PDA

View Full Version : how Britain helped Israel make the A-bomb in the 1960s



Appaloosa
09-04-2006, 08:08 PM
Secret papers show how Britain helped Israel make the A-bomb in the 1960s, supplying tons of vital chemicals including plutonium and uranium. And it looks as though Harold Wilson and his ministers knew nothing about it. By Meirion Jones

Mirage jets swoop from the sky to destroy the Egyptian air force before breakfast; tanks race across the desert to the Suez Canal; Moshe Dayan, the defence minister, poses with eyepatch after the Jerusalem brigade has fought its way into the Old City. These are the heroic images of the Six Day War and they defined Israeli daring: here was a people who, it seemed, risked everything on a throw of the dice. Years later the world discovered that there was an insurance policy. They had a secret weapon - two, to be precise. In the weeks before Israel took on the Arab world in June 1967 it put together a pair of crude nuclear bombs, just in case things didn't go as planned. Making them required not only Israeli ingenuity but also plenty of help from abroad. It has been known for some time that the French helped build Israel's reactor and reprocessing plant at Dimona, but over the past year our research team at BBC Newsnight has unearthed something no less astonishing and much closer to home - top-secret files which show how Britain helped Israel get the atomic bomb.
We can reveal that while Harold Wilson was prime minister the UK supplied Israel with small quantities of plutonium despite a warning from British intelligence that it might "make a material contribution to an Israeli weapons programme". This, by enabling Israel to study the properties of plutonium before its own supplies came on line, could have taken months off the time it needed to make a weapon. Britain also sold Israel a whole range of other exotic chemicals, including uranium-235, beryllium and lithium-6, which are used in atom bombs and even hydrogen bombs. And in Harold Macmillan's time we supplied the heavy water that allowed Israel to start up its own plutonium production facility at Dimona - heavy water that British intelligence estimated would enable Israel to make "six nuclear weapons a year".
After we exposed the sale of the heavy water on Newsnight last August, the government assured the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that all Britain did was sell some heavy water back to Norway. Using the Freedom of Information Act, we have now obtained previously top-secret papers which show not only that Norway was a mere cover for the Israel deal, but that Britain made hundreds of other secret shipments of nuclear materials to Israel in the 1950s and 1960s.
Tony Benn became technology minister in 1966, while the plutonium deal was going through. Though the nuclear industry was part of his brief, nobody told him we were exporting atomic energy materials to Israel. "I'm not only surprised," he says, "I'm shocked." Neither he nor his predecessor Frank Cousins agreed to the sales, he insists, and though he always suspected civil servants of doing deals behind his back, "it never occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the policy of the government".
The documentary evidence is backed by eyewitness testimony. Back in August 1960, when covert photographs of a mysterious site at Dimona in Israel arrived at Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) in Whitehall, a brilliant analyst called Peter Kelly saw immediately that they showed a secret nuclear reactor. Today Kelly, physically frail but mentally acute, lives in retirement on the south coast, and as he leafs through the "UK Eyes Only" reports he wrote about Israel for MI5 and MI6, he smiles. "I was quite perceptive," he says. Kelly recognised that the Dimona reactor was a French design, and he very soon discovered where the heavy water needed to operate it had come from. When we explain that the government has told the IAEA that Britain thought it was selling the heavy water to Norway he laughs heartily.
What really happened was this: Britain had bought the heavy water from Norsk Hydro in Norway for its nuclear weapons programme, but found it was surplus to requirements and decided to sell. An arrangement was indeed made with a Norwegian company, Noratom, but crucially the papers show that Noratom was not the true buyer: the firm agreed to broker a deal with Israel in return for a 2 per cent commission. Israel paid the top price - £1m - to avoid having to give guarantees that the material would not be used to make nuclear weapons, but the papers leave no doubt that Britain knew all along that Israel wanted the heavy water "to produce plutonium". Kelly discovered that a charade was played out, with British and Israeli delegations sitting in adjacent rooms while Noratom ferried contracts between them to maintain the fiction that Britain had not done the deal with Israel.
The transaction was signed off for the Foreign Office by Donald Cape, whose job it was to make sure we didn't export materials that would help other countries get the atom bomb. He felt it would be "overzealous" to demand safeguards to prevent Israel using the chemical in weapons production. Cape is 82 now, tall, clear-headed and living in Surrey. He told us the deal was done because "nobody suspected the Israelis hoped to manufacture nuclear weapons", but his own declassified letters from March 1959 suggest otherwise. They show, for example, that the Foreign Office knew Israel had pulled out of a deal to buy uranium from South Africa when Pretoria asked for safeguards to prevent it being used for making nuclear weapons. It also knew the CIA was warning that "the Israelis must be expected to try and establish a nuclear weapons programme". Just weeks later, however, Britain started shipping heavy water direct to Israel: the first shipment left in June 1959 and the second in June 1960.
There was another problem: the Americans. There was no US-Israeli alliance in those days and Washington was determined to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. If Britain told the Americans about the Israeli deal they would stop it. Donald Cape decided on discretion: "I would rather not tell the Americans." When Newsnight told Robert McNamara - John F Ken-nedy's defence secretary - about this he was amazed. "The fact Israel was trying to develop a nuclear bomb should not have come as a surprise, but that Britain should have supplied it with heavy water was indeed a surprise to me," he said.
Kelly's reports for the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) on "secret atomic activities in Israel" show that Britain's defence and espionage establishment had no doubt about what was going on in Israel. Kelly wrote of underground galleries at the Dimona complex; there were such galleries. He correctly described the French role in the project. He identified the importance of the heavy water: with 20 tons of this material, he estimated, Israel could have a reactor capable of producing "significant quantities of plutonium". British intelligence also knew about the reprocessing facility at Dimona and stated: "The separation of plutonium can only mean that Israel intends to produce nuclear weapons." Kelly even discovered that an Israeli observer had been allowed to watch one of the first French nuclear tests in Algeria.
Kelly and his colleagues, however, found their views were being challenged. Chief of the challengers was Michael Israel Michaels (such was his middle name, literally), who was a senior official at the science ministry under Lord Hailsham during the Macmillan government, and went on to serve at the technology ministry under Benn. He was also Britain's representative at the IAEA.
In 1961 Michaels was invited to Israel by the Israeli nuclear chief Ernst David Bergmann, and while there was given VIP treatment. He met not only Bergmann but Shimon Peres, the deputy defence minister, and David Ben-Gurion, the prime minister - the three fathers of the Israeli atomic bomb. Peter Kelly had warned his superiors that Israel might use the Michaels trip as part of a disinformation campaign to show "everything is above board", and this is what appears to have happened. Michaels's report gave Israel the all-clear, and he handed it to Hailsham at an important moment, two days before Ben-Gurion met Macmillan at Downing Street. Kelly later took the report apart line by line and concluded by offering his own prediction that Israel might have a "deliverable warhead" by 1967.
In 1962 the Dimona reactor started operating (thanks to the heavy water Britain had delivered), yet Michaels continued to protest Israel's innocence. The Israelis, meanwhile, were allowing the US to make inspection visits to Dimona once a year to demonstrate that it was not being used for military purposes, but Kelly saw that this, too, was a con. The tours were "heavily stage managed", he wrote in 1963, and "important developments were concealed". He was right: we now know that false walls screened parts of the plant from the inspectors.
Three years later, at the beginning of 1966, something extraordinary happened. The UK Atomic Energy Authority made what it called a "pretty harmless request" to the government: it wanted to export ten milligrams of plutonium to Israel. The Ministry of Defence strongly objected, with Defence Intelligence (Kelly's department) arguing that the sale might have "significant military value". The Foreign Office duly blocked it, ruling: "It is HMG's policy not to do anything which would assist Israel in the production of nuclear weapons."
Michaels was furious. He wrote "to protest strongly" against the decision, saying that small quantities of plutonium were not important and anyhow if we didn't sell it to the Israelis someone else would. Michaels could be a bulldozer - he was short and bald, described as pugnacious and hard-headed by colleagues - and he won his battle. Eventually the Foreign Office caved in and the sale went ahead.
What is most surprising about the position adopted by Michaels is that, as the new documents show, a few years earlier he had taken the direct opposite view of the value of small quantities of plutonium. In 1961 he received a JIC report suggesting that Israel would take at least three years to make enough plutonium and then another six months to work out how to make a bomb. In the margin beside the claim about the six months he wrote: "This surely is an understatement if the Israelis have no plutonium on which to experiment in advance." Then it occurred to him that a friendly power might give Israel a sample of plutonium to speed up the process: "Perhaps the French have supplied a small quantity for experimental purposes as we did to the French in like circumstances some years ago" (see panel, above). What this shows is that Michaels, in the full knowledge of how useful it could be for weapons development, went on to persuade the British government to sell Israel a sample of plutonium.
Today, Tony Benn can hardly believe that Michaels never referred the nuclear sales to him. Going through his diaries, Benn finds dozens of references to meetings with Michaels which show that he didn't trust him even then. "Michaels lied to me. I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear industry lied to me again and again." Kelly believes that Michaels knew all along what Israel was doing, but since he died in 1992 we can't ask him. According to his son Chris, after Michaels retired from the IAEA in 1971 the Israelis found him a job in London for a couple of years.
The atomic files give details of hundreds more nuclear deals with Israel. Many are small orders for compounds of uranium, beryllium and tritium, as well as other materials that can be used for both innocent and military purposes. In November 1959 someone at the Foreign Office allowed through the export of a small quantity of uranium-235 to Israel, apparently without realising that it was a core nuclear explosive material just like plutonium.
Some materials may have been for advanced bombs. In 1966 UKAEA supplied Israel with 1.25 grams of almost pure lithium-6. When combined with deuterium, this material provides the fusion fuel for hydrogen bombs. Britain also supplied two tons of unenriched lithium, from which lithium-6 is extracted - enough for several hydrogen bombs. Deuterium, incidentally, is normally extracted from heavy water, which, of course, Britain had already shipped to Israel.
Throughout this period, Defence Intelligence repeatedly complained that Israel was the only country getting nuclear export licences "on the basis of the meaningless phrase 'scientific and research purposes'". The Department of Trade tried to exempt Israeli deals completely on the grounds that these were government-to-government transactions, but DIS was outraged, saying such deals were meant only for "people like most of our Nato partners who can be trusted . . . Israel however is a very different kettle of fish." In August 1966 the Israeli armed forces ordered advanced radiation dosimeters. The Foreign Office said yes and overruled the strong objections of the British MoD that they were obviously for use by troops. DIS wanted to know why Israel was always given special treatment, adding: "We feel quite strongly about all this."
Tony Benn wonders whether these deals could have gone ahead without the knowledge of the British prime ministers of the time, Macmillan, Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Wilson. The evidence is unclear. The newly declassified papers show that in 1958 a member of the board of UKAEA said he was going to refer the heavy-water deal to the authority's executive, which reported directly to Macmillan, but there is no record that this happened. We know that Lord Hailsham learned about the heavy-water deal after it had gone through and concluded that Israel was "preparing for a weapons programme".
Benn's initial reaction to whether Wilson knew about the atomic exports to Israel was that it was "inconceivable". Then he hesitated, observing, "Harold was sympathetic to Israel," but concluded that no, he probably did not know. Benn believes that the exports were probably pushed through by civil servants working with the nuclear industry.
There was no plausible civilian use for heavy water, plutonium, U235, highly enriched lithium and many of the other materials shipped to Israel. The heavy water allowed Israel to fire up Dimona and produce the plutonium that still sits in Israel's missile warheads today. The small sample of plutonium could have shaved months off the development time of the Israeli atomic bomb in the run-up to the Six Day War.
In a letter this year to Sir Menzies Campbell, the Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has quietly conceded Britain knew the heavy water was going to Israel. He has yet to find time to tell the IAEA that, or indeed to tell it about the plutonium or the uranium-235 or the enriched lithium. Howells and his boss, Jack Straw, are too busy telling the IAEA about the dangers of nuclear proliferation in another corner of the Middle East


http://www.newstatesman.com/200603130011

SeanAshi
09-04-2006, 09:06 PM
...but Israel is not threatening to annihilate an entire country unlike Iran.

Latin Jewish Soldier
09-04-2006, 09:11 PM
Shhhh dont tell any one p-)
http://www.youtube.com/v/Yf39qkvwOhU

futurepilot2004
09-04-2006, 09:53 PM
Interesting article but posts in capitals are really annoying to read.

SeanAshi
09-04-2006, 10:22 PM
Shhhh dont tell any one p-)
http://www.youtube.com/v/Yf39qkvwOhU
Damn that Mordechai Vanunu :cantbeli:

kraf001
09-04-2006, 10:47 PM
...but Israel is not threatening to annihilate an entire country unlike Iran.
does that change anything? it is illegal to give anyone plutonium.. so by your standards every nation that has never threatened anybody qualifies for getting nuclear bombs..

even if you want to ignore Israel you can write a similar article and replace Israel with India or Pakistan and we all know none of them really minds sending a nuke or 2 over the border... so what was the excuse for helping either with getting nukes?

SeanAshi
09-04-2006, 11:21 PM
It's a double standard I know but has Pakistan or India made threats to each other similar as Ahmadinejad on Israel recently?

kraf001
09-04-2006, 11:43 PM
It's a double standard I know but has Pakistan or India made threats to each other similar as Ahmadinejad on Israel recently?
are you serious? I mean sure Ahmadinejad does "talk" a lot of stuff but he is not even in control of military!!... in the other hand India and Pakistan has been "physically" hostile to each other.. the state of hostility has long passed the “making verbal threats” stage... they are in a constant arms race and a war has looked inevitable at the times..

Hollis
09-04-2006, 11:59 PM
are you serious? I mean sure Ahmadinejad does "talk" a lot of stuff but he is not even in control of military!!... in the other hand India and Pakistan has been "physically" hostile to each other.. the state of hostility has long passed the “making verbal threats” stage... they are in a constant arms race and a war has looked inevitable at the times..

I think your partially correct. IMHO Hezbullah is a armed arm of Iran, sort of black ops.

kraf001
09-05-2006, 12:29 AM
I think your partially correct. IMHO Hezbullah is a armed arm of Iran, sort of black ops.
come on now HOLLIS, are you gonna equate magnitude of kidnapping 2 soldiers to nuking Israel?... Iran doesn't have monopoly over "dodgy proxies" and you know it.. it is a common tactic used by most countries! (not justifying anything though!)

mailmannz
09-05-2006, 04:27 AM
does that change anything?
Yes it does. Israel has not threatened to wipe any country off the face of the planet and when you are surrounded by people who arent exactly going to send you christmas cards then so be it.

Lets also not forget that Israel, unlike some of those who would like to wipe them out, is a transparent and accountable democratic nation. You cannot say the same about Iran (if you do then you are an ignorant moron).


it is illegal to give anyone plutonium
Its also illegal to supply terrorists with weapons. But that doesnt stop Iran does it.

Seems the only real double standard here is that its ok to do something as long as its not Israel doing that something.

Mailman

kraf001
09-05-2006, 05:00 AM
Yes it does. Israel has not threatened to wipe any country off the face of the planet and when you are surrounded by people who arent exactly going to send you christmas cards then so be it.

hmmm no Arab country had nukes back then and Iran was under the control of a friendly nation.. Israel's nuclear arsenal didn't become a known thing until the 80s (I could be wrong, though).. if UK and US were so worried about Israel they could have just supported them with conventional weapons... we both know none of the Arab nations were strong enough for Israel to ever need a nuke or nuclear deterrence!


Lets also not forget that Israel, unlike some of those who would like to wipe them out, is a transparent and accountable democratic nation. You cannot say the same about Iran (if you do then you are an ignorant moron).

just like any other Abrahamic religion Judaism has its own "fanatics" and you can never be 100% sure what happens in future.. that is why there is NPT and why the world wants to rid itself from nuclear weapons...



Its also illegal to supply terrorists with weapons. But that doesnt stop Iran does it.

and I said that?.. tell me is it like a personal need to feel like wining arguments on online forums by putting words in ppl's mouth because if it is then we might as well just quit now!


Seems the only real double standard here is that its ok to do something as long as its not Israel doing that something.

not really, Israel is not at fault for seeking Plutonium... it is the fault of countries that provide Israel with such materials because they claim to be the "saints of free world" and if they can easily (in 60s there was no Ahmadinejad so I fail to see your point!) break their obligation to international peace then how can you expect anyone else to obey the rules.. especially when "good" or "evil" is such a personal perception.. remember how those fanatic Muslims who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan were the "good guys"...

Shoplifter
09-05-2006, 05:16 AM
...but Israel is not threatening to annihilate an entire country unlike Iran.


The threat is implied by mere possession of the big stick. IE any attempt to retrieve looted lands will be met with a nuclear option.

atudai
09-05-2006, 07:14 AM
come on now HOLLIS, are you gonna equate magnitude of kidnapping 2 soldiers to nuking Israel?... Iran doesn't have monopoly over "dodgy proxies" and you know it.. it is a common tactic used by most countries! (not justifying anything though!)

I'm just reading your posts and laughing out loud. rofl

ohh god.

GiladS
09-05-2006, 07:20 AM
we both know none of the Arab nations were strong enough for Israel to ever need a nuke or nuclear deterrence!


Untill the 1967 watershed, Israel was viewed as a country living on borrowed time in the face of Arab armament with Soviet weapons.

Add this to the trauma left by the Holocaust, and you can understand very well why Ben-Gurion wanted the "bomb".

PersianPrince
09-05-2006, 07:24 AM
I'm just reading your posts and laughing out loud. rofl

ohh god.
rofl rofl Same here.Its a hoot reading his posts.

joedirt
09-05-2006, 07:36 AM
That’s just stupid America and most likely Britain and other European nations would have come into help if there was a real threat of Israel being overrun. I doubt America would have used nukes because that would have been a provocation to the Soviets but we would have had a ungodly large military force on top of the Arab nations in a heartbeat every time though Israel proved its military might and won so it never came to that. Israel’s need for nuclear weapons is completely unnecessary and has led to the situation that we are in now with the Iranians. Stop defending something that has no base for being which is true for a 200+ strong Israeli nuclear arsenal

GiladS
09-05-2006, 07:38 AM
That’s just stupid America and most likely Britain and other European nations would have come into help if there was a real threat of Israel being overrun. I doubt America would have used nukes because that would have been a provocation to the Soviets but we would have had a ungodly large military force on top of the Arab nations in a heartbeat every time though Israel proved its military might and won so it never came to that. Israel’s need for nuclear weapons is completely unnecessary and has led to the situation that we are in now with the Iranians. Stop defending something that has no base for being which is true for a 200+ strong Israeli nuclear arsenal

:roll:

Yeah riggght...

As for the Americans, we didn't have the relations we have with them today.

If anything, it is the growing U.S military presence around Iran that has triggered the Iranian rush for a nuclear arsenal.

Appaloosa
09-05-2006, 09:29 AM
the interesting here beside the A bomb itself it's that Jews of Diaspora have an Israeli agenda. in this case a British Jewish citizen Michaels acts openly on Israel's interest.

mi35d
09-05-2006, 11:38 AM
who arent exactly going to send you christmas cards then so be it.

Just a side chuckle, I don't think there are that many Christians hanging around Israel to accept the cards anyway. :)

Hollis
09-05-2006, 12:03 PM
:roll:
If anything, it is the growing U.S military presence around Iran that has triggered the Iranian rush for a nuclear arsenal.

I think that is the reason, It is called, "Nuclear Umbrella"..... More a defensive deterrent. Iran is worried.

C.MAXIMUS
09-05-2006, 01:47 PM
Kraf001 is always entertaining ... not a word to the regime, always !!!! p-)

mailmannz
09-05-2006, 03:58 PM
just like any other Abrahamic religion Judaism has its own "fanatics" and you can never be 100% sure what happens in future.. that is why there is NPT and why the world wants to rid itself from nuclear weapons...

The day jewish fanatics start detonating on buses and in restaurants is the day we should start to get worried.

Until then Israel has an undeniable right to defend itself, whether that be with the ultimate deterance weapon (nukes) or conventional weapons is neither here nor there.

Although you cant really blame Israel for developing Nukes...I mean, what would you do if you were surrounded by countries who's only interest was in seeing your total and utter destruction? Somehow I doubt you would be so prissy about Israel having nukes.

Mailman

Latin Jewish Soldier
09-05-2006, 04:01 PM
Egypt was developing nuclear weapons at around at the same time....

mailmannz
09-05-2006, 05:48 PM
Egypt was developing nuclear weapons at around at the same time....

But thats ok because its only Israel that isnt allowed nukes.

Heck, even Iran is allowed nukes ahead of Israel...and we all know Israel isnt running around talking about the utter destruction of other countries.

Mailman

Appaloosa
09-05-2006, 05:54 PM
But thats ok because its only Israel that isnt allowed nukes.

Heck, even Iran is allowed nukes ahead of Israel...and we all know Israel isnt running around talking about the utter destruction of other countries.

Mailman


maby you forget the bombing of Saddam's reactor. In international law it's called aggression. Israel does not threat , simply does.:)

Mr.Flint
09-05-2006, 06:18 PM
maby you forget the bombing of Saddam's reactor. In international law it's called aggression. Israel does not threat , simply does.:)
Technically the war between Israel and Iraq (Iraq was one of the agressors in 1948) was never over, the 1949 armstice agreements didnt include Iraq as well, therefore calling it an agression is a ridicolous interpretation (same as the 6 day war) of the int. law :backhand:

mailmannz
09-06-2006, 04:24 PM
maby you forget the bombing of Saddam's reactor. In international law it's called aggression. Israel does not threat , simply does.:)

Ah yeah because we all know that Iraq was only after nukes for its civilian energy program ;)

Mailman

Appaloosa
09-07-2006, 06:36 PM
Technically the war between Israel and Iraq (Iraq was one of the agressors in 1948) was never over, the 1949 armstice agreements didnt include Iraq as well, therefore calling it an agression is a ridicolous interpretation (same as the 6 day war) of the int. law :backhand:


So the UN was ridicolous when they adopted Resolution 487 vs Israel aftet the attack. That UN people don't know a thing about international law but Mr Flint does.:) btw the Osiraq reactor had been inspected by IAEA before the attack and had been given a green light by the inspectors.

Mr.Flint
09-07-2006, 10:06 PM
So the UN was ridicolous when they adopted Resolution 487 vs Israel aftet the attack. That UN people don't know a thing about international law but Mr Flint does.:) btw the Osiraq reactor had been inspected by IAEA before the attack and had been given a green light by the inspectors.
You know as well as im that politics of the UN in reality have little to do with the international law.
487 is based on paragraph 4 of article 2, and that is ridcolous because article 2 has no validity when countries in question are in state of war.
other parts of 487 are quite silly as well.
especially this one
6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel;
Can anyone tell me, has the UN ever passed any resolution that considers that Israel entitled to approproate redress? :roll:



cleared the reactor? heh

EX-INSPECTOR ASSERTS IRAQ PLANNED TO USE REACTOR TO BUILD A-BOMBS (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60812FA3A5C0C738EDDAF0894D9484D81&n=Top%2fNews%2fWorld%2fCountries%20and%20Territories%2fIraq)

By A.O. SULZBERGER JR., SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
A former inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency said here today that Iraq had been planning to develop atomic bombs using the nuclear reactor destroyed by Israel and that international safeguards would not have detected secret production of plutonium in the reactor for weapons. The former inspector, Roger Richter, was one of three people familiar with nuclear reactors to testify this morning that Iraq was capable of using the reactor bombed on June 7 to produce plutonium, which can be used to make atomic weapons. But neither of the other witnesses, Robert Seldon, head of the applied theoretical physics division at Los Alamos Laboratory, nor Herbert J.C. Kouts, chairman of the department of nuclear energy at Brookhaven National Laboratory, would say under questioning if he believed that Iraq was in fact planning to use the reactor to produce fissionable material for weapons. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Richter said his concern over agency constraints in inspecting the Iraqi reactor led him to report his misgivings to the State Department last year. He said that he had never personally inspected the reactor, explaining that checks of the Iraqi plant had been conducted only by Soviet or Eastern European members of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?offset=150&&s=oldest&inline=nyt-geo

Appaloosa
09-08-2006, 03:51 PM
You know as well as im that politics of the UN in reality have little to do with the international law.
487 is based on paragraph 4 of article 2, and that is ridcolous because article 2 has no validity when countries in question are in state of war.
other parts of 487 are quite silly as well.
especially this one
Can anyone tell me, has the UN ever passed any resolution that considers that Israel entitled to approproate redress? :roll:



cleared the reactor? heh

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?offset=150&&s=oldest&inline=nyt-geo




if everyone rejects the UN resolutions as silly according to his interests then the UN doesn't work as it is supposed to be a peaceful way to settle things among countries.

the fact that the IAEA members were East block and not West block has nothing to do with the subject. They are members and function under IAEA. Maby the control was not the best but Iraqis allowed them. What Israel did with Dimona? just denied any control. Iraq DID signed the Non Prolif treaty but Israel didn't. Yet we have the bad Iraqis, the bad Iranians but who is the 6th world's nuclear power out of control of any rule?

mailmannz
09-10-2006, 02:29 PM
just denied any control. Iraq DID signed the Non Prolif treaty but Israel didn't. Yet we have the bad Iraqis, the bad Iranians but who is the 6th world's nuclear power out of control of any rule?

Israel, unlike IRaq and IRan, is a true democracy that is open and transparent in how it operates. I trust them a hell of a lot more with a big arse bomb than some mad mullah from Iran or nutjob from Iraq (saddam).

Face it, Israel hasnt threatened to wipe anyone off the face of the planet and arent funding rabid islamic terrorist organisations. F8ck me, you should be VERY worried about someone like Iran getting the bomb.

Instead we see your hatred of Israel blinding you to anything common sense.

Mailman

Appaloosa
09-10-2006, 04:19 PM
Israel, unlike IRaq and IRan, is a true democracy that is open and transparent in how it operates. I trust them a hell of a lot more with a big arse bomb than some mad mullah from Iran or nutjob from Iraq (saddam).

Face it, Israel hasnt threatened to wipe anyone off the face of the planet and arent funding rabid islamic terrorist organisations. F8ck me, you should be VERY worried about someone like Iran getting the bomb.

Instead we see your hatred of Israel blinding you to anything common sense.

Mailman



We saw some major war crimes in Lebanon by Israel using conventional weapons. Lots of moderate people or even pro Israel were shocked by this.

So don't give us the rogue Arabs story. Any Arab country having the nukes will use it as every nation with the same power- for strategic goals not to wipe out Israel and the holy Jerusalem with the Al aksa mosque with it.

charliepage
09-10-2006, 05:06 PM
We saw some major war crimes in Lebanon by Israel using conventional weapons. Lots of moderate people or even pro Israel were shocked by this.

So don't give us the rogue Arabs story. Any Arab country having the nukes will use it as every nation with the same power- for strategic goals not to wipe out Israel and the holy Jerusalem with the Al aksa mosque with it.

Could you link me about this moderate Israelis that were "shocked" by supposed crimes you speak of? And not some site no one has heard of, BBC, CNN, The Guardian or something heard of.

And if you say that they wouldn't use a nuke, why does Iran keep threatening to "destroy", "wipe off the map", etc. or is it just there way of saying that they want to be friends?

Mr.Flint
09-10-2006, 05:07 PM
if everyone rejects the UN resolutions as silly according to his interests then the UN doesn't work as it is supposed to be a peaceful way to settle things among countries.

the fact that the IAEA members were East block and not West block has nothing to do with the subject. They are members and function under IAEA. Maby the control was not the best but Iraqis allowed them. What Israel did with Dimona? just denied any control. Iraq DID signed the Non Prolif treaty but Israel didn't. Yet we have the bad Iraqis, the bad Iranians but who is the 6th world's nuclear power out of control of any rule?
In case you missed it the UN doesnt really works...
and the main reason is the fact that most of it resolution (especially in regards of Israel) lack credibility, both legal and political.
The fact that IAEA members were East Block has everything to do with the subject, even being members and functioning under IAEA, they were functioning for the East Block interests - Soviet Union interests.
The control was not only not the best but it was simply bad - Iraq should have never gotten a reactor that can produce material for weapons.

Also in case you missed that too, the big bad Israel never threatened to wipe out or to drive into the sea any country on this planet, nor spent doezens of years in developing both the ideology and the means to do so.

nu4idf
09-11-2006, 10:34 PM
Hey Kraft,
Tell your president, Ahmadinejad, cough*Psyco*cough, that he's going to drown in his own words one of these days when he A) gets killed or B) his nuclear facilities are destroyed! thanks I know you'll be seeing him soon!
The world would be a better place without people like him and people who back his regime up!

nu4IDF

kraf001
09-11-2006, 10:42 PM
Hey Kraft,
Tell your president, Ahmadinejad, cough*Psyco*cough, that he's going to drown in his own words one of these days when he A) gets killed or B) his nuclear facilities are destroyed! thanks I know you'll be seeing him soon!
The world would be a better place without people like him and people who back his regime up!

nu4IDF

hold on I am on the phone with him right now.. he is telling me to tell you "drugs are bad"... this kraf is the I.R.I agent bs is getting lame! :roll:

LRPV
09-12-2006, 12:47 AM
Lets also not forget that Israel, unlike some of those who would like to wipe them out, is a transparent and accountable democratic nation.

Transparent and accountable to whom? If it wasn't for a traitor the world would not have known about Dimona for some time. Despite the means of discovery, it does show Israel is not "transparent and accountable" at least to the extent Mailman suggests.

BTW...is Mordechai allowed out of Israel yet?

Dean89
09-12-2006, 03:04 PM
Lets also not forget that Israel, unlike some of those who would like to wipe them out, is a transparent and accountable democratic nation.

Transparent and accountable to whom? If it wasn't for a traitor the world would not have known about Dimona for some time. Despite the means of discovery, it does show Israel is not "transparent and accountable" at least to the extent Mailman suggests.

BTW...is Mordechai allowed out of Israel yet?

the only reason for that is security reasons - just like any other nation in the world wouldnt want anybody to know of their military developments, especially something this big...

and no he isnt...

LRPV
09-12-2006, 09:11 PM
[quote=Dean89;1920248]the only reason for that is security reasons - just like any other nation in the world wouldnt want anybody to know of their military developments, especially something this big...

Understood. But don't claim to be open and accountable when you are not. That was my point.

Mr.Flint
09-12-2006, 09:27 PM
[quote=Dean89;1920248]the only reason for that is security reasons - just like any other nation in the world wouldnt want anybody to know of their military developments, especially something this big...

Understood. But don't claim to be open and accountable when you are not. That was my point.
Compared to a significent number of countries on this damned planet it is quite open and accountable (and that number includes all democratic countries)

LRPV
09-12-2006, 09:47 PM
[quote=LRPV;1921049]
Compared to a significent number of countries on this damned planet it is quite open and accountable (and that number includes all democratic countries)

Go back to Mailmanz statement on page one. There is a world of difference between what he wrote and your addition of the word "quite".

Mr.Flint
09-12-2006, 10:03 PM
[quote=Mr.Flint;1921077]

Go back to Mailmanz statement on page one. There is a world of difference between what he wrote and your addition of the word "quite".
Nope, no difference at all, the "quite" there is for strenghtening.
see definition 1 and 2.

quite (kwīt) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/****.gif
adv.
To the greatest extent; completely: quite alone; not quite finished. See Usage Note at perfect (http://www.answers.com/topic/perfect).
Actually; really: I'm quite positive about it.
To a degree; rather: quite soon; quite tasty

LRPV
09-12-2006, 11:05 PM
Ok, I'll stand corrected on the semantics.:) The rest remains.

nu4idf
09-13-2006, 12:05 PM
the fact still remain that "if" Israel has nuclear weapons, which will leave up to them, they would only use it if that was the last resort because why would they want an unconventional attack as a responce to a nuclear strike unless the country was lost(there are chemical and biological agents in the hands of our enemies that would make it devistating for Israel)?! (If they don't have these agents, they are very easily obtained @ your nearest Former Soviet Union weapons depot, unfortunate but true, they need the cash badly) It is a very small country and that would ultimately make the land harder to defend, control, and be economically viable for our one and only state that belongs on this tiny strip of land, ISRAEL! Lets say they did use a bomb if they have it on Irans nuclear facilities, how much bad PR would we get! That would pretty much have the world and the arabs inside our lands come down on us! Basically we are only a nuclear threat if you try to treaten us and you better watch your radarz! Shalom
NU4IDF

mailmannz
09-13-2006, 05:44 PM
We saw some major war crimes in Lebanon by Israel using conventional weapons. Lots of moderate people or even pro Israel were shocked by this.

Oh spare me your crocodile tears. There is only one party responsible for the death and destruction that was rained down on Lebanon...and (heres a clue) that aint Israel.


Any Arab country having the nukes will use it as every nation with the same power- for strategic goals not to wipe out Israel and the holy Jerusalem with the Al aksa mosque with it.

Yeah, some of those "peace loving" arabs (ok, I mean Persians) you talk about also want the complete and utter destruction of Israel...imagine those same loonies also have the capability to deliver their promises to their "muslim brothers".


not to wipe out Israel and the holy Jerusalem with the Al aksa mosque with it.
You probably arent the most geographically aware person BUT just in case you are having problems...its quite possible to detonate a few nukes around Israel without destroying Al Alsa Mosque.

Mailman

mailmannz
09-13-2006, 05:47 PM
Lets also not forget that Israel, unlike some of those who would like to wipe them out, is a transparent and accountable democratic nation.

Transparent and accountable to whom?

Israeli citizens...or were you thinking Israel should be accountable to the world for their actions to protect their country?


BTW...is Mordechai allowed out of Israel yet?
That traitor is probably lucky to still be alive. Mind you, imagine what would have happened to him if he was Lebanese and he had betrayed Hisbulla? Somehow I doubt the f8cker would be getting three square meals a day.

Mailman

LRPV
09-13-2006, 09:00 PM
Mailmanz:

Actually, yes, Israel should be accountable to the "world". If Israel is going to cry foul about other nation States acquiring nuclear technology and that inspections should be imposed on them, why should Israel have this double standard?

Or is asking this question anti-Israeli?

You can't have it both ways.