Israel rejects UN call for nuclear transparency

[Jos]

Israel has rebuffed a UN call to adhere to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open itself to international inspectors, calling the suggestion a “meaningless mechanical vote” of a body that “lost all its credibility regarding Israel.”

In a 174-6 vote, the United Nations General Assembly demanded in a non-binding call that Tel Aviv join the NPT“without further delay,” in an effort to create a legally binding nuclear-free Middle East.

Washington, Israel’s strongest ally, surprised no one by voting against the resolution – but did approve two paragraphs that were voted on separately, which called for universal adherence to the NPT and for all non-signatory governments to join.

Israel rejects UN call for nuclear transparency | _

 

[Roudy]

Israel has rebuffed a UN call to adhere to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open itself to international inspectors, calling the suggestion a “meaningless mechanical vote” of a body that “lost all its credibility regarding Israel.”

In a 174-6 vote, the United Nations General Assembly demanded in a non-binding call that Tel Aviv join the NPT“without further delay,” in an effort to create a legally binding nuclear-free Middle East.

Washington, Israel’s strongest ally, surprised no one by voting against the resolution – but did approve two paragraphs that were voted on separately, which called for universal adherence to the NPT and for all non-signatory governments to join.

Israel rejects UN call for nuclear transparency | _

Now you tell us why Israel should give a crap about a defunct UN who can't even stop the genocide in Syria or keeps slapping N. Korea on the wrist after it keeps committing violation after violation? And while you're at it, put a condom on your head when you're sitting in front of your computer, it might catch your virus you filthy Iranian Islamist shithead.

 

[RoccoR]

Roudy, Jos, et al,

It's not about the vote. It is not about the Treaty, or submission to the treaty. What is the instantaneous value of Israeli submission?

Israel has rebuffed a UN call to adhere to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open itself to international inspectors, calling the suggestion a “meaningless mechanical vote” of a body that “lost all its credibility regarding Israel.”

In a 174-6 vote, the United Nations General Assembly demanded in a non-binding call that Tel Aviv join the NPT“without further delay,” in an effort to create a legally binding nuclear-free Middle East.

Washington, Israel’s strongest ally, surprised no one by voting against the resolution – but did approve two paragraphs that were voted on separately, which called for universal adherence to the NPT and for all non-signatory governments to join.

Israel rejects UN call for nuclear transparency | _

Now you tell us why Israel should give a crap about a defunct UN who can't even stop the genocide in Syria or keeps slapping N. Korea on the wrist after it keeps committing violation after violation? And while you're at it, put a condom on your head when you're sitting in front of your computer, it might catch your virus you filthy Iranian Islamist shithead.

(COMMENT)

On the timeline, we are where we are. Whatever the status is, regarding the Nuclear Armament of Israel, the treaty was predicated on the belief that the proliferation would spread to untrustworthy nations or non-state actors that would ultimately "enhance the danger of nuclear war."

• First, I would suggest that in the preceding decades, there has been no incident that would suggest that Israel acted in any other manner than "responsibly." Israel has done nothing to "enhance the danger of nuclear war." The aggressors have been from elsewhere in the region.
  
• Second, that the submission of Israel to the treaty would not enhance the security of Israel and may, in fact, destabilize the deterrent factor that has proved successful thus far. Given the track record of the international community on matters of improving security in the region, their judgments have not been very successful.
  
• Third, that the deterioration of Israeli security increases the likelihood of hostile action against Israel and a de facto destabilization in regional security.

It is not for the nation of Israel to submit without cause, but for the international community to become persuasive in convincing the Israelis why it is better for Israeli defense and security to submit.

In the absence of a definitive advantage to Israel, given the demonstrated hostile nature of the Middle East neighborhood specifically towards its sovereignty, it would be foolish for Israel to alter its stance and image in any way that does not guarantee a better defensive posture and improvement in regional relations.

Given the lack of wisdom demonstrated by the international community regarding peace and security within the region, any proposal for Israel to submit must be compeling; not just theoretical.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Now you tell us why Israel should give a crap about a defunct UN...

Because that UN created the state of Israel and Israel is one of its members.

If you're going to belong to an organization, you're duty bound to follow their rules.

But since you don't think giving your word, is something you need to keep, you probably wouldn't understand that.

 

[RoccoR]

loinboy, et al,

Yes, in a way, this makes sense.

Now you tell us why Israel should give a crap about a defunct UN...

Because that UN created the state of Israel and Israel is one of its members.

If you're going to belong to an organization, you're duty bound to follow their rules.

But since you don't think giving your word, is something you need to keep, you probably wouldn't understand that.

(COMMENT)

Let's look at "their rules."

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of the Treaty, a conference shall be convened to decide whether the Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely, or shall be extended for an additional fixed period or periods. This decision shall be taken by a majority of the Parties to the Treaty.1
SOURCE: NPT Treaty

Why should Israel sign on to the NPT if there is every reasonable expectation that the "Supreme Interest" of Israel would be jeopardized?

What is the benefit to Israel which would improve the "Supreme Interest" of Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[theliq]

Israel has rebuffed a UN call to adhere to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open itself to international inspectors, calling the suggestion a “meaningless mechanical vote” of a body that “lost all its credibility regarding Israel.”

In a 174-6 vote, the United Nations General Assembly demanded in a non-binding call that Tel Aviv join the NPT“without further delay,” in an effort to create a legally binding nuclear-free Middle East.

Washington, Israel’s strongest ally, surprised no one by voting against the resolution – but did approve two paragraphs that were voted on separately, which called for universal adherence to the NPT and for all non-signatory governments to join.

Israel rejects UN call for nuclear transparency | _

ABOUT FCUKING TIME.....as always Jos steve

 

[theliq]

loinboy, et al,

yes, in a way, this makes sense.

now you tell us why israel should give a crap about a defunct un...

because that un created the state of israel and israel is one of its members.

If you're going to belong to an organization, you're duty bound to follow their rules.

But since you don't think giving your word, is something you need to keep, you probably wouldn't understand that.

(comment)

let's look at "their rules."

1. Each party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other parties to the treaty and to the united nations security council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of the treaty, a conference shall be convened to decide whether the treaty shall continue in force indefinitely, or shall be extended for an additional fixed period or periods. This decision shall be taken by a majority of the parties to the treaty.1
source: npt treaty

why should israel sign on to the npt if there is every reasonable expectation that the "supreme interest" of israel would be jeopardized?

What is the benefit to israel which would improve the "supreme interest" of israel?

Most respectfully,
r

idiot wanker

 

[theliq]

Now you tell us why Israel should give a crap about a defunct UN...

Because that UN created the state of Israel and Israel is one of its members.

If you're going to belong to an organization, you're duty bound to follow their rules.

But since you don't think giving your word, is something you need to keep, you probably wouldn't understand that.

 

[theliq]

israel has rebuffed a un call to adhere to the nuclear non proliferation treaty (npt) and open itself to international inspectors, calling the suggestion a “meaningless mechanical vote” of a body that “lost all its credibility regarding israel.”

in a 174-6 vote, the united nations general assembly demanded in a non-binding call that tel aviv join the npt“without further delay,” in an effort to create a legally binding nuclear-free middle east.

Washington, israel’s strongest ally, surprised no one by voting against the resolution – but did approve two paragraphs that were voted on separately, which called for universal adherence to the npt and for all non-signatory governments to join.

israel rejects un call for nuclear transparency | _

now you tell us why israel should give a crap about a defunct un who can't even stop the genocide in syria or keeps slapping n. Korea on the wrist after it keeps committing violation after violation? And while you're at it, put a condom on your head when you're sitting in front of your computer, it might catch your virus you filthy iranian islamist shithead.

you cock sucking,dick licking,fcukhead troll.

 

[Politico]

Good for them.

 

[Jos]

RoccoR



In the absence of a definitive advantage to Israel, given the demonstrated hostile nature of the Middle East neighborhood specifically towards its sovereignty, it would be foolish for Israel to alter its stance and image in any way that does not guarantee a better defensive posture and improvement in regional relations.

Given the lack of wisdom demonstrated by the international community regarding peace and security within the region, any proposal for Israel to submit must be compeling; not just theoretical.

By law, the U.S. would have to cease providing billions of dollars in foreign aid to Israel if it determined the country had a nuclear weapons program. That's because the so-called Symington Amendment, passed in 1976, bars assistance to countries developing technology for nuclear weapons proliferation.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections

Symington Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Now you tell us why Israel should give a crap about a defunct UN...

Because that UN created the state of Israel and Israel is one of its members.

If you're going to belong to an organization, you're duty bound to follow their rules.

But since you don't think giving your word, is something you need to keep, you probably wouldn't understand that.

You are an ignorant mother fucker if you believe any of that.

 

[Billo_Really]

You are an ignorant mother fucker if you believe any of that.

Are you saying Israel is not a member of the UN?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You are an ignorant mother fucker if you believe any of that.

Are you saying Israel is not a member of the UN?

Okay. You have me on that technicality. But you're pretending that we have world government and not a collection of independent sovereign nations. The UN are not our leaders. We don't elect UN officials. Israel has no obligation to comply to their bs.

 

[Billo_Really]

Okay. You have me on that technicality. But you're pretending that we have world government and not a collection of independent sovereign nations. The UN are not our leaders. We don't elect UN officials. Israel has no obligation to comply to their bs.

I didn't say anything about a world government.

I said the UN created Israel and I think Israel should show a little gratitude towards the UN,
instead of shitting on them and all the victims of the Holocaust.

 

[RoccoR]

Jos, et al,

Yes, on the face of it, it would appear so. That would have to go into the equation that Israel works to determine what is in Israels best interest. It is their decision.

RoccoR

In the absence of a definitive advantage to Israel, given the demonstrated hostile nature of the Middle East neighborhood specifically towards its sovereignty, it would be foolish for Israel to alter its stance and image in any way that does not guarantee a better defensive posture and improvement in regional relations.

Given the lack of wisdom demonstrated by the international community regarding peace and security within the region, any proposal for Israel to submit must be compeling; not just theoretical.

By law, the U.S. would have to cease providing billions of dollars in foreign aid to Israel if it determined the country had a nuclear weapons program. That's because the so-called Symington Amendment, passed in 1976, bars assistance to countries developing technology for nuclear weapons proliferation.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections

Symington Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

I mentioned this once before, but I'll emphasize it. There is probably already a Presidential Finding on record. If not, it is merely the stroke of the pen.

(b) Certification by President of necessity of continued assistance; disapproval by Congress

(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the President may furnish assistance which would otherwise be prohibited under such subsection if he determines and certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that—

(A) the termination of such assistance would have a serious adverse effect on vital United States interests; and
(B) he has received reliable assurances that the country in question will not acquire or develop nuclear weapons or assist other nations in doing so.
Such certification shall set forth the reasons supporting such determination in each particular case.​

SOURCE: 22 USC § 2799aa - Nuclear enrichment transfers | LII / Legal Information Institute

I'm betting that this has already been done. But it is easy enough to do.

Now, there is another angle to this. Congress risks a backlash if they push the issue. The law already grants a waiver to India and Pakistan; both of which are written into the law. If Congress doesn't accommodate Israel, it will have to disestablish the allowance to both India and Pakistan. That will cause a huge backlash for them to contend with.

Just my thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[theliq]

You are an ignorant mother fucker if you believe any of that.

Are you saying Israel is not a member of the UN?

Okay. You have me on that technicality. But you're pretending that we have world government and not a collection of independent sovereign nations. The UN are not our leaders. We don't elect UN officials. Israel has no obligation to comply to their bs.

Jews used the UN to get statehood and have TOLD THEM TO FCUK OFF EVER SINCE,Face it Israel are a Nuclear PHARIAH STATE,SEND IN THE INSPECTORS,AND GET THIS ERRANT NATION TO KNEEL.

THEY LIE ABOUT THEIR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY,cut off all money to them and sanction them

 

[theliq]

Jos, et al,

Yes, on the face of it, it would appear so. That would have to go into the equation that Israel works to determine what is in Israels best interest. It is their decision.

RoccoR

In the absence of a definitive advantage to Israel, given the demonstrated hostile nature of the Middle East neighborhood specifically towards its sovereignty, it would be foolish for Israel to alter its stance and image in any way that does not guarantee a better defensive posture and improvement in regional relations.

Given the lack of wisdom demonstrated by the international community regarding peace and security within the region, any proposal for Israel to submit must be compeling; not just theoretical.

By law, the U.S. would have to cease providing billions of dollars in foreign aid to Israel if it determined the country had a nuclear weapons program. That's because the so-called Symington Amendment, passed in 1976, bars assistance to countries developing technology for nuclear weapons proliferation.


Symington Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

I mentioned this once before, but I'll emphasize it. There is probably already a Presidential Finding on record. If not, it is merely the stroke of the pen.

(b) Certification by President of necessity of continued assistance; disapproval by Congress

(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the President may furnish assistance which would otherwise be prohibited under such subsection if he determines and certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that—

(A) the termination of such assistance would have a serious adverse effect on vital United States interests; and
(B) he has received reliable assurances that the country in question will not acquire or develop nuclear weapons or assist other nations in doing so.
Such certification shall set forth the reasons supporting such determination in each particular case.​

SOURCE: 22 USC § 2799aa - Nuclear enrichment transfers | LII / Legal Information Institute

I'm betting that this has already been done. But it is easy enough to do.

Now, there is another angle to this. Congress risks a backlash if they push the issue. The law already grants a waiver to India and Pakistan; both of which are written into the law. If Congress doesn't accommodate Israel, it will have to disestablish the allowance to both India and Pakistan. That will cause a huge backlash for them to contend with.

Just my thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Gee I've met some THICK,IGNORANT BASTARDS BUT YOU ARE THE BEST

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are an ignorant mother fucker if you believe any of that.

Are you saying Israel is not a member of the UN?

I think his main point is that you are an ignorant motherfucker and your post is just one instance in which you have made that clear.