Israel refuse to co-operate with UN on nuclear inspections

nacho libre · 19-09-2009 2:13pm

it's interesting the way the Israeli apologists will refute US intelligence agency info' when it suits their position. also, the way the double negative canard is being rolled out again just as it was with Iraq. it's a clever ploy.
then we have the piece de resistance; just because we were wrong about Iraq doesn't mean we are wrong this time. I wonder do these people deep down know the blatant hypocrisy of their position but publicially don't like to admit it.

marcsignal · 19-09-2009 3:08pm

Interesting little video Here about the guy who blew the gaff on Israels Nukes in the 80's.

Consider this, watching the video, if Israel was Iraq, Iran, North Korea or anywhere else, the place would be a smoking crater by now.

Kev_ps3 · 19-09-2009 3:27pm

COMEDYCORPSE wrote: »

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:.

More like America is Isreals 2nd state;)

Bandit12 · 19-09-2009 3:31pm

Isreal only will abide by the UN when it suits them to do so. Truely a disgusting nation.

Manic Moran · 19-09-2009 4:50pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Then explain the following.

ICBM: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. (Long Range: Will get to the US)
IRBM: Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (Medium range. Will get to Europe)
SRBM: Short Range Ballistic Missile (Short range, might get to Israel)

What I wrote and what you quote are not inconsistent.

NTM

Nodin · 20-09-2009 12:01pm

As ever, the Irish state is taking an unequivocal stand
towards Israels policies.

Manic Moran · 20-09-2009 12:57pm

Nodin wrote: »

As ever, the Irish state is taking an unequivocal stand
towards Israels policies.

Therin lies one of those tough moral dilemmas. The Israelis do make excellent military gear, and as the article says, Elbit is one of the world leaders at the gear in question. It's a name I'm quite familiar with, and Americans do buy their product.

The question for the politician becomes: Is it worth placing Irish lives at risk by refusing to purchase the best possible tool for the job on a matter of principle which doesn't actually affect Ireland?

The answer is anything but clear-cut.

NTM

biko · 20-09-2009 12:58pm

Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu revealed details of the nuclear program to the British press in 1986. He fled but was kidnapped/rendition back and spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 years in solitary confinement (world record).

Israel also exchanged nuclear secrets/equipment with apartheid South Africa.
Strange bedfellows indeed.

FlutterinBantam · 20-09-2009 7:33pm

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.

Israel is not a state run by a demonic despot buddy.

dlofnep · 20-09-2009 7:37pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Israel is not a state run by a demonic despot buddy.

Care to expand on that comment?

FlutterinBantam · 20-09-2009 7:40pm

Sure pal.

Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq, nobody in their right mind would compare Israel with that set up.

Would they buddy?

dlofnep · 20-09-2009 7:50pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq, nobody in their right mind would compare Israel with that set up.

Why is Israel not comparable with Iraq?

FlutterinBantam · 20-09-2009 7:56pm

hey buddy.... 2009 is the year.

If you think that Iraq under Saddam is comparable to Israel.

Hey you really got me pal.

dlofnep · 20-09-2009 7:59pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

hey buddy.... 2009 is the year.

Not sure what relevance telling me the current year is to the conversation?

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

If you think that Iraq under Saddam is comparable to Israel.

I think the actions of the Iraqi state under the hand of Saddam is certainly comparable to the actions modern day Israel towards the Palestinian people. Now, are you going to provide a basis of an argument for why they should not be comparable, or are you going to remind me again of the date?

I'll eagerly await your reply. This should be fun.

FlutterinBantam · 20-09-2009 8:01pm

Sorry to spoil your fun buddy, No point in progressing this any further.,

dlofnep · 20-09-2009 8:05pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Sorry to spoil your fun buddy, No point in progressing this any further.,

You can't provide any basis for your argument. It happens. That's fine. Next time, try not to jump into the deep end without a little substance.

g5fd6ow0hseima · 20-09-2009 8:08pm

Soldie wrote: »

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

I dont get you? How is ignorance the answer? What will ignoring pressing international issues achieve? Luckily for the worlds richer nations, images of famine etc no longer arouse any emotion in our people, to the point where we no longer give a ****. I guess we shouldnt give a **** about Israel?

FlutterinBantam · 20-09-2009 8:12pm

dlofnep wrote: »

You can't provide any basis for your argument. It happens. That's fine. Next time, try not to jump into the deep end without a little substance.

Putting words in peoples mouths again buddy.

You don't fool me mate.

dlofnep · 20-09-2009 8:13pm

You're not very good at this. You've already stated you're not going to progress this any further. I'm content with this. If you find any substance for your debate and wish to engage again at anytime, let me know and I'll be more than happy to discuss the topic with you.

sceptre · 21-09-2009 1:32am

FlutterinBantam, stop goading him by calling him buddy all the time. I'm not an idiot so it's annoying to us non-idiots.

A big lollipop to the next person to actually make a point rather than go around in circles by saying that the other non-lollipop carrying contributor doesn't have one.

Nodin · 21-09-2009 8:52am

The fact of the matter is, that the US is restricted in dealings with states with nuclear weapons by its own laws. As far as I recall, were the US to declare that Israel had weapons, or Israel to declare they had weapons, certain types of aid and co-operative arrangements would stop. As the US deems it in its own interest to continue to have Israel as a close ally that isn't going to happen.

The result is the perception of more exceptionalism for Israel and a different standard for the rest.

OldJay · 21-09-2009 8:54am

Nodin wrote: »

The result is the perception of more exceptionalism for Israel and a different standard for the rest.

You forgot the earlier mentioned country of India.

Nodin · 21-09-2009 10:03am

Justind wrote: »

You forgot the earlier mentioned country of India.

They're slowly being brought into the fold, with limited access for inspectors etc and having joined the IAEA. Pakistan is somewhat behind in terms of allowing access to inspectors, but has now also joined the IAEA. Israel is not in the IAEA and - officially - has no weapons, despite vague threats, hints, winks and nods indicating otherwise.

It's thus rather ludicrous to see this ranting at Iran - unlovable as their leadership might be - whilst theres not a peep about Israel.

Boskowski · 21-09-2009 10:03am

Manic Moran wrote: »

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?

Just a couple of weeks ago the CIA stated again (like they did 2 years ago) that they have no indication that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. That they have no indication whatsoever that they revived their program which was discontinued in 2003.

Funny how this doesn't stop people repeating the Israel/Bush propaganda anyway.

Nodin · 21-09-2009 10:13am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Therin lies one of those tough moral dilemmas. The Israelis do make excellent military gear, and as the article says, Elbit is one of the world leaders at the gear in question. It's a name I'm quite familiar with, and Americans do buy their product.

The question for the politician becomes: Is it worth placing Irish lives at risk by refusing to purchase the best possible tool for the job on a matter of principle which doesn't actually affect Ireland?

The answer is anything but clear-cut.

NTM

While their gear is indeed known for its quality, I'd imagine theres just as good available elsewhere, but perhaps at a higher cost. While it would be asking too much for them to put Irish lives at risk, I think spending a few more bob wouldn't be asking too much, regardless of the current financial situation.

Nodin · 21-09-2009 10:19am

realcam wrote: »

Just a couple of weeks ago the CIA stated again (like they did 2 years ago) that they have no indication that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. That they have no indication whatsoever that they revived their program which was discontinued in 2003.

Funny how this doesn't stop people repeating the Israel/Bush propaganda anyway.

Just as a general point, India was given aid in its civillian program only to secretly develop a weapons one alongside it, so there is precedent for suspecting their motives. I do agree however, that the level of rhetoric is linked to US policy in the region, more than a desire for a nuclear free middle east.

In reality, Iran will enter the world of MAD, except that only its destruction will be assured, should it launch a weapon. Certainly they are decades away from matching Israels capacity, and Israel is an ally of the US, would in any case face obliteration (not an exaggeration) at the superpowers hands.

OldJay · 21-09-2009 10:23am

Nodin wrote: »

They're slowly being brought into the fold, with limited access for inspectors etc and having joined the IAEA. Pakistan is somewhat behind in terms of allowing access to inspectors, but has now also joined the IAEA. Israel is not in the IAEA and - officially - has no weapons, despite vague threats, hints, winks and nods indicating otherwise

The IAEA goes nowhere near their military facilities so its all plastic diplomacy. Insipid tokenism and nothing else. In fact, about as effective as a "hint, a "wink" or a "nod". Also irrelevant to the NPT and not in the slightest yard indicative of India ever joining it, particularly given the deals with the US, Britain and Germany of late.

When you are in a cold war with your immediate neighbour, no treaty or idiom is going to ever change your modus operandi. When it comes to nuclear miliatry capability, the most relevant treaty of intent is signing to the NPT. Anything else is meaningless window-dressing.

Nodin · 21-09-2009 10:27am

Justind wrote: »

The IAEA goes nowhere near their military facilities so its all plastic diplomacy. Insipid tokenism and nothing else. In fact, about as effective as a "hint, a "wink" or a "nod". Also irrelevant to the NPT and not in the slightest yard indicative of India ever joining it, particularly given the deals with the US, Britain and Germany of late.

Yet its - according to you, "plastic diplomacy" - that Israel is seemingly exempt from.

OldJay · 21-09-2009 10:31am

Nodin wrote: »

Yet its - according to you, "plastic diplomacy" - that Israel is seemingly exempt from.

I'm not defending or trying to justify their nuclear policy. I'm explaining it. There's a difference.

All this hypocritical waffle from the usual armchair suspects on anything Israeli just needs a reality check from time to time.

dlofnep · 21-09-2009 10:48am

Justind wrote: »

All this hypocritical waffle from the usual armchair suspects on anything Israeli just needs a reality check from time to time.

How is it hypocritical to highlight the error of Israel's ways?

Israel refuse to co-operate with UN on nuclear inspections

Comments