Iran Resumes Uranium Conversion Efforts - 20 minutes ago

[Az]

Which international law or laws give Israel the right to send agents of the State of Israel to non-belligerent sovereign nations abroad in order to kill citizens of either those states or from other states, in defiance of the law pertaining in those nations or international laws ?


There was presumably a reason why Israel didn't notify the governments of Norway or Italy or France about the activities of its assassination squads.

Note- I'm not saying that terrorists don't have a reasonable expectation of being treated the same way they treat others, but this itself is not legal justification.

My point is that the UK didn't refrain from such actions not because of Intl. law, but because it couldn't risk losing the relations with the USA, or harming them. If this was the case with another country, the UK would do it, just like the French did, against that Greenpeace ship in NZ - and Greenpeace isn't responsible for murdering people.

The reason why Israel didn't notify them, was because they'd certainly oppose it, but Israel wanted to carry out the operations for only one possible reason: those countries wouldn't extradite them to Israel - Israel would certainly prefer taking them alive, and gather valuable info.

Thus, these countries, just like the US with IRA backers, were safe havens for murderers.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

I'm not sure what you mean by "one-sided." Are you trying to tell me that there are PLO spies lurking in the upper echelons of this gov't?

There are folks high up in the CIA who dislike Israel fairly intensely. Our relationship with Israel gets in the way of their preferred methods of working with Arab intell services in the region, or is seen to.

And has Iran ever provided Hezbollah with chemcial or biological weapons?

Presumably Chem-bio weapons wouldnt completely destroy Israel. You get the retaliation, without the benefits.

Pakistan is extremely important. Israel isn't the only nuclear power Iran's worried about. It doesn't help us with the Iranians when Perv announces things like fancy new ballistic missile systems in the midst of this crisis.

If Irans principle concern is Pakistan, and not Israel, they should make this clear - have they? Then they could join in regional disarmament talks. Which would have to involved India, the principle motive for Pakistans nukes.

Look, there's a clear double standard. Dear Leader refuses to sign the CTBT

nonetheless the US has destroyed massive quantities of cold war era chem weapons, at considerable costs.

and we look the other way regarding our allies nuclear programs.

Pakistan was under sanctions in the 90's . When they
became our ally in 2001 their nuclear program was a fair accompli. It is still a problem, but i cant see a better way of dealing with it.

Ramo - Youve indicated you support the EU3 approach. GePap has claimed the EU3 offer to supply nuclear fuel to Iran is "a load of bull" Yet i see no posts disagreeing with that.

Does anyone actually support the EU3 approach? most sympathizers with the bush admin on IRan have found that approach too weak. Others here decry it as unfair to Iran. Yet its the approach of 3 great powers. Odd that such an important policy has no defenders.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



I am sorry, but I find that so utterly absurd as to be laughable. Oh, and given that Iran is one of the few islamic states with a jewish population you can call sizeable left, their anti-semitic actions have seemingly not kept up with their statements fully..

If they killed the 30,000 largely elderly jews left there, that would certainly mean the end of all trade with the EU, I presume, and other consequence, in order to do something that would gain them little. Destroying the state of Israel, on the other hand, would be an almost messianic act, that, if pulled off, could swing hundreds of millions to support Iran, and the Khomeinist vision of Islam.

You may write this off as unlikely, as is your right. I remain deeply frightened by the prospect of this regime, with its antisemitic rhetoric, possesing nuclear weapons.

[lord of the mark]

'The Islamic regime has been implacable in its enmity to the state of Israel and Zionism. In recent years at least ten Jewish citizens and communal leaders, including Habib Elghanian (the head of the community council), have been executed for allegedly having connections with Israel or Zionist organizations, for associating with the Shah or for 'corrupt business practices'. The regime has also confiscated Jewish property, including factories, hotels, cinemas, houses and other assets, and has made it increasingly difficult for Jews to obtain business licenses. Leaders of the Jewish community in Iran are forced publicly to condemn Israel and Zionism and to participate in official anti-Israel rallies.



Textbooks in Iran often include antisemitic remarks relating to Middle Eastern history or religion. Only one Jewish school remains open and its Muslim director is appointed by the ministry of education. The school is forced to operate on the Jewish sabbath and the teaching of Judaic texts is permitted only with Farsi translations of the Bible.



On 22 July 1997 Jomhuri-e Eslami, the daily newspaper that represents the views of more radical Islamists, accused the Jews of falsifying biblical texts: 'Not only did some Jewish and Christian clergy falsify verses in their holy books because of their stubborn territorial claims. Most of the verses have lost their real meaning through repeated copying and the increasing distance between translation and the original languages, namely Hebrew and Aramaic.' The daily newspaper Resalat also claimed that the Bible has been falsified by Jews.



The French Holocaust-denier Roger Garaudy has received much public acclaim throughout Iran and his views are frequently defended by public figures and the media (see France). His publications, including the latest work, 'Founding Myths of Israeli Politics' have been translated into Farsi and other languages, and widely distributed in Iran. Throughout 1998 Iranian officials issued many statements supporting Garaudy during his trial in France. The government-backed Iranian Organization of Human Rights, for example, asserted that Garuady's trial violated his freedom of speech. Iranian authorities reportedly paid part of Garaudy's fine of FF120,0000.



The Iranian media does not distinguish between Jews, Israelis and Zionists, and often blurs the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

On 31 May 1997 Keyhan, the largest Iranian newspaper, protested against the positive representation of Jews in films about the Second World War, suggesting that this legitimized 'Zionist rule in Palestine'. According to the article, 'Jews are shown as victims of harsh atrocities of the Nazis, and the image of Jews is kind, ready to sacrifice, helpless, brave and clever.'


Since the Islamic revolution, Iran has become a centre for the publication of antisemitic literature including Holocaust-denial texts. In 1997 translations of classic antisemitica, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, were reprinted. Most were financed by religious institutions such as the Centre for Islamic Propaganda in Tehran and the Islamic foundation, Astan-e Ghods-e Razavi, in Mashhad.



It is illegal for Jews in Iran to have any contact with non-Iranian Jewish organizations abroad. (They are permitted, however, to receive financial aid from an Iranian Jewish welfare organization in Britain.) Iranian Jews are banned from travelling to Israel and there have been many cases of imprisonment or fines for those suspected of visiting Israel secretly.

In January 1997 a Jewish businessman who had converted to Islam, Hedayatollah Zendehdel, was hanged after being found guilty of espionage and economic fraud. The Iranian media provided widespread coverage of the trial and execution, often emphasizing Zendehdel's Jewish origins.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If they killed the 30,000 largely elderly jews left there, that would certainly mean the end of all trade with the EU, I presume, and other consequence, in order to do something that would gain them little. Destroying the state of Israel, on the other hand, would be an almost messianic act, that, if pulled off, could swing hundreds of millions to support Iran, and the Khomeinist vision of Islam.

You may write this off as unlikely, as is your right. I remain deeply frightened by the prospect of this regime, with its antisemitic rhetoric, possesing nuclear weapons.

And your fright and discomfort are yours. This is a question of international nuclear policy, over which your feelings mean nothing.

This is not a question to be answered with "Id on't like them". This is a question to tackle with sensible facts and policy prescriptions that fit into todays world scene.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And your fright and discomfort are yours. This is a question of international nuclear policy, over which your feelings mean nothing.

This is not a question to be answered with "Id on't like them". This is a question to tackle with sensible facts and policy prescriptions that fit into todays world scene.

A fear of genocide is not an "i dont like them" The rhetoric of the Iranian regime is a fact, one that must be taken into account by policy makers. The policy prescription currently being advanced by UK, France, and Germany is to negotiate with Iran towards an abolition of its nuclear enrichment program, with the possibility of referal to the UNSC in the background. This has the backing of not only the US, but of Russia as well.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
On the one hand you don't really nukes to propagate.

On the other hand its a tad hypocritical to not let Iran get nukes.

Which hand must be severed?

A global nuclear disarmament will solve this nicely.

[notyoueither]

Very good, UR. Also very impractical. Maybe we should wait until 156 countries have nukes, and several of them use them against each other.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az

The reason why Israel didn't notify them, was because they'd certainly oppose it, but Israel wanted to carry out the operations for only one possible reason: those countries wouldn't extradite them to Israel - Israel would certainly prefer taking them alive, and gather valuable info.

Thus, these countries, just like the US with IRA backers, were safe havens for murderers.

In which case this is a tacit admission on your part that Israel chooses to ignore the laws of the lands in which its agents were operating and any international treaties pertaining between Israel and those states.

Israel too can prove to be a 'safe haven' for criminals those who contravene the laws of other countries, of which they are citizens:

In December last year the House of Lords re-imposed a £26.5m surcharge on Dame Shirley for her attempt to gain political support by selling off council homes in marginal wards to potential Tory voters. The council has now won a high court summary judgment to help it recover the funds. The high court also said interest on the surcharge should be backdated to 1987, bringing the owed total to just under £37m.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/housing/news/0,8366,769543,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3828842,00.html

providing they're Jewish, of course.