U.N. Chief Urges Israel To Halt Settlements

[Purveyor]

(AP)

RAMALLAH, West Bank - Israel must halt settlement building and present detailed proposals for a border with a future Palestinian state, visiting U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday, as he tried to persuade the Palestinians to continue low-level meetings with Israel that the international community hopes will evolve into serious negotiations.

Ban praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for his leadership and publicly backed him on key issues, including the demand for a freeze of settlement building on occupied lands the Palestinians want for their state.

With Abbas by his side, the U.N. chief affirmed that "all Israeli settlements are contrary to international law and prejudice" the outcome of a final peace deal.

At the same time, Ban urged the Palestinian leader not to let the current peace efforts lose momentum. The dialogue on borders and security arrangements began last month at the urging of the Quartet of Mideast mediators — the U.S., U.N., EU and Russia — which asked both sides to submit detailed proposals. The Quartet has said it wants a final deal by the end of the year.

MORE...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57369906/u.n-chief-urges-israel-to-halt-settlements/

[Jefferson23]

1. This should be front and center, not Iran. n/t

[oberliner]

2. Why?

Both are violating international law - why should one be "front and center" rather than the other?

[Jefferson23]

3. That you feel compelled to ask the question is concerning, but whatever.

Stop the Madness
Despite all the hype, Iran's nuclear program has yet to violate international law. It's time to calm down, think, and above all halt the rush to war.


BY YOUSAF BUTT | JANUARY 19, 2012

Olli Heinonen is alarmed that Iran has begun producing 20 percent enriched uranium at a new, deeply buried site, and calculates that Iranian scientists could further purify the material to the 90 percent enrichment needed for a bomb in about six months' time. This prediction, however, is based on unsubstantiated assumptions regarding Iranian intentions, and only serves to provide ammunition for hawks in Washington that would rush the United States into another destructive war in the Middle East.


If Tehran enriched uranium to 90 percent, it would be forced to break its four decade-long adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- a momentous step that would likely prompt swift military action from the United States or Israel. Furthermore, Heinonen fails to mention that, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, "All nuclear material in the facility remains under the Agency's containment and surveillance." The IAEA considers 20 percent enriched uranium to be low-enriched uranium and "a fully adequate isotopic barrier" to weaponization.


This isn't the first time that hawks have raised the alarm about Iran's nuclear program, claiming that the sky is falling. Breathless, hypothetical timelines to an Iranian bomb have continued almost unabated since the time of the shah. For instance, in 1992, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said that Iran would have nuclear warheads by 1999. By casting the worst-case scenario as a realistic possibility, such timelines invite overly tough policies that may, in turn, actually provoke a hard-line Iranian response -- creating a self-fulfilling cycle of escalation.

In reality, however, Iran is not doing anything that violates its legal right to develop nuclear technology. Under the NPT, it is not illegal for a member state to have a nuclear weapons capability -- or a "nuclear option." If a nation has a fully developed civilian nuclear sector -- which the NPT actually encourages -- it, by default, already has a fairly solid nuclear weapons capability. For example, like Iran, Argentina, Brazil, and Japan also maintain a "nuclear option" -- they, too, could break out of the NPT and make a nuclear device in a few months, if not less. And like Iran, Argentina and Brazil also do not permit full "Additional Protocol" IAEA inspections.

The real legal red line, specified in the IAEA's "Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements," is the diversion of nuclear materials to a weapons program. However, multiple experts and official reports have affirmed over the years that they have no evidence that any such program exists.

For example Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who spent more than a decade as the director of the IAEA, said that he had not "seen a shred of evidence" that Iran was pursuing the bomb. The latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program also backs up this assessment, stating that Iran's research program into nuclear weapons "was stopped rather abruptly pursuant to a ‘halt order' instruction issued in late 2003."

Even U.S. officials have conceded that they have no proof that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear bomb. Following the release of the classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in 2011, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed in a Senate hearing that he has a "high level of confidence" that Iran "has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program." And earlier this month, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta weighed in: "Are they [Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us."

in full: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/19/stop_the_madness?page=full

[oberliner]

4. In shipping arms to Hezbollah, Iran is violating intl law and UN Security Council resolutions

Would you agree or disagree with that?

And I am actually asking you, not Yousaf Butt.

It would be great if you could occasionally respond to questions without cutting and pasting an article written by someone else.

[Jefferson23]

5. oberliner, considering your track record

on actually reading OP's I post and all the challenges it poses for you... I'll make it easy for you.

The Iran screaming meme of war coming from Israel is insane, and without merit and is an intended
distraction from forming any peace agreement with the Palestinians.


I post articles I believe support that, you are free to ignore them. Making claims pulled out of my ass,
is not my style.

[oberliner]

6. Reading OP's does not present any challenge for me

I don't agree with Mr. Butt. There are rebuttals (so to speak) printed online with respect to his argument. If you want to just cut and paste articles back and forth, I'd be happy to do that - I don't think it's as engaging.

I think that both the situation with respect to Iran's bellicose statements and disregard for the international monitors of its nuclear program ought to be just as "front and center" as the situation with regard to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

My personal opinion is that Iran is a more significant issue for more players in the region (particularly the Gulf States) in that it could impact them directly in a way that the Palestinian situation does not.

That being said, however, I agree with you that a peace agreement with the Palestinians ought to be a top priority - and reaching one could go a long way towards regional peace.

So, too, could getting Iran to back down from developing nuclear weapons, which, clearly, is their intention, Mr. Butt's piece notwithstanding.

[Jefferson23]

7. They pose a challenge for you when you attempt to dispute them as you

have and later learn you were mistaken because you did not read them well, if at all.
I suspect that is why you would prefer to not address them at all..easier to "engage"
that way.

Regardless, I stand by my sources, the Op's I post. You are free to continue to engage in posting
what is important to you. From the alleged Iranian blogger, 'Iran can destroy Israel in 9 minutes.'

I'll continue to post sources I find worthy, even when they have a funny last name.

Yousaf Butt is a nuclear physicist and is currently serving as a scientific consultant to the Federation of American Scientists on missile defense and other national security issues. He has served as a fellow on the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/10/billions_for_missile_defense_not_a_dime_for_common_sense

We are in agreement that a peace settlement with the Palestinians should be a top priority..that
is something, I guess.

[oberliner]

8. What a strange response

Why post another article from the same guy? We know what his opinion is. Have you read any dissenting views? You seem only interested posting articles from people with whom you agree. If you want to do that, what's the point of being on a discussion board.

You want me to link you to articles that contradict Yousaf Butt's POV? Would you even read them? I mean, they are easy enough to find on your own if you care to do so.

Do you?

[Jefferson23]

9. I posted the gentlemens credentials.

You're ignoring the remainder of what I said in my last post.

Some sources are credible others are not..this can be debatable in and
of itself.

I read what someone has posted before I respond, yes.

[oberliner]

10. I know who he is

I've read his posts on the topic before.

Anyway, we disagree on this - that's fine. I appreciate your generally respectful means of doing so.

It is my great hope that Iran never makes an attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, as per this analysis.

Even if they don't, however, they are still in violation of international law for other reasons that I mentioned above (and more).