Israel is widely believed to possess a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons,[1] and maintains intercontinental-range ballistic missiles to deliver them. Officially Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons. The U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment has recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared chemical warfare capabilities, and an offensive biological warfare program.[2]
[edit] Nuclear weapons
Main article: Nuclear weapons and Israel
The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny whether it has a nuclear weapon program. It has an unofficial but rigidly enforced policy of deliberate ambiguity, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East".[3] In the late 1960s, Israeli Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin informed the United States State Department, that its understanding of "introducing" such weapons meant that they would be tested and publicly declared, while merely possessing the weapons did not constitute "introducing" them.[4] Israel is widely believed to be one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the other three being India, Pakistan and North Korea.[5] The International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regards Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons.[6] In a December 2006 interview, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Iran aspires "to have a nuclear weapon as America, France, Israel and Russia."[7] Olmert's office later said that the quote was taken out of context; in other parts of the interview, Olmert refused to confirm or deny Israel's nuclear weapon status.[8]
The first public revelation of Israel's nuclear capability (as opposed to development program) came in the London based Sunday Times on October 5, 1986, which printed information provided by Mordechai Vanunu, formerly employed at the Negev Nuclear Research Center, a facility located in the Negev desert south of Dimona. For publication of state secrets, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage. Although there had been much speculation prior to Vanunu's revelations that the Dimona site was creating nuclear weapons, Vanunu's information indicated that Israel had also built thermonuclear weapons.[17]
In 1998, former Prime Minister Shimon Peres said that Israel "built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo".[18]
A United States Defense Intelligence Agency report (leaked and published in the book Rumsfeld's War: The Untold Story of America's Anti-Terrorist Commander by journalist Rowan Scarborough in 2004) puts the number of weapons at 82. U.S. intelligence sources in the late 1990s estimated 75–130,[20]and 400 in the early 2000s according to some sources at the U.S air force intelligence[21] or even as early as the mid 1990s.[22]
On February 1, 2007, President Chirac of France commented on the Nuclear ambitions of Iran, hinting on possible nuclear countermeasures from Israel:
"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed".[30]
There are speculations that a chemical weapons program might be located at the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR) in Ness Ziona [2]. Professor Marcus Klingberg, deputy director of the institute, was sentenced in 1983 to 20 years in prison after being found guilty of the charge of being a Soviet spy. The government kept the matter secret for a decade, arguing it was a sensitive issue.[53]
190 liters of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a CWC schedule 2 chemical used in the synthesis of Sarin nerve gas, was discovered in the cargo of El Al Flight 1862 after it crashed in 1992 en route to Tel Aviv. Israel insisted the material was non-toxic, was to have been used to test filters that protect against chemical weapons, and that it had been clearly listed on the cargo manifest in accordance with international regulations. The shipment was from a U.S. chemical plant to the IIBR under a U.S. Department of Commerce license.[54]
In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities.[2] Former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for chemical and biological defense, Bill Richardson, said in 1998 "I have no doubt that Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long time ... There's no doubt they've had stuff for years".[55]
In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having an undeclared offensive biological warfare program.
Delivery Systems
Missiles
Israel is known to have tested two versions of the Jericho missile system. The Jericho I with a range of 500km and the Jericho II with a range of 1,500km.
The Shavit rocket is used for inserting objects into a low earth orbit.
Third version of the Jericho missile is possible. Jericho III is thought to have been in service since mid-2005. With a payload of 1,000 - 1,300 kg it has a range of 4,800 km, or 7,800km with a payload of 350 kg (one Israeli nuclear warhead). This gives Israel, at least, nuclear strike capability against Africa, Europe, and most of Asia.
Popeye turbo cruise missile with a range of 1,500km.
now that that argument can be put to rest around here (even though i know some will compltely ignore the obvious and continue to argue their stubborn talking points)... i think the argument should not be about who has them... but why does anyone still have them and how can we reverse this insane race to exctinction... because that is what it is. so unless you are pushing for a full universal nuclear ban, then you are wasting your time in my opinion. our future generations agree
hey look a new byzine n friends cut and paste party woooo hooooo
didnt you ask me how old I am for using the term owned. yet you constantly throw out LOL's :rolleyes: I'm almost 28. how old r u?
You mean 27. I thought I knew a lot at that age too, so I can't really say I blame you.
Which somehow leads me to the question if I tickled your sphincter would you giggle, fart, or take a dump?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Clearly Pearl Jam is a magnet for fans with superior knowledge and intellect.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
so you are that 30 something guy still living with his parents?
and how does that lead you to that question? into the strap-on huh? sorry, not my thing.
Oh my god, it's a fecular endless loop with you sometimes. I own my own house since 1996, and my parents are no longer living.
And to answer the question you would in fact take a dump.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I honestly believe that it is the last acceptable form of prejudice in modern westernized society.
Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age.[1] The term was coined in 1969 by US gerontologist Robert N. Butler to describe discrimination against seniors and patterned on sexism and racism[2]. The term has also been used to describe discrimination against teens and children, by ignoring their ideas because they're young or by assuming that they should behave a certain way because of their age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agism
It's actually included in discrimination laws in Canada, but really, no one enforces it. It's a pity.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I honestly believe that it is the last acceptable form of prejudice in modern westernized society.
Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age.[1] The term was coined in 1969 by US gerontologist Robert N. Butler to describe discrimination against seniors and patterned on sexism and racism[2]. The term has also been used to describe discrimination against teens and children, by ignoring their ideas because they're young or by assuming that they should behave a certain way because of their age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agism
It's actually included in discrimination laws in Canada, but really, no one enforces it. It's a pity.
Interesting, I just go on how uptight people seem to get, and then try to gauge why when It persists beyond certain norms. I just assume it's from lack of wisdom, which usually (not always) means it's from a lesser # of spins around the sun.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
as opposed to you, who would giggle and ask for another?
for someone who thinks they already owned me 10 times over, you sure have a lot of spite left.
just drop it already, its' tired...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
for someone who thinks they already owned me 10 times over, you sure have a lot of spite left.
just drop it already, its' tired...
dude you are the one who asked such a non funny ridiculous question. looks like I hit a nerve. dont be embarrassed, I'm sure there are many who enjoy fingering their own ass. you're not alone.
dude you are the one who asked such a non funny ridiculous question. looks like I hit a nerve. dont be embarrassed, I'm sure there are many who enjoy fingering their own ass. you're not alone.
Dude...you're really weird. I've only met a few people in my life with a total nothing sense of humor. You're one of them.
Are you always so morose?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Dude...you're really weird. I've only met a few people in my life with a total nothing sense of humor. You're one of them.
Are you always so morose?
I wasnt trying to be funny I was dead serious. this all coming from you? your the guy who laughs at his own jokes. did you ever notice that no one says you are funny? and several call you out for being annoying, washed up, has been, etc. yea my job is done here. like I said, find a new hobby. no one laughs with you. ya know what I'm sayin?
I wasnt trying to be funny I was dead serious. this all coming from you? your the guy who laughs at his own jokes. did you ever notice that no one says you are funny? and several call you out for being annoying, washed up, has been, etc. yea my job is done here. like I said, find a new hobby. no one laughs with you. ya know what I'm sayin?
you want the last word? stage is yours
Actually I'm a bit concerned about you jlew. You're really dark inside lately, and I think you need someone to talk to.
I hope you have family or friends that you can open up to.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I wasnt trying to be funny I was dead serious. this all coming from you? your the guy who laughs at his own jokes. did you ever notice that no one says you are funny? and several call you out for being annoying, washed up, has been, etc. yea my job is done here. like I said, find a new hobby. no one laughs with you. ya know what I'm sayin?
you want the last word? stage is yours
Hey I sometimes find laughter in everyone's posts including yours, I just don't feel the the need to always post about it. Laughter/humor is very good for one's health and I think Roland puts up his fair share.
I know you try and you try very hard at it.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Personal insults can be amusing at times. Its only human nature. The first thing most people do when another trips is laugh, then they see if they are alright.
well they have never confirmed or denied it. but its common knowledge that they have them. based on the evidence from several countries who helped them with the program.
so yes, we agree, they should be more open about it. but until I hear the IAEA be concerned about it, we'll focus on the people lying.
well they have never confirmed or denied it. but its common knowledge that they have them. based on the evidence from several countries who helped them with the program.
so yes, we agree, they should be more open about it. but until I hear the IAEA be concerned about it, we'll focus on the people lying.
Its aceeptable for Israel to have nukes but not Iran?
Seems that Israel is far more dangerous to its neighbors than Iran.
Its aceeptable for Israel to have nukes but not Iran?
Seems that Israel is far more dangerous to its neighbors than Iran.
I would rather Israel not have them either. but thats just me. the IAEA is who matters and they dont seem to have an issue with it.
Israel is only more dangeous because its more powerful. you fuck with Israel, they you will face severe military consequences.
Iran is lying about its program. the world says they shouldnt have nukes. they say they want nuclear energy which is a very valid and reasonable thing for them to do, but that doesnt appear to be their intention.
this isnt a game. we are talking about nuclear technology. the kind that can kill millions of people.
I would rather Israel not have them either. but thats just me. the IAEA is who matters and they dont seem to have an issue with it.
Israel is only more dangeous because its more powerful. you fuck with Israel, they you will face severe military consequences.
Iran is lying about its program. the world says they shouldnt have nukes. they say they want nuclear energy which is a very valid and reasonable thing for them to do, but that doesnt appear to be their intention.
this isnt a game. we are talking about nuclear technology. the kind that can kill millions of people.
Maybe Iran is treating the "IAEA" the way Israel treats the UN. Who really has to listen and do what the rest of the world tells them. Seems they are taking a page straight out of the old Israel book.
Maybe Iran is treating the "IAEA" the way Israel treats the UN. Who really has to listen and do what the rest of the world tells them. Seems they are taking a page straight out of the old Israel book.
Israel is more secretive it appears. Iran is flat out lying. which usually isnt a good way to gain respect in the world community.
I would rather Israel not have them either. but thats just me. the IAEA is who matters and they dont seem to have an issue with it.
Israel is only more dangeous because its more powerful. you fuck with Israel, they you will face severe military consequences.
Iran is lying about its program. the world says they shouldnt have nukes. they say they want nuclear energy which is a very valid and reasonable thing for them to do, but that doesnt appear to be their intention.
this isnt a game. we are talking about nuclear technology. the kind that can kill millions of people.
I agree this is very dangerous. Just seems that we should look at the cause intead of the symptoms here. North Korea is an example to any country that wants to pursue an independent path from that of the world's superpower. Not that North Korea is a shining example on how to run country-quite the opposite, but they are atm free from US imperialism, tho economic strangulation is another story.
Basically if the IAEA were serious they would be looking at US foreign policy and asking why these countries are seeking to obtain nuclear weapons in the first place.
The finger would be pointed at Washington instead of Tehran, probably the reason those questions aren't being asked.
The Middle East has had a secretive nuclear power in its midst for years
by George Monbiot
November 20, 2007
The Guardian Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend
George Bush and Gordon Brown are right: there should be no nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The risk of a nuclear conflagration could be greater there than anywhere else. Any nation developing them should expect a firm diplomatic response. So when will they impose sanctions on Israel?
Like them, I believe that Iran is trying to acquire the bomb. I also believe it should be discouraged, by a combination of economic pressure and bribery, from doing so (a military response would, of course, be disastrous). I believe that Bush and Brown - who maintain their nuclear arsenals in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty - are in no position to lecture anyone else. But if, as Bush claims, the proliferation of such weapons "would be a dangerous threat to world peace", why does neither man mention the fact that Israel, according to a secret briefing by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, possesses between 60 and 80 of them?
Officially, the Israeli government maintains a position of "nuclear ambiguity": neither confirming nor denying its possession of nuclear weapons. But everyone who has studied the issue knows that this is a formula with a simple purpose: to give the United States an excuse to keep breaking its own laws, which forbid it to grant aid to a country with unauthorised weapons of mass destruction. The fiction of ambiguity is fiercely guarded. In 1986, when the nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu handed photographs of Israel's bomb factory to the Sunday Times, he was lured from Britain to Rome, drugged and kidnapped by Mossad agents, tried in secret, and sentenced to 18 years in prison. He served 12 of them in solitary confinement and was banged up again - for six months - soon after he was released.
However, in December last year, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, accidentally let slip that Israel, like "America, France and Russia", had nuclear weapons. Opposition politicians were furious. They attacked Olmert for "a lack of caution bordering on irresponsibility". But US aid continues to flow without impediment.
As the fascinating papers released last year by the National Security Archive show, the US government was aware in 1968 that Israel was developing a nuclear device (what it didn't know is that the first one had already been built by then). The contrast to the efforts now being made to prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb could scarcely be starker.
At first, US diplomats urged Washington to make its sale of 50 F4 Phantom jets conditional on Israel's abandonment of its nuclear programme. As a note sent from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to the secretary of state in October 1968 reveals, the order would make the US "the principal supplier of Israel's military needs" for the first time. In return, it should require "commitments that would make it more difficult for Israel to take the critical decision to go nuclear". Such pressure, the memo suggested, was urgently required: France had just delivered the first of a consignment of medium range missiles, and Israel intended to equip them with nuclear warheads.
Twenty days later, on November 4 1968, when the assistant defence secretary met Yitzhak Rabin (then the Israeli ambassador to Washington), Rabin "did not dispute in any way our information on Israel's nuclear or missile capability". He simply refused to discuss it. Four days after that, Rabin announced that the proposal was "completely unacceptable to us". On November 27, Lyndon Johnson's administration accepted Israel's assurance that "it will not be the first power in the Middle East to introduce nuclear weapons".
As the memos show, US officials knew that this assurance had been broken even before it was made. A record of a phone conversation between Henry Kissinger and another official in July 1969 reveals that Richard Nixon was "very leery of cutting off the Phantoms", despite Israel's blatant disregard of the agreement. The deal went ahead, and from then on the US administration sought to bamboozle its own officials in order to defend Israel's lie. In August 1969, US officials were sent to "inspect" Israel's Dimona nuclear plant. But a memo from the state department reveals that "the US government is not prepared to support a 'real' inspection effort in which the team members can feel authorised to ask directly pertinent questions and/or insist on being allowed to look at records, logs, materials and the like. The team has in many subtle ways been cautioned to avoid controversy, 'be gentlemen' and not take issue with the obvious will of the hosts".
Nixon refused to pass the minutes of the conversation he'd had with the Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir, to the US ambassador to Israel, Wally Barbour. Meir and Nixon appear to have agreed that the Israeli programme could go ahead, as long as it was kept secret.
The US government has continued to protect it. Every six months, the intelligence agencies provide Congress with a report on technology acquired by foreign states that's "useful for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction". These reports discuss the programmes in India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and other nations, but not in Israel. Whenever other states have tried to press Israel to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the US and European governments have blocked them. Israel has also exempted itself from the biological and chemical weapons conventions.
By refusing to sign these treaties, Israel ensures it needs never be inspected. While the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors crawl round Iran's factories, put seals on its uranium tanks and blow the whistle when it fails to cooperate, they have no legal authority to inspect facilities in Israel. So when the Israeli government complains, as it did last week, that the head of the IAEA is "sticking his head in the sand over Iran's nuclear programme", you can only gape at its chutzpah. Israel is constantly racking up the pressure for action against Iran, aware that no powerful state will press for action against Israel.
Yes, Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dangerous and unpredictable state involved in acts of terror abroad. The president is a Holocaust denier opposed to the existence of Israel. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran responded to Saddam Hussein's toxic bombardments with chemical weapons of its own. But Israel under Olmert is also a dangerous and unpredictable state involved in acts of terror abroad. Two months ago it bombed a site in Syria (whose function is fiercely disputed). Last year, it launched a war of aggression against Lebanon. It remains in occupation of Palestinian lands. In February 2001, according to the BBC, it used chemical weapons in Gaza: 180 people were admitted to hospital with severe convulsions.
So when will our governments speak up? When will they acknowledge that there is already a nuclear power in the Middle East, and that it presents an existential threat to its neighbours? When will they admit that Iran is not starting a nuclear arms race, but joining one? When will they demand that the rules they impose on Iran should also apply to Israel?
I know you love Israel and wish it was where Canada was so you could kiss your cousins a little more, but then you wouldn't have any friends in the middle east.
Comments
hey look a new byzine n friends cut and paste party woooo hooooo
You mean 27. I thought I knew a lot at that age too, so I can't really say I blame you.
Which somehow leads me to the question if I tickled your sphincter would you giggle, fart, or take a dump?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
indubitably.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW41OPMSvrw
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
so you are that 30 something guy still living with his parents?
and how does that lead you to that question? into the strap-on huh?
clearly.
Oh my god, it's a fecular endless loop with you sometimes. I own my own house since 1996, and my parents are no longer living.
And to answer the question you would in fact take a dump.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I honestly believe that it is the last acceptable form of prejudice in modern westernized society.
Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age.[1] The term was coined in 1969 by US gerontologist Robert N. Butler to describe discrimination against seniors and patterned on sexism and racism[2]. The term has also been used to describe discrimination against teens and children, by ignoring their ideas because they're young or by assuming that they should behave a certain way because of their age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agism
It's actually included in discrimination laws in Canada, but really, no one enforces it. It's a pity.
Interesting, I just go on how uptight people seem to get, and then try to gauge why when It persists beyond certain norms. I just assume it's from lack of wisdom, which usually (not always) means it's from a lesser # of spins around the sun.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
as opposed to you, who would giggle and ask for another?
for someone who thinks they already owned me 10 times over, you sure have a lot of spite left.
just drop it already, its' tired...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
dude you are the one who asked such a non funny ridiculous question. looks like I hit a nerve. dont be embarrassed, I'm sure there are many who enjoy fingering their own ass. you're not alone.
Dude...you're really weird. I've only met a few people in my life with a total nothing sense of humor. You're one of them.
Are you always so morose?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I wasnt trying to be funny
you want the last word? stage is yours
Actually I'm a bit concerned about you jlew. You're really dark inside lately, and I think you need someone to talk to.
I hope you have family or friends that you can open up to.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Hey I sometimes find laughter in everyone's posts including yours, I just don't feel the the need to always post about it. Laughter/humor is very good for one's health and I think Roland puts up his fair share.
I know you try and you try very hard at it.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3340639.stm
well they have never confirmed or denied it. but its common knowledge that they have them. based on the evidence from several countries who helped them with the program.
so yes, we agree, they should be more open about it. but until I hear the IAEA be concerned about it, we'll focus on the people lying.
Seems that Israel is far more dangerous to its neighbors than Iran.
I would rather Israel not have them either. but thats just me. the IAEA is who matters and they dont seem to have an issue with it.
Israel is only more dangeous because its more powerful. you fuck with Israel, they you will face severe military consequences.
Iran is lying about its program. the world says they shouldnt have nukes. they say they want nuclear energy which is a very valid and reasonable thing for them to do, but that doesnt appear to be their intention.
this isnt a game. we are talking about nuclear technology. the kind that can kill millions of people.
Maybe Iran is treating the "IAEA" the way Israel treats the UN. Who really has to listen and do what the rest of the world tells them. Seems they are taking a page straight out of the old Israel book.
Israel is more secretive it appears. Iran is flat out lying. which usually isnt a good way to gain respect in the world community.
I agree this is very dangerous. Just seems that we should look at the cause intead of the symptoms here. North Korea is an example to any country that wants to pursue an independent path from that of the world's superpower. Not that North Korea is a shining example on how to run country-quite the opposite, but they are atm free from US imperialism, tho economic strangulation is another story.
Basically if the IAEA were serious they would be looking at US foreign policy and asking why these countries are seeking to obtain nuclear weapons in the first place.
The finger would be pointed at Washington instead of Tehran, probably the reason those questions aren't being asked.
by George Monbiot
November 20, 2007
The Guardian Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend
George Bush and Gordon Brown are right: there should be no nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The risk of a nuclear conflagration could be greater there than anywhere else. Any nation developing them should expect a firm diplomatic response. So when will they impose sanctions on Israel?
Like them, I believe that Iran is trying to acquire the bomb. I also believe it should be discouraged, by a combination of economic pressure and bribery, from doing so (a military response would, of course, be disastrous). I believe that Bush and Brown - who maintain their nuclear arsenals in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty - are in no position to lecture anyone else. But if, as Bush claims, the proliferation of such weapons "would be a dangerous threat to world peace", why does neither man mention the fact that Israel, according to a secret briefing by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, possesses between 60 and 80 of them?
Officially, the Israeli government maintains a position of "nuclear ambiguity": neither confirming nor denying its possession of nuclear weapons. But everyone who has studied the issue knows that this is a formula with a simple purpose: to give the United States an excuse to keep breaking its own laws, which forbid it to grant aid to a country with unauthorised weapons of mass destruction. The fiction of ambiguity is fiercely guarded. In 1986, when the nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu handed photographs of Israel's bomb factory to the Sunday Times, he was lured from Britain to Rome, drugged and kidnapped by Mossad agents, tried in secret, and sentenced to 18 years in prison. He served 12 of them in solitary confinement and was banged up again - for six months - soon after he was released.
However, in December last year, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, accidentally let slip that Israel, like "America, France and Russia", had nuclear weapons. Opposition politicians were furious. They attacked Olmert for "a lack of caution bordering on irresponsibility". But US aid continues to flow without impediment.
As the fascinating papers released last year by the National Security Archive show, the US government was aware in 1968 that Israel was developing a nuclear device (what it didn't know is that the first one had already been built by then). The contrast to the efforts now being made to prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb could scarcely be starker.
At first, US diplomats urged Washington to make its sale of 50 F4 Phantom jets conditional on Israel's abandonment of its nuclear programme. As a note sent from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to the secretary of state in October 1968 reveals, the order would make the US "the principal supplier of Israel's military needs" for the first time. In return, it should require "commitments that would make it more difficult for Israel to take the critical decision to go nuclear". Such pressure, the memo suggested, was urgently required: France had just delivered the first of a consignment of medium range missiles, and Israel intended to equip them with nuclear warheads.
Twenty days later, on November 4 1968, when the assistant defence secretary met Yitzhak Rabin (then the Israeli ambassador to Washington), Rabin "did not dispute in any way our information on Israel's nuclear or missile capability". He simply refused to discuss it. Four days after that, Rabin announced that the proposal was "completely unacceptable to us". On November 27, Lyndon Johnson's administration accepted Israel's assurance that "it will not be the first power in the Middle East to introduce nuclear weapons".
As the memos show, US officials knew that this assurance had been broken even before it was made. A record of a phone conversation between Henry Kissinger and another official in July 1969 reveals that Richard Nixon was "very leery of cutting off the Phantoms", despite Israel's blatant disregard of the agreement. The deal went ahead, and from then on the US administration sought to bamboozle its own officials in order to defend Israel's lie. In August 1969, US officials were sent to "inspect" Israel's Dimona nuclear plant. But a memo from the state department reveals that "the US government is not prepared to support a 'real' inspection effort in which the team members can feel authorised to ask directly pertinent questions and/or insist on being allowed to look at records, logs, materials and the like. The team has in many subtle ways been cautioned to avoid controversy, 'be gentlemen' and not take issue with the obvious will of the hosts".
Nixon refused to pass the minutes of the conversation he'd had with the Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir, to the US ambassador to Israel, Wally Barbour. Meir and Nixon appear to have agreed that the Israeli programme could go ahead, as long as it was kept secret.
The US government has continued to protect it. Every six months, the intelligence agencies provide Congress with a report on technology acquired by foreign states that's "useful for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction". These reports discuss the programmes in India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and other nations, but not in Israel. Whenever other states have tried to press Israel to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the US and European governments have blocked them. Israel has also exempted itself from the biological and chemical weapons conventions.
By refusing to sign these treaties, Israel ensures it needs never be inspected. While the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors crawl round Iran's factories, put seals on its uranium tanks and blow the whistle when it fails to cooperate, they have no legal authority to inspect facilities in Israel. So when the Israeli government complains, as it did last week, that the head of the IAEA is "sticking his head in the sand over Iran's nuclear programme", you can only gape at its chutzpah. Israel is constantly racking up the pressure for action against Iran, aware that no powerful state will press for action against Israel.
Yes, Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dangerous and unpredictable state involved in acts of terror abroad. The president is a Holocaust denier opposed to the existence of Israel. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran responded to Saddam Hussein's toxic bombardments with chemical weapons of its own. But Israel under Olmert is also a dangerous and unpredictable state involved in acts of terror abroad. Two months ago it bombed a site in Syria (whose function is fiercely disputed). Last year, it launched a war of aggression against Lebanon. It remains in occupation of Palestinian lands. In February 2001, according to the BBC, it used chemical weapons in Gaza: 180 people were admitted to hospital with severe convulsions.
So when will our governments speak up? When will they acknowledge that there is already a nuclear power in the Middle East, and that it presents an existential threat to its neighbours? When will they admit that Iran is not starting a nuclear arms race, but joining one? When will they demand that the rules they impose on Iran should also apply to Israel?
I know you love Israel and wish it was where Canada was so you could kiss your cousins a little more, but then you wouldn't have any friends in the middle east.