No, I’m saying that Israel had a reactor at the time the Symington Amendment, so aid to Israel wouldn’t be affected by the amendment, which restricted aid to states that developed/imported weapons processing equipment after August of 1977. (and, for the record, Pakistan didn’t develop its reactor on its own. It had Chinese aid, and also had a contract with France to operate a reprocessing facility at Chashma)
And I don’t think I’m assuming facts not in evidence concerning dates. It’s known that the French built a reactor and a nuclear reprocessing plant for Israel in 1957 in Dimona, and that it went into operation in 1964. Here’s a timeline of the Israeli nuclear development program, and an estimate of Israel’s nuclear stockpile.
(and I think that’s the Symington Amendment, as it exists now, even though it’s currently not under section 101. There’s currently no section 101 of title 22, and the section I quoted does seem to say what the amendment said. I’ll also point out that the aid cutoff isn’t automatic. The President has to “determine” that the country is in violation. So, as long as he doesn’t do that, aid isn’t illegal)
Yes, it’s a bit tricky to work out the actual law in it’s current state.
From what I recall Israel is strictly speaking ineligible to receive the discussed aid. A Clinton era interview and expose.
However Cpt A beat me to it, in that there needs to be a formal finding or declaration that Israel does in fact, either possess nuclear weapons/reactor or does so while not being a signatory to the NPT. I don’t quite believe there has to be a finding of breach, as such.
So long as the US is formally undecided on the existence of Israeli Nukes, there is no work for the prohibition. SimonX said this too.
No, it’s really not. Having nukes doesn’t make a country ineligible to receive aid. Developing nukes makes a country ineligible to receive aid, and Israel developed nukes before the aid restrictions came into place.
As a matter of fact, yes. No cite, but I’ve studied Israel’s history and I’ve heard some Palestinians interviewed on All Things Considered, and it appears that from the beginning there has been a minority strain in Palestinian political thought that has always wanted a united, secular democratic state of Palestine, with Jews and Muslims living together and sharing power. And in my view that would be preferable to a two-state solution. Especially as it would almost certainly put an end to Israel as a Jewish state in the religious sense, as distinct from the national sense. Really, why is a state like Iran, governed by mullahs, any less of an abomination to the modern world than a state like Israel, where rabbis play a prescriptive role in the government? A two-state solution, on the other hand, would leave things in Israel as they are now – while relegating the Palestinians to an isolated microstate that, even if nominally independent, would not be economically viable.
Is it? Right next door is Jordan – a constitutional monarchy with a two-house parliament. The upper house is appointed by the king, but the lower house is elected – and by free and fair elections, at least in recent decades.
I know I’m a little late in the thread to respond to this point, but I just thought I’d chime in. On the random assertion that Israel is Marxist: It’s not, obviously. It’s essentially a democracy. But it DOES have socialized medicine, among other things. Try getting an appointment to have a doctor write you a prescription for flu medication; you’ll stand in line for hours because of the socialized system. So some aspects of Iraeli life ARE socialized, event though the country is democratic.
Hours for a flu shot? maybe during flu season, when half the country decides it wants to get innoculated. I don’t know where you live, but most of the medical treatment I’ve needed here has been fast and efficient (if less than polite). If what you need is actually important, and you’re not just being a nudnik, then you’ll get the best treatment in the world.
The longest wait I’ve ever had for treatment - by a factor of at least two hours - was, in fact, in a New York hospital.
Well, a country can be democratic but that doesn’t really mean anything.
Democracy as perceived by the United States is generally a friendly, good thing to have, but that is not so. If the populace of a nation collectively decides to trash that of another, than no it is not a necessarily good things.
Not all democracies are friendly, good governments. There can be friendlier communist nations. Democracy is a form of government but should not be the only one. The Israeli state can declare itself a democracy, however, not all opinions are represented. If there happens to be more members of the likud party in the knesset, then thats the way the country is going to be run. And this can be likened to a dictatorship, that the ideas of one particular political group is represented. While other groups may vote, they may vote for the same thing but different reasons, and thus end up voting for something that has had a different outcome than they had anticipated.
The United States went to war in Iraq. Not everyone was for the war. Where the ideas of the people who were against the war represented? No. Everyone in congress (with exception of few) voted for it because they did not want to have a war that was being fought and debated at the same time. They wanted to support the troops, therefore both democrats and the republicans voted for it. Those who were against the war were spoken ill of, were called unpatriotic. So when the President of the United States decided to invade Iraq, essentially our democracy has transgressed into a dictatorship, it was hijacked to represent the ideas of a few. He somehow had it in his power to have it his way, and no one was able to stop him… Same situation with Hitler in his heyday. War is never a solution, it is a problem. And war shouldn’t be used to prevent war. War cannot prevent itself.
As for the Nuclear issue, there’s no legislation regarding that. If that were the case we wouldn’t be able to send any form of aid to Russia.
Even though Alessan beat me to it, I also have to ask whether you’re talking about the same country I’m living in… BTW, it isn’t a 5 year wait for a phone line anymore, either… when/where did/do you live here?
“Even though”? Please, please bear in mind that “democracy” and “socialism” are not antonyms. They are not even incompatible. Democracy is a political system. Socialism is an economic system. A given country can be a capitalist democracy, or a socialist democracy, or a capitalist dictatorship, or a socialist dictatorship.
Okay, okay… sorry. Fifty lashes with a wet noodle for me. I’ve never lived in Israel, but I know several people who do, and I was essentially repeating a complaint I’ve heard from them. I hereby retract my negative statement regarding the Israeli medical community. But I don’t believe the point of my post was incorrect: Israel DOES have socialized medicine, does it not?
There was nothing negative implied in my post. I love Israel; I’m going there myself in a week and a half. I’m pondering moving there eventually. There was no indictment there, and I’m sure Canada is wonderful too. I was merely offering a possible partial explanation as to why someone might be under the impression that Israel was Marxist.
Actually, for its first two decades or so, Israel was socialist - about the same level as Sweden, only with no money. Considering the fact that the country was tripling its population through immigrants, fighting wars and facing near-starvation, this socialism was proably the only thing that kept the country alive. As soon as they got on their feet, things were toned down a bit, decentralizing the economy and privitizing state- and union-owned industries. What’s left, for now, is efficient state medical coverage, cheap college education and an overlarge welfare system. I haven’t seem a red flag on May Day for over a decade.
The Kibbutzim, OTOH, were actually Marxist, the only form of Marxism that ever worked… for a while.
Hey, sorry! Didn’t mean to come across as snarky. But I’m afraid your depiction of Israel (second-hand, I now understand) was a bit far off… although your description of medical bureaucracy could be like that sometimes, oh, say 10-15 years ago if you belonged to the Clalit (then Union-run) health fund. No longer.
You live in Haifa? 'Cause I’d say it’s been more like a quarter of a century since I last saw the red flag…
when/where did/do you live here?