the Arabs from what the Zionists consider the Jewish Homeland (ignoring the fact that it is also the homeland of Arabs) by any means possible. The 6-Day Was just a small step in reaching that goal and it had nothing to do with defending Israel. Israel never intended to return the lands it occupied in 1967 to the Arabs so that they could establish their own government in accordance with the principles established in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. They rationalized the invasion with propaganda and today the propaganda machine is turning out rationalization why they should never leave but instead why the Arabs should be forced to leave. The Zionist goal of evicting the Arabs from Palestine by any means necessary (including tyranny/terrorism and murder) hasn't changed one iota in almost 100 years.

It would be in the mutual self-interests of both Pakistan and India for both of them to dismantle their nuclear weapons and the world would certainly be safer if they did. One of the greatest fears today is that radicals in Pakistan might gain access to a nuclear weapon and use it in a terrorist attack. Why the NPT is not using UNSC power and authority to induce both Pakistan and India to mutually destroy they're nuclear stockpiles is a great mystery to me.

There was a legitimate reason for allowing five nations that had nuclear weapons to keep them. Once the nuclear weapons was released from Pandora's Box it couldn't be put back. There had to be a threat against any nation ever using a nuclear weapon for any reason that the five authorized nations logically fulfill that role. Of course we didn't need the thousands of nuclear weapons from the cold war for that purpose but a few should be maintained for that purpose of deterance. I've always argued that if any nation used a nuclear weapons, including any of the five authorized nations, then it is a mandatory responsibility of the authorized nuclear nations to initiate an immediate nuclear response. If, for example, England was to use a nuclear weapon the US should immediately launch a nuclear attack against Britian in response. If Israel were ever to use a nuclear weapon then the US should immediately respond with a nuclear retallitory response.

There can be no rationalizations for the use of a nuclear weapon except to retalliate against the use of a nuclear weapon.

So Israel has nuclear weapons but the threat of a nuclear retallitory response by members of the NPT would result in the nuclear destruction of Israel. They've got them but they can't be allowed to use them, ever!!! The only thing that Israel's possession of nuclear weapons accomplishes is providing the rationalization for other nations potentially threatened by Israel to produce nuclear weapons of their own as a deterant against a nuclear attack by Israel. We don't know if Iran ever plans on actually building a nuclear weapon but Israel threatens Iran and Iran can rationalize the need to build a nuclear weapon because Israel threatens it with a nuclear attack.  

You might trust Israel to not use it's nuclear weapons but most Arab nations don't based upon Israel's record of attacking other nations in the region. Personally I'm not even all that trusting of the US government to never use a nuclear weapon against a foreign nation.

The United Nations has never attempted to impose any involunatary actions related the internal affairs of the United States. That has never happened and will never happen because the UN Charter and the US veto power prevents it. Unfortunately that isn't always the case. For example at the end of the Gulf War the UNSC authorized intervention in the internal soveriegn affairs of Iraq. That should never have been authorized as it violated the express provisions of the UN Charter.

When it comes to the international affairs of nations there are only two things the UN addresses. First and foremost is the charter prohibits wars based upon political rationalizations although the US basically ignores those provisions. Next is that it also addresses voluntary agreements between nations that benefit all nations. 

For example the economic sanctions against N Korea related to it's nuclear weapons is voluntarily enforced in an effort by all nations to end the nuclear weapons threat that N Korea represents. The UN isn't doing anything related to the internal soveriegnty of N Korea nor are the nations that simply refuse to trade with N Korea until it dismantles it's nuclear weapons. Personally, because I dispise the political hypocrite, I believe the same ecnomic sanctions that are being imposed against N Korea should also be imposed against Pakistan, India, and Israel.  If N Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons then neither should Pakistan, India or Israel.

Dec 1, 2014 19:12:33 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Although the destructive power of nuclear weapons is enormous--which has resulted in a post-WWII Western taboo against the first-use of nuclear weapons--the fact remains that no weapon has ever been developed, and then not used. Ever. So it flies in the face of historical precedent to suppose that nuclear weapons will go unused ad infinitum.  In fact, there is probably at least a 50-50 chance that they will be used within my own lifetime (and I am currently 66--almost 67). 

To claim that we should nuke England or Israel--or any other ally--in response to its own first-use of nuclear weapons, is, effectively, to buy into the 1960s-era mantra that "war" (especially nuclear war) is "the real enemy."  And I simply do not buy that.  The real enemy, as I see it, is any national adversary; including Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. 

Yes, once Pandora's Box is opened it cannot be closed but the only thing we can logically do is make the use of a nuclear weapons by any nation so devastating to that nation that they would use it. What nation would use a weapon that they know would lead to their complete annihilation? Would even the US use a nuclear weapon if it knew that all of the other NPT authorized nations would immediately launch a nuclear retallitory strike that would wipe the United States off of the map? It would take a madman to destroy themselves and their entire nation. Not to say there isn't madman out there but the price has to be far greater than any gain from the use of a nuclear weapon and the only price we can impose is complete annihilation of any nation that used a nuclear weapon. The stakes are literally that high.

Your mistake is in believing in "allies" in the first place.

www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy

Dec 3, 2014 19:46:33 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The term, "military non-interventionism," is merely a postmodern euphemism for what used to be known as isolationism (as, say, in the era of Neville Chamberlain). 

Yes, I thoroughly believe in the utility of our having allies; whether out of mutual necessity or out of common values.

I do believe that Iran--once it achieves nuclear breakout status--would be quite happy to use a nuclear weapon, as I see that country as being not at all pragmatic, but rather, in the grip of crazed apocalyptists, who would simply love to usher in the Eschaton (a sort of fundamentalist Shiite version of the Christian Parousia), in which the Twelfth Imam (or Mahdi) returns.  (And, of course, there are also the assorted terrorist groups--entirely apart from actual nation-states--to whom Iran may very well sell nukes.) 

By the way, I see nuclear weapons as different in degree--not different in kind--than conventional bombs. 

No, military non-interventionsim is not the isolationism and to believe that is to not understand Jefferson when he stated, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." Jefferson believe that the power of commerce can be an effective tool in foreign policy. Obviously the US would choose not to trade with a nation that it found to be highly offensive in it's actions and policies. In short economic sanctions (i.e. non-trade) can be a very effective diplomatic tool and it has been proven to be effective albeit a slow process of effecting change. Economic sanctions against South Africa resulted in the dismantling of South African's nuclear weapons and eventually lead to an end of apathied.

Are you aware of the fact that Iran was willing to accept literally every condition of the UN Security Council, acting on behalf of the NPT, if Israel was required to do exactly the same? If Iran, or any other Middle East nation, develops a nuclear weapon it will be because of Israel's nuclear weapons. Every nation in the Middle East supports the Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Ban except Israel. It would eliminate all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and subject all of the nations to verifications that would eliminate all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons (and their development) in the Middle East. Many have accurately pointed out that biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction are the "poor man's" nukes.

You are correct when it comes to nukes. Nuclear weapons are weapons of genocide and conventional weapons have also been used for genocide. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were bombing campaigns of genocide against civilian populations. The problem is that nuclear weapons are only weapons of genocide having no other purpose. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were war crimes and crimes against humanity because they targeted large civilian population centers. Nuclear weapons cannot be used for any other purpose as their destructive force goes far beyond anything necessary in war. Even a tactical nuke has a destructive power far beyond any logical use in war.

Let me provide a hypothetical case based upon a real historical event. One might argue that the use of a tactical nuclear weapon is justifiable based upon an actual invasion such as Israel being invaded by Arab armies where the threat is so great that the invasion would result in the destruction of Israel. Now let's take a historical event, the Cuban Missile Crisis.

There were military commanders at the Pentagon that advocated a US military invasion of Cuba but JFK decided against that and it avoided the following situation. Cuba, unknown to the US at the time, not only had the short range ballistic nuclear missiles but also had tactical nuclear weapons. Had the US invaded Cuba with 10,000, 20,000 or more American troops Castro was fully prepared to fight off that invasion with tactical nuclear weapons. In a single instant all tens of thousands of American soldiers would have been vaporized.

Would you be willing to accept the death of tens of thousands of US soldiers because Cuba had a right to defend itself from a US invasion by using nuclear weapons?

If the use of nuclear weapons can be rationalized for any purpose then every nation on the planet needs nuclear weapons for self-defense. The Taliban government needed nukes to stop the US invasion in 2001. The Iraqi government needed nuclear weapons to stop the US invasion in 2003. Based upon your position every nation should have nuclear weapons to prevent an invasion of their nation.

It is interesting because the rationalization for nuclear weapons by North Korea today is based upon "self-defense" against a possible US invasion because the US is a nuclear weapons nation with troops sitting on the North Korean border that represent a threat of invasion. The only threats coming from North Korea about it's possible use of it's nuclear weapons have been based upon, "If the US attacks us we will use our nuclear weapons in self-defense." Have you ever noticed that?

On a final note I would ask you this. If an "ally" used a nuclear weapon, that is exclusively a weapon of genocide, is it really our ally? Do we support or should we ever support any nations that commit genocide?

Dec 4, 2014 22:01:17 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Yes, if an ally should use nuclear weapons, it would certainly remain an ally. There is simply no reason to imagine otherwise.

Contrary to your assertion, my position is emphatically not that "every nation should have nuclear weapons." In fact, I strongly believe that we should stop Iran from ever achieving nuclear status--regardless of the resulting consequences.

Of course "[e]very nation in the Middle East supports the elimination of all nuclear weapons from the area, "except Israel." Perhaps that is because no nation in the Middle East currently has nuclear weapons, "except Israel."  (Iran is getting close, but has not yet arrived.)  So effectively, that is merely to say that if Israel were to give up what it already has, others would agree not to pursue the same thing.  (I am not quite sure you have thought this one through, completely.) 

You admit that a sanctions regime is "a slow process" for "effecting change"--if it works at all. (The current sanctions against Russia, for instance, are most unlikely, in my view, to be effective; they may help to throw Russia's economy into recession, but probably will change none of Putin's expansionist plans.)

And you seem most enamored of "diplomatic" responses to other nations' bad behavior; but with nothing to backup those "diplomatic" responses.  The fact remains that diplomacy may be effective only if the nation using it is both willing and able to take it to the next level--i.e. to a military level--if diplomacy fails.

I would indeed "be willing to accept the deaths of tens of thousands of US soldiers"--or even more--if that were required to achieve the desired end. However, in the case you cited--i.e. the Cuban Missile Crisis--it clearly was not.

If I understand you correctly you don't have any problem with a nation committing genocide so long as it is an ally of the United States. Is that what you're saying or am I misunderstanding your words?

If Israel can have nukes then why not other nations? Don't all nations have the same right of self-defense against acts of aggression.

Economic warfare is as effective as military warfare. For example if UNSC Resolution 1540 was enforced then logically economic sanctions against India, Pakistan, and Israel would have been imposed to economically force them into dismantling their nuclear weapons. While I'm unsure of Pakistan I know that India and Israel cannot survive without foreign trade and they could have capitulated in short order just like South Africa did when economic sanctions were imposed against it. Even N Korea would capitulate of China was to impose absolute econonic sanctions agianst it but it never has.  Fundamentally we live in a world where no nation can survive without international trade.  

www.nti.org/media/pdfs/sres15402004.pdf?_=1316547453

The Libertarian Party doesn't rule out the use of military interventionism but does require that all other efforts be exhausted first. For example when the US wanted Osama bin Laden extradicted from Afghanistan in 2001 it would have required honest diplomacy between the US and Afghanistan to reach a mutually acceptable bi-lateral extradition agreement because we did not have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan. The Taliban government made efforts to reach a bi-lateral extradition agreement with the US but the Bush Adminstration refused to negotiate and decided to invade instead. You can't claim diplomacy failed when the US refused to engage in diplomacy completely. The US invaded Iraq just months before the UN Weapons Inspectors were able to complete all of the necessary inspections to ensure Iraq had no WMD's.  We did not exhaust "all other efforts" before going to war and went to war while many other non-military options remained on the table.    

Dec 8, 2014 18:30:34 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I rather like the words of Frederick the Great, as concerning the limitations of diplomacy, whenever it is not backed up by the (serious!) threat of military force: "Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments." (I think it would be fair to say that the only sort of "diplomacy" that I find agreeable is what used to be known as gunboat diplomacy.)

The assertion that I "don't have any problem with a nation committing genocide," just as long as it is allied with the US, is a caricature of my actual words--at best. In the first place, I seriously doubt that any American ally (with the possible exception of Israel, whose very existence is being threatened by Iran) would ever resort to a first use of nuclear weapons. If it did so, however, it would not immediately cease to be our ally--anymore than one's son would cease to be one's son if he acted in a manner with which one dispaproves (even strongly).

To imply that Iran needs to fear "acts of aggression" by other countries is downright inane--if not altogether insane.  (For that model to make any sense at all, one must first believe that either Israel or the US--or both--are aggressor states, who need to be defended against.)   

You misrepresent Frederick the Great's statement, " "Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments."

He did not necessarily imply the use of military force and economic force also meets the requirements of his statements. The argument would be that war should be the last, not the first, means of force to be applied towards a nation. Only when economic force proves to be completely ineffective should war even be a consideration. That is not the case in the actions of the United States since WW II where war in many cases has preempted the full application of economic force.

Iran does not represent a threat to Israel's existance. It has no means of invading and occupying Israel. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and economic sanctions remain an effective barrier to Iran ever acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has never threatened an unprovoked attack of Israel while Israel has threatened an unprovoked attack agianst Iran. Based upon history Israel has proven that it's threats are not to be taken lightly. In 1981 Israel, in an unprovoked act of war, bombed Iraq.

Any use of nuclear weapons is an act of genocide. They are a weapon of mass destruction designed only for the purpose of genocide. When the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki they were acts of genocide just like the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden were acts of genocide. The problem is that fire bombing doesn't always represent genocide but nuclear attacks always represents genocide.

If we oppose genocide then any "ally" that uses nuclear weapons is a nation committing genocide and is no longer our ally. They are our enemy. They stopped being our ally the moment they use a nuclear weapon.