The Historic Opportunity

[pbel]

The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for Israel to give up nukes...The Arabs including Egypt I believe support this hoping to entice Israel towards a final and real peace with the Arab League and the Palestinians...

Nuclear Armaments only entice enemies to acquire them...To wit Iran....Removal of these weapons along with a peace deal would enhance Israel's long-term survival and acceptance to the Middle East...

I hope Israel does not miss this history chance for a lasting peace and perhaps put out all the fires raging around her...



UN resolution Israel must renounce nuclear arms - Yahoo News
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved an Arab-backed resolution Tuesday calling on Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and put its nuclear facilities under international oversight.
The resolution, adopted in a 161-5 vote, noted that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that is not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It called on Israel to "accede to that treaty without further delay, not to develop, produce test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons" and put its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency.
The United States, Canada, Palau and Micronesia joined Israel in opposing the measure, while 18 countries abstained.
Israel is widely considered to possess nuclear arms but declines to confirm it.
The resolution, introduced by Egypt, echoed a similar Arab-backed effort that failed to gain approval in September at the Vienna-based IAEA. At the time, Israel criticized Arab countries for undermining dialogue by repeatedly singling out the Jewish state in international arenas. Israel's U.N. Mission did not immediately return a request for comment Tuesday.
The U.N. resolution, titled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East," pushed for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East and lamented that U.S.-backed efforts to convene talks were abandoned in 2012.
Israel has long argued that a full Palestinian-Israeli peace plan must precede any creation of a Mideast zone free of weapons of mass destruction. The country also argues that Iran's alleged work on nuclear arms is the real regional threat. Iran denies pursuing such weapons.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

It is a non-binding resolution.

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES SIGNED AT VIENNA 23 May 1969
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 27 January 1980

Article 51
Coercion of a representative of a State​

The expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52
Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force​

A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.​

The General Assembly cannot compel or coerce through armed force or sanctions any nation to sign a treaty. The resolution is merely window dressing.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[jwoodie]

Perhaps the U.S. should give up its nuclear weapons and the rest of the world will follow suit?

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

It is a non-binding resolution.

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES SIGNED AT VIENNA 23 May 1969
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 27 January 1980

Article 51
Coercion of a representative of a State​

The expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52
Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force​

A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.​

The General Assembly cannot compel or coerce through armed force or sanctions any nation to sign a treaty. The resolution is merely window dressing.

Most Respectfully,
R

RU an AIPAC Spokesperson?

 

[toastman]

The world wants Israel to give up the West Bank, making it incredibly hard to defend it's airspace and land from an invasion
The world wants Israel to give up her nukes, therefore making her more vulnerable to a chemical, nuclear attack
The world wants Israel to do all these things that make her more vulnerable to being attacked.

Thank goodness Israel is smarter then that and will not listen to these suggestions that make her weaker.

 

[Daniyel]

#Middle East section - not I/P Conflict.

 

[Phoenall]

The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for Israel to give up nukes...The Arabs including Egypt I believe support this hoping to entice Israel towards a final and real peace with the Arab League and the Palestinians...

Nuclear Armaments only entice enemies to acquire them...To wit Iran....Removal of these weapons along with a peace deal would enhance Israel's long-term survival and acceptance to the Middle East...

I hope Israel does not miss this history chance for a lasting peace and perhaps put out all the fires raging around her...



UN resolution Israel must renounce nuclear arms - Yahoo News
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved an Arab-backed resolution Tuesday calling on Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and put its nuclear facilities under international oversight.
The resolution, adopted in a 161-5 vote, noted that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that is not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It called on Israel to "accede to that treaty without further delay, not to develop, produce test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons" and put its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency.
The United States, Canada, Palau and Micronesia joined Israel in opposing the measure, while 18 countries abstained.
Israel is widely considered to possess nuclear arms but declines to confirm it.
The resolution, introduced by Egypt, echoed a similar Arab-backed effort that failed to gain approval in September at the Vienna-based IAEA. At the time, Israel criticized Arab countries for undermining dialogue by repeatedly singling out the Jewish state in international arenas. Israel's U.N. Mission did not immediately return a request for comment Tuesday.
The U.N. resolution, titled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East," pushed for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East and lamented that U.S.-backed efforts to convene talks were abandoned in 2012.
Israel has long argued that a full Palestinian-Israeli peace plan must precede any creation of a Mideast zone free of weapons of mass destruction. The country also argues that Iran's alleged work on nuclear arms is the real regional threat. Iran denies pursuing such weapons.

About as much weight as the UN approving a strike on gaza if hamas does not give up terrorism. Will never happen until the UN is made to see its own ANTI SEMITISM

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

It is a non-binding resolution.

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES SIGNED AT VIENNA 23 May 1969
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 27 January 1980

Article 51
Coercion of a representative of a State​

The expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52
Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force​

A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.​

The General Assembly cannot compel or coerce through armed force or sanctions any nation to sign a treaty. The resolution is merely window dressing.

Most Respectfully,
R

RU an AIPAC Spokesperson?

So when they fail to comply with the bull boys demands will the bully boy run to his mother and tell a pack of lies.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

It is a non-binding resolution.

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES SIGNED AT VIENNA 23 May 1969
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 27 January 1980

Article 51
Coercion of a representative of a State​

The expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52
Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force​

A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.​

The General Assembly cannot compel or coerce through armed force or sanctions any nation to sign a treaty. The resolution is merely window dressing.

Most Respectfully,
R

RU an AIPAC Spokesperson?

So when they fail to comply with the bull boys demands will the bully boy run to his mother and tell a pack of lies.

The bull boys will get nukes, then what?

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

It is a non-binding resolution.

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES SIGNED AT VIENNA 23 May 1969
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 27 January 1980

Article 51
Coercion of a representative of a State​

The expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52
Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force​

A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.​

The General Assembly cannot compel or coerce through armed force or sanctions any nation to sign a treaty. The resolution is merely window dressing.

Most Respectfully,
R

RU an AIPAC Spokesperson?

So when they fail to comply with the bull boys demands will the bully boy run to his mother and tell a pack of lies.

The bull boys will get nukes, then what?

Then the USA is just a button press away from a massive wake up call as they fire their missiles at you and your other red neck white supremacists with little or no thought on the plight of the Islamic world. Remember in the eyes of islam you are the great shaitan that must be destroyed.

 

[pbel]

The world wants Israel to give up the West Bank, making it incredibly hard to defend it's airspace and land from an invasion
The world wants Israel to give up her nukes, therefore making her more vulnerable to a chemical, nuclear attack
The world wants Israel to do all these things that make her more vulnerable to being attacked.

Thank goodness Israel is smarter then that and will not listen to these suggestions that make her weaker.

Invasion by whom? Israel IDF is equipped to easily defeat any Arab army for quite a while...Besides Arab recognition will do a lot to disarm the Jihadists... Sounds like a ploy to steal as much land as possible...

 

[Phoenall]

The world wants Israel to give up the West Bank, making it incredibly hard to defend it's airspace and land from an invasion
The world wants Israel to give up her nukes, therefore making her more vulnerable to a chemical, nuclear attack
The world wants Israel to do all these things that make her more vulnerable to being attacked.

Thank goodness Israel is smarter then that and will not listen to these suggestions that make her weaker.

Invasion by whom? Israel IDF is equipped to easily defeat any Arab army for quite a while...Besides Arab recognition will do a lot to disarm the Jihadists... Sounds like a ploy to steal as much land as possible...

The arab's have already disowned the Palestinians and refused to help them. This leaves the Palestinians with only one option, to go begging to Iran, Syria and IS. Can you imagine the strings attached to any deal involving these three groups ?, and the worldwide repercussions of any eventual attacks on Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

No.

pbel, et al,

It is a non-binding resolution.

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES SIGNED AT VIENNA 23 May 1969
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 27 January 1980

Article 51
Coercion of a representative of a State​

The expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52
Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force​

A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.​

The General Assembly cannot compel or coerce through armed force or sanctions any nation to sign a treaty. The resolution is merely window dressing.

Most Respectfully,
R

RU an AIPAC Spokesperson?

(COMMENT)

I'm just a realist. This theory is applicable to everyone. Even the Palestinians cannot be forced to sign a treaty of peace with anyone.

Most Respectively,
R

 

[toastman]

The world wants Israel to give up the West Bank, making it incredibly hard to defend it's airspace and land from an invasion
The world wants Israel to give up her nukes, therefore making her more vulnerable to a chemical, nuclear attack
The world wants Israel to do all these things that make her more vulnerable to being attacked.

Thank goodness Israel is smarter then that and will not listen to these suggestions that make her weaker.

Invasion by whom? Israel IDF is equipped to easily defeat any Arab army for quite a while...Besides Arab recognition will do a lot to disarm the Jihadists... Sounds like a ploy to steal as much land as possible...

NOW they are. But get rid of their army in the West Bank, take away their nuclear weapons, and they become a much easier target

 

[docmauser1]

The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for Israel to give up nukes...The Arabs including Egypt I believe support this hoping to entice Israel towards a final and real peace with the Arab League and the Palestinians...

The UN general karawan-serai is known for cracking generally dumbass jokes, indeed.

 

[pbel]

The world wants Israel to give up the West Bank, making it incredibly hard to defend it's airspace and land from an invasion
The world wants Israel to give up her nukes, therefore making her more vulnerable to a chemical, nuclear attack
The world wants Israel to do all these things that make her more vulnerable to being attacked.

Thank goodness Israel is smarter then that and will not listen to these suggestions that make her weaker.

Invasion by whom? Israel IDF is equipped to easily defeat any Arab army for quite a while...Besides Arab recognition will do a lot to disarm the Jihadists... Sounds like a ploy to steal as much land as possible...

NOW they are. But get rid of their army in the West Bank, take away their nuclear weapons, and they become a much easier target

sounds like doubletalk

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

I tend to think that most forensic psychologists will agree: "The best predictor of future behavior is … past behavior!"

Israeli national defense programmed postures are based on a serious risk assessment; how much to invest into various defensive and countermeasure programs based against a scale of: most likely threats --- to the --- least likely threats. This coupled with intelligence on intentions and capabilities of the greatest political-military and regional security conditions: most restrained governments --- to the --- least restrained governments.

Applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and dispute, "the best predictor of future hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) behavior rests in a detailed analysis of past terrorist, insurgent, guerrilla, and criminal behavior" coupled with the open threats they make, the policies they have established, and their objectives they pursue. Past HoAP violence suggest a probability of future HoAP violence; persistent hostile behavior interacting over time. That is not to say that the means, strategies, and capabilities --- and the logistical support --- will not vary.

This is a simplistic --- thumbnail view --- behind the scope and nature of the conflict.

sounds like doubletalk

(COMMENT)

Generally speaking a nuclear weapon is a strategic deterrent threat (use of nuclear weapons), a weapon of last-resort, or a retaliatory/counterstrike weapon. Even if Israel has (and no one has proven such a claim) such a capability, it has no impact on the low-intensity conflict (LIC) between Israeli and the Palestinians; except as it might apply to one of the three conditions mentioned or widening of the conflict from intrastate - to interstate --- as in 1948 (five Arab nation coalition opposing a single state). Thus, unless the State of Palestine has hostile intentions, the question of an Israeli Nuclear Deterrent is mute.

The LIC between Israel and the Palestinians is an example of an evolving asymmetric struggle between two belligerents whose relative military capacity differs significantly, and in which strategy or tactics differ significantly. One side using a 21st Century model and the other side using terrorism and unconventional warfare techniques.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) responds to Palestinian hostile and aggressive behaviors based on the evolving threat posed by the asymmetric forces opposing them; both State-Sponsored [Example: HAMAS and the al-Qassam Brigades] and affiliated non-state sponsored [Example: Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades (PFLP)]. Whether we examine the group reported to be behind Rafah border crossing suicide bombing attack, the attack on a synagogue in Jerusalem when 3 Rabbi's were killed, or the kidnap and murder of three students, the pattern is the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Staidhup]

And this action will result in what? The UN violated its own charter decades ago and isn't worth the space it occupy s. Look at who sits on the human rights committee, what a farce. The UN is a joke and everyone knows it.

 

[RoccoR]

Staidhup, et al,

Well tell us...

And this action will result in what? The UN violated its own charter decades ago and isn't worth the space it occupy s. Look at who sits on the human rights committee, what a farce. The UN is a joke and everyone knows it.

(QUESTION)

What Article of the Charter was violated and by who?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Staidhup, et al,

Well tell us...

And this action will result in what? The UN violated its own charter decades ago and isn't worth the space it occupy s. Look at who sits on the human rights committee, what a farce. The UN is a joke and everyone knows it.

(QUESTION)

What Article of the Charter was violated and by who?

Most Respectfully,
R

I believe it is Article 73:

"Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end.... "