Israeli agenda behind the "War on Terror". "US professors accused of being liars and bigots over

Originally posted by Malichai

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Back in 2004 AIPAC offices were raided by the FBI and computers were confiscated from a key AIPAC employee regarding leaked classified documents concerning the US Policy on Iran. I never heard about this again and was curious if anything came of this and if it has any relation to whats going on today with American stance towards Iran. Was this their intention to incite something like this?

After reading this article I was curious as to what happened afterwards.
www.commondreams.org

Funny you should ask today. New news about the espionage trial.

Judge in Israel Lobbyists' Trial Told Evidence 'Overwhelming'

It's about time Washington stood up to Israel on this issue of the Israeli's doing stupid things like stealing U.S military technology, or selling-on U.S. military technology (sold to them in the first place by the Americans) to countries like China.

But you don't make money in politics, or gain power, by biting the hand that feeds you.

Originally posted by Malichai


Funny you should ask today. New news about the espionage trial.

Judge in Israel Lobbyists' Trial Told Evidence 'Overwhelming'

Thanks for the link. You must be subscriber to read the whole article.
I find it strange that this is being handled under the Espionage Act yet is not being charged as an espionage case and they are being charged with mishandling classified information. I was not aware that organizations such as these were entitled to access to Top Secret documents where they could be in a position to mishandle them in the first place. Do you know if AIPAC is part of the US government? I thought they were a lobbyist group.
Here is another link

Pie

Well, this whole argument is tiresome, because IMO, the answer is clear. I'm sure that won't prevent the usual subjects from blowing more wind about Israels right to exist, etc.

Israel brought nukes to the mid-east. Okay? They tried with every bit of their strength to hide them, okay? They are responsible for whatever transpires thereafter because they brought nukes there.

As a violation of the NPT Israel's actions alone would be enough for world court action to be taken. IMO, the fact that the Israel nuke matter is not discussed by the usual Israel-defenders, shows their desire to keep the discussion in a safe place, where it can be discussed ad nauseum without any thought to what the effect on humanity will be.

History will remember that it was the Zionists who brought hundreds of nukes to the mid east and used every power to hide them. What happens after that, is a direct result of that single action.

[EDIT]

Comments from Colin Powell at the 2005 NPT Review Conference:

www.reachingcriticalwill.org...

"We meet at a time of considerable challenge to the NPT and to international peace and security.

NPT Parties – weapon states and non-weapon states alike – must take strong action to deal with cases of noncompliance and to strengthen the Treaty's nonproliferation undertakings. We cannot allow the few who fail to meet their obligations to undermine the important work of the NPT.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) must be relentless in pursuing suspected cases of noncompliance. The IAEA needs our full financial and political support to do its job. Universal adoption of the IAEA Additional Protocol must remain a high-priority objective.

The NPT can only be as strong as our will to enforce it, in spirit and in deed. We share a collective responsibility to be ever vigilant, and to take concerted action when the Treaty, our Treaty, is threatened."

So what were Israel's obiligations under the NPT?

This is all talk, IMO. The plan was to enable Israel to have nukes, and then create this fuss about the "bad" Abrahamites getting nukes years later.

God how I wish America could just concentrate on its own side of the world. We gain nothing from our involvement with Israel except crosshairs on our nation's forehead.


[EDIT AGAIN]

faculty.biu.ac.il...

Middle East Peace and the NPT Extension Decision
The NonProliferation Review, Fall 1996, Vol. 4, No. 1 pp. 17-29

"On May 11 1995, the signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty agreed, by acclamation, to extend this agreement beyond the initial 25 years specified in the text.2 This decision, and the adoption of four accompanying documents, marked the culm ination and conclusion of the 1995 NPT Extension and Review Conference, held in New York, and attended by 175 signatories."

[...]

"In addition, an extensive Egyptian campaign centered on Israel's nuclear policy and NPT status was seen as a significant threat to the desired outcome. Israel was and remains one of three nuclear threshold states and NPT "holdouts" (the other major h oldouts are India and Pakistan, and Brazil is also a major non-signatory). In the year preceding the conference, as well as during the conference itself, the Egyptian government, joined by a number of other Arab states and Iran, sought to pressure Israel into changing its policy on the NPT. Egyptian government representatives defined their objectives in different language at various times, but the ostensible goal was to force Israel to accept the NPT, place all its nuclear facilities under safeguards wi thin a fixed period of time, and end the long-standing Israeli policy of nuclear ambiguity. Israel consistently rejected these pressures and basic policy changes, viewing the maintenance of a virtual nuclear deterrent capability as necessary to offset the asymmetries in the size of conventional forces, territorial extent, and demography that threaten the existence of the Jewish state.

Yeah, this was in 1996. Ten years and now we're shocked that other countries may try to bring nukes to the mid-east? Whatever. At least Iran, Iraq, Syria had the balls to sign the treaty and make a move toward peace. Israel never had that goal.

Who's the rogue state again?


[edit on 9-4-2006 by smallpeeps]

smallpeep, I really don't see what difference it makes that Iran, Iraq and Syria signed off on the NPT and Israeli didn't.

Israel's a multi-party Democracy, with a limited amount of turf and surrounded by historic or potential foes. If Israel was, tomorrow, invaded by one of it's neighbours or a coalition of neighbours, then considering that it's got limited turf to actually give up in a fight, Israel would be quite within it's rights (reasonable rights) to use nuclear weapons in the theater or strategic role to deter it's enemies. Israel can't afford to give up any turf in a fight, because it's surrounded by potentially hostile countries and the sea to it's back.

As for making examples of Iran, Iraq and Syria as countries that have got 'the balls to sign the treaty and make a move towards peace', you're talking about a country (Iran) that's basically been at war with the United States since the early 1980s through it's overt support of numerous terrorist groups operating out of Iran itself or other countries in the Middle East. Plus Iran's not a multi-party Democracy, nor has it got a stable leadership. On top of that you've got the political and technology-trading links between Iran and North Korea.

As for Iraq...well, Saddam already showed he was willing to use weapons of mass destruction; against his own people if necessary, as well as Iraq's neighbours (Iran). Recent papers have also come to light charting Saddam's moves towards developing nuclear weapons.

Then there's Syria; a secular dictatorship with one of the world’s worst human rights records. Some experts have characterized Syria ’s involvement in terrorism as “passive support.” But Syria has been involved in numerous past terrorist acts and still supports several terrorist groups.

Father Christmas himself could sign off on the NPT, but if he's shooting up and boozing, and he's got access to nukes, how could one argue that at least he's got 'the balls to sign the treaty and make a move towards peace'?

That was a nice reply, but you missed the loophole. Israel never signed the NPT. Like India and Pakistan they are not bound by the treaty.

Originally posted by Malichai
That was a nice reply, but you missed the loophole. Israel never signed the NPT. Like India and Pakistan they are not bound by the treaty.

Why don't you actually read my entire post?

Originally posted by Malichai
That was a nice reply, but you missed the loophole. Israel never signed the NPT. Like India and Pakistan they are not bound by the treaty.

I am aware that Israel is a non-party to the NPT. Why are they non-parties? Why did Iranians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc care about nuclear disarmament, but Israel did not? Why are they such jerks, globally speaking?

Now the Israel defenders will argue that they needed to prevent the world's efforts against nuke proliferation because of their poor, disadvantageous physical location IE surrounded by enemies?

"Oh well we like the idea of eliminating nukes, just not today. Besides, we are surrounded by people who hate us and who think we took their land!"

...something like that? But then, why did they put themselves in the crosshairs of the mid east (by establishing their state) if they knew it would require nukes to defend?

[EDIT]

Sorry Malachai, I hadn't read your previous post so I edited this one to be nicer. I see you are not denying what I'm saying. As you mentioned in your previous posts, the UN has said that the settlements were illegal, but even beyond that, the whole pattern of Israel's behavior in regard to the rest of the world, is clearly aggressive and not peaceful in nature.

Anyway, didn't mean to snap at ya.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by smallpeeps]

smallpeeps are you gonna read my response to your post? Or you just going to ignore what i've said because you don't like the smell of it?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
That was a nice reply, but you missed the loophole. Israel never signed the NPT. Like India and Pakistan they are not bound by the treaty.
I didn't miss a thing. I am aware that Israel is a non-party to the NPT. Why are they non-parties?

Firstly they have yet to actually admit they have any Nuclear weapons.
Originally they too got nuclear weaponry through subtrefuge under the guise of nuclear power, but that soon turned different. This situation in Iran has been going on for quite some time now guided by Israel and being carried out by the US. Gen Giliad of the Israeli Intelligence was one of the first to bring up the topic of Iran and nuclear weaponry in 1996. he realized that they would lose their nuclear edge once Iran got the knowledge.

The Russian-Iranian connection

Brig. Gen. Amos Gilad is a brisk, assertive Israeli intelligence officer who made his career following the actions of Middle Eastern dictators such as Saddam Hussein and the late Hafez Assad. Since 1996, as head of the military intelligence division of research and analysis, General Gilad has warned against what he sees as the gravest threat to Israel's security: the Iranian effort to acquire nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles, assisted by a flow of technology and expertise from Russia. He and his colleagues in intelligence regard this issue as a top national priority. Prime Minister Ehud Barak appears to believe it is less important.

Balance of article here from 2001
Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists

I think there is clearly proof of an agenda. I also posted links regarding AIPAC having possesion of top secret documents for US policy on Iran which is currently in court right now being argued. (2 years has passed already with no convictions)





[edit on 9-4-2006 by ThePieMaN]

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Firstly they have yet to actually admit they have any Nuclear weapons.

Yeah, even though they loathe the whistleblower who outed them on the matter. What a humanitarian Vanunu is, eh? Thank G-d for him.

Not sure what your position is. Are you saying Iran provoked Israel to get nukes? Naahhh, that's just silly.

This is from FAS:

fas.org...

The program took another step forward with the creation of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) in 1952. Its chairman, Ernst David Bergmann, had long advocated an Israeli bomb as the best way to ensure "that we shall never again be led as lambs to the slaughter." Bergmann was also head of the Ministry of Defense's Research and Infrastructure Division (known by its Hebrew acronym, EMET), which had taken over the HEMED research centers (HEMED GIMMEL among them, now renamed Machon 4) as part of a reorganization. Under Bergmann, the line between the IAEC and EMET blurred to the point that Machon 4 functioned essentially as the chief laboratory for the IAEC. By 1953, Machon 4 had not only perfected a process for extracting the uranium found in the Negev, but had also developed a new method of producing heavy water, providing Israel with an indigenous capability to produce some of the most important nuclear materials.

[...]

There followed two decades in which the United States, through a combination of benign neglect, erroneous analysis, and successful Israeli deception, failed to discern first the details of Israel's nuclear program. As early as 8 December 1960, the CIA issued a report outlining Dimona's implications for nuclear proliferation, and the CIA station in Tel Aviv had determined by the mid-1960s that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was an established and irreversible fact.

United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant.

Although the United States government did not encourage or approve of the Israeli nuclear program, it also did nothing to stop it. Walworth Barbour, US ambassador to Israel from 1961-73, the bomb program's crucial years, primarily saw his job as being to insulate the President from facts which might compel him to act on the nuclear issue, alledgedly saying at one point that "The President did not send me there to give him problems. He does not want to be told any bad news." After the 1967 war, Barbour even put a stop to military attachés' intelligence collection efforts around Dimona. Even when Barbour did authorize forwarding information, as he did in 1966 when embassy staff learned that Israel was beginning to put nuclear warheads in missiles, the message seemed to disappear into the bureaucracy and was never acted upon.

Isn't it fascinating how much mileage the Zionists get out of the holocaust? Wow, talk about fuel for their plans. Isn't it funny how so many other holocausts of humans have not been used so politically? I mean, bringing nukes to the mid east so you can prevent a holocaust? Hilarious really.

Also, JFK pressed Israel to open up their reactor in 1963. Three months later, he was dead. Here's his letter to the Israel PM:

www.jfkmontreal.com...

Dear Mr. Prime Minister [Eshkol]:
It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time.

You are aware, I am sure, of the exchange which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits to Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine. We welcomed the former Prime Minister’s strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel’s willingness to permit periodic visits to Dimona.

I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion’s May 27 letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits.

I am sure you will agree that these visits should be as nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field.

Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel’s purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months. I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27 letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion’s letter was in accord with this, that our scientist have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time to be allotted for a thorough examination.

Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will have your most sympathetic attention.

Sincerely,

John F. Kennedy

(July 5, 1963)

I'm not saying (for certain) that Mossad was involved in JFK's death. But, it's interesting, the parallels today... And also the hypocrisy.



[edit on 9-4-2006 by smallpeeps]

Israeli lobby? Of course that exists. No one should be debating that.

Jewish lobby? No.

"Jewish" implies an entire faith and people, not a single nation and its political powers, and this is where I believe the controversy originates. It all depends on the context and scope with which the study applies its focus.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Israeli lobby? Of course that exists. No one should be debating that.

Jewish lobby? No.

"Jewish" implies an entire faith and people, not a single nation and its political powers, and this is where I believe the controversy originates. It all depends on the context and scope with which the study applies its focus.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by AceWombat04]

Oh, please.

You know damn well anytime someone says "Israel," the first thing anyone thinks is "Jews," even though Israel is not inhabited by Jews only.

I don't understand why the world lets Israel carry on like it does. Sharon says they CONTROL us (the US; that makes me puke ), they don't sign on the NPT treaty, they have lobbyists with pull over here, it's just sickening. I literally hate the people running Israel...

smallpeeps, i'm still waiting for you to challenge the points made in my second to last post.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
[Not sure what your position is. Are you saying Iran provoked Israel to get nukes? Naahhh, that's just silly.

No thats not what i was implying. They have had them for a long time now. I just think that they want to keep the balance of power in their favor. I've said it before and I will reiterate, that there is no government in the ME that should have any type of nuclear weaponry. Frankly I think the idea of these professional lobbyist groups is a crock and should be abolished to only be individual citizens or individual corporate reps. No foreign governments should have lobbying interests here. It should all be handled by the proper channels through Ambassadors and their representative consuls.

Pie

Has this become a closed forum for Israel-bashers or may I join???

Firstly on the issue of AIPAC. The story goes that alegedly, a mid-level figure in the US DoD handed over classified information to AIPAC figures in hopes that that information will be passed onto Israel. The classified information pertained to US policy on Iran (relating to their nuclear ambitions). Lawrence Franklin (the mid-level analyst) claimed that he passed on the information to Israel because he disagreed with the US policy on Iran and was quiet frustrated by it during the Clinton administration. You can also read up on the bipartisan political ramifications of this incident.
Source

Smallpeeps, thepieman,
Why aren't you complaining to high hell about the Indian and Pakistani nuclear program? Why single out Israel? Iran is much closer to both these countries than Israel is and both are aligned with the US.

Did you ever stop to think that since Israel became nuclear the war situation between Israel and its neighbors actually decreased. That is the purpose of the Israel nuclear threat. Iran's ambitions to meet Israel's capabilities (in violation of the NPT which it signed and where therefore entitled to nucelar knowhow) actually enhances the Iranian threat. Israel does not endanger Iran but Iran finances, trains and supplies Hizbullah, Hamas, the PLO and Islamic Jihad - who is the threat here? Why is it that you people see the world through biased eyes?
I do not think that a nuclear Iran would have been an issue under the Shah. Under those Ayatolla maniacs though, who execute people for being homosexuals (source). The whole Shaaria mentality intertwined with nuclear weapons is a danger to the world and not only to Israel.

Regardless of any opinion, so long as Arab/Islamic countries openly talk about the extermination of the Jewish state - Israel has every right to defend itself and that includes having nuclear weapons. Israel does not pose a threat and does not intend to wipe any country off the map.

truthseeka,
If you sincerely seek truth you would not have the bias you so obviously have. your hatered blinds you and that is unfortunate for you.

The claim that the Israeli agenda is behind the 'war of terror' is truely assenine.
Israel was held back from fighting terror in an effective manner as a result of the war on terror. In 2003 the US administration asked Israel to keep the area quiet and therefore repressed Isareli counter-terror sweeps so that the US can topple Iraq with minimum Arab objections. The entire middle east was happy about the toppling of Sadaam. This included Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Kuwait, Yemen etc.
Fighting Al-qaida is a different matter altogether- Al-qaida's arch enemy is the US and moderate Arab countries.
Israel's war on terror is against Palestinian terrorists - Israel's benefit from the war on terror is purely semantic. During this war on terror HAMAS took over the Palestinian authority, Israel withdrew from Gaza and displaced its own citizens from lands which where, in some cases, was purchased and owned by Jews prior to the foundation of Israel. How is this an Israeli agenda. Sharon refered to Yassir Arafat at the time as Israel's Bin-Laden yet Israel was forced to negotiate with this 'Bin-Laden' who was responsible for the murder of thousands of Israelis.
I think some sense should be pumped into this thread - It seems totally delusional!

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Has this become a closed forum for Israel-bashers or may I join???

Ha ha. Just post truth and you'll be listened to.

Smallpeeps, thepieman,
Why aren't you complaining to high hell about the Indian and Pakistani nuclear program? Why single out Israel? Iran is much closer to both these countries than Israel is and both are aligned with the US.

Did you ever stop to think that since Israel became nuclear the war situation between Israel and its neighbors actually decreased. That is the purpose of the Israel nuclear threat. Iran's ambitions to meet Israel's capabilities (in violation of the NPT which it signed and where therefore entitled to nucelar knowhow) actually enhances the Iranian threat.

No, since Pakistan and India took that stance due to the other's position. Those two are fueding brothers just like Israel and its neighbors. India and Pakistan can be expected to be uncooperative about nukes since they each think they are going to get nuked by the other. ALSO neither of these countries has a strangle hold on commerce and banking in the US. Don't get me started on the Kosher Tax and all that junk.

In the case of Israel, their nuclear program started in the early fifties and the head of it wanted nukes so he could prevent another holocaust. You did read the ref's I posted above right? He said, "If we have nukes, we'll not be slaughtered again." ...He's the one that's delusional, not me.

As for Israel's behavior back in the (pre-zionized-america) 1960s, we can see that Israel acted against the interests of the world. Let me re-emphasize it for you:

fas.org...

United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility.

Quick, think up an excuse and not the tired old, "Israel has a right to defend itself" because it's not tanks or jet fighters we're talking about, but world-killing nuclear bombs.

Israel does not endanger Iran but Iran finances, trains and supplies Hizbullah, Hamas, the PLO and Islamic Jihad - who is the threat here? Why is it that you people see the world through biased eyes?

Please. Who is biased? I am just being pragmatic. I see no reason for us to risk our nation for Israel. The arguments I've heard basically narrow down to two reasons:

1: To eventually build the "Jesus 2nd Coming Stargate" and bring the messiah to Earth.
2: To have a Western strategic toehold in that area of the world.

The first one is just crazy because the Islamists would have to be removed from Jerusalem, and the second is debatable and seeing how dishonest they've been with us (and the world) why would we trust them? So that's my reasoning. Anyone who says otherwise without providing a reason, is displaying bias.

I do not think that a nuclear Iran would have been an issue under the Shah. Under those Ayatolla maniacs though, who execute people for being homosexuals (source). The whole Shaaria mentality intertwined with nuclear weapons is a danger to the world and not only to Israel.

Of course I agree that Islam is just as silly as Judaism. And yes, the Islamists are more violent and cruel to women whereas Jews are not. So yeah, the mid-east should be westernized a little or at least taught about human rights. But Israel brought nukes there and started playing their little global games waaay before Iran was a threat sufficient to require nukes. They STILL aren't, although we're getting to the final act.

Regardless of any opinion, so long as Arab/Islamic countries openly talk about the extermination of the Jewish state - Israel has every right to defend itself and that includes having nuclear weapons. Israel does not pose a threat and does not intend to wipe any country off the map.

Well we're in the endgame of this planned WW3, so the point is probably moot. The US is now fully invested in Israel and the zionized leaders are going to wreak havok on the Muslims who were led along like tools, all these decades to this WW3 rendezvous. Like I said, Israel got nukes way before Iran was a threat that required nukes. They did so through subterfuge and dishonesty on the part of the French. Frankly, I'd like Israel to handle their own issues and perhaps America could try helping the people who really NEED help like in Africa. The idea that America needs to spend its money and resources supporting Israel is stupid. Since France made them nuclear, maybe they can take over babysitting Israel for us, eh?

Just to sum up: The Israel lobby and agenda in the US is dominant and our government and media will not allow anything negative to be said about that relationship. Soon, people will be jailed for just simple criticsm of the relationship. The power ultimately lies in the UK, who gives Dubya his orders because the post WW2 bankrupt US is a tool of the Crown and it's associated bankers. It's the Crown's desire to save Israel (for the Stargate, methinks) and it is this reason why Americans are conditioned in the way they are.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by smallpeeps]

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/76
December 11, 1991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The General Assembly,

Aware of the uprising (intifadah) of the Palestinian people since 9 December 1987 against Israeli occupation, which has received significant attention and sympathy from world public opinion,

Deeply concerned about the alarming situation in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, as a result of the continued occupation by Israel, the occupying Power, and of its persistent policies and practices against the Palestinian people,

[...]

1. Condemns those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, such acts as the opening of fire by the Israeli army and settlers that result in the killing and wounding of defenceless Palestinian civilians, the beating and breaking of bones the deportation of Palestinian civilians, the imposition of restrictive economic measures, the demolition of houses, the ransacking of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, collective punishment and detentions, and so forth;

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, abide scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and desist immediately from those policies and practices which are in violation of the provisions of the Convention;

[...]

5. Strongly deplores the continuing disregard by Israel, the occupying Power, of the relevant decisions of the Security Council;

6. Reaffirms that the occupation by Israel of the Palestinian territory since 1967, including Jerusalem, and of the other Arab territories in no way changes the legal status of those territories;

[...]

* * *

RECORDED VOTE ON RESOLUTION 46/76: 142-2-5

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Hmmm...

[edit on 10-4-2006 by smallpeeps]

Lol @ smallpeeps, he still hasn't tackled any of the points I made in a previous post. I wonder why that is.

Originally posted by Lanton
Israel's a multi-party Democracy, with a limited amount of turf and surrounded by historic or potential foes. If Israel was, tomorrow, invaded by one of it's neighbours or a coalition of neighbours, then considering that it's got limited turf to actually give up in a fight, Israel would be quite within it's rights (reasonable rights) to use nuclear weapons in the theater or strategic role to deter it's enemies.

Hey Lanton, I wasn't ignoring you but fer some reason I couldn't see your posts. I don't remember putting you on ignore or whatever (I don't think I've ever put anyone on ignore, it's for chumps). Anyway, I U2U'd a mod because I wanted to see what you were saying. They fixed it for me.

Uh now I gotta say you are wrong here. You read what I've posted right? I have to fully and totally disagree with your statement here that Israel would be within its rights to use nukes if invaded. I'll leave it to you to pursue this subject with me if you want.

As for making examples of Iran, Iraq and Syria as countries that have got 'the balls to sign the treaty and make a move towards peace', you're talking about a country (Iran) that's basically been at war with the United States since the early 1980s through it's overt support of numerous terrorist groups operating out of Iran itself or other countries in the Middle East.

Yeah but not back in the fifties and sixties when all this was getting started. Please remeber that we tried to support a westernized leader in Iran and that's what generated a lot of their resentment toward us. Same with Vietnam. Remember that burning monk? He was protesting Diem. The Shah tortured lots of folks too.

Why are you mentioning Iran in the eighties when all the bad stuff had already been done to them? I couldn't care less about Islam as a belief system, but really, I don't think Iranians are bent on world domination. Maybe one could say Islamofascists are wanting that. One could definately say that Zionists want that.

Father Christmas himself could sign off on the NPT, but if he's shooting up and boozing, and he's got access to nukes, how could one argue that at least he's got 'the balls to sign the treaty and make a move towards peace'?

Well, I'm not saying all signatories to the NPT would act as moderately as the US if THEY were the #1 power on Earth. I am sure nationalism would cause them to have dreams of global domination also.

It's simple really: smallpeeps hates nukes. He hates anyone who propagates them and anyone who secretly strives to get them. So all signatories to the NPT are moral in the moment they signed that document (a very, very important document for humans). What they have become or will become, remains to be seen, but it cannot be disputed that Israel covertly planned to get nukes into that area of the world, shortly after their state was recognized.

Notice how JFK was wanting to assure Israel did not get nukes? That their nuke program was just for peace? Now of course, America is much different. As I understand, that's the point of this thread: Today's America is a full supporter of all things Israel.