quote:"Israël moet nucleair programma Iran bombarderen"
 

"Israël moet nucleair programma Iran bombarderen"
Israël zou met luchtaanvallen het nucleaire programma van Iran moeten vernietigen. Dat is althans de mening van de conservatieve Israëlische politicus Benjamin Netanyahu. Hij wordt de uitdager van premier Ariel Sharon bij de vervroegde parlementsverkiezingen in Israël van 28 maart 2006.

"Israël mag Iran niet toelaten een nucleaire bedreiging te worden", stelde Netanyahu zondag op de Israëlische radio. Hij haalt voor zijn voorstel de mosterd bij de vroegere Israëlische premier Menachem Begin. Die beval in 1981 een luchtaanval tegen een in aanbouw zijnde kernreactor in het Irak van Saddam Hoessein. Israëlische gevechtsvliegtuigen bombardeerden de reactor in Osarik. Met dat "gewaagd" initiatief bewerkstelligde Begin in die tijd "20 jaar rust" voor Israël, aldus Netanyahu. "Ik geloof dat we dat nu ook zouden moeten doen", luidde het nog.

hln 4/12/05

Look who's talking
 

Nei ni veur 't een of 't ander... Israël bezit zelf kernwapens. Is Israël zelf daar ooit voor aangevallen? Bombarderen de Syriërs, de Jordaniërs of de Libanezen Israëlische reactors plat? Ik dacht het niet!

Iran mag dan al een 'onstabiel' land zijn op de 'geroemde' as van het kwaad, elke mens denkt twee keer na om dergelijke wapens te gebruiken. Iedereen of niemand, en daarmee uit.

The nuclear campaign issue
 

The nuclear campaign issue


The election campaign has barely begun and MK Benjamin Netanyahu has already managed to drag into it one of the most sensitive security issues: Iran's ceaseless efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Whereas other candidates have chosen their words carefully on this delicate matter, Netanyahu, who is running for the Likud leadership, threatened on Israel Radio this week that if elected prime minister he would weigh military action to prevent Iran's attaining nuclear capability.


It has also been reported that a Netanyahu associate said at a European conference that Ariel Sharon's government has neglected combating Iran's nuclear efforts because of its total preoccupation with the disengagement from the Gaza Strip.

The government made a correct decision about two years ago, when Netanyahu was still a cabinet member, that combating Iran's nuclearization is a matter for the international community as a whole, and that it is better that Israel not stand alone on the front lines. That decision is violated from time to time, but MK Netanyahu outdid himself in a campaign speech when he called for exercising a military option against Iran's nuclear development, pledging to carry on the "heritage of Menachem Begin" who in June 1981 ordered the destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.

One must not underestimate the grave danger posed to the Middle East and to world stability in the future if the efforts of the international community, the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency, fail to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That would be a failure for the United States and European nations who are leading the negotiations with Iran on this issue. The multilateral negotiations with Iran are not over. Russia, which built a nuclear reactor for Iran in Bushehr, can also play an important role in the process. The Board of Governors of the IAEA has not reached a decision yet on whether to refer the matter to the Security Council.

Therefore, it is imperative that Israel not come across as advocating war against Iran - especially considering there are still those who, with marked hostility toward Israel, claim that it incited the U.S. to go to war against Iraq. Meanwhile, voices can already be heard calling for Israel to close down its nuclear reactor in Dimona.

On his recent visit to Israel, former U.S. president Bill Clinton took the trouble to explain, in response to a question, the great difficulty inherent in a military option against Iran, and the difference between the nuclear case in Iraq and the situation in Iran. Clinton refrained from supporting a military option. There is no consensus among experts in the U.S. either regarding the operational aspects of a military option against Iran.

Whoever publicly recommends an Israeli military option sins doubly. He incites the Israeli public unnecessarily; presents Israel as pushing the U.S. into a major new war; drags this sensitive subject into the overheated rhetoric of an election campaign; and invites Iranian threats and various anti-Israel reactions. Israel must go about making its preparations quietly and securely, not at election rallies.


Ha'aretz, 06-12-2005