Nuclear Inspection of Israel sought by Arab League

[Dover]

I hadn't seen this story which seems to indicate that Israel as well as Iran is under pressure to reveal their nuclear facilities. It really is a tough argument to require some nations to forego nuclear ambitions while others have been developing theirs:

Nuclear inspection of Israel sought

Amr Moussa, Arab League chief, is said to have signed the letter sent to nuclear powers

Arab nations have urged Washington and several other nuclear powers to push for inspections of Israel's nuclear programme, diplomats have told the Associated Press news agency.

In a letter sent ahead of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting scheduled for September, the Arab League also sought support for a resolution that calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The letter sent on August 8 was signed by Amr Moussa, the Arab League chief.

Besides Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, the letter was also sent to foreign ministers of Russia, China, Britain and France - the four other permanent UN Security Council members.

Obama warning

The letter comes one month after Barack Obama, the US president, warned the Arab world not to use the 150-nation IAEA forum to single out Israel.

MORE -
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/08/201081516228402597.html

[PDJane]

1. I agree.

And it's long past time that Israel was pressured into doing so. Especially if the US or Israel are going to war with Iran for weapons that they don't have.

[Dover]

3. Well, the point is that of course Iran WANTS the weapon. And it would be naive to assume

that it is only for energy use. So I do think the 'threat' of Iran becoming a nuclear power that
would rival Israel or any other nuclear powers in the region is real. Perhaps the only realistic
solutions short of a Third World War is to either allow Iran to have the bomb (and therefore no longer be under the thumb of the West) while continuing to work toward non-proliferation (which Israel would have to join) or we will need a MUCH quicker pace toward non-proliferation and complete elimination of nuclear altogether...just take everyone's stick away at the same time. Neither solution would please or benefit the U.S. or Israel.
though I think in the longer view either would be wiser than launching into yet another and broader war even if we still have the upper hand militarily speaking. I don't know where we would stand defensively if ALL nuclear arms were eliminated tomorrow in one big global treaty, but I think we need some big, bold moves like that to break the stalemate. And we may have to surrender some other important things too. We don't have much practice at this kind of back-stepping, but it's a whole lot easier to swallow than the alternative. Perhaps internal strife along with sanction pressures will cause Iran to erupt from within and slow things down considerably. Maybe. But that might take a few years and Iran may have a nuclear weapon by then. ...sigh. This is truly a Gordian Knot.

[Peace Patriot]

4. I share your concern and your agony about the existence of nuclear weapons.

World leaders need to read "The Cold and the Dark," in which Carl Sagan established that even a limited nuclear weapons exchange would kill the planet in a couple of months. The immediate blasts and spreading radiation would kill many; a dust cloud that would circle the planet would kill off plant life, and that would be that, for humanity.

The RISK that leaders of countries with nuclear weapons entertain is mind-boggling. We've come to accept it, but it is still mind-boggling, with any effort of thought at all. Global warming may kill off humanity but at least that is not deliberate. It is a crisis that crept up on us and that is very difficult to address. But to DELIBERATELY, as an act of aggression OR an act of defense, consign humanity and all life on earth to the dustbin--and to even contemplate doing such a thing--is truly sick. We are sick. So are the Chinese, and the Russians, and the Indians, and the Pakistanis, and the British, and the French, and the Israelis--and if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, understandable as that is, so are they. SICK!

We need to CURE this sickness.

Also recommended: "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," by James Douglass. (It was all about the use of nuclear weapons.)

[Chulanowa]

2. Makes sense to me

If Israel doesn't have them, no harm. If Israel does have them... Well, Israel's not part of the NPT and so isn't going to suffer any legal consequences.

[Scurrilous]

5. K & R

:thumbsup: