Nuclear watchdog starts visit to Israel
 

http://sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/story/ne...ear040706.html



Do you think Israel should comply or not? If not, are there any reasons why they shouldn't, barring their mainstream opinion that they will be pushed into the sea? Would complying show an effort toward peace in the mideast?

It strikes me as odd and incredibly one sided that if Israel have nuclear weapons, they are essential responsible to no one for them. And not having to sign a non-proliferation treaty if they have weapons is ludicrous. This is unbelievable. And Iraq was at the top of the list as the most imminent threat to the world? What are your thought?

*edit: added quotes for readability*

What happened to:

"Nuclear weapons? What nuclear weapons????" *shifty eyes*

Anyways, I think that a nuclear free Middle-East is a rather noble goal. However, unless the IAEA can guarantee the disarmament of other nations in the region, it's rather impractical.

Didn't Israel already try to use a nuke in one of its pervious wars? The plane was either called off or crashed? Or is that just a rumor?

ObieX,

I was thinking the same thing. I thought it was common knowledge that Israel had nukes.

Everyone knows they have nukes, it's just funny to hear the official line of the government over there that categorically denies everything when it comes to that particular topic. And yes, they did have a plane with a nuke on it crash, that beginning to both the book and movie of "The Sum of All Fears" is no fictional conjuring.

Israel (IMHO) only uses the nukes as a deterrent. They have been pretty responsible with them so far. If they did not have them (nukes) they would already have been a greasy spot in the dessert. Correct me if I am wrong, but did the U.S. not give them to the Israelis?

Actually, the French were the main supporters of Israeli nuclear technology. I think that Israel's possession of nukes has always been a source of irritation in Washington DC.

I was wrong. Thanks for the clarification cthulu23. Why a source of irritation? I'm curious after reading an op/ed piece in Time today by Charlie Krauthammer. Link

Tthe US government objects to most any nation's pursuit of nuclear weapons. I think that the US would prefer to be the "nuclear benefactor" in our relationships with our allies. During the cold war (and presently, as well), it was common practice for US nuclear weapons to be "stationed" in western European countries as a sort of doomsday by proxy. This way, we control the nukes but still gain whatever political advantage their is in annihilating ourselves a tad bit more quickly.

I know that the thought of nukes spreading across the globe is enough to make me lose sleep, particularly they seem to be moving towards global flashpoints, such as India and Pakistan or Israel.

Israel views nuclear weapons as an essential element of its defensive strategy. For decades, they've gotten away with having them, but not declaring them. As far as I'm concerned, it's high time they either declare them, or destroy them, just like every other decent democracy on the planet.

I'm all for Israel having Nukes. It's no secret that countries such as Iran and Iraq (read Osiriak) have actively in the past, or to this day, still seek to use nuclear weapons against the "evil zionists". I also say anyone who bitches that they should bow to the demands of the UN can piss off. If I were in the unique situation Israel was in, I would not give up my monopoly, nor sovereignty to a corrupt world body that is heavly against me.

I can imagine how people in the arabic world feel betrayed when Israel is "allowed" to have WMDs (after all there are countless UN resolutions against them, but either they are ignored or voted down by US and Marshall Islands).

West: Ok now dear arab nations, destroy your WMD:s and stop developing them.
Arab nations: But daddy, daddy, why Israel is allowed to have them? We want them too!
West: Now, now - Israel is a special case.

And sure sure, world body is always corrupted if it has a wrong opinion.

Jokes aside, is it really that countries that are surrounded by enemies can have nuclear weapons? Or does that rule apply only when the west is allied with them?

It applies when Israel has a responsibility to its' sovereign. Israel has a major deterrence against the Arabs who don't make it an issue to hide their hatred for Israel. The state of Israel only has a responsibility to protect its people, not to please a bunch of anti-semites.

And I'll stand by it, what treaty is Israel bound too? What law makes it now acceptable for them to have Nukes? People might not like it, but deal with it. Israel faces a different world then any of us can even imagine, and I don't blame them for not caving and not relinquishing sovereignity to the fucked up organization that is the UN.

I think Israel's nuclear weapons are a problem. I welcome the issue being a public one.

In this thread you say that UN is too corrupt to enforce its resolutions. Yet there are numerous against Israel.

Could it be that everything that UN does contra your opinion makes it corrupt?

By the way, are you saying that all who oppose Israeli politics are antisemites?

Israel needs to be watched on nuclear weapons.

And honestly, I don't think they need em. They've kicked the asses of all invasions conventionally, they don't really need em.

And that plane crashing thing I believe is indeed real which is why its only scarier to have em there in teh first place.

Volatile areas + nukes = not fun.

We encourage world democracies that have security concerns to ask for our help, and we will deploy security solutions. Sometimes those solutions are nuclear, sometimes not.

We discourage any country from a program that includes as a goal obtaining nukes.

Give Egypt nukes, and we'll call it even.

It's important to remember that Israel has not been threatened by another nation state in quite a while. It's present-day enemies practice asymetrical warfare within or near to Israeli territory, hardly the proper theater for nuclear conflict (if there is a "proper" theater).

Edit: I should say "seriously threatened" as Saddam Hussein did lob a few scuds in Gulf War I.

I am going to start a turf war and make it apparent to the public that I am a victim then I will be able to arm myself even if it is against the law.

Unfortunately, it looks like the nuclear genie has left the bottle for good. Pakistan shared it's secrets with many nations, including non-Muslim states. There is a feeling amongst non-g8 countries that nuclear weapons will protect them and guarantee their place at the table of world leadership. They may have a point in a calculated, limited sense, but the more hands we have on the button, the more chance there is that a finger will slip.

Well that's interesting because that is the same response Israel has given the U.N for decades, especially concerning resolutions against them. But that doesn't matter because everyone is an anti-semite in the world, whether they know it or not. Agreed?

Israel constantly bitches how they don't have a voice at the U.N (as if the American voice which shadows them at every turn means nothing) meanwhile they play both sides of the fence. If they were a member they would have to comply with all U.N regulations. Since they don't want that, they make people believe they are the everlasting victims because the U.N. won't give them a voice. Funny eh? Good grief. Where is my pedestal, I want to be more important than everyone else in the world too.

To give Israel carte blanche to do as they please with WMD is as ridiculous as the Israeli's being push into the sea by their enemies. And since when is one country so damned more important than any other country in the world that they can do as they please while telling everyone to piss off at the same time. Is this how a monopoly on victimhood is solidified? Seems to be working. I think it is high time Israel is treated as an equal in the collective world scheme as opposed to a country in which the world revolves for. But that will never happen.

What laws are the Israeli's breaking? What treaties? The UN only has authority when first countries relinquish power and sovereignity to it, and two (the most important part) if they can enforce their shit, which is blatantly clear, they can't.

And referring to Cthulu's post, although the Israeli's might not have been in a nation-to-nation conflict in 20 years, there is still the very real threat that Arab Muslim countries such as Iran are actively trying to obtain nukes and smuggle them into the country through the medium of terrorists groups such as hezbollah.

Puh-leazzzze.
They are not in compliance with the Nuclear Arms regulations.
Regardless of who is trying to get at the next person..there are rules and THEY SHOULD apply to everyone.

First off, if we are serious about nuclear non-proliferation then Israel's nuclear program must be part of the discussion. How can we pressure Iran to halt it's programs if we don't apply the same standards to Israel?

Second, although Iran has been reviving it's nuclear program, it's pure conjecture to say that they are doing so to hand off the weapons to Hezbollah. This make no real sense, as Iran is not interested in assuring their own destruction and Hezbollah probably doesn't want to irradiate their holy ground and kill untold scores of their own people in the process.

You mean the nuclear arms treaties that they didn't even sign and so aren't subject to? Israel can have as many nukes as they want, and the UN can't (and won't) do anything about it.

By the same token, isn't Iran also free to do what they please as a nation? There is a marked difference between what a nation CAN do and what it SHOULD do.

Even savage nations have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Isreal is keeping company with who - Pakistan and North Korea as far as nations that have not signed it go?

Israel is different, because they have the US behind them no matter what they do (as far as I can see)

has the US got double standards? (yes, I know all nations have double standards ...)

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger.

Elaborate..

In a part of the world where force and display of power are valued so highly (as well as being a stable, moderate, cooperative democracy in the ME) Israel imo should have the right to retain its regional military superiority as a matter of survival and deterrence.

edit: I see this IAEA visit as a token gesture, more in line with maintaining its own veneer of credibility and consistency more than anything else. If they want to do anything constructive, they'd do well imo to focus more attention on the insane fundamentalist mullahs in Iran who are so desperate to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

Who has the weapons is almost (almost, I said) immaterial. The fact that they are held in one of the least stable areas of the world is enough to make me sweat. Regardless of whether I support India or Pakistan, I really wish that neither had nukes.

How can it be a need to allow Israel to maintain a superiority Military-wise when the grounds for the conflict they are involved in are not justified. Regardless of how savage the Palestinians are deemed to be...this conflict over that land is not over and hardly explained. The most you hear is how savage the Arab Palestinians are and how victimized Israel is.

I wish our country, military and tax dollars could be taken OUT of that conflict. I take no side yet I can comment on how unbalanced the situation seems.

As stated earlier (above) if Israel didnt sign the UN treaties and should not be subject to the rules then why are people like Wolfwitz and Pearle writing US policy which coincide with some of their opinions and directives written in papers such as 'Securing the Realm"??

Respectfully, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

That part of the world between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River and north and south has been contested for thousands of years, settled time and again by one group after another. Both religions currently living there claim the land as sacred according to their scriptures. That the Palestinans and the rest of the Arab world claim the area as their sole, Allah-given right is imo political not historical. Israel isn't going anywhere, and has the right to protect its 6.5 million citizens. I'm not saying this isn't a cause for conflict, and it takes two to tango.

Anyways I find the entire nuclear weapons in Israel thing to be a bit... idiotic in a way.

You can't really protect your citizens with nuclear weapons unless you are using them to launch at the enemy. But if they decide to all invade, are you really willing to risk nuking your own country?

Not to mention, most people wouldn't want to nuke their holy land. How would it sit to nuke Jerusalem, the city of 3 religions?

Not very brilliant either way.

My reference to that was made becuase of the moral high road being taken by Israel on the issue.

I get confused and always ask...how the hell could Britain just state that the land was Israel's anyway?

First off, Tel Aviv would probably be the target, not Jerusalem. Secondly it's not a deterrent for people like the Palestinians, it's a deterrent used for countries like Syria, Iran, and up until a year ago Iraq. Third off, countries like N. Korea and Iran are asshats because they have signed the Nuke proliferation treaty and are openly and willingly defying it.

It wasn't Britain really, it was the UN who put it up to a vote to partition the land, which is what they ended up doing.

And Israel isn't an asshat?

Most countries get nuclear weapons for the same weapons: Respect (prestige) and as a show of force to neighbors.

Iran and N.Korea can be asshats for not following it, but so would Israel honestly.

The only difference is they're on different sides:rolleyes:

And of course it won't deter Palestinians given their location and proximity - nuclear weapons aren't going to be used in those situations.

And Tel Aviv is a target in what way? To cut off government, sure. But if they were going to invade, they're coming from many directions and 'liberating' a holy city would be pretty big.

I'd suggest a visit to Israel and a check out at their defense and strategy in the area anyways. Interesting stuff though I doubt this is the best time to go.

Again that is why I don't think its that big of an issue - i think its more important that nuclear weapons in the area means, their is a bigger chance they are used for the wrong reasons or enter the wrong hands.