UN resolution: Israel must renounce nuclear arms


#1

news.yahoo.com/un-assembly-calls-israel-join-nuclear-treaty-174032033.html

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved an Arab-backed resolution Tuesday calling on Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and put its nuclear facilities under international oversight.

The resolution, adopted in a 161-5 vote, noted that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that is not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It called on Israel to “accede to that treaty without further delay, not to develop, produce test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons” and put its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency.

The United States, Canada, Palau and Micronesia joined Israel in opposing the measure, while 18 countries abstained.

Israel is widely considered to possess nuclear arms but declines to confirm it.

The resolution, introduced by Egypt, echoed a similar Arab-backed effort that failed to gain approval in September at the Vienna-based IAEA. At the time, Israel criticized Arab countries for undermining dialogue by repeatedly singling out the Jewish state in international arenas. Israel’s U.N. Mission did not immediately return a request for comment Tuesday.

The U.N. resolution, titled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East,” pushed for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East and lamented that U.S.-backed efforts to convene talks were abandoned in 2012.

Israel has long argued that a full Palestinian-Israeli peace plan must precede any creation of a Mideast zone free of weapons of mass destruction. The country also argues that Iran’s alleged work on nuclear arms is the real regional threat. Iran denies pursuing such weapons.

General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding but carry moral weight because it is the only body where all 193 U.N. member states are represented.

U.S. representative Robert Wood, in voting against the resolution at the committee-level last month, said the measure “fails to meet the fundamental tests of fairness and balance. It confines itself to expressions of concern about the activities of a single country.”

Wood said the U.S. will continue pushing a Middle East free of weapons of mass destructions, but he warned that such resolutions only undermine prospects for progress.


#2

An Arab backed resolution…need we say more:rolleyes:


#3

Israel wouldn’t just hand over nuclear weapons.

I don’t think the Middle East will ever sort itself out.


#4

Exactly…thank goodness our Lord will know how to sort out the mess when he returns:)


#5

I believe it is in the UN charter that they are required to condemn Israel at least one a week


#6

Psalms 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.


#7

It certainly seems that way.


#8

Please do, why is Israel allowed to have unregulated “secret” nuclear weapons but wants to destroy another country in case they might be trying to get them. Why are they allowed to kid nap whistle blowers who dare expose their lies on nuclear weapons?


#9

Fox news and Ted Cruz wing republicans are like that on steriods in the US in the opposite direction.


#10

The UN has become as irrelevant as the Nobel Peace prizes, when it comes to being a force for peace in this warring world. Theirs is a world of dreams and visions that last from 9 until five EST when the lights shut out and their diplomats go home to their own lives and the real world.


#11

I assume you’re talking about Iran…which wants to develop it’s nuclear technology…a country that has threatened time and again to “destroy” Israel…Israel on the other hand has said that it will “destroy” Irans nuclear facilities for legitimate reasons because of the ongoing threats to “destroy” Israel…where do you get your information that Israel wants to " destroy" Iran…or any other middle east country for that matter


#12

It only took 9 posts for the obligatory FOX News is evil post . Now if someone will just post it’s Bush’s fault we can get on with the discussion


#13

Thanks, Obama! :wink:

So if the general assembly can’t pass anything legally binding, why do they vote on these kinds of things? Is it just to sway public opinion?


#14

Basically they have nothing better to do. The delegates get up in the morning, park their cars illegally on the streets of New York , spend their mornings drinking coffee and condemning Israel and then break for a long lunch. They spend what is left of the afternoon either passing resolutions condemning Israel or coming up with even more ways to squeeze funds out of United States . Great work if you can get it


#15

I think we should say more. While it may be tempting to write it off as simply a few Arab governments banging the drum against Israel, 161 votes against Israel is a lot. Israel has a real problem convincing most of the world about the righteousness of its position. Almost always up till now, stringing along the US to back them up has been good enough. I don’t think that will always be the case in the long term.

Getting Canada on board was a helpful move - I don’t think in the past Canada has typically voted with Israel when its position was so isolated. But otherwise it’s just countries that are basically dependencies of the US trying to curry favor with Congress, and even at that only two of them. On the plus side for Israel, from the numbers there are around 30 countries abstaining. Presumably some of those could be picked up in a more critical vote.


#16

Nothing new here. Jews have had a hard time convincing people of the righteousness of their position for over 4,000 years


#17

It’s also worth pointing out that while Israel has never used its nuclear weapons, and few expect them to in the near or intermediate term, various Israeli leaders have alluded to their capabilities. In other words, they have implicitly threatened to use them if necessary - and who defines necessary? If I am the leader of Iran, that’s something I want to be able to defend against, even if only by mutual assured destruction. That’s why it has been very difficult to convince the Iranian leadership to reach any agreement about their nuclear program.


#18

Yes, you’re obviously right and I agree with you completely. We both know, I’m sure, that it’s entirely pointless to try to make others come to their senses about this. Logic will not convince people, nor will appeals to human decency. Americans tend to have fallen victim to massive and overwhelmingly perpetual media conditioning. Their opinions are not their own, but they will cling to them until death. It’s impossible for me to get upset or be moved by them in any way; I simply pity them.

This is quite a good book on the subject of Israeli nukes:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Samson_Option:_Israel’s_Nuclear_Arsenal_and_American_Foreign_Policy

Of course I’m keenly aware that people will reflexively strike the all-too-familiar pose that any criticism of Israel is a form of anti-Semitism, and only one small step away from firing up the ovens at Auschwitz.:rolleyes: However, I challenge anyone to find a case of more blatant and monstrous hypocrisy than Israel’s nuclear weapons policy.


#19

I just don’t understand why anyone is singling Israel out, in the discussion of nuclear armament. If you’re going to ask ANYONE to disarm, why not ask EVERYONE to disarm?


#20

Yes. The world has had it with Israel and it’s government’s policies toward the Palestinians. You’d never know it though if you were dependent on American media.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.