PDA

View Full Version : Iran Nukes No Threat: Israel FM


Thunder
25th October 2007, 09:17 AM
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html

Honestly, if the FM of Israel is saying this, we need to reevaluate the supposed threat from Iran.

Ziggurat
25th October 2007, 09:39 AM
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html

Honestly, if the FM of Israel is saying this, we need to reevaluate the supposed threat from Iran.

Funny, but if you read the article, the text doesn't actually match the headline (something I've seen quite often in news reports). The text says, "Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel" (bolding mine). Does that mean that they pose "little threat to Israel", as the headline claims? No, it really doesn't. On Sept. 10, 2001, did Al Qaeda pose an existential threat to the US? No. But did it pose a real and significant threat? Hell yes.

fuelair
25th October 2007, 09:55 AM
existential is an interesting word in that circumstance. I would more normally use it as
"Wow, I just had an existential moment,there!".

I do agree, my concern would be real/substantial threats rather than philosophical ones (which seem to concern her).

corplinx
25th October 2007, 10:03 AM
Headline doesn't match the story? Man, the press is becoming more like slashdot every day.

Ziggurat
25th October 2007, 10:19 AM
I do agree, my concern would be real/substantial threats rather than philosophical ones (which seem to concern her).

That's not what the term means in context. An existential threat means a threat to the very existence of whatever you're talking about. And that meaning preceeded the philosophy school of that name.

Cleon
25th October 2007, 10:20 AM
Funny, but if you read the article, the text doesn't actually match the headline (something I've seen quite often in news reports). The text says, "Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel" (bolding mine). Does that mean that they pose "little threat to Israel", as the headline claims? No, it really doesn't. On Sept. 10, 2001, did Al Qaeda pose an existential threat to the US? No. But did it pose a real and significant threat? Hell yes.

Word-parsing a translated summary of a series of discussions that were not conducted in English is probably not the best way to make your case.

Ziggurat
25th October 2007, 10:25 AM
Word-parsing a translated summary of a series of discussions that were not conducted in English is probably not the best way to make your case.

Maybe not the best way for Parky to make his case either, but that's essentially what he did too. He just spent less effort on it, because he accepted the parsing of whoever wrote the headline.

Cleon
25th October 2007, 11:05 AM
Maybe not the best way for Parky to make his case either, but that's essentially what he did too. He just spent less effort on it, because he accepted the parsing of whoever wrote the headline.

To a lesser extent. He's basing his statement on the overall content of the article, and you are focusing on a single word (a word, mind you, that was put there by the journalist, and not by Livni).

Of course, the other angle is that this is the Foreign Ministry--the equivalent of the US State Department. Their main concern is foreign relations, not military security, intelligence, or what have you. It is significant if they don't feel Iran is a major threat (whatever you get out of "existential"), but that may or may not be the feeling of the Israeli government as a whole.

Oliver
25th October 2007, 03:49 PM
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html

Honestly, if the FM of Israel is saying this, we need to reevaluate the supposed threat from Iran.


The list of people who think the Bush Administration is a bunch
of crazy [fill in the blank] is getting longer and longer...

- Israeli Foreign Minister: Iran Nukes Do Not Pose Threat to Israel (http://irancoverage.com/2007/10/25/israeli-foreign-minister-iran-nukes-do-not-pose-threat-to-israel/)
- Powell urges talks between US, Iran (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=28555&sectionid=351020101)
- Hans Blix, Former Weapons Inspector (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071024/blix_nuclear_071024/20071024?hub=World)
- German parties blast Bush remarks (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=27728&sectionid=351020604)
- Putin rejects using force against Iran (http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13374&Itemid=86)
- Putin: No saber-rattling over Iran (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=28596&sectionid=351020104)
- Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=28593&sectionid=351020104)
- (http://irancoverage.com/2007/10/22/new-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-rejects-pro-war-stance-toward-iran/)N (http://irancoverage.com/2007/10/22/new-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-rejects-pro-war-stance-toward-iran/)ew Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Rejects Pro-War Stance Toward Iran (http://irancoverage.com/2007/10/22/new-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-rejects-pro-war-stance-toward-iran/)
- IAEA chief: No psywar on Iran (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=28145&sectionid=351020104)
- Hersh: No support for Bush against Iran (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=25394&sectionid=351020202)

Oh, and then there is this idiot: :D

Fox News Sunday: William “The Bloody” Kristol’s Bloodlust for War with Iran (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/21/fox-news-sunday-william-the-bloody-kristols-bloodlust-for-war-with-iran/)

Puppycow
25th October 2007, 11:38 PM
Without getting into the article's substance, I thought the following juxtaposition was curious:
Related articles:

# Livni: Iranian nuclear weapons pose little threat to Israel
# Livni: Iran poses greatest threat to world's values

Of course, these are merely headlines, but they look strange together.

FWIW, there is a big difference between "little threat" and "not an existential threat."

egslim
26th October 2007, 03:08 AM
The text says, "Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel" (bolding mine). Does that mean that they pose "little threat to Israel", as the headline claims? No, it really doesn't. On Sept. 10, 2001, did Al Qaeda pose an existential threat to the US? No. But did it pose a real and significant threat? Hell yes.
How can nuclear weapons pose any other threat than an existential one to a small country like Israel? Either they would pose no threat at all, or the threat has to be existential. By discounting the latter Livni automatically indicates she believes the former.

geggy
26th October 2007, 03:11 AM
Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A15

Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."

Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.

Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

you can also chdeck out the timelime of US's confrontation with Iran here

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_plans_to_use_military_for ce_against_iran&iran_general_topic_areas=us_force_against_iran_nuc lear