Why Isn't Israel Forced to Sign a Nuclear Weapons Deal?
A new report highlights the fact that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and a nuclear weapons program. It also indirectly highlights the absurdity, lies and false narratives behind the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the Iran "nuclear deal". Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and has zero nuclear weapons and no nuclear weapons program while Israel is one of only five nations to not sign the Treaty and possesses up to or more than 100 nuclear weapons.
Make sense of that for me. Why was Iran forced to sign the JCPOA while Israel can continue to lie and hide the facts about it's weapons and nuclear weapons program? Why was Obama lauded for using the Empire's power (sanctions, economic warfare, etc.) to force Iran to sign this agreement when his own country, the most terrorist country on the planet, possesses thousands?
"The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) — an international watchdog organization focusing on conflicts, the arms trade and nuclear proliferation — released a new report on Monday that claimed that Israel has nearly a hundred nuclear warheads, more than previously thought.
The SIPRI report described Israel’s nuclear arsenal as follows: 30 gravity bombs capable of delivering nuclear weapons by fighter jets; an additional 50 warheads that can be delivered by land-based ballistic missiles; and an unknown number of nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missiles that would grant Israel a sea-based second-strike capability.
In total, the SIPRI report estimated that Israel possesses between 80 and 90 nuclear weapons, an increase over previous years. SIPRI was unable, however, to confirm those estimates with Israel’s government, which has a long-standing policy of refusing to comment on its nuclear weapons program — a policy it describes as “nuclear ambiguity"."
https://www.mintpressnews.com/international-watchdog-finds-israel-has-ne...
This is why Obama made the deal.
"The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal."
It's also why Trump pulled out of the JCPOA and wants to make another deal. It didn't work (the real reason for the deal) and/or they couldn't get it done under Obama, so Trump will try his hand at it. These bastards are not above trying to do the same damn thing over and over as we can see from their weak ass false flag attempt against Iran and the blatant regime change operation for oil in Venezuela. It's all part of the game and Zionist Israel with their illegal nukes is pulling the strings. Trump is all too willing to accomodate just like his "Deal of the Century". He campaigned on it and it's why he's allowed to be president.
"..it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.
- Brookings Institution, "Which Path to Persia?" 2009"
Comments
Indeed.
Why is isreal immune from the requirements of all but four other nations?
India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and South Sudan are the only nations that don't adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
As isreal does not comply, what right do they have to tell others they must?
For the record, I am not anti semitic. I am however anti militarism.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
they feel they have that right, because
they were the only ones, who had been victimized by German Nazis as no other people has been before in the world. The mega size of their victimhood, allows them to have mega saying in telling other peoples of how to defend and protect themselves against victimization. Basically on the emotional level nobody feels it is ok to take away their right to talk and adivse other peoples and countries, what they should or shouldn't do.
Your own comment shows that in a way. You knew that somebody might claim your question and critical question would lead others to accuse you of anti-semitism. The fact that you felt it is necessary to pre-emptively state that you are not an anti-semite, shows that the Jewish population can draw from their fate in the past, ie the past absuses and murder by the Germans, a special role. Nobody would dare to say anything against them (other than their own political opposition inside Israel) and won't deny them a 'special' place among the critical voices.
Is it possible to be an anti-semite, if you are a Jew? I assume it is not. But would gladly be educated by others about it.
Just some gut feeling kinda explanation.
https://www.euronews.com/live
I think it is possible to be anti-semite and a jew....
I agree that the degree of their victimization confers some sort of a special victim status on Jews. But I don't think it should to the extent that they are give special dispensation to become what they endured.
Corporations, billionaires, Israel, Saudi Arabia all have more to say about our country than we do.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
no doubt, Wilkerson is one of my favorite military analyst
I support him since a long time. But he is an American. Were he a German and would voice similar critical analysis in Germany, he probably wouldn't do it. My comment was not meant to say that I support giving Israel a special victim status that would allow them to become a similar racist power they themselves suffered under in their past history in Germany.
Wilkerson is my favorite former US military analyst. I am glad he can speak way more freely as an American about Israels policies. So far no German mainstream politician from the current German parties was so openly critical of Israel as Wilkerson was. I believe they (the German politicians) are still too fearful of the US reactions, if they would voice criticism about those US allies, who are pro-Israel or strongly anti-Russian.
But there is another consequence because of it.
The awful effects in Germany are ,(because Germans are reluctant to criticize Israel's policies), that there is a lot of open space for true neo-Nazis and extreme right-wing xenophobic elements to take their views in the open without repercussions.
We have here politically motivated assassinations of German conservative politicians, who were not xenophobic enough and supported or were sympathetic towards asylum policies of foreigners, who wanted to live and work in Germany. That's a no no for neo-nazis, real nazis and other extremist right-wingers. So, they just shot one of those politicians in the head. Execution-style.
It's a hell of a mess. TV and print newspapers don't hide the problem and don't sugar coat it, they are just careful in their expressions to not incite more hate. Germans were in denial of their underground revival of right-wing violent extremists. I don't think they can afford that any longer. Some are even within the German police and military. These are no laughing matters over here.
At least I feel it is a very dangerous and bad development.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Your comment is appropriate
The truth is the Israeli government is almost as Naizfied as pre-final solution Germany. They are as apartheid as South Africa was by discriminating against Jews of color, such as Ethiopian Jews. They persecute the Arabs in the occupied territories. They have de-housed as many Israeli Arabs as they can. This could be Israel's Stockholm Syndrome. Should we call it the Auswitch syndrome?
sadly and unfortunately you are very right
and you as an American can come up with the diagnosis of an "Auschwitz" syndrome. Though I understand your line of thoughts fully and think it hits the nail on the head, I probably would just stand silently by and say nothing, because as a German I feel it would be inappropriate to say something like it. I am glad that 'thoughts are still free', but words are not in reality. Words can kill and I am always afraid to be on the wrong side in history again. So, silent I am. Some call this a cowardly attitude. I try to live with that accusation.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Agreed. And being a victim in the past (directly or by proxy)
does not grant you immunity to commit similar crimes in the future. The entire premise that barbarism and apartheid is ok when committed by past victims or their descendants is nonsensical gobbledygook. And the adage that "the first person to make a comparison to Nazi's loses" is bullshit. Odds are that the person that said it was attempting to inoculate himself against a well deserved accusation of exhibiting Nazi-like behavior.
We should not give foreign aid to non-signators
I thought it was supposed to be against our laws to give foreign aid to countries that don't sign. They are lucky I can't make an executive decision. Look how we are about Iran. Geeezzz, double standard much hypocrites?
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
both - Albert Einstein
Our gov't passes laws in order to disobey them
This is called, in some circles "jurisprudence". I call it sleight of mouth, as opposed to sleight of hand. The net result is to fool most everybody. But some, such as you, ain't fooled.