Agency Will Not Ask Israel to Sign Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

Agency Will Not Ask Israel to Sign Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

www.nytimes.com

The United Nations nuclear watchdog narrowly rejected an Arab-sponsored resolution Friday calling on Israel to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency was a victory for the United States after a tough diplomatic battle. Washington had urged countries to vote down the symbolically important but non-binding resolution, saying it could derail broader efforts to ban nuclear warheads in the Middle East and threaten the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

(visit the link for the full news article)

151-nation meeting of the UN nuclear agency narrowly defeated an Arab push yesterday to censure Israel for shielding its nuclear programs. Well that is a short but sweet article description. so Israel will not have to sign the agreement. I'm sure there will be many here who will disagree with this outcome.


Your thoughts on the matter pro or con?




www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Ok, I'm confused... How could signing something that bans development and sale of nuclear warheads derail broader efforts to ban nuclear warheads? Maybe I'm just not fully awake yet, but I truly am confused here. Someone explain this to me please.

israel is going to have nuclear weapons one way or the other, the same goes for many other nations, it is better that everything is out in the open as much as possible.

reply to post by threadkiller


Well supposedly Israel already has Nukes.
Apparently the consensus is that it would ruin any chance of peace talks in the region.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Washington had urged countries to vote down the symbolically important but non-binding resolution, saying it could derail broader efforts to ban nuclear warheads in the Middle East and threaten the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

"it could derail broader efforts to ban nuclear warheads in the Middle East"

What a strange world we live in , when signing a non-proliferation treaty might derail an effort to ban nuclear weapons in the region.


"the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks"

Surely this is a separate issue , or should be at least .


What do you think yourself Slayer69 ?

Should they sign , be pressured to sign ?

What exactly does it entail ?
An open acknowledgement of its nuclear arsenal complete with monitoring and inspections etc. ?



My personal opinion ,
naively i believe that international rules and practices should be applied evenly ,
and for such a volatile paranoid region they must be seen to be applied evenly.
Coming down hard on any transgressors after that.

pardon my ignorance i thought it was common knowlege that israel has nuclear weapons. i will try to be more informed on this subject.

reply to post by UmbraSumus


True. I agree Israel should be held accountable. But correct me if I'm wrong here didn't Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq under Saddam Hussein violate the NPT at some point? So if other Signers in the region will violate the agreement what good is signing it?

The UN and, by default, the US and Israel just completely delegitimised it's calls for any and all sanctions against Iran over their nuclear energy programme, weapons or not.
If a country, guilty of proliferation of nuclear weapons, is to be allowed to carry on regardless, whilst others are demonised, then the whole non-proliferation process and treaty becomes worthless. It is either applied to all and enforced stringently, or not at all.

As for it possibly derailing the "peace process", what a completely laughable statement.
Decades of US administrations and rounds of talks, accords and meaningless pieces of paper and pats on the back have achieved what? Simple answer, a big fat nothing!
Meanwhile, Israel continues the steal more land and forcibly remove and oppress more and more of the Arab population. Much of what it does is against international laws and UN resolutions, the same laws and resolutions that have been used in the past to invade and destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands, inf not millions of people.

If these laws are to continue to exist and be effective, they need to be applied in equal measure to all nations, and the veto option removed, to ensure fairness of course.

What I don't understand is why any nation should have exemption from the treaty...

If Iraq didn't want to sign the non-proliferation treaty, I think we'd have to invade them and take their nuclear facilities and weapons away... but that, to me, would seem to threaten peace in the Middle East.

Oh well, I guess policy-makers in Washington and beyond know what's best for everyone in this case. We'll see.

I'm not saying I agree with it but here is what Israel has to say on the subject.

J'lem defeats IAEA resolution targeting Israel

At a speech at the assembly earlier in the week, the head of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, Shaul Chorev, said "I wish to remind all delegates that four Middle Eastern member states, parties to the NPT , namely, Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, have grossly violated their treaty obligations.

These four cases make it absolutely clear, that the NPT is unable to adequately address the security challenges of the Middle East region. where the Treaty has been mostly abused." Chorev said that the true threat to the non-proliferation regime "is posed from within, by those states that pursue nuclear weapons, under the cover of their NPT membership."

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by UmbraSumus

 

True. I agree Israel should be held accountable. But correct me if I'm wrong here didn't Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq under Saddam Hussein violate the NPT at some point? So if other Signers in the region will violate the agreement what good is signing it?

You are right .
Rules without any penalties when transgressed - are worthless.

You could add India to the list too amongst others. But they have steadily had a normalisation of relations with the U.S recently have they not ? Even though their activities are/were deemed illegal. Haven`t the U.S begun trading nuclear materials and expertise with them again. Much to the chagrin of Pakistan.

reply to post by Britguy


great point. what i was wondering was who were the nuclear police going to be if and when everyone signed the agreement. then that is a another subject.

reply to post by UmbraSumus


Well, I'm not advocating anything on either side. I'm just posting the findings of the situation. Greater minds than mine and historians will deem the vote outcome foolish or not.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Hoping that i am not drifting too off topic can i ask .....

Do you think the Iranian Theocratic leadership would risk damaging / destroying the Al Aqsa mosque, should they develop nuclear weapons and target Israel ?

reply to post by UmbraSumus



That's a fair question. My answer would be no.
Let me ask you a question. Now Supposedly Israel has had nukes since around 1968. How many countries have they nuked?

You know how this happened right? The US most likely pressured other voting nations to buy their votes. They probably struck a deal with these countries where a percentage of their debt is wiped clean from the World Bank. Either that, or the US promisses arms sale or aid packages. Swaying UN votes is nothing new and the US has been doing it since our empire started. This is the exact thing that John Perkins was whistle blowing over.

Anyway, why on Earth would any country not want a nuclear armed Israel to avoid signing the NNPT? There is no valid excuse, other than you are not on the side of peace. How can the American government send thousands to die in Iraq because of an alleged nuclear threat, though they prove here that a nuclear threat is not something they worry about. This only says that the nuclear issue is just an excuse to invade countries that we want to invade.

I think Israel is the last country we should feel safe with having a nuclear weapon. In fact, I feel less safe with a nuclear armed Israel, than I do with a nuclear armed North Korea. I certainly feel less safe with a nuclear armed Israel, then a nuclear armed Iran. Iran has not been an aggressive country at all in modern history, while Israel has launched unprovoked attacks on Egypt, Lebenon, the US, Gaza and the constantly reign terror on the Palestinians. Isreal is a loose cannon, an aggressive neighbor and a belligerent nation. Iran has not done any of this. What's even more scary, is that Israel knows it could get away with a nuclear strike, as it has dominating influence over the media. That is the most scary thing of all. Iran on thew other hand has not even expressed a desire to build nuclear weapons, they are a member nation of the NNPT and they have not been aggressive in the least.

Again, this brings me back to the question: "What valid reason is there to not make Israel sign the NNPT?" How could anyone ever be against it, who also claims to support peace?


--airspoon


p.s. This whole post is redone and edited in. My first post was a little heated as it makes me angry that this kind of crap is done in my name.

reply to post by UmbraSumus


You brought up Pakistan a predominantly Muslim non-member of the NPT and a country with Nukes and Missiles that can reach Israel and certainly the gulf. Why isn't Israel, the West, the US or Other "Arab" lead nations protesting their activities? But they do Israels?

Why focus on Iran? My guess would be that it has something to do with the Rhetoric that comes out of Tehran's Theocratic leadership.

The only reason why it would "Derail peace talks" is because Israel would not have weapons to threaten the middle east with... Negotiation by aggression...

The bully always wins the argument... Now imagine a bully who owns the school principal and all it's teachers!

This bully comes to school everyday with all the arsenal he wants, does what he pleases to who he wants, and the minute people complain, he pulls out the "I'm special and you are against special people" card...

That's why it would "derail" the "peace" talks... It's too easy to negotiate with an unarmed enemy!

Magnum

reply to post by Britguy

If these laws are to continue to exist and be effective, they need to be applied in equal measure to all nations, and the veto option removed, to ensure fairness of course.

Now will this also be applied to Pakistan as well?