Isreal has cost US 1.6 TRILLION so far....

[Holtzman]

Did you guys know that Israel recently created a computer that calculates data at the speed of light? Link Dress thy links! So i think that our money is getting some use after all.

[Vympel]

Actually, American troops have studied Israeli techniques in the past; urban combat in Baghdad was to be based on the IDF model. Not to mention that while Israeli troops do carry M16s into combat in the Gaza Strip, collaboration is mostly in the realm of missile technology. Many of our air-defense projects get a significant monetary boost in the form of Israeli advocacy or cooperation.

Not really.

American air-defense projects:

Airborne Laser: No Israeli 'advocacy or cooperation'

MEADS: No Israeli 'advocacy or cooperation' (German/Italian/American)

MTHEL: Israeli advocacy and cooperation

THAAD: No Israel advocacy or cooperation

Israel's Arrow system: of it's $500 million cost, $300 million is paid for by Israel and $200 million is paid for by the US (other sources say the US paid for 60% of the cost). Funding for a third battery (2 batteries currently deployed) was approved for by US Congress, who put up $81.6 million of it's $170 million cost. No plans for US deployment. US technology also key. A purely for the benefit of Israel system. Minor benefits to the US is primarily test data (I'm sure the US can do that with THAAD without forking out several hundred million for Israel's defense)- though benefits are dubious; THAAD and Arrow are different systems with different concepts and methods:

1. THAAD is lightweight/deployable, Arrow is semi-fixed/permanent
2. THAAD is hit-to-kill, Arrow isn't.
3. THAAD and Arrow do share the same seeker however.

Furthermore, US air defense projects could very well get a direct boost if several billion weren't going to Israel each year.

[AniThyng]

Leaving Israel would not stop suicide bombings against American targets.

without american military bases in the MidEast and overt and covert military and economic aid and tacit support for isreali policies, the groundswell of ordinary support for terror groups will diminish to the hard-core fanatics, at the moment you can barely summon any sincere support for america even amoung the western educated upper classes of the arab world. and considering the rank hypocrisy and lies your administration used to launch that Iraq war, i can't blame them.

[Sea Skimmer]

without american military bases in the MidEast and overt and covert military and economic aid and tacit support for isreali policies,

Your point is what exactly? In your first sentence you bring up an unrelated issue.

[Xenophobe3691]

without american military bases in the MidEast and overt and covert military and economic aid and tacit support for isreali policies,

FYI, the bases that pissed off Bin-Laden were placed in Saudi Arabia at the request of the House of Saud against any Iraqi aggression in the Gulf War. Not to mention that it has nothing to do with the topic at all...

[Axis Kast]

Israel's Arrow system: of it's $500 million cost, $300 million is paid for by Israel and $200 million is paid for by the US (other sources say the US paid for 60% of the cost). Funding for a third battery (2 batteries currently deployed) was approved for by US Congress, who put up $81.6 million of it's $170 million cost. No plans for US deployment. US technology also key. A purely for the benefit of Israel system. Minor benefits to the US is primarily test data (I'm sure the US can do that with THAAD without forking out several hundred million for Israel's defense)- though benefits are dubious; THAAD and Arrow are different systems with different concepts and methods:

Israel shares data with the US Army on the matter of the Arrow's success. It's a system we can always fall back on if others don't pan out. It's a collaborative effort despite fulfilling Israeli strategic defense requirements.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/arrwast5.html

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

If we assume the costs of our aid is half what the article estimated then we still get a whopping 800 BILLION dollars. Thats approximatley 133 Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers... is anyone seriosuly going to agrue that Isreals contriburtion during the cold war, to the present outweigh that? Think about all the things that could have been done DOMESTICALLY with that money, how many years of free college for every student in the nation would that amount to?

[StimNeuro]

If we assume the costs of our aid is half what the article estimated then we still get a whopping 800 BILLION dollars. Thats approximatley 133 Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers... is anyone seriosuly going to agrue that Isreals contriburtion during the cold war, to the present outweigh that? Think about all the things that could have been done DOMESTICALLY with that money, how many years of free college for every student in the nation would that amount to?

Did you include the cost of training crewmen for both the Carriers and the aircraft, the aircraft themselves, the munitions and fuel for the aircraft, the supplies for the crewmen, and the cost of maintenance for both the Carriers and aircraft in your calculations? That's alot less than 133 Carriers there.

[Joe]

without american military bases in the MidEast and overt and covert military and economic aid and tacit support for isreali policies, the groundswell of ordinary support for terror groups will diminish to the hard-core fanatics,

That would just be taken as evidence of our weakness.

And do the Arab governments think this incessant "itz the j00z!!!!" routine is just going to be a permanent explanation for all their problems?

[Axis Kast]

If we assume the costs of our aid is half what the article estimated then we still get a whopping 800 BILLION dollars. Thats approximatley 133 Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers... is anyone seriosuly going to agrue that Isreals contriburtion during the cold war, to the present outweigh that? Think about all the things that could have been done DOMESTICALLY with that money, how many years of free college for every student in the nation would that amount to?

Could $800 billion have financed victories for the West in '56, '67, and '73? Israel did a number on multiple Soviet allies each and every time - to the point that it discredited Moscow's assistance in some of the most important government halls of the Middle East (namely those of Egypt).

Could the remainder of that $800 billion have then gone on to cover the creation of a second, stable nuclear front agaisnt the Soviet Union beyond the possibility of submarine threat?

Could $800 billion have brought about the confluence of happy events that resulted in the '82 destruction of Osirak?

[Vympel]

Could $800 billion have financed victories for the West in '56, '67, and '73?

Victories for Israel you mean.

Israel did a number on multiple Soviet allies each and every time - to the point that it discredited Moscow's assistance in some of the most important government halls of the Middle East (namely those of Egypt).

I find you have a habit of effortlessly conflating advantages/victories for Israel with those of the West. I fail to see how billions of dollars were worth getting Egypt to do ... what, exactly?

Could the remainder of that $800 billion have then gone on to cover the creation of a second, stable nuclear front agaisnt the Soviet Union beyond the possibility of submarine threat?

?

Could $800 billion have brought about the confluence of happy events that resulted in the '82 destruction of Osirak?

That would be 'happy events' if the bombign raid on that research reactor hadn't started Iraq's nuclear push in earnest. Osirak was unsuitable for producing nuclear weapons.

The Lessons of Osirak
Richard Wilson, Harvard University, January 1, 2003

On Dec. 19 GNN ran an article about a relatively unknown former Iraqi atomic weapons scientist named Imad Khadduri ("In Search of Saddam's Bomb," A. Lappé). Khadduri, who currently lives in Canada, claims Saddam's push for the bomb began in earnest after the Israeli raid on Osirak, a French-made nuclear reactor the Israelis claimed Iraq could use to build a nuclear weapon. Here Harvard professor Richard Wilson, who visited the reactor after the attack, confirms much of Khadduri's acount of that incident and the effects it had on Saddam's atomic strategy. "Preemption," Wilson argues, is a dangerous game:

Preemption may be right sometimes: But it was wrong with OSIRAK

The world faces unprecedented threats from terrorism. If they involve weapons of mass destruction many persons argue that we cannot wait until there is a specific threat but must consider preemptive strikes. But we must be careful. Non-technical commentators often start with technically incorrect premises, and build up a case for preemptive strikes that is as dangerous as it is incorrect.

Nicholas Kristof in an op-ed article in The New York Times on November 15th 2002 stated, without proof, or even argument, that if Israel had not bombed the OSIRAK reactor in 1981 Iraq would have gained nuclear weapons in the 1980s.

There is a lot of evidence against this statement. French nuclear reactor engineer, the late Yves Girard, was aware of the carelessness of the Canadians in supplying a heavy water reactor to India, and the French in selling the DIMONA reactor to Israel without insisting on any international safeguards to prevent military use. In 1975 Girard refused to help to supply a heavy water moderated reactor to Iraq. Instead the reactor, OSIRAK, was moderated by light water, and therefore deliberately unsuited to making plutonium for bombs. IAEA safeguards promised regular inspections and French technicians were to be present for 5 or 10 years following initial operation but they left immediately after the bombing. It would not have been possible for them to make an undetected conversion or to misuse the fuel supplied.

Yet in May 1981 the Israeli Air Force bombed the OSIRAK reactor. The Chairman of the Board of Governors of IAEA, the late Bertrand Goldschmidt, was livid (as were many other experts). While as a Jew he had especial sympathy with Israel, he was concerned that Israel had attacked the attempts by the world, with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to control the genie which was let out of the bottle in 1945. I visited the nuclear research reactor in Iraq on December 29 1982 and visually inspected the reactor (which had been only partially damaged) and its surrounding equipment. To collect enough plutonium using OSIRAK would have taken decades not years. The day after the bombing, the Israeli Prime Minister Begin incorrectly described OSIRAK. His description did match the Israeli DIMONA reactor.

The fast track for bomb development began in July 1981, after the bombing.

Until 1991 IAEA only inspected facilities declared to it and the reports were not public. I had no such constraints and visited every building in the research center complex as described in an article I wrote in Nature in March 1983. The bombing made most Iraqis furious. They had followed international rules and yet were bombed by a country which allowed no inspections. If Israel thought that an Iraqi bomb was that important, why not make one? Documents that I saw in 1991 suggest the fast track for bomb development began in July 1981, after the bombing. The preemptive strike seemed to have the opposite effect to that intended. Worse still, Israeli and U.S. intelligence deluded themselves into thinking that the threat of Iraqi bomb making was over. I had hoped, in vain, that my visit would be a start of openness on the part of Iraq and engagement by the U.S. Alas, no other foreign scientists visited the Iraqi nuclear research center with their eyes and ears open. The U.S. State Department rejected the possibility of engaging technical Iraqis. Iraq went ahead to build facilities in locations which appeared to be unknown to U.S. intelligence sources. The Iraqi program became known in 1991, and various experts wrote about it in the Israeli journal "New Outlook." The general consensus was that the Israeli air force had bombed the wrong facility.

North Korea also wants to be taken seriously by the world. Like other nations before them, they seem to feel that having the capability to make a bomb is a means to this end. We should certainly NOT consider a preemptive strike such as that against OSIRAK. Instead our task is to encourage North Korea to go the peaceful route taken by its neighbors, South Korea and Japan. Japan, the sufferer from the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, has especial credibility. The USA, the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons, and by calling North Korea part of an axis of evil almost invites them to make bombs, must tread warily. But the issue is so serious that the UN must leave no doubt that the world will not tolerate further proliferation. I suggest that urging an open society is a better alternative than saying that we, the strongest nation, have a right to make a preemptive strike against any nation a technically uninformed leader might choose for economic or other reasons.

Richard Wilson is Mallinckrodt Research Professor of Physics at Harvard University.

[Axis Kast]

Victories for Israel you mean.

A victory for Israel was direct advertisement of the value of American friendship.

The stunning military fiascos into which the Soviet client states continually blundered at the hands of men such as Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon, and Yhitzak Rabin again and again depreciated Soviet promises and institutions.

find you have a habit of effortlessly conflating advantages/victories for Israel with those of the West. I fail to see how billions of dollars were worth getting Egypt to do ... what, exactly?

And I find you’ve a healthy habit of ignoring the residual benefits of victory for American proxies – which is really the role Israel fulfilled during the Cold War.

Egypt eventually abandoned the Soviet Union and turned to the United States; considering their close ties with Syria and Jordan, that was no small decision.

?

Israel’s nuclear arsenal was within range of the Caucasus. As an American ally, Israel represented for the Soviet Union a nuclear liability to that front. It was also a target very difficult to neutralize, for neither conventional nor nuclear assaults (one sure to be blunted by the IDF, the other too likely to have negative fallout – both literally and figuratively – in the Arab region) were very easy or attractive counter-options.

That would be 'happy events' if the bombign raid on that research reactor hadn't started Iraq's nuclear push in earnest. Osirak was unsuitable for producing nuclear weapons.

And your argument is the same as his? That is to say, you push the argument that Saddam Hussein would never have become interested in pursuing military applications for nuclear energy had Osirak been left untouched? That a man in charge of a regime with known interest in biological and chemical weapons would have steered clear from an atomic weapons program albeit the presence of a valuable experience-building tool such as Osirak? No. I don’t buy that. The place might not have fit Israeli descriptions, but they sure as hell were right on the mark about Saddam’s long-term ambitions.

[Vympel]

A victory for Israel was direct advertisement of the value of American friendship.

The stunning military fiascos into which the Soviet client states continually blundered at the hands of men such as Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon, and Yhitzak Rabin again and again depreciated Soviet promises and institutions.

Because Egypt 'defected'? That's your big example? That's the big benefit?

And I find you?ve a healthy habit of ignoring the residual benefits of victory for American proxies ? which is really the role Israel fulfilled during the Cold War.

Egypt eventually abandoned the Soviet Union and turned to the United States; considering their close ties with Syria and Jordan, that was no small decision.

So what? A bunch of incompetent Arabs choose to blame their ineptitude on the Soviets and instead throw in their lot with America, and that's supposed to be worth billions of dollars per year? What benefit did it provide to the United States? Fuck all.

Israel's nuclear arsenal was within range of the Caucasus. As an American ally, Israel represented for the Soviet Union a nuclear liability to that front. It was also a target very difficult to neutralize, for neither conventional nor nuclear assaults (one sure to be blunted by the IDF, the other too likely to have negative fallout both literally and figuratively in the Arab region) were very easy or attractive counter-options.

Complete bullshit. The Jericho 2 is the only missile capable of making this true, and it entered service in 1990- by which time it was quite irrelevant. Furthermore, I'd say the Arabs would've applauded it's annihilation at Soviet hands- to suggest that the USSR would'nt strike back from an Israeli nuclear attack because of literal/figurative fallout is absurd- by the time you're talking about nuclear release, noone gives a fuck about either.

And your argument is the same as his? That is to say, you push the argument that Saddam Hussein would never have become interested in pursuing military applications for nuclear energy had Osirak been left untouched?

Osirak meant precisely dick to it either way. Some 'happy event', considering it had no effect whatsoever and if anything served to accelerate the pursuit of those weapons.

[Stravo]

Considering the beauty that is Isaraeli women, I can honestly say that whatever we're paying them its worth it just to have them come over for a visit. I have never seen a country that seems to have per capita the HOTTEST women on the face of the planet.

[Trytostaydead]

Considering the beauty that is Isaraeli women, I can honestly say that whatever we're paying them its worth it just to have them come over for a visit. I have never seen a country that seems to have per capita the HOTTEST women on the face of the planet.

What? Who said Natalie Portman?

[Vympel]

What? Who said Natalie Portman?

The habit of Jewish actors/actresses anglicising their names really gets to me.

[Axis Kast]

Because Egypt 'defected'? That's your big example? That's the big benefit?

It’s certainly one of them. Or would you rather Carter have made his 1982 declaration of national security interests while referring to an area of Soviet influence even more deeply-entrenched than was historically the case?

So what? A bunch of incompetent Arabs choose to blame their ineptitude on the Soviets and instead throw in their lot with America, and that's supposed to be worth billions of dollars per year? What benefit did it provide to the United States? Fuck all.

In the context of the Cold War battle for global influence and ideological mastery, I’d say that money was very well spent.

Complete bullshit. The Jericho 2 is the only missile capable of making this true, and it entered service in 1990- by which time it was quite irrelevant. Furthermore, I'd say the Arabs would've applauded it's annihilation at Soviet hands- to suggest that the USSR would'nt strike back from an Israeli nuclear attack because of literal/figurative fallout is absurd- by the time you're talking about nuclear release, noone gives a fuck about either.

Complete bullshit. The missile was first being tested as early as 1987, which is to say that the Soviet Union of the Reagan era was forced to consider Israel’s emergence as an American ally onto the nuclear playing field. Their contribution might have been limited in duration, but was certainly a major concern for Moscow nonetheless.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/mi ... icho-2.htm

No, I'm saying Osirak meant precisely dick to it either way.

Then the article is incorrect in its main point: Saddam Hussein’s search for nuclear arms was not the result of Osirak's destruction. All that leaves us with is to downgrade the Israeli response from "vital" to "useful". Hardly terrible.

[Vympel]

It?s certainly one of them. Or would you rather Carter have made his 1982 declaration of national security interests while referring to an area of Soviet influence even more deeply-entrenched than was historically the case?

*gasp!* Carter would've been declaring national security interest in a region with one extra country in the Soviet bloc! The horror!

In the context of the Cold War battle for global influence and ideological mastery, I?d say that money was very well spent.

$1.6 trillion so one nation can move over to the 'good guys' by virtue of military defeat at the hands of Israel, and you can provide no evidence other than fart-arse rhetoric about "Cold War battle for global influence ...". You can provide no concrete benefits worth the price, can you?

Complete bullshit. The missile was first being tested as early as 1987

Oh, AS EARLY as 1987 ... *roll eyes* well that certainly puts into perspective the massive commitment. Here's a clue: a test flight does not equal in service/part of the strategic balance in any way, shape, or form.

which is to say that the Soviet Union of the Reagan era was forced to consider Israel?s emergence as an American ally onto the nuclear playing field. Their contribution might have been limited in duration, but was certainly a major concern for Moscow nonetheless.

To reiterate, your assertion that Moscow would have compunctions about nuking Israel is ludicrous, not to mention a few handful of unimpressive missiles capable of hitting the Caucusus is hardly a 'major concern' worth the price of several trillion dollars of aid. For that money, you could build many more nukes yourself to point at the Caucasus.

Then the article is incorrect in its main point: Saddam Hussein?s search for nuclear arms was not the result of Osirak's destruction.

Sorry, you have to show that.

All that leaves us with is to downgrade the Israeli response from "vital" to "useful". Hardly terrible.

What 'use' did anyone get out of blowing up a light water reactor of no suitability to make a nuclear weapon in any appreciable amount of time? This is not about whether something is 'hardly terrible', it's about whether the obsence amount of money thrown at Israel was worth it, and it wasn't.

[Axis Kast]

*gasp!* Carter would've been declaring national security interest in a region with one extra country in the Soviet bloc! The horror!

Without American support, Israel would have been crushed. Moscow's influence would have won the day. We would be locked out from the Middle East.

$1.6 trillion so one nation can move over to the 'good guys' by virtue of military defeat at the hands of Israel, and you can provide no evidence other than fart-arse rhetoric about "Cold War battle for global influence ...". You can provide no concrete benefits worth the price, can you?

See above. And, as Sea Skimmer said, that number itself is jack and crap.

Oh, AS EARLY as 1987 ... *roll eyes* well that certainly puts into perspective the massive commitment. Here's a clue: a test flight does not equal in service/part of the strategic balance in any way, shape, or form.

Here's a clue: the moment a nation test fires a missile with 850km range and the potential to carry nuclear warheads, the Soviet Union needs to begin rethinking original threat assessments and preparing contingencies.

To reiterate, your assertion that Moscow would have compunctions about nuking Israel is ludicrous, not to mention a few handful of unimpressive missiles capable of hitting the Caucusus is hardly a 'major concern' worth the price of several trillion dollars of aid. For that money, you could build many more nukes yourself to point at the Caucasus.

Many Arab nations would have welcomed fallout?

I never made the assertion that Moscow wouldn't respond with nuclear weapons to an Israeli launch; it's that a preemptive strike would have been much more unlikely.

The Caucasus were a bastion of Soviet oil production.

Sorry, you have to show that.

All the author of your article does is say: "Look! Saddam built weapons after this period! Obviously, the two must have been connected!" That doesn't quite flow when the man sought other forms of WMD anyway.

What 'use' did anyone get out of blowing up a light water reactor of no suitability to make a nuclear weapon in any appreciable amount of time? This is not about whether something is 'hardly terrible', it's about whether the obsence amount of money thrown at Israel was worth it, and it wasn't.

We didn't need to entertain Iraq's acquiring that kind of expertise if we could help it.

And that money was worth it, considering the Middle East was a battleground not destined for the same fate as Southeast Asia.

[Vympel]

Without American support, Israel would have been crushed.

That depends on when you're talking about. If America were to cease supporting Israel at any point in the 1980s/90s, there wouldn't be any 'crushing' going on.

Moscow's influence would have won the day. We would be locked out from the Middle East.

"Locked out" how? You must define your argument. Moscow benefitted little from it's coterie of Middle Eastern allies- their utility was a negative quantity. Egypt or no Egypt would've had zero effect on the outcome of the Cold War. I also suggest you look at the countries in the Middle East and realize, firstly, none of them particularly liked Israel in the first place, and with that fact in mind, you should ask yourself a chicken and the egg question: if the US hadn't had supported Israel, what would've been the Arab states view of the US, and what need would they have to go to crying to Moscow for?

See above. And, as Sea Skimmer said, that number itself is jack and crap.

Minor quibbles on what cost what and when/why does not= jack and crap I'm afraid. And when it comes to cost, I'll trust an economist, thanks.

Here's a clue: the moment a nation test fires a missile with 850km range and the potential to carry nuclear warheads, the Soviet Union needs to begin rethinking original threat assessments and preparing contingencies.

Oh shock horror! I'm sure they were scrambling to scrounge together the amount of warheads it would've required to remove Israel as a Middle East power. That's if you can even establish that it was Israel's aim to hit the USSR in the first place- rather than say, Iran. Certainly worth the money so they could test some firecracker in 1987 ...

Many Arab nations would have welcomed fallout?

To see Israel destroyed? I'd bet on it. Also, please inform me why the USSR would give a fuck about what the Arab nations think about fallout in the first place if Israel was ever stupid enough to launch it's firecrackers at the Caucasus.

I never made the assertion that Moscow wouldn't respond with nuclear weapons to an Israeli launch; it's that a preemptive strike would have been much more unlikely.

Pre-emptive strike against who? Moscow would have precisely zero interest in a pre-emptive strike against Israel in the first place.

The Caucasus were a bastion of Soviet oil production.

That fact leaves them quite open to targeting by the USA. The strategic situation changes by precisely zero.

All the author of your article does is say: "Look! Saddam built weapons after this period! Obviously, the two must have been connected!" That doesn't quite flow when the man sought other forms of WMD anyway.

Actually, he says more than that: "Documents that I saw in 1991 suggest the fast track for bomb development began in July 1981, after the bombing. The preemptive strike seemed to have the opposite effect to that intended. Worse still, Israeli and U.S. intelligence deluded themselves into thinking that the threat of Iraqi bomb making was over."

Read more carefully next time. Your obsession with a tangent is irrelevant. The bombing of Osirak did nothing, practically speaking, irrespective of Saddam's debatable intentions.

We didn't need to entertain Iraq's acquiring that kind of expertise if we could help it.

Funny, that was not the USA's opinion whatsoeover. Conflating Israel and the USA again? Or did you forget the considerable amount of aid the USA offered Saddam?

And that money was worth it, considering the Middle East was a battleground not destined for the same fate as Southeast Asia.

What?

[Ace Pace]

And do you realize that the Soviet Union supported the creation of Israel right off the bat, and that it took a concerted effort by the Zionist lobby in America to get the US to support the resolution? May Day was a national holiday (Not sure if it still is, I'll have to look) till pretty recently. The Israeli labor Unions, the Histadrut, hold ENORMOUS political power, in fact, the Labor party is one of the largest parties (If not the largest) in Israel.

Some little information about Iaraeli politics, the Histadrut, isn't a party, its a workers union, the party you are refering to is actully Labour, which is down to a weak 3rd place, losing to extream right Likud and and Atheistic Shinoi (Change) , which isn't helping the peace process 1 bit, since now with only labour in his cabinet and totaly unneccesery to Sharon's dominence, he can do whatever he wants with no fear. As a side note to those who arn't looking well on Israel's religious parties, they took a blow, and are out of the show mostly.

[Ace Pace]

Considering the beauty that is Isaraeli women, I can honestly say that whatever we're paying them its worth it just to have them come over for a visit. I have never seen a country that seems to have per capita the HOTTEST women on the face of the planet.

For the gays, don't forget some of the hottest guys in the world (check out some of our models).

*spam*
It's real fun to not need to import these girls, every single Israeli girl I know is a slut, exept for a few.


*searchs for Digital Camera*

[Xenophobe3691]

Some little information about Iaraeli politics, the Histadrut, isn't a party, its a workers union, the party you are refering to is actully Labour, which is down to a weak 3rd place, losing to extream right Likud and and Atheistic Shinoi (Change) , which isn't helping the peace process 1 bit, since now with only labour in his cabinet and totaly unneccesery to Sharon's dominence, he can do whatever he wants with no fear. As a side note to those who arn't looking well on Israel's religious parties, they took a blow, and are out of the show mostly.

My bad, my grasp on Israeli politics is a bit tenuous, I was just trying to point out that the Histadrut do have quite a bit of their own say in the Political process.

[Sea Skimmer]

That would be 'happy events' if the bombign raid on that research reactor hadn't started Iraq's nuclear push in earnest. Osirak was unsuitable for producing nuclear weapons.

Interestingly North Korea's reactor, which is much smaller then Osirak, was also supplied by the Soviets as a light water plant that couldn't produce nuclear material. That's worked out really well for the world..

[Axis Kast]

That depends on when you're talking about. If America were to cease supporting Israel at any point in the 1980s/90s, there wouldn't be any 'crushing' going on.

So now it’s selective assistance? I think not. Your argument is – and has been – that they’ve provided us with no meaningful assistance throughout the whole time of their incorporation.

"Locked out" how? You must define your argument. Moscow benefitted little from it's coterie of Middle Eastern allies- their utility was a negative quantity. Egypt or no Egypt would've had zero effect on the outcome of the Cold War. I also suggest you look at the countries in the Middle East and realize, firstly, none of them particularly liked Israel in the first place, and with that fact in mind, you should ask yourself a chicken and the egg question: if the US hadn't had supported Israel, what would've been the Arab states view of the US, and what need would they have to go to crying to Moscow for?

The United States was ever lumped with the British, themselves much reviled throughout the region. As has already been made clear, the Soviets supported the creation of Israel themselves; it didn’t exactly tarnish their image irreparably. The realm problem lies in that Washington, London, and Paris left a huge Western footprint on the Middle East even before the Cold War, which gave Moscow a perfect handful of potential partners ready and willing to listen to dissenting voices.

Minor quibbles on what cost what and when/why does not= jack and crap I'm afraid. And when it comes to cost, I'll trust an economist, thanks.

Oh, but as you so enjoy pointing out, such people can be very wrong. The figures of $1.6 trillion is arbitrary at best – especially considering that this particular critic took it upon himself to determine the potential gain of what might have been. Has he also calculated the exchange in defense technologies from the United States to Israel, on payment? Or the value of Israeli intelligence passed to Washington over the years? How about the IT-sector jobs in the United States at times supported by cooperation on Israeli programs?

Oh shock horror! I'm sure they were scrambling to scrounge together the amount of warheads it would've required to remove Israel as a Middle East power. That's if you can even establish that it was Israel's aim to hit the USSR in the first place- rather than say, Iran. Certainly worth the money so they could test some firecracker in 1987 ...

It’s a new front with more complications than another American base would carry. It’s also much closer.

To see Israel destroyed? I'd bet on it. Also, please inform me why the USSR would give a fuck about what the Arab nations think about fallout in the first place if Israel was ever stupid enough to launch it's firecrackers at the Caucasus.

It’s that Israel wasn’t as likely to fall to a first-strike as the United States.

Pre-emptive strike against who? Moscow would have precisely zero interest in a pre-emptive strike against Israel in the first place.

And yet we both spent years jockeying so as to be able to do so with one another.

That fact leaves them quite open to targeting by the USA. The strategic situation changes by precisely zero.

Israeli missiles are closer.

Actually, he says more than that: "Documents that I saw in 1991 suggest the fast track for bomb development began in July 1981, after the bombing. The preemptive strike seemed to have the opposite effect to that intended. Worse still, Israeli and U.S. intelligence deluded themselves into thinking that the threat of Iraqi bomb making was over."

Read more carefully next time. Your obsession with a tangent is irrelevant. The bombing of Osirak did nothing, practically speaking, irrespective of Saddam's debatable intentions.

You’ve just reiterated the argument. “Because Saddam sought weapons after Osirak, the destruction of that site must have been what set him off.” Bullshit. The man sought chemical and biological arms as well. I ask again: is it that you believe Osirak’s destruction specifically – and singularly - drove Saddam to develop atomic weapons?

Funny, that was not the USA's opinion whatsoeover. Conflating Israel and the USA again? Or did you forget the considerable amount of aid the USA offered Saddam?

The U.S. wanted the Iraqis to obtain experience with nuclear technologies?

What?

It’s called the “domino theory,” and it played out after Vietnam in countries such as Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and much of the older British and Dutch possessions outside Singapore and India in that part of the world.