Monday February 13, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

IAEA chief focuses on getting Israel to join Nonproliferation Treaty

World May. 06, 2010 - 05:54AM JST ( 32 )

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

Order by Time Order by Popularity

32 Comments

0

some14someMay. 06, 2010 - 07:47AM JST

annual conference narrowly passed a resolution directly criticizing Israel and its atomic program, with 49 of the 110 nations present backing the document, 45 against and 16 abstaining.

They just need one vote, backing from United States of America, will it happen? no, then UN should forget and move to other essential or non-essential jobs at hand.
0

adaydreamMay. 06, 2010 - 08:29AM JST

Israel isn't going to join the IAEA. < :-)
0

mikehuntezMay. 06, 2010 - 09:28AM JST

Israeli government has not put fatwahs on citizens of other countries so it's not them we should worry about possessing this technology.
0

jruaustraliaMay. 06, 2010 - 09:34AM JST

They just need one vote, backing from United States of America, will it happen? no, then UN should forget and move to other essential or non-essential jobs at hand.

When the piper's the US of A, Israel can be very confident indeed. But who knows maybe the Israelis will soon answer to international calls for transparency when it comes to nuclear stockpiles. Just don't be surprise if they'll insist 'Iran first'.
0

WilliBMay. 06, 2010 - 10:05AM JST

Thats ridiculous. Israel has never threatened anybody with nukes and never violated IAEA rules. Ahmedinejad promises to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and continues to work on Allahs bomb in open breach of the rules Iran signed.

And these twits want to bash Israel instead.
0

MolenirMay. 06, 2010 - 10:36AM JST

When the piper's the US of A, Israel can be very confident indeed. But who knows maybe the Israelis will soon answer to international calls for transparency when it comes to nuclear stockpiles. Just don't be surprise if they'll insist 'Iran first'.

Iran doesn't need to sign the NPT, they've already signed it, and are currently in violation. Israel signing it would be a disaster, as it would only undercut their position. Part of the reason that their neighbors have been so relatively peaceful, without direct conflict since the 70s, is that Israel had nukes, and if truly threatened, they made it clear they would use them. Taking that away would lead to conflict.
0

TumbleDryMay. 06, 2010 - 11:25AM JST

WilliB: While I'm against a nuclear Iran, in the other side, Iran always told that was a civilian program and invited IAEA to watch the process and control the facilities.

Molenir: wow. we agree on something. Israel signing the treaty will dramatically weaken her position. But, how can you ask other countries to behave when others refuse any control or transparency
0

sabiwabiMay. 06, 2010 - 11:50AM JST

The U.S. has cautiously supported the idea while saying that implementing it must wait for progress in the Middle East peace process. Israel also says a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement must come first.

The UN has been urging Israel to join the NPT for decades. But instead, the US and Europe focus on Iran's peaceful nuclear program and imposing sanctions. Until Israel joins the NPT and obeys its guidelines, Iran should be left alone.

Here is Ahmadinejad's recent UN speech on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4__ZZy-3IQs
0

jruaustraliaMay. 06, 2010 - 12:17PM JST

Iran doesn't need to sign the NPT, they've already signed it, and are currently in violation.

Molenir, I'm aware that Iran's a signatory of the NPT. I was pointing at int'l calls for transparency on nuke stockpiles.

Part of the reason that their neighbors have been so relatively peaceful, without direct conflict since the 70s, is that Israel had nukes

Do they or is that just chinese whispers. As far as I know the Israelis can't acquire nuclear weapons or they'll lose certain financial $$$ aid coming from the United States.
0

smithinjapanMay. 06, 2010 - 01:08PM JST

Israel would never join, and this is a waste of time.

WilliB: "Israel has never threatened anybody with nukes and never violated IAEA rule"

Depends how you define 'threaten'; I seem to recall them saying they have the right to preemptively nuke Iran any time they see fit, which even Molenir agrees with in his post ('they've said they'll use them', etc.).
0

manfromamericaMay. 06, 2010 - 02:03PM JST

No need for Israel to join.

WilliB: "Israel has never threatened anybody with nukes and never violated IAEA rule"

That is exactly right.
0

djuiceMay. 06, 2010 - 08:40PM JST

Israel is doing the right thing in order to protect their nation. If the surrounding neighbors don't know Israel's capacity, that will make them better neighbors.
0

djuiceMay. 06, 2010 - 08:40PM JST

oh...and another thing, why are they jumping all over Israel for this? Seems out of place and awkward.
0

SargeMay. 06, 2010 - 08:43PM JST

Israel... still the Middle East's only true democracy.
0

MistWizardMay. 06, 2010 - 09:19PM JST

No way they will sign. They have already crossed the acceptable lie threshold. Signing this will put them too far over the line to ever return.
0

sabiwabiMay. 06, 2010 - 10:36PM JST

Israel... still the Middle East's only true democracy.

Yeah, for Jews.
0

SargeMay. 06, 2010 - 10:53PM JST

"Yeah, for Jews"

Yeah, and for the Arabs in Israel too.
0

skipthesongMay. 06, 2010 - 11:53PM JST

Yeah, and for the Arabs in Israel too." That is true.

Anyway, one thing about Israelis, if you've ever done biz with them is that they don't something that is not gonna benefit them. So, my question is where do they benefit.
0

LIBERTASMay. 07, 2010 - 12:59AM JST

C'mon Obama! If these folks are benevolent, and the great US ally you're always spoutin' about, and the ONLY (not true) democracy in the region, and they've ABSOLUTELY nothing to hide, what's the problem with the USA supporting this move? C'mon, tell us.......
0

jruaustraliaMay. 07, 2010 - 01:12AM JST

Israel is doing the right thing in order to protect their nation. If the surrounding neighbors don't know Israel's capacity, that will make them better neighbors.

Your argument makes no sense. So you're pretty much saying both India and Pakistan don't even need to mull NPT membership on the basis of national self-defense? And what of the comprehensive missile radar system co-directed by the Pentagon itself-- for the Israelis?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-israel-seal-deal-for-missile-radar-defense-system-1.251946
0

jruaustraliaMay. 07, 2010 - 01:17AM JST

They have already crossed the acceptable lie threshold. Signing this will put them too far over the line to ever return.

Depends whether the lobbyists working on their behalf runs out of time and alibis. Can you still bank a NO as usual?
0

TheQuestionMay. 07, 2010 - 04:53AM JST

Yeah, for Jews

Honestly, do you even read what you type?
0

jruaustraliaMay. 07, 2010 - 05:12AM JST

Yeah, for Jews.

A more relevant response is should people really take into consideration whether a country is a liberal democrat or not when it comes to NPT?

At least that way it's still applicable to the article :|
0

Helter_SkelterMay. 07, 2010 - 06:49AM JST

Israel has had nukes for half a century now and, despite being surrounded by hostile Muslim Arabs who have attempted to destroy them multiple times, has never used them. Yet, the U.N. insists on making Israel's nuclear program an issue. Best they focus their efforts on preventing terrorist-exporting nations like Iran from getting nukes.

sabi: Yeah, for Jews.

You do know Muslim Arabs are represented in the Israeli government and there's a mosque located in the Knesset. How many Jews do suppose are in Muslim Arab governments?
0

Zenny11May. 07, 2010 - 06:55AM JST

Hmm, looks like a case of:

"ALL animals are equal but some are MORE equal" here.

Rules/Laws apply either to EVERYONE or NONE, take your pick.

HTH.
0

djuiceMay. 07, 2010 - 01:20PM JST

jruaustralia, or whatever you call yourself, Pakistan and India have nothing to do with this article, and it is your reasoning that has no basis. The entire muslim world doesn't want to destroy India or Pakistan. Wake up to reality.
0

jruaustraliaMay. 07, 2010 - 01:36PM JST

Pakistan and India have nothing to do with this article, and it is your reasoning that has no basis. The entire muslim world doesn't want to destroy India or Pakistan. Wake up to reality.

No you, Pakistan and India, are both non-signatories of the NPT... just like Israel. And if both countries don't cooperate then.... Oh, wait Iran's bad Israel good. I'm debating with a shill, no?
0

djuiceMay. 07, 2010 - 07:28PM JST

jruaustralia...Your comment does not make sense to me, and seems way of track. Could you please rephrase it in understandable English?
0

jruaustraliaMay. 08, 2010 - 08:06AM JST

djuice, the article in fact concerns the NPT, not Arab aggression towards Israel.

My previous comments were within the boundary of the NPT discussion. You can belie yourself with the usual trite-- of Mid. East squabbles and Israeli victimization-- but the fact remains that Israel's not a signatory of NPT. With that said you're still a shill :|

NPT:

**Membership Withdrawn (North Korea) Non-signatory (India, Israel, Pakistan) **

Four non-parties to the treaty are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and withdrew from it in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuclearNon-ProliferationTreaty