Thursday, 23 February 2012
Last week’s question brought many comments: nearly all opposing an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites. Many just said no without explaining why. Others gave reasons.
I was somewhat puzzled by the comment that Israel had no moral case as it had “acquired nuclear weapons clandestinely and so lacks the moral authority to act against other nations that do the same.” Unlike Iran, Israel has never threatened any other state with eradication. Is self-defence not good enough moral authority?
In the whirlpool of psychological warfare on the Iranian nuclear programme, it is important to note that senior heads and former heads of Israel’s Mossad and other Israeli security services have spoken out against an Israeli attack.
Interestingly, troublemakers nowadays do not seem to make clear demands. I do not recall any demands made by Al-Qaida, nor has Iran named its demands. I wonder what would have happened if Iran would have announced to the world that were Israel to go back to the 1967 borders it would dismantle its nuclear facilities. It would give Iran a great climb-down with brownie points almost everywhere.
Well, Mr. Ahmadinejad, worth trying? Please note that this is my second piece of retainer-free advice to Ahmadinejad this year (see my blog on 11 January).
Sunday, 12 February 2012
Iran has on many occasions made it clear that the State of Israel should not and will not exist for much longer. They have supplied their proxies on Israel's borders, the Hamas and Hezbollah, with weapons and they now have a nuclear weapons programme that they will not give up.
We are currently in the midst of an increasingly heated psychological warfare campaign and disinformation effort of which it is impossible to make sense. However, it appears that Israel has failed in its attempts to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear capability.
Although, the idea of a nuclear Iran makes many very uncomfortable, the only country that is openly and aggressively being threatened by Iran is Israel.
There is some similarity to 1967, when Nasser moved his army into the Sinai, threw out the UN peacekeepers, closed the straits of Tiran and declared that finally Israel would be annihilated.
Should Israel go out on a pre-emptive strike?
Monday, 6 February 2012
It has been reported that the British government is pushing a plan to buy a new yacht for the Queen as a present to celebrate her 60th anniversary on the throne. Prince Charles – not surprisingly – is all for it.
The Queen does not have to try to be popular – she is popular. She is generally liked as well as respected by her subjects. But, if the Queen would take my advice, instead of that of her ministers, she would be doing the right thing. Right for her and right for us.
Instead of getting the taxpayers or some rich sponsors to buy her a yacht, the Queen should make a substantial present to us, to her subjects, to show her gratitude for being allowed to reign over us.
What I want is the Royal Collection: 7000 painting, 40,000 water colours and drawings and 150,000 old master prints. That is all. This enormous art collection is not privately owned by the Queen but held by her in trust, as the sovereign. So, it would not really cost her or her children anything.
The time has come for all those works of art to be openly and freely available to everyone. They should not be locked in the royal residences and only shown occasionally and partially at the Queens Gallery, where the Queen actually charges entrance fees.
So how about it, Ma’am?