world

IAEA chief asks Israel to join nuclear nonproliferation treaty

11 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

11 Comments
Login to comment

Israel: "Sure, we'll join. Just as soon as we give the Palestinians their own state. Should be any day now."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please, Israel isn't going to admit they have nukes. It'll take more than the IAEA to get their admittance they have nukes. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They have nothing to gain and everything to lose, so why join a “club” that will give them nothing but ear ache?

If Israel has nuclear weapons (remember they have never admitted it) then they have very obviously behaved in a responsible way in respect to those weapons. So responsibly in fact that we cannot say for sure that they even do have them. Just how much more responsible can a country be? They are surrounded by backward undemocratic countries none of whom could care less if they were attacked and wiped out, none of whom would come to their aid, if fact most would happily join in any war against Israel. So having their very own nuclear umbrella makes perfect sense, unless you happen to be so anti-Israeli you are blind to the fact they have a right to defend themselves. But then no intelligent poster on JT would be that bigoted would they?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So having their very own nuclear umbrella makes perfect sense, unless you happen to be so anti-Israeli you are blind to the fact they have a right to defend themselves. But then no intelligent poster on JT would be that bigoted would they?

Jeez! Talk about loading the dice. But what about their neighbors' rights to arm themselves against a demonstably belligerent state that has invaded at least two neighbors and killed thousands using banned weapons just in the last 4 years? Is it bigoted to say that the neighbors have the same rights? Or that the neighbors have the same right to pre-emptive strikes against Israel? Or, if Israel has indirectly confirmed its 200-400 nukes, that its neighbors have the same right to have nukes for protection? Who's the bigot now?

IAEA and NNPT Israel's nukes or let their neighbors have them too under the same non-inspection regime that Israel favours. That's called regional balance of power. Time to curb Israel's thirst for war with impunity. They don't like it when they can't bully the locals. Time to stop that bully. See if they can behave like civilized neighbors for a change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LIBERTAS at 11:36 PM JST - 4th September

I have always believed in allowing a man to find his own place in life, as you have so obviously done. It is not my place to say that you are wrong, though I do some times forget my place, don’t we all? I think if you look very, very carefully you will find that I did not say anything, not a single thing, about who should or who shouldn’t do what, I simply stated the obvious that Israel’s neighbours are backward and a danger to Israel, I did not say anything about them not being allowed to have weapons or being allowed to defend themselves. I think you presumed far too much and in so doing said far more about your thinking than about mine.

“or let their neighbors have them too under the same non-inspection regime that Israel favours”

As much you so obvious hate Israel do you really, really believe that allowing such countries as Syria and the Lebanon to have nuclear weapons is such a good idea for the West? Can you in all honesty say the you believe these countries would behave responsibly with those weapons? How long do you think it would be before some of those weapons found their explosive way into the hands of terrorists and maybe even the US of A? A child might be allowed to believe in ideals, adults need to deal in practicalities. Israel is not your enemy and never will be, but can you say the same of other middle eastern countries?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The U.S., in contrast, said it encourages all states that have not yet done so to join the nonproliferation treaty, but added it opposed the resolution adopted last September because it singles out Israel and mentions neither Iran’s noncompliance with its IAEA safeguards obligations, nor Syria’s refusal to cooperate with the agency.

I find this statement so very amusing. The US announced it opposed this, despite having authorized it. So very funny. They vote for something, then claim to oppose it. You know Obama got in hot water over this very issue. grafton makes a good point too. Israel has acted very responsibly with their, unconfirmed nuclear weapons. Asking them to join this treaty gives them nothing but a headache. There is no upside for them. As for regimes surrounding them. How is allowing Syria or Iran to have nukes a good thing? With these regimes that openly support terrorist groups, its a good question, when these groups would get their hands on a nuke, and use it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

grafton said: Just how much more responsible can a country be?

Well, it looks like the Soviet Union was responsible in your book, with the tiny exception they had the decency to let the world know they were nuclear. North Korea is being pretty responsible so far. But I have a feeling its not good enough for you and never will be.

They are surrounded by backward undemocratic countries none of whom could care less if they were attacked and wiped out, none of whom would come to their aid, if fact most would happily join in any war against Israel.

They need nukes because no one will defend Israel??? Have you hit your head recently? Attacked? Attacked by whom? Who is this major menace not attacking Israel because Israel "maybe" has nukes?

So having their very own nuclear umbrella makes perfect sense, unless you happen to be so anti-Israeli you are blind to the fact they have a right to defend themselves.

Okay, so Israel has the right to defense, but Israel's neighbors do not? Hello bigotry! Why not just come out and say you think Arabs are a lower life form?

What you don't seem to realize is that if you justify Israel having nukes in secret, you open a Pandora's box. If Israel can do it, everyone will want to do it. MADD and arms races require everyone believing the are on equal footing. Israel won't sign NPT. So her neighbors have an excuse to drop out.

Israel has more than abudant conventional capabilities. This whole situation gives Iran an excuse to seek nukes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isn't it interesting that Israel's nuclear program, which is basically identical (other than who was supporting it) to Syria's, did not get designated 'clandestine' in the article?

And despite the US screaming that Iran is non-compliant with the NPT, it actually is (though it refuses to adopt the more stringent, voluntary 'additional protocols').

As for 'singling out Israel', there are 4 countries that are not covered by the NPT, one of whom is under sanctions (North Korea), two of which are having their attempt to join the NPT blocked by, amongst others, the US (India and Pakistan want to join as weapons states) and one which is unsanctioned and unwilling to join. Of course, you can't talk about that one, or even include it in the list, or you're 'singling out Israel'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

using banned weapons

Which weapons would those be? Keep in mind that cluster bombs or WP's or DU are not banned weapons.

But what about their neighbors' rights to arm themselves against a demonstably belligerent state that has invaded at least two neighbors and killed thousands using banned weapons just in the last 4 years? Is it bigoted to say that the neighbors have the same rights? Or, if Israel has indirectly confirmed its 200-400 nukes, that its neighbors have the same right to have nukes for protection?

If those neighbor's signed the NPT then those neighbors willingly signed those rights away. If they wish to have those "rights", they can leave the NPT like NK did.

Or that the neighbors have the same right to pre-emptive strikes against Israel?

Those neighbors have always had the right to pre-emptive strike against Israel, the problem is that those neighbors don't have the military power or the will to withstand the counter strikes by Israel and or America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving said: If those neighbor's signed the NPT then those neighbors willingly signed those rights away. If they wish to have those "rights", they can leave the NPT like NK did.

You cannot sign rights away. What they did is sign an agreement for a better, less nuclear world, one which Israel refuses to sign.

I don't want more counties withdrawing. Israel causes too much trouble already.

Its obvious why you don't even suggest Israel just join instead. Fat ugly bias.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is there no effort from the US to urge Israel to sign the non-proliferation agreement? I've watched for decades how we attack, either verbally or with war machines, to stop nuclear efforts by "some" countries and little effort to get Israel just to admit possession. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites