Israel, Iran trade barbs at UN nuclear disarmament panel meeting
Source: Reuters
Israel and Iran exchanged sharp criticisms at a meeting of the UN General Assembly's disarmament committee on Friday, accusing each other of being a major destabilizing force in the Middle East.
Israeli Ambassador Alon Roth-Snir told the United Nations' First Committee that "Iran remains the most significant threat to the security of the Middle East and beyond."
He reiterated his government's strong opposition to a historic nuclear agreement between Tehran and six world powers, saying it was "unlikely to stop Iran's relentless pursuit of a nuclear weapons' capability." He accused Tehran of continuing "vehement anti-Semitic rhetoric and threats against Israel."
Iran UN Ambassador Gholamali Khoshrou in turn accused Israel, which is widely presumed to have the region's only nuclear arsenal, of being "the only impediment ... towards realizing a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East."
<snip>
Read more: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Israel-Iran-trade-barbs-at-UN-nuclear-disarmament-panel-meeting-421460
forest444
(5,902 posts)But hey, who's counting.
http://rense.com/general26/bombs.htm
(neither country should have any, of course)
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And Rense is not a legit site to link to generally speaking.
Even more destabilizing perhaps is the fact that the US and Russia each have over 7,000.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
forest444
(5,902 posts)https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/12646-israeli-official-weve-dropped-400-tonnes-of-bombs-on-gaza
http://abc.net.au/news/2014-07-25/15-killed-in-israeli-shelling-of-gaza-school/5622832
Same goes for Iran and many other countries (let's just stop pretending Israel is somehow special in this regard - far from it!)
oberliner
(58,724 posts)None of them are therefore obligated to allow inspections (nor do they receive the benefits associated with signing the treaty).
In any case, it is important to remember that the US and Russia have 15 times the nuclear warheads of all of the rest of the countries of the world with nuclear weapons combined.
It seems a tad hypocritical for the US and Russia to be dictating terms about such weapons to the rest of the world considering their massive arsenals of said weapons.
(To say nothing of the copious amounts of bombing both countries have been responsible for in recent history)
forest444
(5,902 posts)The very definition of a rogue state, wouldn't you say?
It's funny that you use their refusal to sign the NPT as some kind of mitigating argument, as if that somehow made it acceptable. Quite the contrary: it shows brazen intent (just as it does for India and Pakistan) - especially in Israel's case, considering their incredibly criminal conduct where their occupied territories are concerned.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Not Israel, not India, not Pakistan.
There is definitely one set of rules for the "superpowers" and one set of rules for everyone else.
forest444
(5,902 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 10, 2015, 01:08 AM - Edit history (1)
What you just said is the absolute, unvarnished truth. It's to our eternal shame that we, as voters, look on with almost total indifference upon everything from the Iraq War itself, to the use of depleted uranium, to the droning campaign, and so many other misguided decisions.
We are, as you explained so well, setting a poor example, and it's certainly not the way to win hearts and minds.
Mind you, I'm not referring to violent protest or anything of the kind. Had monsters like Bush - or cold fish like Obama - known that even one these crimes would have led to an 80 or 90-point loss in approval after even one of these decisions, few if any of these things would have happened. Our approval was key.