IAEA urges Israel to allow nuclear inspection
-
IAEA urges Israel to allow nuclear inspection
International Atomic Energy Agency says Jerusalem must join Non-Proliferation Treaty, allow it to monitor its facilities. Iranian ambassador hails decision as 'triumph'; 'Israel will not cooperate with this resolution,' says Atomic Energy Commission official
Reuters
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3778884,00.html
The UN nuclear assembly voted on Friday to urge Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place all atomic sites under UN inspections, in a surprise victory for Arab states.
The resolution, passed narrowly for the first time in nearly two decades, expresses concern about "Israeli nuclear capabilities" and calls on International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei to work on the issue.
The Middle East resolution, sponsored by Arab states, was backed by 49 votes to 45 against in a floor vote at the IAEA's annual member states conference. The vote split along Western and developing nation lines. There were 16 abstentions.
Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told reporters the passage of the resolution was "very good news and a triumph for the oppressed nation of Palestine".
Russia and China backed the resolution.
Israel is one of only three countries worldwide along with India and Pakistan outside the nuclear NPT and is widely assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, though it has never confirmed or denied it.
"The delegation of Israel deplores this resolution," David Danieli, deputy director of Israel's atomic energy commission, told the chamber after the vote.
"Israel will not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region."The measure was last voted on in 1991 when it passed by 39-31 with 13 abstentions when IAEA membership was much smaller.
Since then there has only been presidential summaries of debate on this item or motions for adjournment or no action that carried the floor.
Diplomats pointed to the increased number of abstentions – from countries ranging from India to Argentina and Nigeria as an important factor in the resolution's adoption.
-
Hrmm...because Israel loses all its US financial aids if it even admitted it has nukes? I remember it was part of the USA's law to refuse aid to any country that didn't sign the NPT
-
Is Israel's nukes any secret ?
It was reported in the late 1979 that ‘Israel conduct nuclear test off South African coast’ (*1) - and speculation had it that Israel had co-operated an apartheid South Africa to develop nuclear weapons, while some other reported indicated that Israel had used the South African space to coduct a nuclear test.
In 1986, ‘President Jimmy Carter reveals Israel’s possession of 150 nuclear weapons’ (*2).
In a recent new report dated 21 May 2009 - it was reported that ‘US President Barak Obama promised PM Netanyahu that he would maintain the current understandings between the two countries regarding Israel’s nuclear program.’ (*3)
Despite the knowledge amongst all the US Presidents and those in the US Congress - through the decades that Israel had developed, tested and possessed nuclear weapons - the USA had never stopped its financial assistance given to Israel.
Should the USA stopped its financial assistance to Israel ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Is Israel's nukes any secret ?
It was reported in the late 1979 that ‘Israel conduct nuclear test off South African coast’ (*1) - and speculation had it that Israel had co-operated an apartheid South Africa to develop nuclear weapons, while some other reported indicated that Israel had used the South African space to coduct a nuclear test.
In 1986, ‘President Jimmy Carter reveals Israel’s possession of 150 nuclear weapons’ (*2).
In a recent new report dated 21 May 2009 - it was reported that ‘US President Barak Obama promised PM Netanyahu that he would maintain the current understandings between the two countries regarding Israel’s nuclear program.’ (*3)
Despite the knowledge amongst all the US Presidents and those in the US Congress - through the decades that Israel had developed, tested and possessed nuclear weapons - the USA had never stopped its financial assistance given to Israel.
Should the USA stopped its financial assistance to Israel ?
And yet as I remember poignantly, there are still people in this forum that don't believe that Israel has nukes, just because it hasn't been confirmed in the mainstream media.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Hrmm...because Israel loses all its US financial aids if it even admitted it has nukes? I remember it was part of the USA's law to refuse aid to any country that didn't sign the NPT
Since when did the US Government abided by its own laws, or for that matter, any law?
-
Israel ‘Deplores’ IAEA Call to Join NPT
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/18/israel-deplores-iaea-call-to-join-npt/
IAEA assembly adopts resolution calling for WMD-free Middle East
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253198148745&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
I support the aim of nuclear weapons free middle east, but U.S, Israel and others are not in favour. They oppose.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Israel ‘Deplores’ IAEA Call to Join NPT
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/18/israel-deplores-iaea-call-to-join-npt/
IAEA assembly adopts resolution calling for WMD-free Middle East
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253198148745&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
I support the aim of nuclear weapons free middle east, but U.S, Israel and others are not in favour. They oppose.
When all the Middle-east countries have agreed to be at Peace with Israel, and guarantee the mutual existence to the State of Israel and also the Palestinians -
AND when Iran abandon its national goal to annihilate the State of Israel from the map of the World and also sign a Peace Treaty with Israel -
perhaps Israel will not need the Israeli nuclear option to guarantee its own survival as a People and as a State.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
When all the Middle-east countries have agreed to be at Peace with Israel, and guarantee the mutual existence to the State of Israel and also the Palestinians -
They already agreed to that if Israel ends occupation of Palestine and return to pre-1967 border. Israel refused to do so. They still want to grab some more territory in west bank.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
They already agreed to that if Israel ends occupation of Palestine and return to pre-1967 border. Israel refused to do so. They still want to grab some more territory in west bank.
At the last round of meetings, only Jordan and Egypt signed the Treaty.Within the Palestinians Community - is there any single authority when it is split between the PLA and the Hamas.
The last face to face peace negotiation was during the meeting between the late Arafat and Perez hosted by Clinton, then Arafat did not closed the deal and refused to sign on the dotted lines.
Syria, Iran, Libya, Morroco, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Kuwait, and UAE have all not signed any treaty that guarantee the existence of the State of Israel or its people.
As long as the PLA and Hamas cannot agree with Israel, they are allowing Israel to place a de facto claim on the territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War - that war was imposed on Israel when all the Arab Nations had raised a huge military force to crush Israel.
It was superior Isralie intelligence and an efficient military that allowed Israel - with a smaller military force - to make a pre-emptive strike that neutralised the huge Arab military which outnumbered Israeli Defense Force by 10 to 1.
In 1967, the threat was based on a conventional military warfare scenario.
During the Yom-Kippur War of 1973, Egypt launched a surprise conventional military strike on an unprepared Israel during her national holy day celebrated by Jews.
When Egypt can launch a conventional strike without warning that allowed her to regain the Sinai Peninsular - which had served as a buffer space for Israel - can Israel survive any surprise nuclear attack from any Arab countries that remained hostile and are only 500 to 1000 kilometers from Israel ?
Put Singapore in the same position as Israel - under the same political circumstances - it will be doubtful if you will not follow in the same strategic ways taken by Israel.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
At the last round of meetings, only Jordan and Egypt signed the Treaty.Which meeting and treaty?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
During the Yom-Kippur War of 1973, Egypt launched a surprise conventional military strike on an unprepared Israel during her national holy day celebrated by Jews.
They only launched the war to take back their own territory, not occupy Israel.
Nothing wrong with that.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
As long as the PLA and Hamas cannot agree with Israel, they are allowing Israel to place a de facto claim on the territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War - that war was imposed on Israel when all the Arab Nations had raised a huge military force to crush Israel.
I think that is strange logic. Fatah and hamas cannot agree with each other so Israel has de facto claim?
I don't think war was imposed on Israel.
In 1967, the threat was based on a conventional military warfare scenario.
Israel felt that it was in a stronger position to attack I think, but the USSR played a dubious role in that war.
-
Some of you here seems to hope to see that Israelies commit mass suicide when she comes under seige by the numerically superior enemies.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Some of you here seems to hope to see that Israelies commit mass suicide when she comes under seige by the numerically superior enemies.
where in the world did that logic come about?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
where in the world did that logic come about?
Israel does not confirm or deny having nuclear weapons. Why do you believe that Israel possess nuclear weapons?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Which meeting and treaty?
Ah Chia, you could have been more resourceful - surely you could have google to get the information if you are truly honest with your interest on this subject ?
A sample of the meetings that ended with the Treaty is googled for your convenience:
The details of the treaty can be referred in - ‘Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty – 26 March 1979’ (*2)
Almost fifteen years later, in the footstep of President Jimmy Carter, it was the turn of US President Bill Clinton to find peace for the Middle-east.
The details of the treaty can be studied in the following: - ‘Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty – 26 October 1994’ (*4)
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
At the last round of meetings, only Jordan and Egypt signed the Treaty.Within the Palestinians Community - is there any single authority when it is split between the PLA and the Hamas.
The last face to face peace negotiation was during the meeting between the late Arafat and Perez hosted by Clinton, then Arafat did not closed the deal and refused to sign on the dotted lines.
Syria, Iran, Libya, Morroco, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Kuwait, and UAE have all not signed any treaty that guarantee the existence of the State of Israel or its people.
As long as the PLA and Hamas cannot agree with Israel, they are allowing Israel to place a de facto claim on the territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War - that war was imposed on Israel when all the Arab Nations had raised a huge military force to crush Israel.
It was superior Isralie intelligence and an efficient military that allowed Israel - with a smaller military force - to make a pre-emptive strike that neutralised the huge Arab military which outnumbered Israeli Defense Force by 10 to 1.
In 1967, the threat was based on a conventional military warfare scenario.
During the Yom-Kippur War of 1973, Egypt launched a surprise conventional military strike on an unprepared Israel during her national holy day celebrated by Jews.
When Egypt can launch a conventional strike without warning that allowed her to regain the Sinai Peninsular - which had served as a buffer space for Israel - can Israel survive any surprise nuclear attack from any Arab countries that remained hostile and are only 500 to 1000 kilometers from Israel ?
Put Singapore in the same position as Israel - under the same political circumstances - it will be doubtful if you will not follow in the same strategic ways taken by Israel.
Out of curiousity, what do you think would be Israel's incentive to settle problems and compromise with its neighbours in a more diplomatic manner when it knows it has the world's biggest military backing it ?
Why would i want to compromise with people who don't like me when i have the biggest stick around and i know the neighbourhood policeman is going to back me up when i get in trouble?
Yes Israel has a valid concern about its safety when its neighbour do not officially accept its existence. But by engaging in pro active strikes and aggressive moves against its neighbours the stituation would never be resolved.
The populace already have alot of reasons to hate the Israelis and it would be very difficult for any of chauvinistic Muslim leaders to initiate compromise without looking weak and inept to their own people.
I do not think it can be blamed on the religion itself. Politicians do what they have already done for thousands of years they are more interested in making decisions that would allow them to stay longer in power, not neccessarily for the welfare of the people they are responsible for.
Instead, it would furthur encourage them to seek nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves. They're not stupid and they've already seen what happened to Iraq, none of them have any doubt it could happen to them especially Iran.
I don't think using Singapore is a good example. Our existence came about as a natural process in the region while Israel were forced upon the Middle East, a decision made without the consensus of the surrounding region. The majority of Singaporeans then were already living here long before independence and though our existence is disliked we are more tolerated than hated. .
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
They only launched the war to take back their own territory, not occupy Israel.
Nothing wrong with that.
Did you miss the point of my response ?Was it about whether it was correct for Egypt to launch a surprise attack on Israel, or was the event used to illustrate that the Egyptian surprise conventional attack during the Yom Kippur War can put Israel in peril - what more when the threat is nuclear and the threat could come at any surprise moment ?
Israel had assumed wrongly that preparation for a conventional attack by any Arab neighbors can be detected with enough time to mobilise.
Unfortunately, Egypt had cleverly concealed its mobilization process that led its military preparation to reach a critical mass, and in complete secrecy that caught the Israelis off guard and with devastating results.
Can Israel afford to do nothing and wait for a nuclear strike by rouge elements so as to bring about another holocaust onto Israel ?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
I think that is strange logic. Fatah and hamas cannot agree with each other so Israel has de facto claim?
I don't think war was imposed on Israel.
Did Israel invite war onto herself ?
With Fatah and Hamas unable to decide who should be representing the Palestinians, who should be the legitimate authority to represent the Palestinians ?
With Israel sitting on all the "real estate" since the 1967 6-Day War - would it not be logical to make use of the land by making it de facto - even if the act goes against International Law ?
Israel felt that it was in a stronger position to attack I think, but the USSR played a dubious role in that war.
The point is not about who is right and wrong.
The point is about Israel's claim to its right to exercise its nuclear option in the face of mass attack from the unpredictable nature of the Arabs and those beyond the Middle-east and supporting the Arab's cause.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Did you miss the point of my response ?Was it about whether it was correct for Egypt to launch a surprise attack on Israel, or was the event used to illustrate that the Egyptian surprise conventional attack during the Yom Kippur War can put Israel in peril - what more when the threat is nuclear and the threat could come at any surprise moment ?
Israel had assumed wrongly that preparation for a conventional attack by any Arab neighbors can be detected with enough time to mobilise.
Unfortunately, Egypt had cleverly concealed its mobilization process that led its military preparation to reach a critical mass, and in complete secrecy that caught the Israelis off guide. with devastating effects.
Can Israel afford to do nothing and wait for a nuclear strike by rouge elements so as to bring about another holocaust onto Israel ?
Could you elaborate more on why the Arabs are "unpredictable" ? So far they seemed to be acting in quite a logical manner.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Israel does not confirm or deny having nuclear weapons. Why do you believe that Israel possess nuclear weapons?
because........it's pretty much an open secret?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
because........it's pretty much an open secret?
If you believe that Israel is nuclear armed, why wouldn't you believe that Israel has a deterence doctrine such as no first strike policy or launch a massive retaliation as a last resort?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Out of curiousity, what do you think would be Israel's incentive to settle problems and compromise with its neighbours in a more diplomatic manner when it knows it has the world's biggest military backing it ?
When you carry a big stick and cannot use it - due to moral reasons that will make your position politically weak - is there any point in having the big stick ?
Why would i want to compromise with people who don't like me when i have the biggest stick around and i know the neighbourhood policeman is going to back me up when i get in trouble?
Is there no cost to Israel at the present moment - even with the neighborhood policeman around the corner to back it when it get into trouble ?
In any case, will the neighborhood policeman get itself embroiled, or will they step in after the situation has sort itself out - especially when as long as Israel can manage the fight to its advantage ?
What is the cost in lives lost, equipment destroyed, logistics expended and require replenishments ?
As matters stand, from the recent fight with Hamas, Israel will soon have to face internation pressure for the prosecution of its troops that committed war crimes in their Gaza invasion.
Is the cost worth paying in terms of lives lost and the loss of the moral high ground ?
Yes Israel has a valid concern about its safety when its neighbour do not officially accept its existence. But by engaging in pro active strikes and aggressive moves against its neighbours the stituation would never be resolved.
Exactly, you have reinforced the reply in a clearer manner then my attempt in the preceding reply.
Is this not incentive enough to resolve the matter ?
What is the purpose of carrying a big stick or having the policemen around ?
The populace already have alot of reasons to hate the Israelis and it would be very difficult for any of chauvinistic Muslim leaders to initiate compromise without looking weak and inept to their own people.
Under such circumstances, it takes real men with vision and a big heart to transcend the narrowness of human emotions and prejudices, and take big steps for the sake of Peace for future generations.
Egypt's President Sadat and Israel's Begin, Jordan's King Hussein and Israel's PM Rabin - were all real men, with vision and big hearts that transcended the narrow vision and emotions of ordinary men.
The sacrifices that they made had cost the lives of President Sadat and PM Rabin - both of whom were assassinated by narrow minded chauvinists from their respective communities who were against the Peace Process.
Still from their collective actions, their communities have enjoyed the peace with their respective counter parts, and Israel had two less shared borders to worry if there were to be any future confrontation with the Arab World.
I do not think it can be blamed on the religion itself. Politicians do what they have already done for thousands of years they are more interested in making decisions that would allow them to stay longer in power, not neccessarily for the welfare of the people they are responsible for.
While the politicians maybe interested in building their own visions, the religious fanatics will capitalize on the situation to build on their visions too.
The politicians have been overthrown before by the religious fanatics, who were able to propagate their vision to the larger community, and were more successful than the politicians to mobilise the population to their cause.
Would you not consider the religious fanatics with political power to be more dangerous than the regular politicians ?
Instead, it would furthur encourage them to seek nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves. They're not stupid and they've already seen what happened to Iraq, none of them have any doubt it could happen to them especially Iran.
Would it not depend on how you play your cards and at the moment in time ?
With the benefit of the Iraqi experience, do you think that the Iranians will feel threatened by the USA in any way ?
If the USA cannot hold their position in Iraq and have lost so many lives in Iraq, do you seriously think that the Iranians will not apply the lessons learnt and inflict a bigger price on the USA - if it decide to launch a conventional attack on Iran ?
Even if the USA was to launch a pre-emptive strike to eliminate the nuclear facilities, how much of the facilities can the US destroy - considering that the facilities are now dispersed and buried deep into the ground ?
What will be the price that the USA must pay in the event that the unprovoked attack on Iranian nuclear faclilities did not achieve the desired results ?
Will that not legitimise any Iranian retaliation in any form against the USA ?
Can the USA tolerate another disaster on the scale of 9/11 or worst ?
I don't think using Singapore is a good example. Our existence came about as a natural process in the region while Israel were forced upon the Middle East, a decision made without the consensus of the surrounding region. The majority of Singaporeans then were already living here long before independence and though our existence is disliked we are more tolerated than hated. .
Are you certain that Singapore cannot be a good example ?
How sure are you that Singapore's existence had come about as a natural process in the region ?
Do you seriously believe that Singapore existence is not forced on ourselves ?
Even Indonesia had refused the creation of Malaysia as it had its own plans for a greater Kalimantan - in the same manner that it took over East Timor and Papua New Guinea when Portugal pulled out its Colonial authority over these territories.
Until this day, the Philippines has not given up their claims over Sabah even when relationship between Malaysia and the Philippines remain superficially cool.
Singapore existence as an independent nation nearly did not happen except for the failed bid by the UMNO ULTRAS in causing racial riots that were supposed to have justified the "invasion" of the Royal Malay Regiments to impose martial law on this island, and to arrest the Singapore Cabinet.
It was Britain's PM Harold Wilson that "advised" Tunku Abdul Rahman of the negative consequences if the authority of the Singapore State Government is "dismissed".
If you do not believe that Singapore is not a good example, why do you think that Singapore insist on frantically building a strong SAF from Day ONE after being kicked out of Malaysia on 9 August 1965 ?
Why will Singapore insist on being the Number 1 Military Power in this region - if we are not living in the same circumstances as Israel ?
Why will Singapore spend 6 per cent of GDP on defense ?
Why have Singaporeans make all the sacrifices at 18 years of age, and until 40 to 50 years old - disrupting our careers and productive time - like the Israelis ?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Out of curiousity, what do you think would be Israel's incentive to settle problems and compromise with its neighbours in a more diplomatic manner when it knows it has the world's biggest military backing it ?
Why would i want to compromise with people who don't like me when i have the biggest stick around and i know the neighbourhood policeman is going to back me up when i get in trouble?
Yes Israel has a valid concern about its safety when its neighbour do not officially accept its existence. But by engaging in pro active strikes and aggressive moves against its neighbours the stituation would never be resolved.
The populace already have alot of reasons to hate the Israelis and it would be very difficult for any of chauvinistic Muslim leaders to initiate compromise without looking weak and inept to their own people.
I do not think it can be blamed on the religion itself. Politicians do what they have already done for thousands of years they are more interested in making decisions that would allow them to stay longer in power, not neccessarily for the welfare of the people they are responsible for.
Instead, it would furthur encourage them to seek nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves. They're not stupid and they've already seen what happened to Iraq, none of them have any doubt it could happen to them especially Iran.
I don't think using Singapore is a good example. Our existence came about as a natural process in the region while Israel were forced upon the Middle East, a decision made without the consensus of the surrounding region. The majority of Singaporeans then were already living here long before independence and though our existence is disliked we are more tolerated than hated. .
Muslims who are not Arabs have no blood ties with the Arabs or the Jews? Why do they consider Israel as enemies if the Arab-Israeli conflicts has nothing to do with religion?
Why would the enemies of Israel need nuclear weapons for 'defence'? They've in the past sought the destruction of Israel. They have fought and lost all three major wars with Israel. They have proven to be inept.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Could you elaborate more on why the Arabs are "unpredictable" ? So far they seemed to be acting in quite a logical manner.
Do you think the Indonesians or Malaysian youths involved in nationalistic politics are predictable in any way ?If you can understand the Indonesian and Malaysian youths involved in their national politics, it will help you to understand the volatile and unpredictable Arab mentality.
This will help you to understand the minds of the Arabs - if you have no long term experience in direct dealings or contacts or living in the Middle-east
If you believe in the logic in their preferred positions taken, I will prefer to let you be comfortable with your thoughts and not make any attempts to change it in a public forum.