Joe, O & Durson - Comment - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
  • p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '14'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '31'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap
    • Brad
    • 29.05.10 | 22:05 (IDT)

    Of course the resolution singled out Israel. Whether that was justified is another question ... and given the exigent circumstances that Israel lives in, there is a very credible argument that it was not justified. The argument made by O that countries like Iran and Lybia were not mentioned b/c there would be an obvious veto fails to take into account that Israel also has allies that have been known to veto ridiculous resolutions which target Israel. There are two points that flow from this. First, this resolution wasn't vetoed because it was precatory - that is, it operates in the area of "moral suasion" rather than obligation, hence why bother. Second O's argument illustrates very nicely the rampant corruption in the U.N. Implicit in what O says is that the resolution should have targeted these renegade Arab states but no matter how justified the resolution one can forget it being passed. The corollary is that no matter how unjustified a resolution that targets Israel, it will not be vetoed by the 90% of member states. Finally, Durson, you may not understand this but the NPT is not and end but a means to an end. Its designed to minimize risk of harm to the world population. What Israel justifiably believes is that in the unique circumstances that she finds herself in, signing onto the NPT would eventually bring on terminal harm to her population. The world is complex Nat. Fundamentally, justice and morality demands that potential victims be equipped with weapons with great deterrence value. The other point, of course, is that if in fact Israel does have atomic weapons, which I believe she does in the hundreds, if not thousands, she has been completely responsible in the manner she has not used them. Given an wholesale attack on her population that she cannot stem with conventional fighting, she has every right, every justification in using them. So, those of you out there cheering on the Hamas, Hezbollah, Syrian and Iran and pointing to their massive arsenal of rockets, be careful what you wish for.

    from the article: Netanyahu: Israel is not bound by NPT resolution
    First published 20:46 29.05.10 | Last updated 20:46 29.05.10
Haaretz Headlines
Smoke billows from buildings in Quneitra

Report: Israel strikes in Syria, five killed

Two Hezbollah activists and three Syrian militiamen of the National Defence Forces, were reportedly killed in the attack in the Syrian Golan Heights.

Demolition in Beit El, July 29, 2015

Demolition of illegal West Bank structures begins

Court rejects appeal to prevent demolition in Beit El; Habayit Hayehudi MK: It is the High Court that should be demolished.

Banner calling on Obama to free Jonathan Pollard

Obama won't alter terms of Pollard's parole

Convicted Israeli spy will have to remain in the U.S. for five years after his release in November.

La rivière HaYarkon

Water Authority: Teva factory behind severe pollution

Exclusive: High levels of residue from diabetes, epilepsy and depression medicines found in Tel Aviv-area waterway.