UN resolution calls for Israeli nuclear transparency

[The Schmooze]

Tue Dec 4, 2012 9:52AM


The 193-member UN General Assembly on Monday passed the resolution 174 to six with six abstentions, urging Tel Aviv to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to have access to its nuclear facilities.

Only the US, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau voted against the resolution that reflects international concern about suspicious Israeli nuclear activities.

Israel, the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, is widely known to have between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads.

The Israeli regime rejects all the regulatory international nuclear agreements -- the NPT in particular -- and refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to come under international regulatory inspections.

The General Assembly also supported a postponed high-level conference in Helsinki on banning nuclear weapons in the Middle East, which on November 23, the US said was not to take place on schedule in December due to, what it called, the special conditions in the Middle East.

Just before Monday’s vote, Iranian diplomat Khodadad Seifi told the assembly “the truth is that the Israeli regime is the only party, which rejected to conditions for a conference.” He called for “strong pressure on that regime to participate in the conference without any preconditions.”

Syrian diplomat Abdullah Hallak voiced his country’s anger at the cancellation of the conference, saying the meeting was not going to take place because of “the whim of just one party, a party with nuclear warheads.”

“We call on the international community to put pressure on Israel to accept the NPT, get rid of its arsenal and delivery systems in order to allow for peace and stability

I always find it ironic how Israel is the one country in the Middle East which has hundreds of nuclear weapons, refuses to sign the NPT, and does not allow UN inspectors in. However they're pushing for war with a country that has no nuclear weapons, is not trying to develeop any at this point, and is complying with all international law and regulations.

...yet Israel is routinely referenced as some tiny, innocent country that can't defend itself.

Thoughts?

[Patsfan56]

While I can appreciate where you are coming from here, I was quickly suspicious of the intentions behind this resolution. Hre's why:

Is thera a question of Isreal engaging in proliferation of its nulcear weapons? If so, I ahve'n't heard about it.

Iran doesn't need a nuclear warhead to follow through on its stated desire to destroy Isreal.

Isreal could do much more to hep itself in this situation. However, I don't think anyone can look at the last 40 years and seriously think other states are approaching Isreal in good faith either. Isreal may not be innocent or helpless in this, but there are significant historical references to prove the other side can't be viewed as the innocent good guys either.

[The Schmooze]

While I can appreciate where you are coming from here, I was quickly suspicious of the intentions behind this resolution. Hre's why:

Is thera a question of Isreal engaging in proliferation of its nulcear weapons? If so, I ahve'n't heard about it.

Iran doesn't need a nuclear warhead to follow through on its stated desire to destroy Isreal.

Isreal could do much more to hep itself in this situation. However, I don't think anyone can look at the last 40 years and seriously think other states are approaching Isreal in good faith either. Isreal may not be innocent or helpless in this, but there are significant historical references to prove the other side can't be viewed as the innocent good guys either.

To me, it just comes down to complying with basic international law. Israel continues to ignore the UN and international community, while hypocritically going on the national stage and arguing for war with Iran.

I disagree on your second comment. Iran absolutely would need a nuclear weapon(which they're currently not even trying to develop) if they chose to go after Israel. It's the equivalent of bringing a knife against an armored tank. However we must remember that Iran has no history in the last 200 years of attacking another country outside its borders.

Of course there are many against Israel, and other countries who'd love to see them destroyed, they are certainly not innocent either, I totally agree.

Israel does not comply with international law because they know they can just hide the United States. This has been the case for decades, despite the fact that one can argue that historically Israel has been a pretty *****y ally for us. Regardless, our blind allegiance to Israel is making BOTH countries less safe.

I think Israel has to do the basics here and at least sign the NPT.

[valade16]

Isreal could do much more to hep itself in this situation. However, I don't think anyone can look at the last 40 years and seriously think other states are approaching Isreal in good faith either. Isreal may not be innocent or helpless in this, but there are significant historical references to prove the other side can't be viewed as the innocent good guys either.

To me, it just comes down to complying with basic international law. Israel continues to ignore the UN and international community, while hypocritically going on the national stage and arguing for war with Iran.

Israel does not comply with international law because they know they can just hide the United States. This has been the case for decades, despite the fact that one can argue that historically Israel has been a pretty *****y ally for us. Regardless, our blind allegiance to Israel is making BOTH countries less safe.

I think Israel has to do the basics here and at least sign the NPT.

I agree with both of you. The main problem I see is we essentially stuck our nose right smack in the middle of a seriously contentious situation, that will probably never be resolved.

What is the one piece of advice everyone gives when 2 other people are having a feud. "Stay out of it".

Which is what we should've done. Look at this part:

"Only the US, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau voted against the resolution that reflects international concern about suspicious Israeli nuclear activities."

We are literally in the tiniest of minorities on this issue, our alliance with Israel is alienating us from the rest of the world. Now, it might not have any long term negative implications because it is just one issue of many that determine relationships between countries, however it might also end up playing a huge part in foreign policy.

I personally think that we need to completely re-assess why we are supporting them so vehemently, and that if the only answer we can give is that we "owe" them for putting them there, that a better reason is needed.

[nastynice]

While I can appreciate where you are coming from here, I was quickly suspicious of the intentions behind this resolution. Hre's why:

Is thera a question of Isreal engaging in proliferation of its nulcear weapons? If so, I ahve'n't heard about it.

Iran doesn't need a nuclear warhead to follow through on its stated desire to destroy Isreal.

Isreal could do much more to hep itself in this situation. However, I don't think anyone can look at the last 40 years and seriously think other states are approaching Isreal in good faith either. Isreal may not be innocent or helpless in this, but there are significant historical references to prove the other side can't be viewed as the innocent good guys either.

Iran's stated desire to destroy Israel? If you are speaking of the "wipe them off the map" quote, I suggest you look into that a bit more, as I have heard this to mean that Iran does not accept the current zionist government as is, not that they want to obliterate the country and its citizens.

There is a reason other states aren't approaching Israel in good faith. A cleansing and oppression of an entire population. I find it embarrassing that the U.S. DOES approach them in good faith.

democracy or hypocrisy?

[cabernetluver]

Iran's stated desire to destroy Israel? If you are speaking of the "wipe them off the map" quote, I suggest you look into that a bit more, as I have heard this to mean that Iran does not accept the current zionist government as is, not that they want to obliterate the country and its citizens.

There is a reason other states aren't approaching Israel in good faith. A cleansing and oppression of an entire population. I find it embarrassing that the U.S. DOES approach them in good faith.

democracy or hypocrisy?

Or maybe, just maybe, self preservation. Sorry, but the desire of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the map is not a fantasy. Any more than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stating that the Holocaust never happened is a fantasy. It is a stated and restated position of Islamists in the region.

[Labgrownmangoat]

While I can appreciate where you are coming from here, I was quickly suspicious of the intentions behind this resolution. Hre's why:

Is thera a question of Isreal engaging in proliferation of its nulcear weapons? If so, I ahve'n't heard about it.

Iran doesn't need a nuclear warhead to follow through on its stated desire to destroy Isreal.

Isreal could do much more to hep itself in this situation. However, I don't think anyone can look at the last 40 years and seriously think other states are approaching Isreal in good faith either. Isreal may not be innocent or helpless in this, but there are significant historical references to prove the other side can't be viewed as the innocent good guys either.

Nobody is "innocent good guys," stipulated. Only one side is having their human rights violations and apartheid paid for by US citizens. Only one side is dependent on our paying for their military, and covering their butt in the UN. If we were subsidizing and militarily supporting Hamas, I would be incredibly angry and resentful about that. Instead, we're subsidizing another group, the Likud-led Israeli government, that is just as bad. And I'm quite angry and resentful about that, as well.

[valade16]

Iran's stated desire to destroy Israel? If you are speaking of the "wipe them off the map" quote, I suggest you look into that a bit more, as I have heard this to mean that Iran does not accept the current zionist government as is, not that they want to obliterate the country and its citizens.

There is a reason other states aren't approaching Israel in good faith. A cleansing and oppression of an entire population. I find it embarrassing that the U.S. DOES approach them in good faith.

democracy or hypocrisy?

Or maybe, just maybe, self preservation. Sorry, but the desire of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the map is not a fantasy. Any more than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stating that the Holocaust never happened is a fantasy. It is a stated and restated position of Islamists in the region.

Well, "Islamists in the region" shouldn't be an accurate reflection of a countries political stance anymore than saying "Christians in the US want to kill all Muslims" is a reflection of US policy.

That being said, you can try to spin the "wipe them off the face of the earth" comment as being taken out of context, but I'm not buying that. Iran doesn't like Israel and doesn't want them there, IMO.

To me whether they want a different government in Israel or to eliminate the country is tantamount to the same thing in their eyes. Were I Israel I would be extremely defensive. The problem I have is they continually antagonize the their "enemies", which only further exacerbates the problem.

[Labgrownmangoat]

Or maybe, just maybe, self preservation. Sorry, but the desire of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the map is not a fantasy. Any more than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stating that the Holocaust never happened is a fantasy. It is a stated and restated position of Islamists in the region.

There was a single quotation from a guy who holds little real political power that could be interpreted as wanting to wipe out Israel, depending on the translation. If I'm wrong, please link me up.

Anyone in the US government ever make stupidly aggressive statements, before? Should our entire country be held responsible for them in perpetuity? Should they be taken as our official foreign policy from now until forever?

[dbroncos78087]

Both countries (Iran and Israel) should agree to have their entire nuclear programs investigated by the IAEA (I think I have that acronym right).

You say to them that we are going to settle this once and for all and determine the exact capability of all parties involved, and maybe even bring in other Middle Eastern countries. I do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon but I really don't see the full harm in it considering we have several countries around the globe (most notably North Korea) who have them and so far nothing.

[The Schmooze]

Well, "Islamists in the region" shouldn't be an accurate reflection of a countries political stance anymore than saying "Christians in the US want to kill all Muslims" is a reflection of US policy.

That being said, you can try to spin the "wipe them off the face of the earth" comment as being taken out of context, but I'm not buying that. Iran doesn't like Israel and doesn't want them there, IMO.

To me whether they want a different government in Israel or to eliminate the country is tantamount to the same thing in their eyes. Were I Israel I would be extremely defensive. The problem I have is they continually antagonize the their "enemies", which only further exacerbates the problem.

That comment wasn't taken out of context, but made-up completely. The actual quotation is that "the regime occupying Israel must vanish from the pages of time", saying what we already know. Iran does not recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Of course Iran does not like Israel, but then again neither does most of the world: http://www.globescan.com/news_archiv...kgrounder.html

Besides, even if they HAD said they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, in reality it would just be talk from a country with no nuclear weapons program, small military spending compared to the region, and from a country that hasn't attacked any other country in over 200 years.

To me, neither is an excuse for war, or for Israel to continue to keep violating internation law.

[cabernetluver]

There was a single quotation from a guy who holds little real political power that could be interpreted as wanting to wipe out Israel, depending on the translation. If I'm wrong, please link me up.

Anyone in the US government ever make stupidly aggressive statements, before? Should our entire country be held responsible for them in perpetuity? Should they be taken as our official foreign policy from now until forever?

Last paragraph first. There is a difference between "anyone in the US government" and the official head of state, our President. Secondly when our President does say something that the public does not agree with, it takes about a nanosecond for the response to be noted, and backtracking to begin.

Secondly, (last paragraph) perpetuity is a very long time as is forever. When the government of Iran is no longer led by Islamist clergy, and Islamist presidents, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or worse is no longer head of state, and someone of moderation is head of state, ask me again.

This is not aimed at you Lab, because I know you know the difference, I am not writing about Islam, I am writing about Islamists.

First paragraph. He has made multiple statements. Another one would be," Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury”. So no, it was not just one throw away quote.

[valade16]

Last paragraph first. There is a difference between "anyone in the US government" and the official head of state, our President. Secondly when our President does say something that the public does not agree with, it takes about a nanosecond for the response to be noted, and backtracking to begin.

Secondly, (last paragraph) perpetuity is a very long time as is forever. When the government of Iran is no longer led by Islamist clergy, and Islamist presidents, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or worse is no longer head of state, and someone of moderation is head of state, ask me again.

This is not aimed at you Lab, because I know you know the difference, I am not writing about Islam, I am writing about Islamists.

First paragraph. He has made multiple statements. Another one would be," Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury”. So no, it was not just one throw away quote.

You gotta give the guy credit though, his speeches certainly have a flair for the dramatic.

[nastynice]

Or maybe, just maybe, self preservation.

Fair. But at who's expense?

[nastynice]

That being said, you can try to spin the "wipe them off the face of the earth" comment as being taken out of context, but I'm not buying that. Iran doesn't like Israel and doesn't want them there, IMO.

To me whether they want a different government in Israel or to eliminate the country is tantamount to the same thing in their eyes. Were I Israel I would be extremely defensive. The problem I have is they continually antagonize the their "enemies", which only further exacerbates the problem.

Of course Israel is defensive. If anyone speaks out against oppression, they get defensive. They are oppressors, they violate the most basic of human rights of an entire population, and if anyone says anything against this they will get defensive. So of course Iran doesn't quietly sit by and accept their oppressive gov't. My question is, why are they not defensive against us?

I'm not saying thats the situation in its entirety, its obviously got a lot more parts to it than that, but it sure is a BIG part of it