Israel refuse to co-operate with UN on nuclear inspections

dlofnep

U.N. body urges Israel to allow nuclear inspections

VIENNA (Reuters) - Arab states in the U.N. nuclear assembly on Friday won narrow approval of a resolution urging Israel to put all its atomic sites under U.N. inspection and join the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Jewish state deplored the measure for singling it out while many of its neighbors remained hostile to its existence, and said it would not cooperate with it.

The non-binding resolution, which passed for the first time in 18 years of attempts thanks to more developing nation votes, voiced concern about "Israeli nuclear capabilities" and urged the International Atomic Energy Agency to tackle the issue.

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.

Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh, whose country's disputed nuclear programme is under IAEA investigation, told reporters Friday's vote was a "glorious moment" and "a triumph for the oppressed nation of Palestine."

U.N. Security Council members Russia and China also backed the resolution, which passed 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.

"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," chief Israeli delegate David Danieli told the chamber.

SINGLED OUT

Western states said it was unfair and counterproductive to isolate one member state. They said an IAEA resolution passed on Thursday, urging all Middle East nations to foreswear atomic bombs, included Israel and made Friday's proposal unnecessary.

Arab nations said Israel had brought the resolution on itself by having never signed the 40-year-old NPT.

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSTRE58H3QW20090918

It's pretty hypocritical for Israel to constantly chastise Iran on any possible weapons programs, but reject any notion of the UN inspecting their Nuclear arsenal which they have yet to declare to the international community.

Israel has already been accused of war-crimes, has pushed forward with illegal settlements, despite international condemnation - and now continues it's mask of secrecy on it's Nuclear program.

If Israel refuses to co-operate with the UN, heavy sanctions should be imposed. The time for putting up with their nonsense is well and truly over.

Nodin

It was well and truly over 3 or 4 decades ago...And going by the lack of penalties for taking action on settlements so far, I dount anything is going to change.

Sleipnir

dlofnep wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSTRE58H3QW20090918

It's pretty hypocritical for Israel to constantly chastise Iran on any possible weapons programs, but reject any notion of the UN inspecting their Nuclear arsenal which they have yet to declare to the international community.

Israel has already been accused of war-crimes, has pushed forward with illegal settlements, despite international condemnation - and now continues it's mask of secrecy on it's Nuclear program.

If Israel refuses to co-operate with the UN, heavy sanctions should be imposed. The time for putting up with their nonsense is well and truly over.

Israel has only ever cooperated with the U.N. if it's in their own interest to do so. Otherwise, they ignore the U.N. and they always have. This will be no different.

amacachi

It's Israel, they can do whatever the hell they like.

Kev_ps3

One rule for the Muslims and one for the Jews:rolleyes:

ChocolateSauce

Is anyone else here not suprised in the slightest? In fact, I'd have been amazed if they had cooperated.

dlofnep

Amazing how quick America were to attack Iraq on the premise of non-disclosure of WMD's, but they have a completely different set of rules for Israel.

Soldie

Also amazing how quickly these threads pop up whenever Israel does, well, just about anything.

peasant

It might be worthy of note at this point that IRAN, yes, that "rogue state" that Bush wanted to nuke next has indeed signed the non-proliferation treaty.

How about a little embargo for Isreal?
The "rogue state" label then?
Mandatory UN inspections?

No?

Whyever not?

Poccington

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Is anyone else here not suprised in the slightest? In fact, I'd have been amazed if they had cooperated.

I'm the same, not suprised at all.

They've always been quiet about their Nuke capabilties, for them to make any kind of move that would suggest otherwise would be madness.

dlofnep

Soldie wrote: »

Also amazing how quickly these threads pop up whenever Israel does, well, just about anything.

Nothing to do with the topic at hand. We're perfectly entitled to criticise Israel at every avenue if we so desire. The fact that you continuously see threads about Israel is more reflective on their horrid policies, rather than us as posters to be honest. Don't blame the messenger

ballsymchugh

well the threads are here to debate. i wonder if israel had bided by the resolutions regarding moving back to 1967* borders, would they need to defend themselves with nukes anyway?


* = year may be wrong!!

DoireNod

Soldie wrote: »

Also amazing how quickly these threads pop up whenever Israel does, well, just about anything.

Should we ignore it? Is that what you're suggesting? Or are you trolling?

This is a politics forum. The subject matter pertains to politics. Deal with it.

Soldie

dlofnep wrote: »

Nothing to do with the topic at hand.

If you have an issue with my post then report it.

We're perfectly entitled to criticise Israel at every avenue if we so desire.

What kind of dicussion are you hoping to generate? Yourself, Kev_ps3 and Wes all agreeing with eachother while rehashing points about Iran, Iraq, WMDs and Israeli settlements for the billionth time?

The fact that you continuously see threads about Israel is more reflective on their horrid policies, rather than us as posters to be honest. Don't blame the messenger

I think it's more to do with you alternating between posting about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Northern Ireland every other day, personally.

the_syco

dlofnep wrote: »

Amazing how quick America were to attack Iraq on the premise of non-disclosure of WMD's, but they have a completely different set of rules for Israel.

Suppose it's because the US has made most of the weapons.

=-=

Lets see... which country enforces the UN policies if no-one else will do it? NATO, France, or the US. The US has a veto with NATO, and Isreal has a large lobby in the US. Can't see France doing anything to Israel. So, Israel has a free hand.

Why won't the US not do anything to Israel? Because Israel will allow the US to stop by there. Some of the other friendly nations sometimes can't allow the US to land, if the government of said state thinks the people will react badly to the US popping by.

=-=

Oh, and as for the heavy sanctions, I wonder who'll be the first to say "no" to Intel CPUs.

dlofnep

Soldie wrote: »

If you have an issue with my post then report it.



What kind of dicussion are you hoping to generate? Yourself, Kev_ps3 and Wes all agreeing with eachother while rehashing points about Iran, Iraq, WMDs and Israeli settlements for the billionth time?



I think it's more to do with you alternating between posting about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Northern Ireland every other day, personally.

Once again, nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll be more than happy to debate any topic on Israel with you - but I won't entertain your attempts to take the thread off topic, because of your discomfort with us highlighting Israel's wrong-doings.

Attack the post, not the poster. Your red herrings have no place here.

dlofnep

peasant wrote: »

It might be worthy of note at this point that IRAN, yes, that "rogue state" that Bush wanted to nuke next has indeed signed the non-proliferation treaty.

How about a little embargo for Isreal?
The "rogue state" label then?
Mandatory UN inspections?

No?

Whyever not?

Great questions. It's categoric proof of Israeli influence within American politics. If they used the same set of standards that they use for Iran, Iraq, North Korea and so forth - Israel would have been placed under severe sanctions a long time ago.

They have been accused by the UN of war crimes, refuse to disclose their nuclear arsenal, have committed serious human rights abuses, ignored international calls to halt illegal settlements, continue to illegally occupy land and have killed 1000's of innocent civilians.

What is it going to take before someone steps in and before America stops defending Israel at every corner?

nesf

Guys leave the moderating to the moderators and ignore people who are baiting.

dlofnep

No probs.

wes

A pretty shameful situation that they are able to get away with this. Both India and Pakistan were hit by sanctions, when they were up to no good with there nuclear programs, so it isn't even just states like Iran and North Korea who are hit by them.

OldJay

wes wrote: »

A pretty shameful situation that they are able to get away with this. Both India and Pakistan were hit by sanctions, when they were up to no good with there nuclear programs, so it isn't even just states like Iran and North Korea who are hit by them.

India only allows access to its civil nuclear facilities and has not signed up to the non-proliferation treaty. Examples of sanctions on India as a result of their nuclear policies and strategies?

Manic Moran

peasant wrote: »

It might be worthy of note at this point that IRAN, yes, that "rogue state" that Bush wanted to nuke next has indeed signed the non-proliferation treaty.

At least the Israelis were being honest about it. Which is more deceitful, not signing the treaty and developing a nuke, or signing the treaty, and developing a nuke anyway? Note that Iran has not come to an agreement yet with the IAEA/UN on its own inspections, the article in the OP even notes Iran's own hypocrisy.

It's pretty hypocritical for Israel to constantly chastise Iran on any possible weapons programs, but reject any notion of the UN inspecting their Nuclear arsenal which they have yet to declare to the international community.

What would an inspection achieve anyway? They already have the nukes. Why was Israel (which to my knowledge has not as much as test-denotated a nuke, unlike other countries) singled out on this resolution, and India and Pakistan not? This wasn't anything like a practical resolution, it was intended simply to be an insult. That'll contribute to world peace, won't it?

i wonder if israel had bided by the resolutions regarding moving back to 1967* borders, would they need to defend themselves with nukes anyway?

Arguably they'd have more need: The country would lose its capability for defence in depth and their conventional defensive capabilities would be reduced.

Examples of sanctions on India as a result of their nuclear policies and strategies?

The Indian and Pakistani detonations triggered a US law which imposed prohibitions on economic and military aid, they were in effect for three or four years before being lifted in recognition of Pak/Ind efforts in the War on Terror.

I don't recall any UN sanctions, but that doesn't mean there weren't any.

NTM

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

At least the Israelis were being honest about it.

No they weren't. Israel has not declared their nuclear weapons yet, how is that being honest?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is more deceitful, not signing the treaty and developing a nuke, or signing the treaty, and developing a nuke anyway?

Please supply evidence to suggest Iran is building a nuke. Obama has already called off the missile defense system in Europe designed to combat Iran, due to the Bush administration vastly exagerating Iran's capabilities.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Note that Iran has not come to an agreement yet with the IAEA/UN on its own inspections, the article in the OP even notes Iran's own hypocrisy.

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons according to all intelligence agencies.

Manic Moran wrote: »

What would an inspection achieve anyway? They already have the nukes.

Force a discussion on the table for them to sign the NPT or face heavy sanctions.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why was Israel (which to my knowledge has not as much as test-denotated a nuke, unlike other countries) singled out on this resolution

It's irrelevant. Just because they haven't tested (and there is evidence to suggest that they did infact test, with South Africa) - does not mean they are responsible enough to have nuclear weapons. This is a country which has been recently accused of war-crimes by the UN, a country that illegally occupies land, and a country that does not respect basic human rights.

Manic Moran wrote: »

This wasn't anything like a practical resolution, it was intended simply to be an insult. That'll contribute to world peace, won't it?

Insult? The real insult is the amount of nonsense Israel has got away with scot-free, on account of being a strategic ally to the US. The real insult is threatening to impose sanctions on Iran who does not have nuclear weapons, while Israel a country accused of war-crimes which has nuclear weapons, doesn't face one sanction for it.

That my friend is hypocrisy.

walshb

All this Israel talk is old news. We all know the scenario with Israel and the West and the West and Palestine and Iran and Iraq etc. It's politics and wheeling and dealing. Israel will continue doing as it pleases as long as the U.S. continue to fund and support it.

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

What would an inspection achieve anyway?

The mad idea of a level playing field, that kind of thing....

This is the state who aided the Apartheid South African Nuclear project, and nearly sold on restricted technology to the Chinese so its not like they've some squeaky clean reputation with regards profliferation.

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

No they weren't. Israel has not declared their nuclear weapons yet, how is that being honest?

If you announce to the world that you are not going to be a part of the NPT, and then you act in a manner which is inconsistent with the NPT, it's hardly deceitful, is it?

Please supply evidence to suggest Iran is building a nuke.

I can't. Please supply evidence to suggest he isn't? The IAEA certainly can't. Probably why they would like to be able to inspect.

Obama has already called off the missile defense system in Europe designed to combat Iran, due to the Bush administration vastly exagerating Iran's capabilities.

Actually, he hasn't. He's simply moved to a different system: Instead of the two or three large, expensive facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, he's refocused on more numerous, smaller installations and systems.

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons according to all intelligence agencies.

I have no reason to doubt that. I also have no reason to doubt that they're working in that direction either.

Force a discussion on the table for them to sign the NPT or face heavy sanctions.

With a non-binding resolution? How is this better than the other, broader resolution which was passed on Thursday which included Israel and other countries?

It's irrelevant. Just because they haven't tested (and there is evidence to suggest that they did infact test, with South Africa) - does not mean they are responsible enough to have nuclear weapons. This is a country which has been recently accused of war-crimes by the UN, a country that illegally occupies land, and a country that does not respect basic human rights.

Also hasn't threatened anyone with its nukes. The supposed Vela test has not been corroborated by any other sources. Even though it was 30 years ago, do you really think one could detonate a nuke and not have it verified by any of the Superpowers?

The real insult is threatening to impose sanctions on Iran who does not have nuclear weapons, while Israel a country accused of war-crimes which has nuclear weapons, doesn't face one sanction for it.

I think the reality is that once a country has nukes, you can't force it to disarm. The only thing you can do is to try to reduce increased proliferation. However, whilst I will certainly conceed as valid your point that thus far Israel seems to have gotten off rather nicely, I don't see how this negates my point that a policy tailored specifically to antagonise Israel is not in any way fair or beneficial. Why were not India and Pakistan included in this good-for-humanity resolution if it were not specifically to single out Israel for being Israel, as opposed to for being a nuclear-armed power not in the NPT?

NTM

Mr.Micro

All this BS about nuclear weapons and the likes of the US, UK, Russia etc can have as many as they like and nobody bats an eye lid. Israel no doubt as them as well so there is no justification then to stop any other country from acquiring such weapons, no matter how abhorrent. Lest we forget the US has used nuclear weapons on another country no matter what the justification was. Israel can claim isolation and threat from its neighbours but so can Iran now as it was labeled a terrorist state and was/is in constant fear of attack from the US and its allies. It is no wonder it may be trying to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterent just like the rest of the hypocrite big league countries.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you announce to the world that you are not going to be a part of the NPT, and then you act in a manner which is inconsistent with the NPT, it's hardly deceitful, is it?

That's not my point. My point was that you claimed that one was less deceitful than the other - but one has undeclared nuclear weapons, and the other has no nuclear weapons. I'm not trying to be funny, but that statement says it all.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can't. Please supply evidence to suggest he isn't? The IAEA certainly can't. Probably why they would like to be able to inspect.

I don't have the evidence - But I'm not suggesting that they have nuclear weapons. All intelligence agencies don't believe that they do have nuclear weapons. It's possible that Iran could be developing nuclear weapons - I don't know, and don't claim to know. But it's public knowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons, and that is the difference.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, he hasn't. He's simply moved to a different system: Instead of the two or three large, expensive facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, he's refocused on more numerous, smaller installations and systems.

So if the smaller installations are sufficient, then why suggest a larger one in the first place? There has to be benefits of having such a system, and if the Obama administration suggest that the threat from Iran is not as great as was once suggested, and it calls off a system that had even Russia weary about - then surely, it says alot.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have no reason to doubt that. I also have no reason to doubt that they're working in that direction either.

They very well may be, and if Iran has nuclear weapons - I think they should be placed under sanctions. However, the issue I would have with the US enforcing such an issue is that you have a neighbouring country, with undeclared nuclear weapons who have been accused of war crimes that the US supports at every corner. Surely you can see the hypocrisy in this?

Manic Moran wrote: »

With a non-binding resolution? How is this better than the other, broader resolution which was passed on Thursday which included Israel and other countries?

Better is subjective. The issue here is Israel's refusal to co-operate with the international community. It rejects all criticisms of it's actions, from undisclosed nuclear weapons to war crimes. How do you suggest to tackle such an issue when the said state actively ignores any condemnations of it's actions and refuses to do anything that's requested of it?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Also hasn't threatened anyone with its nukes.

Yes it has.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think the reality is that once a country has nukes, you can't force it to disarm.

Of course you can't, but you can impose severe sanctions to cripple it's economy - which will put them in a very difficult situation. Not everything has to be fought with guns and bombs. The real war today is through economics.

COMEDYCORPSE

amacachi wrote: »

It's Israel, they can do whatever the hell they like.

You mean it's AmerIsrael.....let's face it Israel and the USA are such good buddies you could say Israel is the 51st State...:rolleyes:.

Manic Moran

So if the smaller installations are sufficient, then why suggest a larger one in the first place?

The larger system would also protect the US from ICBMs launched from the Mid-East. It has since been accepted that Iran's ICBM programme has not advanced particularly far, but the SRBM/IRBM programme (which will still reach Europe) is still doing rather nicely.

NTM

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

The larger system would also protect the US from ICBMs launched from the Mid-East. It has since been accepted that Iran's ICBM programme has not advanced particularly far, but the SRBM/IRBM programme (which will still reach Europe) is still doing rather nicely.

NTM

Then explain the following:

"Obama's decision to scrap a plan was based largely on a new U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran's effort to build a nuclear-capable long-range missile would take three to five years longer than originally thought, U.S. officials said."

Basically, they pulled back the system because Iran was not the threat that they were originally considered.