Israel: Threat to NPT?

[Neser Boha]

Source: UN nuclear watchdog: Israel's 'perceived double-standard' hurts NPT - Haaretz - Israel News

In an article for the International Herald Tribune, Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, set out what he thought should be done to achieve consensus on nuclear disarmament. "What compounds the problem is that the nuclear non-proliferation regime has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of Arab public opinion because of the perceived double-standards concerning Israel, the only state in the region outside the NPT and known to possess nuclear weapons," he wrote.

I think this brings up a good point that has not been discussed on this board (since I've been here) - Israeli nukes outside of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. From this point of view, Israel is a rogue state... And... it is also making discussion between the IAEA (UN) and Iran difficult as Iran's using the case of Israel's non-compliance with the global treaty as one of its main arguments...

 

[Article 15]

Israel never signed the NPT. Nor did Pakistan or India, both of which are nuclear powers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Israel never signed the NPT. Nor did Pakistan or India, both of which are nuclear powers.

But Iran DID.

 

[Article 15]

Israel never signed the NPT. Nor did Pakistan or India, both of which are nuclear powers.

But Iran DID.

Yep.

And Israel is the only nuclear power in the region but they wont admit it.

 

[Neser Boha]

Israel never signed the NPT. Nor did Pakistan or India, both of which are nuclear powers.

ElBaradei was being region-specific... You're right, India and Pakistan also have 'em and are outside NPT.

 

[Agnapostate]

Has that not been discussed? It's certainly a topic that serves attention, especially considering that Israel developed nuclear weaponry in the same covert manner that the U.S. government now accuses Iran of doing. More than that, there was a conscious strategy by the Israelis to conceal weapons from American inspectors, a plot in which even Prime Minister Levi Eshkol is alleged to have been complicit.

 

[DavidS]

Has that not been discussed? It's certainly a topic that serves attention, especially considering that Israel developed nuclear weaponry in the same covert manner that the U.S. government now accuses Iran of doing. More than that, there was a conscious strategy by the Israelis to conceal weapons from American inspectors, a plot in which even Prime Minister Levi Eshkol is alleged to have been complicit.

Israel developed nuclear weapons over 50 years ago. It's a moot discussion at this point. Israel being a nuclear power today is irrelevant. It does not threaten to wipe Jordan or Egypt off of the map. Iran, however; threatens its neighbors almost daily. If Iran threatens to wipe a country off of the map and it's developing nuclear weapons... well, gee, maybe that's not a good combination and we should do something about it.

I wholeheartedly support Israel's right to defend itself. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Iran won't attack Israel once it develops nukes. A small range 4 or 5 megaton nuke on Tel Aviv won't cross over into Gaza and the West Bank is too far and it's big enough to do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people. We have to believe that that is Iran's main goal and act on it. Iran MUST be stopped at all costs. Obama has tried to engage them in diplomacy, which I absolutely commend. But they have slapped his hand away like a child. Now thatn we've got Netanyahu, it's time to show Iran why it's a bad idea to develop nuclear weapons and threaten Israel.

 

[Agnapostate]

Israel developed nuclear weapons over 50 years ago. It's a moot discussion at this point. Israel being a nuclear power today is irrelevant. It does not threaten to wipe Jordan or Egypt off of the map. Iran, however; threatens its neighbors almost daily. If Iran threatens to wipe a country off of the map and it's developing nuclear weapons... well, gee, maybe that's not a good combination and we should do something about it.

I'm afraid this point is flagrantly inaccurate. To be honest, I'm somewhat appalled that the mistranslated version of Ahmadinejad's speech is still referenced today; it's grown awfully repetitive, much like reports that Hugo Chavez "shut down opposition media."

As I've repeated so many times before, the claim that he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" is a mistranslation and distortion of his statement. Ahmadinejad's remarks are reported as having been "een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad," or "[Ayatollah Khomeini] said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time."

It is first notable that he did not reference Israel, but the regime in current occupation of Jerusalem. He was referring to the current government of Israel, not the citizenry of Israel or Jewish people in general. In fact, Ahmadinejad has expressed support for the Jewish people (as indicated by his meeting with Neturei Karta, for instance), while at the same time condemning Israeli policies. He has said that, "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish." Ahmadinejad also said that Jews lived in Iran and were represented by the Parliament. Yet, as we know, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are often conflated by pro-Israel lobbies for political gain, and even mere opposition to Israeli policies is often mendaciously depicted as anti-Semitic in nature.

Next, the phrase "wiped off the map" suggests a hostile military threat, while the phrase "vanish from the page of time" merely expresses a desire that the interventionist Israeli government will eventually lose power and influence. Ahmadinejad has explicitly opposed military action against Israel, declaring, "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future." He has also said that "there is no need for any measures by the Iranian people" to bring about the end of the "Zionist regime" in Israel. Supreme Leader Ali Khameini also said that Iran "will not commit aggression against any nation." The distortion of his claims is essentially equivalent to claiming that Americans who opposes the Bush regime and its policies were calling for its violent overthrow, which is obviously untrue.

Yet Shimon Peres, the current president of Israel, responded by saying, "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map." This was reported by essentially no one because the Western media has a pro-Israel bias.

I wholeheartedly support Israel's right to defend itself. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Iran won't attack Israel once it develops nukes. A small range 4 or 5 megaton nuke on Tel Aviv won't cross over into Gaza and the West Bank is too far and it's big enough to do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people. We have to believe that that is Iran's main goal and act on it. Iran MUST be stopped at all costs. Obama has tried to engage them in diplomacy, which I absolutely commend. But they have slapped his hand away like a child. Now thatn we've got Netanyahu, it's time to show Iran why it's a bad idea to develop nuclear weapons and threaten Israel.

Unsurprisingly, their continued possession of an unauthorized and undeclared arsenal has provoked an instigation of an arms race in the region, which is the driving force behind the desire for nuclear weapons from certain elements in Iran. It's not likely that they'll exist anytime soon, of course, considering the religiously serious nature of Supreme Leader Khameini's fatwa against them, but it should surprise no one that a desire for them exists. As to Netanyahu, he is and always has been somewhat incompetent if not outright obstructive (the nature of his conduct in the suspension of the Wye Agreement may be considered, for instance), so he'll likely be more of a hindrance than a help to the general state of affairs.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Israel never signed the NPT. Nor did Pakistan or India, both of which are nuclear powers.

But Iran DID.

In our world of contracts and word play over common sense, this is a damn good point.

-Joe

 

[Agnapostate]

Indeed. It's an obvious indication that the opposition to their nuclear program is unfounded, inasmuch as they possess a right to develop nuclear energy under the terms of the NPT.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Indeed. It's an obvious indication that the opposition to their nuclear program is unfounded, inasmuch as they possess a right to develop nuclear energy under the terms of the NPT.

Ya cause with no nuclear plants to speak of they need THOUSANDS of Centrifuges in deep bunkered positions for "peaceful" nuclear energy in a country afloat in OIL.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Has that not been discussed? It's certainly a topic that serves attention, especially considering that Israel developed nuclear weaponry in the same covert manner that the U.S. government now accuses Iran of doing. More than that, there was a conscious strategy by the Israelis to conceal weapons from American inspectors, a plot in which even Prime Minister Levi Eshkol is alleged to have been complicit.

Israel developed nuclear weapons over 50 years ago. It's a moot discussion at this point. Israel being a nuclear power today is irrelevant. It does not threaten to wipe Jordan or Egypt off of the map. Iran, however; threatens its neighbors almost daily. If Iran threatens to wipe a country off of the map and it's developing nuclear weapons... well, gee, maybe that's not a good combination and we should do something about it.

I wholeheartedly support Israel's right to defend itself. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Iran won't attack Israel once it develops nukes. A small range 4 or 5 megaton nuke on Tel Aviv won't cross over into Gaza and the West Bank is too far and it's big enough to do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people. We have to believe that that is Iran's main goal and act on it. Iran MUST be stopped at all costs. Obama has tried to engage them in diplomacy, which I absolutely commend. But they have slapped his hand away like a child. Now thatn we've got Netanyahu, it's time to show Iran why it's a bad idea to develop nuclear weapons and threaten Israel.

This is all over words, definitions and a perceived "right to exist". (Whatever the fuck that means)

Why can't the world tell the people of Israel to drop their blockades and give the folks in Gaza their freedom and tell the people of Gaza that if they use that freedom to launch rockets into Israel, they can expect to see Israeli war planes hammering them into the stone age.

If the world united behind a similar statement to the people of Iran and the people of North Korea perhaps we could spend more resources reaching for the stars.

All of this violent dancing around wording, definitions and 20th century concepts of nations 'rights' is making us look pretty stupid from space.

-Joe

 

[Agnapostate]

Ya cause with no nuclear plants to speak of they need THOUSANDS of Centrifuges in deep bunkered positions for "peaceful" nuclear energy in a country afloat in OIL.

What I find most amusing is that Iran's need or lack thereof for nuclear energy alternately appears and disappears depending on the role of the present Iranian government to U.S. government interests, which is why it appeared when a government friendly to U.S. governmental interests appeared, and disappeared after that government was deposed or removed.

 

[jillian]

Israel never signed the NPT. Nor did Pakistan or India, both of which are nuclear powers.

ElBaradei was being region-specific... You're right, India and Pakistan also have 'em and are outside NPT.

No...he wasn't being "region-specific", he was engaging in a double standard.

And no offense, but why would you rely on someone from the Arab world to make an honest assessment about Israel?

 

[Agnapostate]

No...he wasn't being "region-specific", he was engaging in a double standard.

 

[jillian]

says the pedophile....

 

[Agnapostate]

says the pedophile....

Post a copy of the document that you have affirming my clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, consistent with the definition in DSM-IV.

 

[Neser Boha]

Indeed. It's an obvious indication that the opposition to their nuclear program is unfounded, inasmuch as they possess a right to develop nuclear energy under the terms of the NPT.

Ya cause with no nuclear plants to speak of they need THOUSANDS of Centrifuges in deep bunkered positions for "peaceful" nuclear energy in a country afloat in OIL.

"Iran Has No Use for Nuclear Power" False.
Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and has the world's second-largest natural gas reserves. But its energy needs are rising faster than its ability to meet them. Driven by a young population and high oil revenues, Iran's power consumption is growing by around 7 percent annually, and its capacity must nearly triple over the next 15 years to meet projected demand. Where will the electricity come from? Not from the oil sector. It is retarded by U.S. sanctions, as well as inefficiency, corruption, and Iran's institutionalized distrust of Western investors. Since 1995, when the sector was opened to a handful of foreign companies, Iran has added 600,000 barrels per day to its crude production, enough to offset depletion in aging fields, but not enough to boost output, which has stagnated at around 3.7 million barrels per day since the late 1990s. Almost 40 percent of Iran's crude oil is consumed locally. If this figure were to rise, oil revenues would fall, spelling the end of the strong economic growth the country has enjoyed since 1999. Plugging the gap with natural gas is not possible-yet. Iran's gigantic gas reserves are only just being tapped, so Iran remains a net importer. The main goal of Iranian foreign policy is to counter U.S. efforts to isolate it. This partly explains the ambitious agreement that Iran and China signed last year, under which China may buy as much as $70 billion of Iranian liquefied natural gas over the next 30 years, while developing a large Iranian oil field. It is no accident that the agreement was with a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which the United States would like to use to sanction Iran for its nuclear activities. Iran is also schmoozing other influential Asian countries with energy deals, particularly Japan and India. It makes sense for Iran to free up its hydrocarbons for export, but why pour money into a hugely expensive nuclear fuel-cycle program when other nations have said they will sell Iran the nuclear fuel that it needs? Iran contends that the United States may pressure foreign sellers into stopping the flow. This is unconvincing: Those very same foreigners buy its oil and pledge to buy its gas in the face of American disapproval. Iran's desire for a complete fuel cycle is the most suspicious aspect of its nuclear program.

An interesting out-take from Foreign Affairs' "Iran" by Christopher de Bellaigue (May, 2005)

 

[Shogun]

Israel never signed the NPT. Nor did Pakistan or India, both of which are nuclear powers.

ElBaradei was being region-specific... You're right, India and Pakistan also have 'em and are outside NPT.

No...he wasn't being "region-specific", he was engaging in a double standard.

And no offense, but why would you rely on someone from the Arab world to make an honest assessment about Israel?

YEA you goddamn jooo hating antisemite! What, do you want to see jews floating in the sea or something?


Don't you know that ONLY JEWS can make an honest assessment of ISRAEL? Gosh! Do you WANT to wear a Scarlet A!??!?!

 

[Shogun]

Indeed. It's an obvious indication that the opposition to their nuclear program is unfounded, inasmuch as they possess a right to develop nuclear energy under the terms of the NPT.

Ya cause with no nuclear plants to speak of they need THOUSANDS of Centrifuges in deep bunkered positions for "peaceful" nuclear energy in a country afloat in OIL.

"Iran Has No Use for Nuclear Power" False.
Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and has the world's second-largest natural gas reserves. But its energy needs are rising faster than its ability to meet them. Driven by a young population and high oil revenues, Iran's power consumption is growing by around 7 percent annually, and its capacity must nearly triple over the next 15 years to meet projected demand. Where will the electricity come from? Not from the oil sector. It is retarded by U.S. sanctions, as well as inefficiency, corruption, and Iran's institutionalized distrust of Western investors. Since 1995, when the sector was opened to a handful of foreign companies, Iran has added 600,000 barrels per day to its crude production, enough to offset depletion in aging fields, but not enough to boost output, which has stagnated at around 3.7 million barrels per day since the late 1990s. Almost 40 percent of Iran's crude oil is consumed locally. If this figure were to rise, oil revenues would fall, spelling the end of the strong economic growth the country has enjoyed since 1999. Plugging the gap with natural gas is not possible-yet. Iran's gigantic gas reserves are only just being tapped, so Iran remains a net importer. The main goal of Iranian foreign policy is to counter U.S. efforts to isolate it. This partly explains the ambitious agreement that Iran and China signed last year, under which China may buy as much as $70 billion of Iranian liquefied natural gas over the next 30 years, while developing a large Iranian oil field. It is no accident that the agreement was with a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which the United States would like to use to sanction Iran for its nuclear activities. Iran is also schmoozing other influential Asian countries with energy deals, particularly Japan and India. It makes sense for Iran to free up its hydrocarbons for export, but why pour money into a hugely expensive nuclear fuel-cycle program when other nations have said they will sell Iran the nuclear fuel that it needs? Iran contends that the United States may pressure foreign sellers into stopping the flow. This is unconvincing: Those very same foreigners buy its oil and pledge to buy its gas in the face of American disapproval. Iran's desire for a complete fuel cycle is the most suspicious aspect of its nuclear program.

An interesting out-take from Foreign Affairs' "Iran" by Christopher de Bellaigue (May, 2005)

HAve you ever noticed how zionist go on the ATTACK when faced with criticism about israel? Especially if the critic is not jewish? Now, I'm no fan of Agnapedostate but take a gander at Jillian's rebuttal to a post of his that seems to have touched her zion nerve the wrong way...