Islamic Nations Secure IAEA Vote Against Israel

[Purveyor]

Source: Reuters

VIENNA (Reuters) - Islamic nations, targeting Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal, pushed through a U.N. atomic watchdog resolution on Thursday urging all Middle East nations to renounce atomic weapons.

The vote was 53-2 but with 47 abstentions by Western and developing states, highlighting reservations that the resolution politicized the International Atomic Energy Agency's work.

The decision was non-binding, but symbolized entrenched tensions over Israel's presumed nuclear might and shook the traditional consensus culture in the Vienna-based IAEA.

A similar measure calling on all Middle East nations to adopt IAEA safeguards on nuclear work passed overwhelmingly at last year's IAEA general assembly, with only the United States and Israel opposed, as they were again on Thursday.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2018267420070920

[Megahurtz]

1. K&R n/t

[Megahurtz]

2. The Pushy Warmongers With The Biggest Mouths

are the most dangerous Nations that actually possesss the arsenals
of Nuclear Weapons that they themselves obsess about.
Israel and the U.S.

Well whoda thunk! :sarcasm:

Gotcha!

:rofl:

[CreekDog]

9. How many of these same nations want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?

Israel's strong military is pretty much commensurate with the threats to their existence.

[loudsue]

17. Either countries SHOULD have nukes, or they shouldn't.

WHO is it that gets to decide who the "good guys" are? The U.S.?? The whole thing is messed up, and ALL nukes should be destroyed. Period.

:kick:

[Flatulo]

22. That ship has sailed. Even if all nukes were verifiable destroyed,

it would be child's play for the developed nations to make new ones.

[SlowDownFast]

25. Yup.

Can't put the genie back in the bottle...

[CreekDog]

27. God should decide, okay?

Outside of that, I'm sure the "fairness" of the distribution of nuclear weaponry is a lower priority than simply making sure these dangerous weapons are in as few hands as possible, and barring all else, are not at all available to the most dangerous leaders.

[Zhade]

59. Um, a lot of us don't buy into your mythology, so that comment is rather disturbing.

I think b*s* thinks along those lines.

Nuclear weapons are so destabilizing that either all should have them, or none. Thank goodness YOU don't decide who gets to have them!

[Megahurtz]

20. Talk Is Cheap

when it comes to "wiping a Nation off of the face of the Earth", but I ask you, who, is/are the attackers and who right now is aggressively attacking the other Nations that you speak of?

[CreekDog]

28. Name the nations that don't recognize Israel's right to exist

Talk may be cheap, but then if they say it, I'm happy to take them at their word if it means I have an excuse to keep them from a nuclear weapon.

We should use any excuse to keep the nuclear club as small as possible and we should use every opportunity to deny folks we don't trust those weapons.

Nuclear weapons are inherently unfair. I don't see this as a civil or moral rights issue. Just because something exists in the world doesn't mean it should be handed either to everybody indiscriminately or to nobody at all --it just doesn't work that way.

And I'll say it here and now: It is safer for Israel to possess as nuke than for Iran to possess one. Our policy reflects that as it should.

[reggie the dog]

48. What?

Go ask a Palestinian who they would rather see as a nuclear super power. Perahps the way that the goverment of Isreal treats people in Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, etc. has something to do with other countries wanting to wipe it off the map.

[Megahurtz]

49. "We" Should Not Be

bullying around other Countries and deciding who we think is the "bad guy" and
whoever we think "the good guy" is can go ahead and have have Nukes and
we'll provide them with the Nukes.

I call total Bullshit on that one.

[Zhade]

61. Now you want to PLAY God, per your earlier comment.

Again, thank goodness you have ZERO power to decide this - your support for such a dangerous policy is harmful enough by itself.

[CreekDog]

77. The position that we don't decide who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't

...is actually true right at this moment.

We didn't encourage Israel to get nuclear weapons or most other countries that have them, but nevertheless they have them.

We have mostly intervened to stop other countries from getting them and that should continue.

The position that we should not decide this, well we aren't deciding who *gets* nuclear weapons, we are trying to stop pretty much anyone else from getting them.

The opinion expressed here that it is unsafe for countires to have nuclear weapons AND that we should not stop other countries from having them seems to put *FAIRNESS* above *SAFETY* in terms of the priorities. That's messed up.

And you guys, some of you that is, can rant all you want that 1) I'm trying to be God (I'm not God and don't know what He wants)
2) I'm a warmonger (no, not by any means and I don't want war with Iran 3) that I'm biased towards Israel (okay, but only based on the comparison to their enemies) 4) That I'm like Bush or sound like him (I guess my opposing him on nearly everything doesn't count for anything --at least to stupid people) and the same sort of arguments. Even if true, none of these 4 things makes the arguments I've actually been making any less true. Some of you argue using Rush Limbaugh, ad hominem attacks (read Al Franken's first book to understand the weakness of this approach) and note how that strategy is used by right wingers.

[Chulanowa]

37. What strikes me as strange about this...

Is that the only two nations who actually think the Arab nations want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth... are themselves nations that have wiped Arab nations from the face of the earth.

Where is Palestine on a map? Where was Lebanon, back in the 80's? Where will Iraq be, in a few years?

[CreekDog]

41. Much of the Arabic world doesn't believe the Holocaust happened either

Thus, your point is not well-taken.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

78. Define your term "holocaust porn"

for us so that I can figure out what your argument is.

And do you believe the Holocaust occurred or not?

[Hydra]

3. Whoa

Don't we usually help shoot this kind of thing down? I can't think Olmert is happy about this.

[Tom Joad]

5. This was in the General Assemby, and is not binding. No action will take place in the Security

Council. Because the US will veto such a motion.

[Hydra]

6. Thanks for the heads up

US rules I know, The UN I have no clue about(other than that we hold veto power with 5 other nations)

[Tom Joad]

4. if there is going to be fairness and sanity used in ending nuclear proliferation, Israel must be

confronted on this issue.

The US violates its own laws because it gives military aid to Israel, despite its refusal to be part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

[CreekDog]

10. Israel's nukes have probably deterred military aggression towards them

[Flatulo]

11. Heh - just like Iran's eventual nuke will deter us.

It worked for N. Korea.

[CreekDog]

13. That's why we were more careful with N. Korea than Iran

Not that the whole thing has been handled correctly, it hasn't. But nuclear weapons probably prevented a World War 3.

[Flatulo]

14. Sad but true. nt

[rateyes]

15. Yeah, and I wonder if

Iraq had had nukes if it would have deterred military action against them? Or Syria? Or Lebanon?

[CreekDog]

16. It would have deterred action by other non nuclear nations

Absolutely.

And the threat of the nukes would have slowed us down too (two wrongs doesn't make a right however).

[rateyes]

18. That's right....two wrongs don't make a right....

It's wrong for Israel to possess nukes, and it doesn't make it right if the other nations don't posess them.

Or, it's right for Israel to possess them, which means it's right for the others to possess them.

One nation is not better than another.

[Flatulo]

21. Not better, but different...

Israel has been attacked repeatedly by her Arab neighbors.

[rateyes]

35. And, Israel's Arab neighbors have

been attacked by Israel. I'm not taking sides for one and against the other. They both have blame enough to go around. IMO, mutually assured destruction is a strong incentive to negotiate peace.

[CreekDog]

43. You are profoundly misleading

Name an Israeli attack that was not a defensive measure and obviously so.

[Megahurtz]

51. How About The Recent Israeli Attack On Syria???

Have you not heard? I'm sure there's more.

Defense. :eyes: Right. That's what they'd like you to always believe.

[rateyes]

57. Let's start with the most recent...

today's attack on Syria.

[Zhade]

62. Don't you ever read the fucking news?

Your bias blinds you.

[CreekDog]

26. Well, in a perfect world everything would be even

But it's not a perfect world.

I would rather the USA and Israel have nukes than Robert Mugabe.

Fair? Hardly. Life isn't fair, and nuclear weapons aren't where I'd start even-ing up the playing field.

It would be nice if nobody had them, but that won't happen. If all nations rid themselves of the weapons, those outside of government would develop them.

[rateyes]

36. BTW, we didn't defeat Hitler with nukes. nt

[CreekDog]

42. Okay, thanks for stating the obvious

I guess you did that to be correct in at least one post here.

[rateyes]

60. Look. I don't toe the party line for Israel or Palestine....

I don't believe the history of the region as taught to Israelis by Israelis, nor the history as taught by Arabs to Arabs. You were the one who talked about the US and Hitler in the same breath with nukes, too.

And, I guess the massacres in Sabra and Shatila were defensive. I suppose it was a defensive measure when, in 1948, before any "war" was declared Israel put Arabs out of their homes and gave those homes to Israelis.

Israel is not pure and innocent, and neither are the people who inhabited that area for thousands of years before the Jewish immigration there starting in the 1800s.

I still smart over the assassination of Rabin at the hands of a fellow Jew who just didn't want to make peace. Peace was very close at hand before that incident....and, one asshole backed up by a bunch of others who felt like he did...that Palestine has no right to exist, did what he did.

It's the same attitude that those who believe Israel has no right to exist takes. They are both minorities, but the majorities on both sides don't seem to have the courage to put a stop to it. Moderate Israelis need to stand up to the radical Israelis and say, "enough." And, moderate Arabs need to stand up to the radical Arabs, and say the same thing. And, the US, IMO, ought to put pressure on BOTH SIDES to do the same...and, if they won't, then we cut off support for both sides.

But, here in the US, IMO, we are afraid to use the leverage that we possess against the radical elements in Israel. We'll use it against the radical Palestinians, and hurt the moderates in the process...but, we won't stand up to the same radicals in Israel.

And, the Arabs know it. That's why they don't like us. They see us as not being fair in our efforts for peace.

If we are able to affect a just peace in Israel/Palestine...90% of the other problems we have in the Middle-east will be solved. And, as we are learning in Iraq...we cannot solve these problems militarily at the end of a gun barrel.

[CreekDog]

30. Rateyes: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

By your logic, it was wrong for us to have nukes and for Hitler not to.

That's why it's a foolish consistency.

I'm wouldn't do something stupid in order to be fair. Hell no.

[rateyes]

34. No, I'm saying that

mutually assured destruction has proven itself to be a strong incentive to negotiate for peace. And, to quote the attacks on Israel, but not Israel's attacks on others isn't quite fair, either.

[CreekDog]

39. When has Israel attacked outside of a defensive move?

In 1948, war was declared on Israel.

In 1967, they were blockaded and opposing troops massed at their borders.

In 1973, they were attacked.

In 1982, they were attacked.

In 2006, they were fired on by rockets from Lebanon and they attacked the areas where those attacks came from after suffering through the attacks for quite a long time. Further, Lebanon was unable to stop the attack of Israel from within its own borders.

PS-Don't pretend to be "fair" in this. That ship sailed after your first post here. By your standard, our attacks on Japan are no more right than Pearl Harbor.

[rateyes]

56. You forgot what provoked that war in 1948.

Israel bombed Syria today.

How was that defensive?

[CreekDog]

79. I recall a declaration of war on Israel by Arab nations in 1948

Of course that was caused by Israel's existence.

[rateyes]

83. No, that was caused by

Israel's aggression.

[Lurking Dem]

84. What aggression?

It's formation?

[rateyes]

85. Putting people out of their homes at gunpoint....

and splitting up their families into separate concentration camps, and giving their homes away to those who didn't build them, nor pay for them....that's not agression? That's FORMATION?

Yeah, right. Isn't it cute how we just change the words of what really happened in order to justify our actions?

Clean water bill....to allow more pollutants into our streams.
Launching a preemptive strike against a country that was no threat, and calling it DEFENDING America.

It's a load of crap.

[rayofreason]

88. What nonsense.

Where do you get what passes for information in your post? What evidence do you have of Israelis "splitting up their families into separate concentration camps"?

In 1947 the UN partitioned the western part of the Palestinian Mandate (the eastern part becoming the kingdom of Jordan in 1946) into an Arab portion and a Jewish portion. The Arabs refused to accept this arrangement and fighting continued. Arabs from Eygpt besieged 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem, hoping to starve them out, but in April the siege was lifted, securing a Jewish presence in Jerusalem. In 1948 Israel declared itself independent. The Arabs mobilized armies from across the Arab world and did everything they could to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. They failed. And Isreal ended up with even more land than originally alloted to it by the UN.

Launch a war and lose, and you lose for real and perhaps in a permanent way. Germany launched WW2. Can you find Konigsberg, the ancient Prussian capital, on a map? Or how about the German Hanseatic city of Danzig?

[Lurking Dem]

89. Arab violence against Jews

predates 1948 and the rest of your revisionism isn't even mildly entertaining.


edited for typo

[rateyes]

63. I'm sorry but this line:

"In 2006, they were fired on by rockets from Lebanon and they attacked the areas where those attacks came from after suffering through the attacks for quite a long time. Further, Lebanon was unable to stop the attack of Israel from within its own borders."

Is disingenous at best, and revisionist history at worst.

[CreekDog]

80. No, it happened

If you want to elaborate and explain that away, go for it, I'll read along.

[daleo]

7. A little more on the vote breakdown

"The sole EU nation to vote for Thursday's resolution was staunchly anti-nuclear Ireland. China, India, Russia and Japan also voted yes, as did U.S. foes Iran, Venezuela and Cuba."

[redqueen]

32. I love Ireland even more now. n/t

[xchrom]

8. recommend

[CreekDog]

12. If we don't want more nukes in the Middle East

Then Israel can simply bomb the facilities like they did last time.

If this were a fair fight, everybody could disarm and solve their problems diplomatically, but let's get real. If Israel gives theirs up (they won't), they will be invaded because their foes won't face nuclear retaliation.

Furthermore, does anyone doubt that Israel's enemies are trying/would try even harder to sneak a nuke into Israel, especially if Israel couldn't respond in like fashion? At least faced with potential nuclear retaliation from Israel, the governments in the Middle East are more likely to keep arms length distance from those that seek to detonate a nuclear weapon within Israel.

And I thought DU was supposed to be within the reality based community.

[rateyes]

19. You are correct....

and the same scenario works in reverse. You act as if Israel has clean hands in all of this. Both sides share blame.

[redqueen]

33. Some people really think one side gets all the blame.

Whichever side they think it is, they're wrong.

[rateyes]

65. You're right. People take sides....

when they shouldn't. And, it is the official policy of this country to take sides with Israel, as if we have some sort of alliance with that country. We don't.

We have NO agreement with Israel to protect them if attacked, and they have none with us. But, we continually say, "Israel is our only ally in the Middle East." That's just not true.

[Megahurtz]

24. Well That's The Problem

Israel won't give up theirs so how can they expect anyone else to give up theirs?:shrug:
All of the other Countries are afraid of being attacked too.
So it's either everyone have Nukes, or everyone give up Nukes.
Sounds fair to me.

[CreekDog]

44. Through force, that's how

Israel may simply attack in order to prevent development of nuclear weapons by nations that have stated intentions to use those weapons against Israel.

Plain and simple.

[Megahurtz]

52. Bullshit.

Israel is no better and has no right to demand that any other Country dump
their Nuclear Program when Israel themselves possesses Nuclear Weapons.

That's a lot more plain and simple than your explanation.

Sounds like you support the Warmongering. :(

[CreekDog]

53. You are being thick...nations don't get "rights" to weapons

They have them or they don't. You may not like it, I may not like it, but they are there until they are not.

Israel didn't ask permission for the weapons, their obtaining them wasn't dependent upon permission. They just got them, somehow.

And they will keep them even as they try to stop other nations from getting their own.

Point of fact, Israel was never "allowed" to have weapons, so why should it be so easy for other nations?

[Zhade]

68. They violate the NPT, and you don't care.

Yet you wish to enforce it on other nations.

That's called a double-standard. You're supporting hypocrisy.

[CreekDog]

81. I'd prefer hypocrisy over certain nations getting nuclear weapons

If you would rather not be a hypocrite than have Robert Mugabe have a nuclear weapon, you are moral, but you are also an idiot.

[Megahurtz]

75. WTF???

You act as if you didn't even hear a word that I said!:shrug:

[Zhade]

66. That's the fucking BUSH DOCTRINE you're supporting.

Illegal preventative attacks.

Reprehensible. You would consign innocent Arabs and Persians to death for your misguided paranoia!

[rateyes]

67. And, if they do,

the US should not step in and defend Israel when counterattacked. And, we should make it clear that we won't.

And, that would stop Israel from attacking. And, start bringing people to the negotiating table.

[frankf]

87. so by your logic

Iran can attack Israel now since Israel has stated it will attack it. Lebanon and Syria have already been attacked by Israel recently so "plain and simple" they can attack Israel.

:crazy:

[daleo]

45. Israel won a few wars before it had nuclear weapons

It is unlikely that they would lose in a conventional war, although the sole possession of nuclear weapons guarantees that won't ever be tested.

[Zhade]

64. Your "24" geopolitical paranoia clouds the issue.

You're not even being intellectually honest in your refusal to admit Israeli wrongdoing.

[CreekDog]

82. Israel has certainly done both wrong things and stupid things

But I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Scurrilous]

23. Syria to IAEA: Israeli nukes sparking Mideast arms race

<snip>

"Syria's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday that Israel's nuclear capabilities were sparking an arms race in the region.

"The fact that UN and IAEA decisions regarding Israel's nuclear capability are not implemented increases the frustration of the Arab states and threatens to expand the arms race that could threaten the peace and security of the region and entire world," said Ibrahim Othman at IAEA's annual conference.

According to reports in the American and British media, the target of an alleged Israel Air Force strike on Syria earlier this month was a nuclear facility built with North Korea's assistance.

Syria has said IAF planes violated its airspace and fired missiles at targets on the ground, but both Damascus and Pyongyang have vehemently denied the reports of nuclear cooperation.

"(Israel) has nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities, that are not under international supervision," Othman continued. "It is a legitimate concern to ask Israel to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty."

more

[CreekDog]

29. Israel did not desire/acquire nuclear weapons in a vacuum

The planned elimination of an entire religion/race was the beginning of that and the continued aggression against Jews in particular, not just Israel, has kept it going.

All Israel did was decide that the country and its people were not going to lose.

[eagler]

31. Their very survival has always been the determining factor.

The very day the British pulled out of Palestine they came under attack.

[razors edge]

38. Who was attacking the British

and driving them out?

[rateyes]

70. The British pulled out when the mandate of Palestine

expired. And, Lord Balfour did the world no favors.

[rateyes]

71. You really need to go back and read some history

..you quote one side of it very well. Tell me, why is it that the people who were indigenous to Palestine had to suffer the loss of their homes and land, and having their families split apart...not allowed to return to this day...because of what Germany did?

As you've said before, "two wrongs don't make a right," but you sure are trying to make that argument.

[annabanana]

40. Why can they have an "undeclared nuclear arsenal"?

(puzzled)

[CreekDog]

47. Everyone who has a nuclear weapon CAN have them

Basically every country that has them doesn't have them by "getting permission" but by building them and being strong enough that no other country could either stop them or take them away.

I think this talk of fairness in nuclear weapon distribution is STUPID.

The last thing I want is for all nations to have the weapons that the USA or Israel has.

Do you want all your neighbors to have the same amount of guns that your crazy neighbor down the street has?

Is fairness always the highest thing?

No, don't be simple.

[Zhade]

69. What's stupid is your authoritarian notions of deciding whose weapons to challenge and to ignore.

NT!

[rateyes]

72. God almighty, listen to yourself.

Iran, under the non-proliferation treaty, to which they are signatories have been given the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. The inspectors are in country, just like they were in Iraq (the ones who told us that Saddam had no nukes, before we invaded).

We should want EVERY country to be signatories to the non-proliferation treaty...yet, when it comes to Israel, we (and you) give them a pass.

Yeah, we tell them, go ahead and acquire all the nukes you want, and we'll turn a blind eye.

You say, "the last thing I want is for all nations to have weapons that the USA or Israel has."

Guess what? North Korea has them. And, that's why we're not at war with North Korea (part of Bush's "axis of evil" bullshit). Pakistan has them...that's why Al-Qaeda, despite what Bush says, has a safe haven in Pakistan, and why he won't do anything about it.

Funny thing, isn't it, that we are not fighting wars with countries that have nukes.

And, if Iraq had actually had the nuke...we wouldn't be at war with them now. We would never have invaded. And, that's a fact.

So, I don't care if other countries get nukes. I really don't. Because, it will be, in my estimation, the only way that we can guarantee that they won't ever be used again.

Mutually assured destruction kept us out of a hot war with the Soviet Union. All in all, I say it was a good thing that the USSR had those nukes.

[bemildred]

55. LOL.

:thumbsup:

[annabanana]

74. ;- ). . . . n/t

[lovuian]

46. nuclear bombs are not a deterrent Anymore

it destroys us all with its radiation

[HuffleClaw]

50. "with only the United States and Israel opposed"

hahahahahahahahahah

[Zhade]

58. Good. Less hypocisy in the world is a necessary first step.

NT!

[rateyes]

73. I'm glad of this development. nt

[Megahurtz]

76. I Am Very Glad Of This Development.

It is a ray of hope.

[Scurrilous]

86. Iran, Israel spar over Jerusalem's alleged nuclear capabilities

<snip>

"Israel accused Iran of lying, while Tehran challenged the international community to send inspectors to probe of its arch-rival's nuclear capabilities, in an unusually bitter and rare direct confrontation on Friday.

United Nations officials at a 148-nation meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna said they had no memory of the two rival nations ever engaging each other directly at previous meetings, and noted that development - and the unusually harsh tone of their statements -in part reflected Middle East tensions.

The exchange came after chief Iranian delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh - like Arab delegates before him - said that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had acknowledged earlier this year that his country possessed nuclear weapons - something that Israel says Olmert never did."

<snip>

"In turn, Israeli delegate Israel Michaeli alluded to claims that Olmert acknowledged Israel's nuclear weapons, saying, some previous speakers continued to lie.

"Those who call for the elimination of Israel have no right to criticize Israeli policies aimed at defending Israel's very existence," said Michaeli.

Soltanieh in response challenged the IAEA to send its inspectors into the country to verify who is telling the truth."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906132.html


Calls for Olmert to resign after nuclear gaffe (December 13, 2006)

<snip>

"Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was yesterday trying to fend off accusations of ineptitude and calls for his resignation after he accidentally acknowledged for the first time that Israel had nuclear weapons.
After decades in which Israel has stuck to a doctrine of nuclear ambiguity, Mr Olmert let slip during an interview in Germany that Israel did indeed have weapons of mass destruction.

He told Germany's Sat.1 channel on Monday evening: "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?"

Mr Olmert's admission comes less than a week after the incoming US secretary of defence, Robert Gates, speculating at a Senate confirmation hearing on Iran's possible motives for trying to build nuclear arms, suggested that Israel had the bomb."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1970861,00.html