Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Nobel Peace Prize to ElBaradei?

The following letter - sent to the UK Sunday Times - is written by Akiva Orr, a member of the Israeli committee to free the entire Middle East of all mass-destruction weapons:

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2005 was awarded to IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei for their "efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way".

Why did the Nobel Prize Committee prefer ElBaradei to Vanunu who was 18 years in Israeli prison for informing the world press about Israel's nukes? Awarding the Peace Prize to Vanunu would have been a bold step against nuclear armament.

It seems the Nobel Peace Committee is afraid of antagonizing the Israeli government or of being branded as anti-Semitic.

Yet what are the facts?

1. Israel was the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the M-E and thus started the nuclear arms race in the Middle-East.

2. For 40 years Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

3. Israel refuses to allow an IAEA inspection of its Dimona nuclear pile.

Anyone who REALLY wants to stop the nuclear arms race in the M-E must take active steps, like economic boycott, political pressure, severing diplomatic relations, etc. against Israel to make it sign the NPT and allow an IAEA inspection of Dimona. This will signal to all other governments in the region that the campaign is not one sided.

If Israel persists in its refusal to sign the NPT, refuses to allow inspection of Dimona, and refuses to return to Norway the 30 tons of heavy water lent to it only for research on condition that it is not used for the production of nuclear weapons, them the same steps that the USA and IAEA applied to Iraq must be applied to Israel.

What did ElBaradei do about Israeli nukes? Nothing.

What did he say about Israel's refusal to sigh the NPT? Nothing

What did he say about Vanunu being jailed for 18 years for informing the world press about Israel's nukes ? Nothing

He visited Jerusalem and refused to meet Vanunu lest this antagonize the Israeli government. No wonder Israel congratulated ElBaradei and the IAEA on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

The IAEA applied to Israel a very different policy from the one it applied to Iraq.

It tries to solicit co-operation on nuclear disarmament from a government that refuses for 40 years to do so. This policy has failed for 40 years.

Why continue with it?

Why reject any pressure on such a government to make it change its nuclear policy?

The USA, IAEA, and the Nobel Committee know very well that Israel has nuclear weapons and keeps building them in Dimona, and refuses to sign the NPT and refuses an IAEA inspection of Dimona.

Yet the USA, IAEA, and the Nobel Peace Prize Comittee adamantly refuse take any step against Israeli nuclear policy.

This makes them accomplices to Israeli nuclear policy.

Israel persists in its refusal to sign the NPT, ElBaradei and the IAEA do not even criticize this - and get the Nobel Peace Prize.

Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and Niels Bohr, would have denounced such a duplicity.

Very impartial.

Or, as Niels Bohr used to say: "VERY interesting"

Akiva Orr

8 Comments:

Blogger Shabadoo said...

My God, it's so simple! If only the Jews would give up their nukes, and while we're at it, all their weapons, then the rest of the Middle East would disarm, Iran would ditch its nuclear program, and the whole region would be at peace!

This half-witted inability to see or make proper distinctions between states betrays ignorance at best and more sinister motives at worst.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:46:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

It is not half-witted. And it is not an inability to see.

But it is sinister.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:40:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Distinctins between states, meaning that some states are more deserving of respect than others Shabadoo? What tests do you propose should be applied to gauge such qualification?

Perhaps agression towards neighbouring states? No question Iraq would fail, but would Iran?

Well, if nothing else, this should at least help see Iran's efforts in more perspective.

It is unfortunate however that the NPT is not compulsory.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:57:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Agression or threatening agression? In which case Iran and many other Arab and islamic countries fail.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 10:37:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Am I right to assume by your omission ibrahamav, that you regard all the conflicts that Israel has engaged in as being purely defensive on their part?

Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:58:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Purely defensive? You would have to define that.

Was 1956 purely defensive or merely an opportunistic time to slap the Egyptians over the continuous terroristic raids coming from Gaza? Especially when encouraged by the French and English.

Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:30:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Purely defensive as in repellign an attack and not motivated by the acquisition of territory.

And speaking of 1956, how is this connected to Operation Susannah in 1954?

Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:04:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

I am not familiar enough with Operation Susannah to comment.

Strictly using your definition of 'purely defensive' I can't come up with anything but a skirmish or two.

But I would never use that definition for the term. My definition would include wording such as "to prevent an imminent attack".

Thursday, October 13, 2005 4:06:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home