Israel Skeptical on Syria Giving up Chemical Arms
Senior Israeli politicians have voiced skepticism about Russia's proposal for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons to international control.
Avigdor Lieberman, who chairs the parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee, told Israel Radio on Tuesday that Syria could use the proposal to "buy time."
He said Syrian President Bashar "Assad is winning time and lots of it."
Lieberman, an ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said Israel doesn't have details of the Russian offer and that the logistics of a weapons transfer are unclear.
President Shimon Peres warned on Monday that negotiations over a weapons transfer would be "tough" and that Syria is "not trustworthy."
Lieberman said Syria is likely stalling, as Iran allegedly did during early nuclear negotiations when faced with an offer to transfer enriched uranium stockpiles abroad.
10 September 2013, 13:11
11
Nukes? What nukes? lol jk. But in all seriousness, Israel's policy of "nuclear ambiguity" indicates that the true nature and purpose of the nuclear arsenal are strictly for deterrence, and MAYBE if there was a clear and immediate existential threat- but that's a big maybe. Anyways, the bottom line is that Israel has never used nuclear weapons and since Israel has never even confirmed the existence of this arsenal, they have obviously never threatened to use it to "wipe anyone off the map". In my opinion, Israel's nuclear arsenal should be pretty low on the propriety list at the moment, considering that there are far more urgent matters in the region that require immediate attention. Later, when people stop trying to "wipe Israel off the map" it will be a far more realistic request and may be agreed to.
10 September 2013, 15:09
11
To be honest, Israeli nukes -if they really have, which is quite not sure- doesn't threaten anyone. Same doesn't apply to chemical weapons in Syria that killed already many people.
Just facts.
10 September 2013, 15:31
00
FT, I'm well aware of the evidence that has caused everyone (including me) to believe that Israel has serious nuclear capabilities and I was not trying to deny this. What I was trying to say is that choosing not to openly declare these capabilities indicates that Israel does not want "spook" anyone or make them feel threatened by this arsenal and to convey that it is strictly of a defensive nature by means of deterrence.
10 September 2013, 15:32
10
Regarding the "bullying" that you mentioned; I can understand why you might perceive it as such, but i must ask you to humor me for a second and consider it from our perspective. Since even before the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948, we have had to face numerous large-scale attempts to drive us into the sea by people who have proven to be incredibly motivated to exterminate us (this, of course is a scary reality). Now, as the years have passed, military technology has advanced in such a way that it has changed way that wars are fought; today, it is much easier to inflict a lot of damage and conquer large amounts land than it used to be. Because Israel (like Lebanon) is small in size, this type of warfare makes defending against an effective offensive attack very difficult. As a result of this, it was decided that the only way to ensure our security was by adopting the practice of defense through offence.
10 September 2013, 15:32
01
Taking these preventative measures to stop Iraq and Syria from developing nuclear weapons has made the difference between life and death for us. It also has prevented the larger scale conflicts that may have happened otherwise. We are not a violent people by nature, and to not enjoy causing destruction, but unfortunately we have had to choose the best of the bad options. Hopefully the future will be different
10 September 2013, 15:40
00
By the way, the events in Syria prove that it was wise to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons... I wish we would have also prevented them from acquiring the chemical weapons; it would have saved many lives.
