Nobel Peace Prize winner justifies Arab-Muslim nuke pursuit
Purported nuclear regulator Mohamed ElBaradei writes in Monday's International Herald Tribune that the world would be moving towards nuclear disarmament if only the Joooos would give up their alleged nuclear capability and give the 'Palestinians' a Recent statements by the Obama administration give us hope that some of these measures can be adopted quickly. However, the deep-rooted causes of the insecurity that have plagued the world for decades need to be addressed simultaneously if durable security is to be attained.ElBaradei claims that if there were no poor people in the world, no one would be pursuing nuclear weapons. Funny, I don't think the Iranians are poor. The Russian, North Korean and Pakistani leadership that is pursuing (or has) nuclear weapons is not poor. So what does poverty have to do with the pursuit of nuclear weapons.
First, poverty and inequality. The links between poverty, repression and injustice, on the one hand, and extremism and violence, on the other, are clear for all to see. We must learn to value all human life equally. Developed countries - quick to react when the lives of their own citizens are at stake - give the clear impression that they do not really care about the lives of the world's poor.
Second, festering conflicts. The Middle East, home to the world's most perilous and intractable conflict, will never be at peace until the Palestinian question is resolved. What compounds the problem is that the nuclear nonproliferation regime has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of Arab public opinion because of the perceived double-standards concerning Israel, the only state in the region outside the NPT and known to possess nuclear weapons.ElBaradei justifies Arab pursuit of nuclear weapons as a means of resolving the 'Palestinian question.' One would think that a nuclear regulator would understand that if a nuclear bomb explodes in Israel, an awful lot of 'Palestinians' are going to be killed.
ElBaradei justifies the Arab and Muslim pursuit of nuclear weapons on the grounds that Israel (allegedly) has them. If Israel has them, it has had them for more than 40 years. Israel didn't use them in 1967 - when we allegedly had them. We didn't use them in 1973 - when we allegedly had them. We didn't use them against Iraq in 1981 - when we allegedly had them. So why would anyone think we would be the first to use them now? Tell us Mr. ElBaradei, please. We're not the ones threatening to wipe out other States. It's your 'brothers' the Iranians who are doing that.
Iraq and Libya are unlikely to be the last countries in the Middle East to be tempted to acquire nuclear weapons. Concerns about current and future nuclear programs in the region will persist until a lasting peace is achieved and all nuclear weapons in the area are eliminated as part of a regional security structure. The Obama administration's pledge to engage in direct diplomacy with Iran, without preconditions and on the basis of mutual respect, and to seek a grand bargain, is long overdue.Is ElBaradei suggesting that the US should enter into strategic arms limitation talks with Iran? Because that's sure what it sounds like.
Above all, we need to halt the glaring breach of core principles of international law such as limitations on the unilateral use of force, proportionality in self-defense and the protection of civilians during hostilities in order to avoid a repeat of the civilian carnage in Iraq and, most recently, in Gaza.What does Gaza have to do with the pursuit of nuclear weapons? Any nuclear weapon that lands anywhere in Israel is likely to at least have fallout that will kill an awful lot of Gazans. What is he talking about? And by the way, who caused the 'civilian carnage' in Iraq? It wasn't the US and its allies who sent all those suicide bombers.
ElBaradei is living in a delusional world in which Israel and the US are to blame for all of the world's problems. If this is the highest quality most unbiased civil servant the United Nations can produce, it's time to shut the UN down.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:53 PM
6 Comments:
Israel is not going to get rid of its nuclear arsenal any time soon. In fact, just the reverse. If Iran can't be prevented from going nuclear, Israel is very like to conduct open nuclear tests to show Iran it can be wiped out. If the mullahs really want to press it, there is no longer a reason for Israel to maintain nuclear ambiguity as a policy.
This article is an extended example of Conservative Reading Comprehension Disorder. Virtually nothing El Baradei said is equivalent to - indeed even resembles - your paraphrasals. In places, you print travesties of perfectly clear statements in the immediate successive sentences, yet show no awareness that your restatement is completely fraudulent. The article is intellectually dishonest to the point of being almost wholly fictional.
First, let us dispense with rank prevarication: nowhere whatsoever in your quotes does El Baradei mention "the Jews" (let alone "the Jooooos"). He does mention "Israel", which is not the same thing, as you yourself acknowledge two sentences later by reference to Israeli Palestinians. And please stop this stupid nonsense about Israel's "alleged" nuclear weapons, and your insistence in putting scare quotes around references to "the Palestinians". As all the world knows, the Palestinians certainly exist (and have done longer than has "Israel"), and they are as real as Israel's nuclear arsenal.
But as to the matter of the simple comprehension of ordinary written language:
El Baradei said:
"[T]he deep-rooted causes of the insecurity that have plagued the world for decades need to be addressed simultaneously if durable security is to be attained. First, poverty and inequality. The links between poverty, repression and injustice, on the one hand, and extremism and violence, on the other, are clear for all to see."
This would seem rather obviously to mean that he regards "poverty and inequality" as among "the deep-rooted causes of [world] insecurity". It means that because that's what he said.
And your interpretation of this fairly straight-forward claim?
"ElBaradei claims that if there were no poor people in the world, no one would be pursuing nuclear weapons."
Well, no, he doesn't. That isn't what he said, and in fact it's such a bizarre, hyperbolic, and tangential interpretation of his words that it implies illiteracy, or worse.
Also, El Baradei said:
"Second, festering conflicts. The Middle East, home to the world's most perilous and intractable conflict, will never be at peace until the Palestinian question is resolved. . . . [T]he nuclear nonproliferation regime has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of Arab public opinion because of the perceived double-standards concerning Israel . . . ."
This would seem, rather obviously, to mean that he regards "the Palestinian question" as being also among "the deep-rooted causes of [world] insecurity" and that nuclear arms control is undermined by the fact that Israel is not treated like other countries in that respect. It means that because that's what he said. (See how this works?)
And your interpretation of this other fairly straight-forward claim?
"ElBaradei justifies Arab pursuit of nuclear weapons as a means of resolving the 'Palestinian question.'"
Well, no, he doesn't. That's not what he said, and in this case your distortion of what he said is not merely delusional but reaches the level of libel. El Baradei said nothing about "Arab pursuit of nuclear weapons", let alone that it be a "means of resolving" the Palestinian question. That is not merely a misunderstanding or misstatement - it is a lie. He made two very simple, and undoubtedly correct, factual statements: the ongoing Palestinian conflict is a continuing source of tension (a "festering conflict"), and that attempts to prevent acquisition of nuclear arms by some countries (all but one of which on the current list of suspects just happen to be Muslim) "has lost its legitimacy" because of the de facto special exemption that has been granted to Israel. It should be obvious to even the meanest intelligence (a category in which I would once have included this paper) that he is not advocating further nuclear proliferation among Muslim countries, but the inclusion of Israel in an even-handed, global arms control regime. At the very least, he said nothing like what you claim he said, and the error in this case is too glaring even to attribute to the otherwise convincing excuse of incompetence.
El Baradei said:
"Above all, we need to halt the glaring breach of core principles of international law such as [the laws of war,] to avoid a repeat of the civilian carnage in Iraq and, most recently, in Gaza."
Your response:
"What does Gaza have to do with the pursuit of nuclear weapons?"
The point to this question is puzzling, since El Baradei was not discussing nuclear weapons in the first place. (He mentioned Israel's refusal to support nuclear non-proliferation as a barrier to that goal, but that is an example of his general topic of the causes of conflict, not his topic in itself - there's a difference. Note also that every example used in this very sentence is one that applies primarily to conventional, not nuclear, weapons, so the question about the latter seems again particularly pointless.) However, in this case, at least, the confusion of interpretation is phrased as a refreshingly humble question, not an outright lie. So we're back to simple incompetence, which, compared to the previous paragraph, is an improvement.
You conclude:
"ElBaradei is living in a delusional world in which Israel and the US are to blame for all of the world's problems."
Well, possibly he is, but there is no evidence in the quotes you give to believe so - leading to the suspicion that you're making things up again. Note that his only references to Obama or the United States, in these quotes, are highly laudatory. His sole reference to Israel was the (true) factual observation that it has been protected from the same arms-control pressures it insists should be imposed upon other countries, which, if it does constitute being worthy of "blame for all of the world's problems" (somewhat hyperbolic, as usual, but nevermind) can surely only be Israel's fault.
What El Baradei has to say on these topics is probably worth understanding clearly, and whether he is correct or not is probably worth considering. Unfortunately, you do not appear capable of either mental act - certainly this article represents a thoroughgoing failure at both. The fact that the text you have so badly misrepresented is itself so lucid and uncomplicated unavoidably raises serious questions about your ability and willingness to treat these issues fairly and accurately.
Poverty has nothing to do with political violence. Political violence has been perpetrated by well-educated people, who are invested in radical politics.
There are double standards in the Middle East and usually they single out Israel for not following a special subset of rules other countries don't have to follow.
No other country has ever given up its nuclear arsenal and Israel will not do so to be a sacrificial lamb for the Left's misplaced non-proliferation campaign.
The above are all facts and facts are stubborn things - especially in the Middle East.
What the people like El Baradei fail to mention is that Israel's nuclear policy is perfectly legal, considering it is not a signatory to the NPT, unlike Iran and Iraq, for example.
Furthermore, El Baradei is Egyptian. If an Israeli name would ever be floated to head the IAEA, the world would react with rage - at the biased, horrible decisions an Israeli would make. An Arab, though, is obviously nothing but a just observer.
If an Israeli name would ever be floated to head the IAEA, the world would react with rage
A claim you make immediately after noting that Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, unlike every other country in the world with nuclear weapons - and, of course, after we hear repeated complaints about the "double standard" Israel labors under.
If Israel resents the idea that it does not garner respect for itself by flouting and mocking the international norms that other countries accept . . . well, there's an easy solution, and one that is long overdue. But you should decide exactly which "double standards" you do and don't object to: the ones Israel claims for itself in virtually every aspect of international relations and law, or the apparently illusory ones that result from the simple request that Israel actually operate under the same standards as are expected of civilized nations.
So Iran and Iraq have agreed to something and later decided they just don't like it anymore, and Israel, which never committed to a VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT is the one that is "flouting and mocking the international norms that other countries accept." That makes perfect sense.
Post a Comment
<< Home