Five permanent UN Security Council members support Mideast nuclear arms ban

[Scurrilous]

Source: Haaretz

U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China voice support for 'full implementation' of nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

<snip>

"The United States, Russia, Britain, France and China on Wednesday voiced support for making the Middle East a nuclear-arms-free zone, which would mean Israel would have to scrap any atomic bombs in its possession.

"We are committed to a full implementation of the 1995 NPT resolution on the Middle East and we support all ongoing efforts to this end," the five permanent UN Security Council members said in a unanimous statement issued at a conference taking stock of the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The 1995 resolution adopted by signatories of the landmark arms control treaty called for making the Middle East a zone without nuclear arms.

Israel, which is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, is the only country in the Middle East not to have signed the treaty and, along with India and Pakistan, one of only three countries worldwide outside the agreement. Iran, though a signatory, is accused by the West of flouting treaty requirements to disclose its nuclear activities."

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/five-permanent-un-security-council-members-support-mideast-nuclear-arms-ban-1.288467

[leveymg]

1. Does that mean we'll boycott, blockade and sanction Israeli until they give up their nukes?

Well, fair's fair. Right?

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Why?

[leveymg]

3. That's an open-ended question, isn't it?

Realizing a nuclear-free zone in the Middle-East implies that precondition, does it not? Or, do you subscribe to the Israeli "nuclear ambiguity" approach?

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Unless Israel has recently signed the NPT, the declaration is moot.

Or are you for forcing countries into treaties?

[leveymg]

5. A declaration is a declaration. It's not enforceable - that takes a resolution of the UNSC

No, I'm neither for "forcing" Israel into the NPT nor for "forcing" Iran to comply with it. The actual use of force is not a very good idea, in either case.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. So basically, both countries should be able to do what they want?

[leveymg]

10. Who's going to force either of them to do otherwise?

Of course, there's a whole range of persuasive techniques that haven't been tried. And, I'm not against innovation, particularly in the areas of finance, third-party banking, offshore deposits, and access to the Overnight and Discount Windows of the NY Federal Reserve Bank.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Then no worries as long as Israel is forced along with everyone else.

[leveymg]

14. Not sure I understand your response there.

Do you worry if Israel gives up its nukes? I think that would be a natural response by you.

To be honest, I think these are very expensive weapons that can never be used, and that calculus applies to "small" nuclear states, like Israel, as well as large. I would hope that Israel would take this opportunity to at least acknowledge it's a member of "The Club", specify its force levels, and pledge No-First-Use along with a substantial initial reduction in warheads and launchers.

[classysassy]

16. Because Israel want Iran to stop their

program to gain nukes.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. That makes no sense.

[walnutpie]

7. Finally, some clarity of thought

A nuclear middle east is a nightmare for every member of the global civilization.

And because you asked ,a nuclear Israel and in the near future, a nuclear Iraq, or Kuwait are completely different stories. They are not controlled by lunatic governments dedicated to the eradication of secular civilization.

[Towlie]

8. Just explain that to the Muslem world. I'm sure they'll cheerfully agree with you.

[riverbendviewgal]

9. this should include Israel

and I have a thought about Jerusalem

I think it should be a city country like the Vatican.....

and the UN should move its headquarters there.

[leveymg]

13. The Vatican State idea for a unified, independent Jerusalem (East and West) is an interesting idea,

Please tell us more about that.

Not sure all those diplomats will want to give up their Park Avenue Apartments and Big City perks.

[fujiyama]

11. Meaningless crap being blathered by the UNSC as usual

If the Big 5 are so concerned, why don't they give up their own nukes first?

Sure, Obama and Russia are making gestures. Where the fuck is China? What about France and the UK?

Frankly, if I headed a country I'd ignore anything the UNSC had to say about anything. Maintaining the hegemony of 5 nations serves no one's best interest.

[mazzarro]

15. +1

[classysassy]

17. We need to be honest brokers for peace in the middle east

or there will never be peace.