US violates UN law by threatening Iran

US violates UN law by threatening Iran

Iran’s envoy to the UN nuclear watchdog says the US nuclear policy which allows the use of nuclear arms against Tehran is a clear violation of the UN Charter.

Speaking on Monday, Ali-Asghar Soltanieh called on the UN Security Council (UNSC) to deal with the US violations.

The US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) purportedly restricts the use of its nuclear arms against most non-atomic states, except Iran and North Korea, which are accused by the US of seeking nuclear weapons.

Soltanieh also said the outcome of the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit in Washington is not binding as only a limited number of countries have been invited.

Unlike North Korea, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Tehran has stressed that its nuclear program is only for the civilian applications of the technology.

The UN nuclear watchdog has, in many reports, declared that there is no evidence of military objectives in Iran’s nuclear program.

“According to international laws, any threat to use nuclear weapons against other countries … is against the UN Charter, the [International Atomic Energy] Agency’s regulations and international laws,” ISNA quoted Soltanieh as saying.

“The UN Security Council should act swiftly and deal with the US violations in this regard.”

Later on Monday, US President Barack Obama was to open the nuclear security summit which is being attended by the leaders of 46 other countries. Iran is not represented at the conference.

“The outcome of the Washington conference is already known. Any decision taken at the meeting is not binding on those countries which are not represented at the conference,” Soltanieh said.

The Iranian envoy said the NPR proves Washington’s unreliability on the nuclear arms issue, adding that the new US policy shows that the nuclear-armed power is in fact a big threat to international peace. Source

US says Iran is not ‘nuclear capable’

April 10 2010

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has accused Iran of moving toward the production of nuclear weapons but said that Iran is not “nuclear capable” yet.

“I’d just say, and it’s our judgment here, they are not nuclear capable,” Gates said in an interview. “Not yet.”

Speaking to NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gates said that Iran was “continuing to make progress” in its nuclear program, which Washington alleges also has a clandestine military component.

“It’s going slower… than they anticipated. But they are moving in that direction,” he claimed.

Gates denied that the US was resigned to Iran becoming a nuclear-armed power.

“We have not… drawn that conclusion at all. And in fact, we’re doing everything we can to try and keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons,” he said.

The Pentagon chief’s comments come despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has never found a shred of evidence indicating that Iran is pursuing a military nuclear program.

Iran, which is an IAEA member and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has repeatedly declared that the only aim of its nuclear program is producing energy for peaceful purposes. Source

Iran has been promised nuclear fuel for over 30 years now. Despite being a 10-percent shareholder and hence entitled to the European Gaseous Diffusion Uranium Enrichment Consortium (Eurodif)’s output, Iran has never received enriched uranium from France.

Tehran and Paris have also signed a deal, under which France is obliged to deliver 50 tons of uranium hexafluoride to Iran — another obligation France has failed to meet. Source

US Refuses To Allow Monitoring Of WMD, President Obama rejected inspection protocol for US biological weapons

‘Shocking the World believes same Iraq-style lies about Iran’

U.S. Intelligence Found Iran Nuke Document Was Forged

Pentagon’s Role in Global Catastrophe: Add Climate Havoc to War Crimes

Study finds: Iraq littered with high levels of nuclear and dioxin contamination

Japan Report: Private Agreements Allowed US to Bring Nukes

A little history on the instigator of this threat of war on Iran.

Arab League Calls for Inspection of Israel’s Nuclear Installations (IsraelWire- July 22 1998

According to a Jordan Times newspaper report, the Arab League on Tuesday adopted a resolution urging the international community to stop providing Israel with material for its nuclear program until it allows inspection of its installations.

Nuclear Overview

Introduction

Israel is the sixth nation in the world, and the first in the Middle East, to develop and acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Israel initiated its nuclear program in earnest in the mid-to-late 1950s, and by late 1966, it had completed the R&D phase of its first nuclear weapon device. Since 1970, Israel’s status as a nuclear weapon state (NWS) has become an accepted international fact.

However, Israel’s behavior as a NWS has been distinctly different from the behavior of the five official members of the nuclear club that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—the United States, Russia, France, China, and the United Kingdom; and India and Pakistan, which have not signed the NPT. While these nations have publicly declared their nuclear status, Israel, to this day, has never confirmed or denied its nuclear status and remains outside the NPT. Since Prime Minister Levi Eshkol pledged in the mid-1960s that “Israel will not be the first nation to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East,” all his successors have adhered to this opaque declared policy, and this policy has become known as Israel’s policy of “nuclear opacity” or ambiguity.

Israel is now an advanced NWS, in both quality and quantity of its arsenal. Estimates as to the size of Israel’s nuclear arsenal vary and range from 100 to over 200 warheads.

History

The history of the Israeli nuclear project is still shrouded in a great deal of secrecy. As part of Israel’s policy of nuclear opacity (see below), Israel’s military censorship prohibits publication of any factual Israeli-based information on the nuclear project.[1] Consequently, only fragmentary bits and pieces of information on the topic have ever been published, and most commonly only in the form of unconfirmed press reports by the non-Israeli press. Thus, the historical narrative offered here is sketchy and incomplete. Its main source for the period up to 1970 is Avner Cohen’s book Israel and the Bomb, while for the more recent period, it is based on various non-Israeli reports and publications (all unconfirmed), including the so-called Vanunu testimony, the disclosure made on 5 October 1986 in the London Sunday Times, based on a testimony of Mordechai Vanunu, a technician who had worked at the Dimona nuclear facility and subsequently broke his oath of secrecy.[2]

The Initiation Phase

David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was obsessed and driven by the vision that a nuclear capability would be the answer to Israel’s security predicament. He considered the Arab-Israeli conflict to be deep and enduring, and, consequently, he believed that the resolution of the conflict could come only after the Arabs were compelled to accept the existence of the state of Israel. Until that time, Israel would have to rely on its sword. Furthermore, only technology, he believed, could provide Israel the qualitative edge necessary to overcome its inferiority in population, resources, and size. As Shimon Peres (his aide at the time) once put it, “Ben-Gurion believed that science could compensate us for what Nature has denied us.”[3] This phrase is, in essence, the whole rationale for Israel’s nuclear project.

Two other men were instrumental in making Ben-Gurion’s nuclear vision a reality. The first was Professor Ernst David Bergmann, an organic chemist by training, who was Ben-Gurion’s close scientific advisor. In 1952, Bergmann founded the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) as the vehicle through which to realize this nuclear vision. The second was Shimon Peres, then young director-general of the Ministry of Defense, who was the administrator-politician who promoted that vision. As the architect of the “special relations” between Israel and France in the mid-to-late 1950s, Peres was the man behind the French-Israeli nuclear deal under which the nuclear complex in Dimona was built. For all practical purposes, Peres was the chief executive of the project during its initiation stage (a role he filled until he left the Ministry of Defense in 1965).

From early on, Peres recognized that it would be impossible for Israel to fulfill its nuclear dream on its own. He concluded that Israel needed a major foreign nuclear supplier. In 1955, Israel was the second nation in the world to sign an agreement under the Eisenhower administration’s “Atoms for Peace” program, but it soon recognized that this program could not be the prime vehicle for Israel through which to build an ambitious nuclear program aimed at military applications. France, on the other hand—which at the time was considering its own military nuclear program—seemed the most logical choice as the project’s primary foreign supplier. The nuclear issue was clearly one of the underlying motives behind Peres’ efforts to build the France-Israel alliance in the mid-to-late 1950s.

Israeli-French nuclear discussions about a major nuclear deal had been initiated prior to the 1956 Suez campaign—a brief armed conflict in which Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, attacked Egypt in response to the Arab nation’s blockading of the Suez Canal and its support of border-area attacks by Arab fighters. But it was that joint military campaign – and in particular the Soviet Union’s veiled nuclear threats against both countries during the campaign – that gave impetus to the sensitive talks between Israel and France. Still, it took Peres another year of on-and-off negotiations to produce the entire package, during which time a heated- but quiet – debate took place in Israel itself about the technological, financial, and political feasibility and desirability of the project. Ultimately, however, it was Prime Minister Ben-Gurion’s project, and he gave the necessary support to Peres to complete the deal.

In early 2007, a biography about Shimon Peres was published which revealed new information regarding the signing of the French-Israeli nuclear deal, indicating that the deal may have been signed a day earlier than previously thought. According to the author, Michael Bar-Zohar, Shimon Peres persuaded French Prime Minister Maurice Bourges-Maunoury to backdate the deal by one day. This was done because of the fact that the government of Bourges-Maunoury had fallen the day before which would have annulled the deal had it become known at the time.[4] The French-Israeli nuclear deal was secretly signed in Paris on 3 October 1957. The details of the bilateral agreement are still unknown, but it is believed to have consisted of two sets of agreements. The first was a political agreement between the two governments; it was general and vague and dealt with the political and legal obligations of the two parties. The second was a technical agreement between the two nations’ nuclear commissions; it referred to the specifics of the scientific and technological cooperation between the two states. According to French author Pierre Pean, the most sensitive aspects of the package were not spelled out in any of the official documents but were left as verbal understandings. Pean suggests also that the governmental documents did not reflect the full scope of the Dimona deal. For example, the most sensitive and secret component of the entire package, the reprocessing plant, apparently has no explicit reference in the official documents.[5]

Sometime in early 1958, Israel started the excavation and construction work at the Dimona site. When French President de Gaulle learned soon after his election about the secret project, he acted to end French participation in it, but it took almost a year until his decision was translated into meaningful action. When de Gaulle informed Ben-Gurion in June 1960 about his decision, Israel decided to complete the project on its own.[6]

Not until December 1960, almost three years after the Dimona project had been initiated, did the United States learn about it. As the departing Eisenhower administration made its discovery public, it demanded an Israeli explanation as to the nature of the project. In response, the Israeli government told the U.S. government that the new project was for “peaceful purposes.” On 23 December 1960, Ben-Gurion informed the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) that the 24-megawatt (MW) research reactor under construction would be “peaceful,” designed for scientific, industrial, and medical applications. This was the first and last time that the Israeli government made a public statement about the Dimona project.[7]

In retrospect, this statement entailed the strategy that Israel would use to overcome U.S. opposition to the project in the early mid-1960s. From the outset, the Israeli nuclear case posed a great challenge to U.S. nonproliferation policy. President Kennedy was determined to thwart Israel’s efforts to acquire a nuclear capability, fearing that it could undermine his nonproliferation efforts. He firmly insisted that U.S. scientists be allowed to visit Dimona to verify Israel’s claims that the facility was not for producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. Such a visit took place in May 1961, setting the stage for a meeting between Ben-Gurion and President Kennedy. The meeting resulted in the nuclear issue being removed from the Israeli-U.S. agenda for two years.

Two years later, as construction at Dimona neared completion, Kennedy reapplied the pressure on Israel over Dimona. In a tough exchange of letters with Prime Ministers Ben-Gurion and Levi Eshkol (who replaced Ben-Gurion in July 1963), Kennedy demanded semi-annual U.S. inspection visits in Dimona, threatening that bilateral relations would be “seriously jeopardized” if Israel did not comply with his demands. By late August 1963, after weeks of intense consultations, Israel appeared to agree with Kennedy’s demands – or at least so Kennedy was led to believe.

By the time U.S. scientists began the visits to Dimona in early 1964 according to the Kennedy-Eshkol deal, Kennedy had been assassinated, and President Johnson was less committed to nonproliferation in general and to the Israel case in particular. While Kennedy’s effort to halt the Israeli nuclear project failed, it shaped the very special mode under which Israel became a NWS. The United States was not in a position to stop the Israeli nuclear program – Israel, by that time, was already fully committed to creating a nuclear option – but U.S. policies determined the way in which Israel acquired the bomb. Israel developed the bomb opaquely, in a manner that avoided defying U.S. nonproliferation policies. A policy of ambiguity was born.

It was during the years of the Johnson administration that Israel crossed the technological nuclear threshold. While Israel completed the R&D work on its first nuclear device sometime in late 1966, it continued to pledge to the Johnson administration that “it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the region.” Clearly, Israel was committed to having a nuclear option, but this did not mean necessarily a commitment to becoming a NWS. In fact, Israeli hesitation as to the future of its nuclear program seemed to intensify in the wake of a major accident at the Dimona facility in December 1966, which caused the shutdown of the nuclear plant for three months.

Crossing the Nuclear Threshold

The 1967 Six-Day War was a turning point in Israel’s nuclear history. In Israel and the Bomb, author Avner Cohen revealed that on the eve of the Six-Day War, in late May 1967, Israeli engineers improvised rudimentary, but operational, nuclear weapons—the first time that Israel assembled nuclear devices.[8] The 1967 war brought about a new political and strategic reality, as well as domestic changes in Israel itself that significantly decreased Israel’s nuclear inhibition. The fear that Israeli nuclear development could bring about a Middle East war was moot now. With its victory in the 1967 war, Israel had passed the vulnerable transition period with little opportunity for an Arab reaction.

However, by 1968 a new factor came into the picture and started to play a significant role in Israel’s nuclear behavior. The advent of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), co-sponsored and signed by the United States in the summer of 1968, reshaped the U.S.-Israeli dialogue on the nuclear issue. By November 1968, against the background of strong U.S. pressure to join the NPT – a demand that was linked to the first sale of Phantom aircraft to Israel – Israel told the United States that, given its unique security needs, it could not sign the NPT at the present time. President Johnson ultimately approved the Phantom deal without linking it to Israeli concession on the NPT issue.

Less than one year later, in September 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir reached a secret agreement with President Richard Nixon on the Israeli nuclear issue. Meir explained to Nixon why Israel had been compelled to develop a nuclear capability, why it could not sign the NPT, but also stated that Israel would not become a declared nuclear power. That meant, operationally, that Israel would not test nuclear devices, would not declare itself a NWS, and would not use its nuclear status capability for diplomatic gains, but keep its bomb “in the basement.” While Israel would not join the NPT, it would not defy it either.

In the wake of the Meir-Nixon agreement, the United States ended its annual visits in Dimona; in addition, the United States no longer pressured Israel to sign the NPT, adopting instead a de-facto policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” This policy was perceived by both Israeli and U.S. policymakers as the only possible policy, both for Israel and the United States, capable of addressing both the uniqueness of Israel’s nuclear case in tandem with the United State’s own commitment to the nonproliferation regime. To this day, all Israeli and U.S. governments have adhered to this policy, and likewise, all subsequent U.S. administrations have looked the other way on the Israeli nuclear case.

In July 1970, the New York Times disclosed that Israel was considered by the U.S. intelligence community to be a NWS.[9] Shortly after, Israel started to deploy its first nuclear-capable missiles, the Jericho-I, a delivery system that had been initially built by a French contractor but, due to the French embargo, was transferred to Israel and completed in one of the plants of the Israeli Aviation Industries. By the time of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel was already a small nuclear power.

The 1973 Yom Kippur War had a nuclear dimension even though the full drama has never been told (or even officially confirmed). It has been reported that during the early phase of the war, Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan readied the nuclear weapons infrastructure, apparently even proposing to Prime Minister Golda Meir to arm the weapons in case Israel suddenly reached the point of “last resort.” It is believed that Prime Minister Meir refused to concede to Dayan’s “last resort” thinking, and did not authorize the arming of the weapons. U.S. intelligence picked up signs that Israel put its nuclear-capable Jericho missiles on high alert—apparently in a way that was designed to be noticed. In her decision not to follow Dayan’s advise, Meir raised the bar on the issue of “last resort”: situations of “last resort” that could invoke use of nuclear weapons would be the most extreme situations a nation like Israel could ever face, and should be limited only to situations in which Israel’s survival was at stake. Israel’s policy of nuclear opacity had survived.

Nuclear Opacity: From Improvisation to Semi-Permanent National Posture

Israel’s nuclear history in the period from 1973 until the first Gulf War in 1990-91 can be recounted along two distinct themes. First, it was the period in which Israel’s policy of nuclear opacity was transformed from a short-lived improvisation to a semi-permanent strategic posture. In retrospect, the period from 1974 to 1990 was the golden age of nuclear opacity. By the end of the period, Israelis came to view the policy as a great strategic success because it provided Israel the benefits of existential deterrence at a very low political cost. Nuclear opacity became an indispensable pillar in its national security doctrine. In particular, the policy of nuclear opacity seemed to have removed the nuclear issue from the U.S.-Israeli agenda, without restricting Israel’s freedom of action in this field. For Israeli strategists, opacity was the best of all possible worlds. Even Vanunu’s public disclosure of Dimona’s secrets in 1986 (see footnote 2 and below) was not politically sufficient to shake Israel’s posture of opacity.

Second, it was a period of rapid growth for Israel’s nuclear arsenal, with Israel taking advantage of its freedom of action under opacity. It is widely believed (and supported by Vanunu’s information) that during this period, Israel’s nuclear arsenal made a major transformation. Israel no longer possessed a dozen or so low-yield first-generation bombs; it expanded and modernized its arsenal, which became qualitatively advanced and quantitatively sizable.

It is important to look at the lessons of the 1973 war in order to understand these changes. In the eyes of most Israeli strategists and military historians, Israel almost reached the brink, the moment of “last resort.” Had the Syrians been able to cross the Jordan River, this could have called for “last resort” nuclear use. Yet, it appears that Israel’s dozen or so bombs did not fit such a use. To stop armor columns moving on the Golan Heights, in the proximity of Israeli troops, Israel needed low-yield weapons for tactical use. But, presumably, Israel lacked such weapons. Also, if some Israeli leaders (such as Dayan) had concerns about the Soviet Union, Israel had no weapons to constitute even a minimum deterrence vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

According to Vanunu, since the mid-1970s, Israel had expanded and modernized its nuclear infrastructure in Dimona to be able to produce new types of advanced nuclear weaponry, small and large, and in greater quantities. Some sources believe that during that period Israel produced both larger advanced weapons (boosted, and possibly even thermonuclear) as well as advanced tactical weapons (possibly enhanced radiation weapons). In addition, by the mid-to-late 1970s, Israel started the development of the Jericho-II missile, a ballistic missile with an operational range of 1,500 kilometers or more. The Jericho-II was tested in the late 1980s, and it was deployed in 1989-90.

Israel significantly expanded its nuclear capability throughout that period, but it did not move to establish a secured second-strike capability. While apparently there were occasional discussions about this, operational and costly decisions were deferred. The underlying assumption that guided Israel’s strategic planning was that Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly was still holding, and if and when this situation changed, Israel would have ample time to adjust. This assessment was reinforced by the success of Israel’s attack on the Iraqi Osiraq reactor in 1981. Until the late 1980s, Israel assumed that Saddam’s nuclear vision was for all practical purposes dead. But this assumption came under scrutiny by the late 1980s. As the Iran-Iraq War came to a close, Iraq emerged as a regional Arab power with strong nuclear aspirations. In 1990, before Iraq invaded Kuwait, Israeli strategists believed that Israel and Iraq were on a path to conflict within a few years.

During the buildup of the first Gulf War, and as a reaction to Iraqi missile threats, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir issued an unveiled threat to Iraq without directly referring to the Israeli nuclear arsenal: “all those who threaten us should know that whoever dares strike Israel will be struck hard and in the most severe way,” adding that ”…Israel has a very strong deterrent capability.”[10] Defense Minister Moshe Ayan went even further by warning Saddam Hussein about Israeli weapons, “which the world does not yet know about.”[11] During an Arrow anti-missile test in August 1990, intended to underscore Israeli missile capabilities, military officials spoke of “other responses” to potential Iraqi chemical attacks on Israeli territory.[12]

The post-Gulf War nuclear developments, both in Iraq and Iran, compounded by the international community’s intelligence failure in detecting Iraq’s nuclear program, were critical in Israel’s strategic decision to establish its own sea-based strategic force. The Israeli Navy had been pushing for a small fleet of modern diesel submarines for “strategic purposes” since the early 1980s, and after long negotiations with Germany, the Thyssen-Nordseewerke shipyard in Emden, and the Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG shipyard in Kiel were chosen as the contractors to build three modern diesel-electric 1900-ton Dolphin-class submarines, equipped with ten 21-inch multipurpose tubes capable of launching torpedoes, mines, and cruise missiles.[13][14] In June 2000, the Sunday Times broke a story about an alleged Israeli test-launch of a nuclear capable submarine-launched-cruise-missile (SLCM) in the Indian ocean, using the newly commissioned Dolphin submarines. According to unconfirmed reports the missile hit its target at a range of around 1500km.[15] It is believed that the alleged test missile was based on the Israeli Popeye, an ALCM with a range of 250-300kms.[16] Israel has categorically denied the allegations about the missile tests in the Indian Ocean.[17] In 2003, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Israeli and American officials announced that Israel had deployed U.S. supplied Harpoon ASCMs on its Dolphin submarines and modified the missiles to carry nuclear warheads.[19] Prominent missile experts believe this to be a real possibility, though the range of the Harpoon armed with an Israeli nuclear warhead would probably be decreased to around 90kms due to the added weight. In November 2005, Israel signed a contract worth $1.17 billion with Germany for the construction of two more attack submarines, the first of which is planned to be completed by 2012.[20] These factors underline that having secured a sea launch capability, Israel has, or is well on its way to having its own nuclear triad with sea, land, and air launched options.

On 21 April 2004, after 18 years in an Israeli prison, nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu was released. However, in July 2007, Vanunu was sentenced to an additional six months in prison after violating a gag order that had been placed on him that forbade him from further disclosing details about the nuclear program.[21] The Israeli government also set severe restrictions on his movements and conduct after his initial release from prison in 2004. In July of the same year, the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission launched an official website providing only general details about Israel’s civilian nuclear program. Later that month International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohammed El-Baradei visited Israel to meet with government officials. Despite El-Baradei’s visit, Israel continues to assert that it will not discuss disarmament issues until after a comprehensive Middle Eastern peace agreement has been reached.

In an interesting development in early 2007, following the progress of the U.S.-India nuclear deal, Israeli officials lobbied their American counterparts to convince the NSG to allow Israel to conduct nuclear trade without being subjected to full-scope safeguards. Even though the U.S. declined this request,[22] Israel nonetheless presented a plan to the NSG suggesting an objective set of criteria to judge whether to allow nuclear trade with non-NPT states. The proposal was greeted unenthusiastically; and the Bush administration only reiterated its stance that the India deal could not be seen as a precedent for other non-NPT states.[23] These efforts by Israel to lobby the NSG have come at a time when the Israeli government has expressed an active interest in nuclear energy generation.[24] This has been confirmed by the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission in an official statement, citing an increasing shortage in indigenous electricity production capacity and the government’s wish to reduce dependency on imported energy sources.[25]

In August 2007, National Infrastructure Minister, Ben-Eliezer told a gathering of engineers of the Israel Electric Corporation (ICE), that he would soon submit a proposal to the government that suggests building a nuclear power plant at Shivta, on the border with Egypt in the South of Israel. According to Ben-Eliezer, the plan calls for the construction of a 1,200 to 1,500MW plant over nine years.[26] So far there have been no discussions with any foreign vendors about reactor exports, but it is understood that Israel will be looking to U.S. supplied reactor technology. Furthermore, it is believed that the plan would entail similar provisions as those in the U.S.-India nuclear deal, i.e., that the supplied reactor would be put under safeguards, with other Israeli nuclear facilities being exempt.[27] Presently, all cooperation with Israel in the nuclear field is limited to safety and it remains to be seen what steps Israel takes in moving forward on its plans for civilian nuclear power generation.

Key Sources and Notes:
[1]When Israeli researcher and author Avner Cohen published, without censorship approval, his book Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998)—a political history of the Israeli nuclear project until 1970 based on some exclusive Israeli sources—the Israeli authorities interrogated him at length and considered filing charges against him. This case highlighted the extreme sensitivity of the subject and the effort of the Israeli authorities to ban Israeli-based historical research on the subject.
[2] This was the first, and only, time in which an insider from the Israeli nuclear program divulged information on the program. Those revelations implied that Israel’s nuclear program is more sophisticated and advanced than it had been commonly estimated until then. Some analysts interpreted the information Vanunu provided and concluded that Israel’s nuclear arsenal may be at the level of 100 to 200 weapons, possibly even some thermonuclear weapons.
[3] Shimon Peres, Battling for Peace: A Memoir (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1995), p. 132.
[4] Pierre Pean, Les Deux Bombes (Paris: Fayard, 1981), pp. 95-96, 110.
[5] “Author says Shimon Peres persuaded France to backdate nuclear deal with Israel in 1957,” International Herald Tribune, 20 March 2007.
[6] Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, pp. 73-75.
[7] Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, pp. 79-97.
[8] Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, pp. 273-276.
[9] Hedrick Smith, “U.S. Assumes the Israelis Have A-Bomb or its Parts,” New York Times, 18 July 1970.
[10] Bob Hepburn, “Israel on full alert after Iraqi threat,” The Toronto Star, 26 December, 1990.
[11] Andrew Meisels, “Israel vows it can defeat Iraq even without U.S. help,” The Washington Times, 24 September, 1990.
[12] Andrew Meisels, “Israeli missile test sends a message to Baghdad,” The Washington Times, 10 August, 1990.
[13] Joseph Cirincione, Jon Wolfsthal, and Miriam Rajkumar, “Deadly Arsenals,” 2nd edition, Carnegie Endownment for Peace: Washington D.C., 2005.
[14] Ed Blanche, “Israel denies sub-launched missile tests, Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, 1 August 2000.
[15] Uzi Mahnaimi and Matthew Campbell, “Israel makes nuclear waves with submarine missile test,” Sunday Times, 18 June 2000.
[16] “Popey Turbo,” Federation of American Scientists, http://www.fas.org/ nuke/ guide/ israel/ missile/ popeye-t.htm.
[17] Ed Blanche, “Israel denies sub-launched missile tests, Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, 1 August 2000.
[18] Peter Beaumont, Conel Urquhart, “Israel fits nuclear arms in submarines,” The Observer, 12 October 2003.
[19] Schechter, “Harpoon missile story politically motivated,” The Jerusalem Post, 13 October, 2003.
[20] Alon Ben-David, “Israel looks to acquire more German submarines,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, 30 November 2005.
[21] Nir Hason, “Court Returns Israeli ‘Nuclear Whistleblower’ Vanunu to Jail for Violating Parole.” in OSC Document GMP20070702735002, 2 July 2007.
[22] Mark Hibbs, “US rebuffed Israeli request for exemption from NSG trade rule,” Nuclear Fuel, 1 January 2007.
[23] Glenn Kessler, “Israel submits nuclear trade plan, move may complicate efforts to win exemption for India,” The Washington Post, 30 September 2007.
[24] Neal Sandler, “Israel’s infrastructure minister hints at support of nuclear power,” Nucleonics Week, 25 January 2007.
[25] Neal Sandler, “Israel considering building nuclear plant, AEC confirms,” Nucleonics Week, 15 Fenruary 2007.
[26] Neal Sandler, Mark Hibbs, and Daniel Horner, “Israel counting on US-India deal to further power reactor project,” Nucleonics Week, 16 August 2007.
[27] Neal Sandler, Mark Hibbs, and Daniel Horner, “Israel counting on US-India deal to further power reactor project,” Nucleonics Week, 16 August 2007.

Source

Israel Chemical Chronology

1948-2003
This annotated chronology is based on the data sources that follow each entry. Public sources often provide conflicting information on classified military programs. In some cases we are unable to resolve these discrepancies, in others we have deliberately refrained from doing so to highlight the potential influence of false or misleading information as it appeared over time. In many cases, we are unable to independently verify claims. Hence in reviewing this chronology, readers should take into account the credibility of the sources employed here.

Inclusion in this chronology does not necessarily indicate that a particular development is of direct or indirect proliferation significance. Some entries provide international or domestic context for technological development and national policymaking. Moreover, some entries may refer to developments with positive consequences for nonproliferation.

April 1948
David Ben-Gurion writes a letter to Ehud Avriel, a Jewish Agency operative in Europe, telling him to seek out and recruit East European Jewish scientists who can “either increase the capacity to kill masses or to cure masses.”
–Avner Cohen, “Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control,” The Nonproliferation Review, Fall-Winter 2001, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 27.

1952
The Science Corps (HEMED) becomes part of a group of Ministry of Defense (MOD) sponsored civilian research centers that are known as “Machons.” Through this, Professor Ernst David Bergmann, a member of a group of scientists who pressured Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to establish a chemical and biological weapons program, establishes both the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) and the Israeli Institute of Biological Research (IIBR).
–Avner Cohen, “Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control,” The Nonproliferation Review, Fall-Winter 2001, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 33.

1955
Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion launches a project to develop a “cheap non-conventional capability.” Ben-Gurion orders that this capability be operational as soon as possible and before a war with Egypt.
–Aluf Benn, “The project that Preceded the Nuclear Option,” Ha’aretz, 2 March 1995.

Mid 1950’s
Israel initiates it chemical weapons program.
–Avner Cohen, “Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control,” The Nonproliferation Review, Fall-Winter 2001, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 38.

1960
Israel collaborates with France on upgrading its chemical weapons. Israeli scientists make visits to the French chemical weapons testing site located at Beni Ounif, which is located in the Algerian Sahara.
–Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option, (NY: Random House, 1991), p. 64.

Mid 1960’s
Israel upgrades its offensive chemical weapons capability in suspecting Egyptian chemical weapons advancements.
–Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option, (Random House, 1991), p. 63.
20 February 1969
Israel accedes to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which bans the use of chemical weapons in war.

1970’s
Production of indigenous mustard and nerve agents begins.
–“China and Israel,” Economist Foreign Report, 12 July 1984.

1974
U.S. Lieutenant General E.H. Almquist tells the Senate Armed Forces Committee that Israel’s chemical weapons program is operational.
–E.J. Hogendoorn, “A Chemical Weapons Atlas,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October 1997, available online at <http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1997/so97hogendoom.html&gt;, accessed on 10/11/03.

1 July 1982
A commentary by the Soviet newswire TASS, states that reports from Beirut have stated that Israel is using chemical weapons including BZ nerve gas [sic.] in its invasion of Lebanon.
–“Alleged use of Nerve Gas in Lebanon,” BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 3 July 1982.

5 July 1982
The Soviet Union accuses the United States of providing Israel with ‘barbarous’ weapons. It states that these weapons, which include napalm, chemical weapons, and cluster and pellet bombs, are used in the Israel invasion of Lebanon.
–“Moscow Scores U.S. Role in Mideast,” United Press International, 5 July 1982.

30 August 1983
A commentary written by Viktor Vinogradov for the Soviet Defense Ministry daily ‘Krasnaya Zvezda’ states that Israel and South Africa are working together on chemical weapons at a research institute operated by the South African Air Force.
–“RSA-Israeli Research on Racially Selective Mass Destruction Weapons,” BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 1 September 1983.

15 September 1988
The Korean Committee for Asian-African Cooperation in Pyongyang denounces Israel for allegedly using chemical weapons and “germ warfare” in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, killing many residents in the area.
–“Pyongyang Denounces Israel for Massacre of Palestinians,” The Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 15 September 1988.

4 December 1988
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) accuses the Israeli Army of using a new chemical weapon against Palestinians living in the occupied territories. According to a statement released by the group, the new chemical weapon is causing various wounds and “organic complications.” The PFLP cites evidence presented by Arab doctors who have treated victims in the villages of Tobay and Tamoun, as proof the Israel is using such weapons and calls on UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar and international organizations that defend human rights, to investigate.
–“Israeli use of Chemical Weapons against Palestinians Denounced,” The Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 4 December 1988.

22 December 1988
The Arab League issues a statement that Israel was the first country to introduce chemical weapons to the Middle East.
–“Libya Denies U.S. Accusation of Chemical Arms Production,” The Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 22 December 1988.

January-February 1989
Under increasing public pressure to respond to regional chemical weapons proliferation, Israeli officials including Binyamin Netanyahu partially admit possession of a chemical weapons program.
–Mortimer, E., “Israel Hints It Keeps Chemical Weapons as Defensive Measure,” Financial Times, 10 January 1989; Arms Control Reporter, February 1989, p. 704.

6 February 1989
The League of Arab States’ Committee of Seven releases a statement that criticizes Israel’s repressive actions against the Palestinian uprising. It condemns among other things, Israel’s use of chemical weapons against the local Palestinian population.
–“Arab League’s Committee of Seven-Statement,” TASS, 7 February 1989.

1990
A report by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) entitled “Offensive Chemical Warfare Programs in the Middle East,” states that Israel maintains a chemical testing facility possibly in the Negev desert.
–“Chemical and Biological Weapons in the Middle East,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 16 April 2002; Hogendoorn, E.J., “A Chemical Weapons Atlas,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October 1997, <:http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1997/so97hogendoom.html&gt;, accessed on 10/11/03.

July 1990
Israeli Minister of Science, Yuval Ne’eman states that if Iraq uses chemical weapons Israel will retaliate “with the same merchandise.” Ne’eman also proposes to the Israeli Cabinet that Israel should issue a credible chemical weapon threat in the face of the threat from Iraq’s chemical weapons.
–“Israelis See Chemical Option Against Iraq,” New York Times, 28 July 1990.

4 October 1992
A Boeing 747 cargo plane operated by the Israeli airline El Al crashes into the Bijlmer neighborhood in Amsterdam, Holland. It is later learned that the plane was carrying a shipment of dimethylmethylphosphonate (DMMP),a chemical used to make sarin, to Israel.
–Christopher Walker “Dutch Link Poor Health to Jet Crash,” The Times, 23 April 1999; Janet McBride “El Al Crash Report Said to be Critical of Dutch PM,” The Jerusalem Post, 22 April 1999, News p. 3.

November 1992
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres states that Israel will sign the Chemical Weapons Convention.
–“Lebanon Refuses to Sign Chemical Weapons Treaty in Paris,” Agence France Presse, 15 December 1992.

13 January 1993
Israel signs the Chemical Weapons Convention.

20 February 1993
The Libyan Foreign Ministry releases a statement in which it criticizes the West because “Israel’s development of chemical and biological weapons is overlooked.”
–“Libya Accuses West of ‘Psychological Terrorism,'” The Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 20 February 1993.

8 March 1993
The Arab League again rejects the Chemical Weapons Convention because it states that it cannot accept such a treaty as long as Israel still possesses chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
–“Arab League Reiterates Rejection of Chemical Arms Ban Treaty,” The Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 8 March 1993.

8 November 1993
An article in the U.S. magazine Aviation Week and Space Technology, states that Russia believes that Israel possesses chemical weapons. According to the article, a Russian intelligence report states that it believes that Israel possesses indigenous chemical weapons.
–“Israeli Missile Base Hidden near Jerusalem, report,” Agence France Presse, 8 November 1993.

28 January 1994
According to the book Critical Mass, authored by Williams Burrows and Robert Windrem, Israel maintains a chemical weapons factory five floors below ground at Dimona.
–George, Alan “Israel has Arsenal of 200 N-bombs,” Evening Standard, 28 January 1994, p. 7.

17 April 1996
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in a speech states that Libya has the right to possess chemical weapons because Israel possesses nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. He also states that the U.S. should attack Israel because it possesses these weapons.
–“Libya is Entitled to Have Chemical Weapons, Gaddafi,” Deutsche Presse Agentur, 17 April 1996; “Libya Again Denies US Allegation on Nuclear Weapon Plant,” Xinhua News Agency, 17 April 1996.

6 June 1996
Egypt’s state run press issues an article in which it states that “if the United States is really concerned about the issue of armament in the region, then it will have to start first with the nuclear and chemical weapons of Israel.”
–“Egypt’s State-run Press Accuses US of Interfering in Internal Affairs,” Xinhua News Agency, 29 June 1996.

9 August 1996
The Libyan news agency JANA reports that Libya has called for an urgent meeting of the Arab League in the midst of allegations that Israel was developing chemical and biological weapons. According to the report, Libya has conducted extensive consultations with Arab League members “following information that the Israeli enemy possesses chemical and bacteriological weapons, including toxic gases, developed in a factory in the Negev desert.” Libya reportedly has called the meeting because of the danger these developments pose.
–“Libya Calls Arab League Talks over Israel’s Weapons Arsenal,” Agence France Presse, 9 August 1996.

13 August 1996
Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi sends a telegraph to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat calling for Arabs to take measures to confront Israel’s possession of chemical and biological weapons. The telegraph states that international institutions must disarm Israel of such weapons.
–“Gaddafi Calls for Measure to Face up to Israel’s Chemical Weapons,” Xinhua News Agency, 13 August 1996.

30 October 1996
The Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA), a rebel group located on the Papua New Guinea Island of Bougainville, accuses Israel of providing the Papua New Guinea Defense Forces (PNGDF) with “chemical bombs.” According to a statement released by the group, the PNGDF is dropping the bombs by helicopters and the bombs are causing skin irritation and burning. The Israeli Embassy in Wellington denies the allegations.
–“Israel Denies Supplying ‘Chemical Bombs’ for use on Bougainville,” BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 1 November 1996.

14 November 1996
Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Dr. Hassan Rohani, states during his visit to Ireland that Israel and not Iran possesses nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
–MacConnell, Sean “Iranian Outlines Difficulties with Beef Trade,” The Irish Times, 15 November 1996, p. 8.

1997
Israel’s position on the Chemical Weapons Convention is reviewed by a committee headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The committee decides not to submit the convention for ratification to the Israeli parliament.
–Avner Cohen “Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control,” The Nonproliferation Review, Fall-Winter 2001, Vol. 8., No. 3, pp. 46-47.

1 August 1997
Israeli officials approve a plan to assassinate Hamas operative Khamel Meshaal using a chemical weapon.
–Blanche, Ed, “Israeli Intelligence Agencies Under Fire,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1 January 1998, p. 18.

3 September 1997
Israel Army Radio reports that Israel is to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention.
–“News at a Glance 1600 GMT,” Deutsche Presse Agentur, 3 September 1997.

Early September 1997
Agents from Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, practice using a fake chemical weapon against unknowing civilians. The exercise is used as a trial run for an operation in which Mossad agents plan to assassinate a Hamas operative named Khaled Meshaal.
–Blanche, Ed, “Israeli Intelligence Agencies Under Fire,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, Vol. 10, No.1, 1 January 1998, p. 18.

4 September 1997
Israel Foreign Ministry Director-General Eytan Bentsur tells the Conference on Disarmament that Israel will not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. Bentsur states that Israel cannot ratify the convention because no Arab state has signed it.
–“Israel Won’t Ratify Chemical Weapons Pact,” Jerusalem Post, 5 September 1997, p. 24.

25 September 1997
Two Israeli Mossad agents attempt to poison Hamas operative Khaled Meshaal with a “high tech” chemical weapon in Amman, Jordan. Meshaal is targeted because of his alleged involvement in two suicide attacks in Jerusalem on 30 July 1998 and 4 September 1998. It is believed that the chemical used in the attack is synthetic opiate called Fentanyl. The chemical can be absorbed through the skin and can kill a person in 48 hours. The chemical was reportedly manufactured at the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR). Israeli officials also claim that Meshaal arranged for the shipping of the explosives used to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Argentina. They claim he also hired the operatives to carry out the operation. Two Mossad agents are captured in the operation by Jordanian officials.
–King, Peter “A Year After Mossad Attack, Jordan Wants to Forget, HAMAS to Fight on,” Agence France Presse, 24 September 1998; Blanche, Ed, “Israeli Intelligence Agencies Under Fire,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1 January 1998, p. 18; Mahnaimi, Uzi, “Israeli Jets Equipped for Chemical Warfare,” Sunday Times, 4 October 1998.

27 September 1997
Hamas operative Khaled Meshaal is administered an antidote given to Jordanian officials by Israel. Israel gives the antidote as part of an agreement in which two Mossad agents who attempted to assassinate Meshaal, are released into Israeli custody.
–Blanche, Ed, “Israeli Intelligence Agencies Under Fire,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1 January 1998, p. 18.

6 October 1997
Two Israeli Mossad agents are released after being captured for the attempted assassination of Hamas operative Khaled Meshaal.
–Blanche, Ed, “Israeli Intelligence Agencies Under Fire,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1 January 1998, p. 18.

1998
The IIBR drops plans to expand its facilities in Ness Ziona due to local pressure exerted by the major and concerned citizens over the environmental and safety hazards associated with the suspected biological activities of the complex.
–Lavie, Mark, “Rumors Abound About Israeli Center,” Associated Press, 24 October 1998; Walker, Christopher “Israeli Court Blow to Germ War Plant,” The Times, 25 September 1998.

17 May 1998
Jose Mauricio Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) states that Israel is likely to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) sooner rather than later.
–“OPCW Inspects Sites in 30 Nations Under Chemical Weapons Treaty,” JiJi Press Ticker Service, 18 March 1998.

May 1998
A statement released by the official JANA news agency in Libya states that Libya is “‘surprised by the United States’ rush to impose sanctions on Pakistan when (Washington) won’t even lift the smallest finger against the nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons which Israel has.”
–Rechnagel, Charles “Middle East Ponders Consequences of first ‘Islamic Bomb,'” Agence France Presse, 29 May 1998.

10-15 May 1998
The Israeli company Kinetics Ltd. participates in the 6th international conference for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The conference talks about ways of detecting chemical agents and ways of protecting medical personnel in the events that such an agent is used. Companies involved in the conference display their new equipment that addresses these issues.
–“NBC Proliferation-6th International Symposium,” Intelligence Newsletter, 5 March 1998, No. 330.

14 May 1998
A report by the Libyan news agency JANA criticizes U.S. sanctions against Pakistan for its nuclear program because the U.S. does not sanction Israel which according to the report maintains “vast quantities of biological and chemical weapons.”
–“India: Libyan Agency Criticizes U.S. Sanctions,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 14 May 1998.

7 July 1998
In a visit to Pakistan, the speaker of the Iranian Majlis, Ali-Akbar Nateq-Nuri states that “Israel serves as a nuclear and chemical weapons depot and poses a big threat to Muslims.”
–“Iranian Speaker Warns Visiting Pakistani’s of Plot to fan Muslim Rivalries,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 9 July 1998.

August 1998
The Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, publishes a long expose in which is calls the Israeli Institute of Biological Research (IIBR) “metropolitan Tel Aviv’s most severe environmental hazard” and also raises questions regarding the secrecy surrounding institute’s activities.
–Avner Cohen “Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control,” The Nonproliferation Review, Fall-Winter 2001, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 36.

19 August 1998
The British magazine Foreign Report reports four workers have been killed and 25 injured at the IIBR in recent years due to separate accidents. It also reports the authorities also ordered the evacuation of the surrounding area following one of the accidents.
–Davis, Douglas “Report: 4 Killed, 25 Hurt, at Secret Institute,” Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1998, p. 2.

23 September 1998
Israeli citizens living near the Israel Institute of Biological Research file an appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court to prevent the expansion of the institute.
–“Israelis File to Suit to Block Chemical Weapons Plant Expansion,” Agence France Presse, 23 September 1998.

24 September 1998
The Israeli Supreme Court accepts a complaint filed by the mayor of Ness Ziona, Yossi Shvo, calling for a halt in the expansion of the Israel Institute of Biological Research based on environmental concerns.
–“Crashed jet Held Nerve-gas Chemical Dutch in Uproar Over Israeli Cargo.” The Toronto Star, 2 October 1998, P A12; Walker, Christopher “Israeli Court Blow to Germ War Plant,” The Times, 25 September 1998.

27 September 1998
In an interview with reporters at the United Nations, Iranian president Mohammad Khatami states that Iran has in that past expressed concern that “Israel has become an arsenal of nuclear atomic weapons, chemical weapons, and weapons of mass destruction.”
–“Iran: Khatami Addresses News Conference During Visit to the UN,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 27 September 1998.

1 October 1998
Israel confirms that an El Al Boeing 747 cargo aircraft which crashed near Amsterdam in 1992 was carrying a shipment of 190 liters of DMMP, a chemical that can be used in the production sarin. Israeli authorities however, contend that the shipment was for legitimate purposes and that the chemicals were approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce and were to be used to test filters. They also order an investigation into allegations that the DMMP was for its chemical weapons program. The shipment was destined for the IIBR.
–“Crashed jet Held Nerve-gas Chemical Dutch in Uproar Over Israeli Cargo.” The Toronto Star, 2 October 1998, P A12; “El Al Confirms Crashed Plane Carried Substance for Nerve Gas,” Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 1 October 1998.

4 October 1998
A report published in the Sunday Times of London states that Israeli F-16’s have the capability to perform missions with chemical and biological weapons that were produced at the IIBR. According to the report, crews have been trained to load such munitions onto the planes within a matter of minutes. The article cites “military sources” as the sources for the report.
–Cordesman, Anthony H., “Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 15 April 2003; Mahnaimi, Uzi, “Israeli Jets Equipped for Chemical Warfare,” Sunday Times, 4 October 1998.

6 October 1998
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak states that the Israelis are “in the process of arming themselves with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.”
–“Egypt Concerned by Israeli Arsenal, Wants Balance of Forces,” Agence France Presse, 6 October 1998.

13 March 1999
At a conference on security and cooperation in the Mediterranean, Palestine National Council member Abdullah Abdullah accused Israel of manufacturing chemical weapons at the IIBR.
–“PNC Member Accuses Israel of Making Non-conventional Arms,” Jerusalem Post, 14 March 1999, p. 3.

2 April 1999
The United Kingdom partially lifts a ban that did not allow Israeli nuclear scientists and those associated with the development of chemical and biological weapons to enter the U.K. for professional conferences or to visit research institutes.
–“Britain Suspends ban on Israeli Nuclear Scientists,” Xinhua News Agency, 2 April 1999.

6 April 1999
Ali Kazak, the head of The General Palestinian Delegation to Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific, writes an Op-ed article in the Sydney Morning Herald. In the article he asserts that Israel “possesses nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and the means to deliver them not only to every city and village in the entire Arab world but as far as Central Asia and to every city in Europe.”
–“There is Only One Peaceful Option,” Sydney Morning Herald, 6 April 1999.

27 April 1999
The Dutch government confirms that it sent 20 milligrams of soman nerve agent to the IIBR in 1996. According to shipping documents, the gas was intended for medical research within Israel.
–“Holland Confirms it Gave Israel Nerve Gas Samples,” Jerusalem Post, 28 April 1999. News p. 9.

2 February 2000
During a Knesset debate about Israel’s nuclear weapons program, Arab legislator Issam Makhul states that Israel’s “stockpile of atomic, chemical, and biological weapons jeopardize the country’s security.”
–“”Debate about Israel’s Nuclear Weapons,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 4 February 2000, available online at http://www.thebulletin.org, accessed on 10/11/03.

September 2000
Israeli call for a review of the 1997 government decision not to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention.
–Avner Cohen “Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control,” The Nonproliferation Review, Fall-Winter 2001, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 47.

15 February 2001
Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat accuses Israel of using poison gas against Palestinians.  His accusation is based on reports that approximately 80 Palestinians, suffering from poison gas effects, were recently admitted to a Gaza hospital. The Israelis deny using poison gas; however, the Palestinians intend to send a sample of the gas to an international lab for independent analysis.
–“Arafat accuses Israel of using poison gas,” CNN, 15 February 2001, <http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/15/arafat.gas/&gt;.

28 November 2001
According to the Egyptian state-run MENA news agency, President Hosni Mubarak in answering allegations that Egypt signed an arms deal with North Korea, states that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country to possess both nuclear and chemical weapons.
–“Mubarak Rejects Israel Reports on Egypt’s Arms Deal with North Korea,” Xinhua, 28 November 2001.

16 May 2001
In a speech at the sixth conference for the Chemical Weapons Convention in the Hague, the head of the Saudi delegation, Dr. Sulman Bin Hammad Al-Khuweiter calls on Israel and other countries who posses chemical weapons to place these weapons under the auspice of the international treaty. Saudi Arabia also wants other countries to exert their influence to insure that these countries comply.
–“Kingdom Concerned at Stockpiling of Chemical Arms by Some Nations; Israel, Other Urged to Allow Scrutiny of Banned Weapons,” Middle East Newsfile, 16 May 2001.

9 June 2002
A report in the English newspaper The Herald accuses the British government of selling chemical weapon technology to Israel.
–“Meanwhile the UK Quietly Continues to Profit from War,” The Sunday Herald, 9 June 2002, p. 10.

10 September 2002
An Israeli man who gave his name only as Avi states that he got cancer from working at a secret chemical warfare laboratory. According to the man, he worked at the lab as a technician during the 1980’s and worked on such things are developing methods for decontamination, detecting poison gas, and testing the effectiveness of protective equipment. Avi also states that when working at the lab, workers were not given protective clothing and this exposed them to many harmful chemicals. The Israeli military censor does not permit the publishing of the chemicals used at the laboratory.
–Katzenall, Jack “Israeli Blames his Service in Army Chemical Warfare Research Unit for his Cancer,” Associated Press, 10 September 2002, International News.

7 to 11 October 2002
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) holds the Seventh Session of the Conference of the States Parties. Israel attends and participates as an observer.
Report of the Seventh Session of the Conference of the States Parties, 7 – 11 October 2003, C-7/5, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 11 October 2002, <http://www.opcw.org/docs/c_7_5.pdf&gt;.

25 October 2002
Arab Justice Ministers release the Beirut Declaration in which they denounce the threat of using force against an Arab country, especially when Israel possesses nuclear and chemical weapons.
–“Arab Justice Ministers Condemn ‘All’ Terrorism, Use of Force Against Countries,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, 25 October 2002.

6 December 2002
German Defense Minister Peter Struck decides not to deliver six Fuch vehicles to Israel for fear that the vehicles could be used for offensive purposes. The Fuch is a vehicle designed to survey areas hit by a nuclear, chemical, or biological explosion and determines whether or not it is safe for humans.
–“Israeli President: We Won’t Accept Condition on Fuch Vehicles,” Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 7 December 2002.

December 2002
The Israel Defense Forces conduct live-condition exercises that test protection equipment in the event of a chemical weapons attack.
–“Israeli Army Successfully Tests Chemical Warfare Equipment-TV,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, 22 December 2002.

16 March 2003
A documentary produced by the BBC accuses Israel of hiding nuclear bomb factories and developing chemical weapons.
–“Israel Protest,” Daily Mail, 15 March 2003.

14 April 2003
The Press Secretary for the Syrian Foreign Ministry states that Syria does not possess chemical weapons and that Israel is the only country in the region which does.
–“Syrian Foreign Ministry Press Secretary Denies Having Chemical Weapons,” Asahi Shimbun, 15 April 2003, available online at http://www.asahi.com/international/update/0415/004.html, accessed on 4/15/03.

17 May 2003
Iran accuses Israel of possessing the largest arsenal of chemical weapons in the Middle East.
–“Tehran Times Accuses Israel, USA of Violating Chemical Weapons Convention,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, 17 May 2003.

22 May 2003
Egyptian biologist, Dr. Wajdi Abd-al-Fattah Sawahil, claims that Israel uses chemical drugs to torture and elicit information from Palestinian detainees and is using gases on Palestinians that lead to infertility.
–Jamal al-Majaydah, “Egyptian Scientist: Israel produces viruses that attack Palestinians only,” FBIS GMP20030522000144, 22 May 2003.

28 June 2003
The British Broadcasting Company (BBC) broadcasts a documentary entitled “Israel’s Secret Weapons.” The documentary states that Israel has used chemical weapons in the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
–“Quote Unquote,” The Jerusalem Report, 28 July 2003.

3 August 2003
The U.S. company Sundstran agrees to pay a $171,500 civil penalty because it sold centrifugal pumps to Israel. The pumps can be used to help create chemical weapons.
–“US Company Fined for Exporting Chemical Weapon Components to Israel and Saudi Arabia,” MENA Business Reports, 3 August 2003.

18-19 September 2003
At the Moscow International Proliferation Conference, Iran’s Deputy Director General of International Political Affairs Ali Asghar Soltanieh states that Israel has developed chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them.
–“The Proliferation Problem According to Iran,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 7 October 2003, available at <http://www.ceip.org&gt;, accessed on 10/11/03.

20 to 24 October 2003
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) holds the Eighth Session of the Conference of the States Parties. Israel attends and participates as an observer.
–Report of the Eighth Session of the Conference of the States Parties, 20 – 24 October 2003, C-8/7, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 24 October 2003, p. 1, <http://www.opcw.org/docs/c807.pdf&gt;.

20 December 2003
Ahmad Abu-Zayd, Chairman of Egypt’s People’s Assembly Arab Affairs Committee,  urges Israel and all Mideast countries to follow Libya’s example and dismantle their WMD programs.
–“Egyptian official urges Israel to dismantle nuclear, chemical Weapons,” BBC Monitoring, 20 December 2003. Source

Unbeknownst to most Americans, Israel’s westernmost settlement is not located in Palestine-Israel, but is 6000 miles away on the high ground overlooking Foggy Bottom in Washington D.C.

This Capital Hill settlement of pro-Israel lobbies and think tanks strategically controls the high ground overlooking the United States’ Middle East policy landscape by having made kibbutzniks of most members of the executive and legislative branches of the government — including President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden (a wannabe Zionist), and future Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (a born Zionist).

While Israel’s hilltop settlements in the occupied territories –violating over 30 UN Security Council resolutions since 1968 — are “”facts on the ground”” that make the two state peace solution unlikely, their hilltop settlement in the center of the world’s only superpower makes it equally unlikely that Israel’s right-wing government will feel compelled to end their “”self defensive”” brutalization of the Palestinian people, which has been condemned by the international community (UN, EU) as crimes against humanity. Source

Iran needs the 20 percent-enriched uranium to fuel The Tehran Research Reactor, which produces radio medicine for cancer patients.

The country has been promised nuclear fuel for over 30 years now. Despite being a 10-percent shareholder and hence entitled to the European Gaseous Diffusion Uranium Enrichment Consortium (Eurodif)’s output, Iran has never received enriched uranium from France.

Tehran and Paris have also signed a deal, under which France is obliged to deliver 50 tons of uranium hexafluoride to Iran — another obligation France has failed to meet. Source

Resolution 487 (1981)Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA/Refrain from Acts or Threats

UN nuclear assembly has called for Israel to open its nuclear facilities to UN inspection/September 2009

Israel’s Dirty Nuclear Secrets, Human Experiments  and WMD

What the World Needs to know about Mordechai Vanunu

Israel and US were behind the Georgian Attacks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Weird isn’t it the country that lets inspectors in and Iran lets them in all the time is guilty and the two countries who refuse inspections are the ones threatening and accusing.

The US and Israel both should allow inspectors in and both should stop breaking the law.

This US/Israeli rhetoric has been going on for a few decades now.

Recent

Thailand: Over 800 injured and 21 deaths during protests

IDF order will enable mass deportation from West Bank

Poland mourns dead president

Thailand protests claim first lives

Russian urges adoption freeze after boy age 7 returned alone

Kyrgyzstan: The nepotism that sparked a revolution

Haaretz Threatened for Exposing Israeli Assassination Cover-Up

Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism, rules sheriff

Thailand protesters defy government decree

Australia: Locals do their block as big gas moves into Queensland

Kyrgyzstan: Thousands of protesters furious over corruption 40 deaths over 400 injured

Iran: International Nuclear disarmament summit widely welcomed

Rachel Corrie Civil Lawsuit: Bulldozer operator told not to cooperate with investigation

Israel And Apartheid: By People Who Knew Apartheid

Iran: International Nuclear disarmament summit widely welcomed

April 4 2010

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast says Tehran’s international conference on nuclear disarmament has been widely welcomed.

According to Mehmanparast, the conference dubbed “Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none,” will be held in Tehran on March 17th and 18th.

“Officials from various countries, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations have been invited to attend the conference,” the Iranian spokesperson added.

“The conference has been widely welcomed by all countries,” he went on to say.

Mehmanparast further pointed out that all the countries in the world have the right to use peaceful nuclear energy.

“We believe the world must be free from nuclear weapons,” he asserted.

Earlier, Mehmanparast had urged the countries which possess nuclear weapons to destroy their atomic armaments.

“We insist that all countries must be committed to nuclear disarmament,” he said early February. Source

Well we all full well know the US nor Israel will ever get rid of their Nuclear Bombs. But kudos to Iran for attempting this type of meeting.

This is a greater threat to the US and Israel then Iran actually getting a Nuclear Bomb. Both the US and Israel would have to give up their Nuclear Weapons.  They are the two countries that more times then not are the ones who also start the wars.   They are the warmongers. Loosing their Nuclear Weapons would be their worst nightmare. They will fight this tooth and nail.

India snubs US, to attend nuclear meet in Iran

April 4 2010

The Indian government will stand by its decision to take part in a nuclear meeting slated for mid-April in the Iranian capital, Tehran, in a move that is set to irk the US administration.

According to a report published by The Hindustan Times on Sunday, the conference dubbed “Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapon for None” will be held on April 17 and 18 in Tehran. The Indian Ambassador to Iran, Sanjay Singh, will represent India at the event, which will be attended by ministers, officials and nuclear experts from over 55 countries.

The decision to participate in the international nuclear disarmament meet comes while Washington continues its efforts to impose new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

The Tehran event will be held only days after a nuclear security summit between US President Barak Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Washington on April 12 and 13.

Earlier, India rejected a call from the US to walk away from pipeline project carrying natural gas from Iran through Pakistan, saying “energy security” is a priority for its rapidly growing economy.

Iran and Pakistan inked a deal in March to construct a multi-billion dollar natural gas pipeline connecting the two neighboring countries, and India is interested in the further extension of the line to its borders if the pipeline’s security can be guaranteed in Pakistan. The project is strongly opposed by the US. The deal is part of the long-delayed $7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project. Source

Israel to use anti-Iran strike to win Chinese backing

The Israeli regime plans to send its top military strategist to China this week to convince Beijing to back sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program.

Head of Tel Aviv army’s planning directorate Major General Amir Eshel intends to serve Beijing with ‘renewed’ threats of military strikes against Iran, wishing to persuade China to follow along with the US-led push at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to impose a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, British weekly newspaper The Sunday Times reported today.

According to the weekly, a subsidiary of the multi-national press conglomerate The News Corporation owned by Jewish media mogul Rupert Murdoch, Eshel will warn officials in Beijing that an Israeli military attack on Iran could disrupt oil supplies to China and its rapidly growing economy.

Tehran has repeatedly dismissed Israeli threats of military strikes against Iran as psychological warfare aimed at pressuring the Islamic Republic to abandon its peaceful nuclear work while insisting that any efforts to materialize such threats will encounter a ‘painful’ response.

The Israeli regime and its Western backers have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapon capability under the guise of a civilian nuclear program.

Iran, however, has fiercely dismissed such claims as mere attempts by Western nuclear powers to prevent Iran’s rapid advances in the field of nuclear technology.

Aggressive Israeli efforts against Iran’s nuclear program come despite widespread reports of its possession of over 200 nuclear warheads that was acquired with blessings from Tel Aviv’s Western sponsors. Israel has refused to sign or commit to any international atomic regulatory treaties.

Meanwhile, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has opened its nuclear facilities to intrusive inspections and round-the-clock supervision by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Moreover, Iran has also called for an international abandonment of all nuclear weapon arsenals and development efforts, which has been ignored by all countries possessing nuclear weapons.

IAEA has repeatedly reported that it has found no evidence of any diversion of nuclear materials from civilian to military applications in Iran.

That, however, has not stopped Washington from seeking to impose a fourth round of sanctions against Tehran through the UNSC.

Tehran insists that the sanctions are illegal as they aim to deny the Islamic Republic the legitimate right to full nuclear fuel cycle for civilian use, in contradiction to NPT regulations.

China, a veto-wielding member of the UNSC, has so far resisted US pressure to toughen embargoes against Tehran, insisting on continued dialogue as the appropriate channel to resolve nuclear concerns about Iran.

However, Israeli and its American sponsor have recently stepped up efforts to pressure China to fall in line with the sanctions drive.

The US and Israel have been collaborating closely in recent months to intensify efforts to muster support for new sanctions against the Islamic Republic. These efforts have included using press reports and allied countries to generate a high level of urgency on the issue.

For instance, US tried to get Saudi Arabia to intervene on the matter by enticing China with attractive oil deals in order to drive a wedge between Beijing and Tehran, prompting Chinese consent to the US-led sanctions efforts.

Meanwhile, press reports spread rumors last month that the Saudis have given the Israeli regime the permission to use their air space for any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, a claim denied by Riyadh.

Iranian officials have scorned US claims that their sanctions drive enjoys international backing, arguing that Europe and the Israeli regime do not constitute a global representation. Source

Both the US and Israel are trying to dictate to other countries what they should do.  I do believe all countries have the right to progress in a peaceful way they see fit and not bend to the will of the two who are the warmongers.

Israel and US were behind the Georgian Attacks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Gaza War Why?: Natural Gas valued at over $4 billion MAYBE?

Why: War in Iraq and Afghanistan Oil Pipeline

And who had a flight out of the US on 9/11 while all flights were grounded? Not just he Bin laden family.

Full El Al flight took off on 9/11 from JFK to Tel Aviv

Why Not Crippling Sanctions for Israel and the US?

After all they are the warmongers who create fabricated documents and fabricated reasons to go to war. They are the two that lie their way to wars.

Why would anyone trust either country is beyond me. These are the two countries that literally piss off the rest of the world with their wars on innocent people.. Their actions speak for themselves.

Billions around the world have protested against both of them and for good reason. They are the planets bullies. Both countries have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The criminals behind those crimes are still warmongers and walking free.

Maybe it is time for the US and Israel shut up and listen to the rest of the world.

UN nuclear assembly has called for Israel to open its nuclear facilities to UN inspection

Israel to date has refused to let inspectors in.

US Refuses To Allow Monitoring Of WMD, President Obama rejected inspection protocol for US biological weapons

To date the US still refuses to let inspectors in.

Iran lets inspectors in. Who is in violation here? Not Iran.

Economic sanctions are a “Weapon of Mass Destruction”

Recent

Rachel Corrie Civil Lawsuit: Bulldozer operator told not to cooperate with investigation

Israel And Apartheid: By People Who Knew Apartheid

Fake Al Qaeda, Fake Passports, Fake planes

Japan Tokunoshima islanders reject US Marines base

Aafia Siddiqui: Victimized by American Depravity

Two-Thirds of Boys in Afghan Jails Are Brutalised, Study Finds

Israel bombards Gaza – and threatens worse/ Updated April 4 2010

Published in: on April 5, 2010 at 9:10 pm  Comments Off on Iran: International Nuclear disarmament summit widely welcomed  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama blocks delivery of bunker-busters to Israel

March 18 2010

WASHINGTON — The United States has diverted a shipment of bunker-busters designated for Israel

Officials said the U.S. military was ordered to divert a shipment of smart bunker-buster bombs from Israel to a military base in Diego Garcia. They said the shipment of 387 smart munitions had been slated to join pre-positioned U.S. military equipment in Israel Air Force bases.

“This was a political decision,” an official said.

In 2008, the United States approved an Israeli request for bunker-busters capable of destroying underground facilities, including Iranian nuclear weapons sites. Officials said delivery of the weapons was held up by the administration of President Barack Obama.

Since taking office, Obama has refused to approve any major Israeli requests for U.S. weapons platforms or advanced systems. Officials said this included proposed Israeli procurement of AH-64D Apache attack helicopters, refueling systems, advanced munitions and data on a stealth variant of the F-15E.

“All signs indicate that this will continue in 2010,” a congressional source familiar with the Israeli military requests said. “This is really an embargo, but nobody talks about it publicly.”

Under the plan, the U.S. military was to have stored 195 BLU-110 and 192 BLU-117 munitions in unspecified air force bases in Israel. The U.S. military uses four Israeli bases for the storage of about $400 million worth of pre-positioned equipment meant for use by either Washington or Jerusalem in any regional war.

In January 2010, the administration agreed to an Israeli request to double the amount of U.S. military stockpiles to $800 million. Officials said the bunker-busters as well as Patriot missile interceptors were included in the agreement.

The decision to divert the BLU munitions was taken amid the crisis between Israel and the United States over planned construction of Jewish homes in Jerusalem. The administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has warned that Washington could reduce military aid to Israel because of its construction policy.

In 2007, after its war in Lebanon, Israel requested 2,000 BLU-109 live bombs from the United States. The 2,000-pound bomb, produced by Boeing and coupled with a laser guidance kit, was designed to penetrate concrete bunkers and other underground hardened sites.

Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, was quoted as saying that his country faced its biggest crisis with the United States since 1975. A pro-Israel lobbyist said Oren was referring to the current U.S. embargo, which echoed a decision taken 35 years ago by then-President Gerald Ford after Israel’s refusal to withdraw from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Oren has since denied the remark.

Source

Somehow I can’t see this lasting for very long the US has a history of supporting Israel no matter what type of atrocities they commit.

Bunker Busters are radioactive and should never be used by anyone.

They can also cause earthquakes.

This type of thing should have been done along time ago not just by the US but by all countries who supply arms to Israel.

Foreign Arms Supplies To Israel/Gaza

They use the weapons to destroy the lives of defenseless Palestinians. They have no bombs, planes, tanks etc. They are defenseless.

Anyone who supplies weapons to Israel need to re-examine their position.

Israel spends billions a year on weapons.

Meanwhile Palestinians don’t have enough food, medical supplies or materials to rebuild.  They live in a prison. Even those in the West Bank are treated horridly. Daily bad things happen to them. Arrests, land theft, destroyed homes, etc.

Israel is the master of fabricating lies to justify their actions.  Of course they use the same old sorry lies over and over however. They demonize anyone who speaks out against their actions. Israeli leaders and Lobby groups perpetrate more hate towards others then any group I am aware of. They even demonize Jews. They perpetrate more ant Antisemitism then anyone. Sad but true.

Gaza (1): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Update March 21 2010

Netanyahu bows to U.S. demands ahead of Washington visit

By Barak Ravid, Natasha Mozgovaya and Jack Khoury

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is leaving for Washington tonight, has promised the Obama administration Israel will make several goodwill gestures toward the Palestinian Authority in response to Washington’s demands.

For the first time since Operation Cast Lead, Israel has agreed to ease the blockade on the Gaza Strip. Moreover, Netanyahu has agreed to discuss all core issues during the proximity talks, with the condition of reaching final conclusions only in direct talks with the PA.

Netanyahu also agreed to discuss the core issues in the dispute – including borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and settlements – already during indirect talks, although summations would be made in direct talks with the PA president.

Netanyahu responded to Washington’s demands during his telephone call with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday night. Clinton said on Friday that Netanyahu’s response “was useful and productive, and we’re continuing our discussions with him and his government.”

Netanyahu refused to revoke the building project in Ramat Shlomo or freeze construction in East Jerusalem. He also promised a better oversight system to prevent embarrassing incidents such as the one that triggered the crisis with the U.S. during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit.

Senior officials in Jerusalem said that the prime minister’s gestures include relieving the blockade on Gaza and enabling the UN to transport construction materials to rebuild sewerage systems and a large flour mill, and build 150 apartments in Khan Yunis.

Netanyahu also agreed to release hundreds of Fatah-affiliated prisoners as a gesture to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, in keeping with the view of the defense establishment on the effect this will have on the release of Gilad Shalit.

Netanyahu is scheduled to leave for Washington tonight with Defense Minister Ehud Barak to attend the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington. Opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni and Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau will also attend the convention.

Netanyahu is slated to address the convention tomorrow at 7 P.M. (Israel time), then meet Clinton, who is also to speak at the AIPAC gathering. No meeting has been set yet between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, but Israeli officials believe such a meeting will take place on Tuesday in the White House, and contacts are progressing in this regard.

Israel’s Washington envoy Michael Oren said yesterday that outsiders cannot force peace on the Middle East, and any final settlement will have to be initiated by the Israelis and Palestinians themselves. Oren spoke in an interview with U.S. television station PBS. Oren said Israel was not interested in having the White House present its own peace plan, in view of the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Any attempt by the United States to impose a peace deal would be like “forcing somebody to fall in love,” Oren said.

Asked if Israel wanted Washington to present its own peace plan, Oren said: “No. I think peace has to be made between two people sitting across a table. America can help facilitate that interaction.”

Meanwhile, UN chief Ban Ki-moon said yesterday after getting a closer look at Israeli enclaves in the West Bank that Israeli settlement building anywhere on occupied land is illegal and must be stopped. “The world has condemned Israel’s settlement plans in East Jerusalem,” Ban told a news conference after his brief tour. “Let us be clear. All settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory and must be stopped.”

Source

So Germany was ticked off and the US was ticked off. And well the rest of the world was ticked off.

Will Israel keep it’s word. Not likely. They never keep their word. They say yes, yes, yes, then do the opposite.

Believe what you will, but trusting Israel is not something I am foolish enough to do.

Netanyahu just wants the weapons and a soon as he has them, right back to being typical Israel.  How much you want to bet?

I would say no weapons no money no nothing until Israel stops all settlements and removes the wall which is illegal, stop terrorizing Palestinians, remove all check points and open the Gaza boarders..

Until them Israel gets nothing. That is how it should be.

But of course that will not happen. The US are all day suckers.

Israel is like the little kid that promises to their mommy “I will behave I promise”. Then shortly thereafter, they go back to doing what they always do.

Recent

Netanyahu Takes His Siege Against Human Rights NGOs to the US

March 11-17 2010 Report on Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Full El Al flight took off on 9/11 from JFK to Tel Aviv

Israeli Military Investigator Admits Failures in the Military Investigation of Rachel Corrie’s Killing

Dubai police chief to seek Netanyahu arrest

Israel “blackmails Gaza’s patients to turn them into collaborators”

Farm Groups Want Action On Monsanto

China renews call for diplomacy on Iran

Erroneous Reports Deny our Veterans Benefits

Published in: on March 20, 2010 at 10:08 pm  Comments Off on Obama blocks delivery of bunker-busters to Israel  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Japan Report: Private Agreements Allowed US to Bring Nukes

State Department Shrugs Off Reports, Pentagon Declines Comment

By Jason Ditz, March 09, 2010

Following through on a pledged investigation into “secret agreements” made by the previous government, Japan today issued a report revealing that the Liberal Democratic Party governments violated the nation’s official bans and allowed the United States to transport and even store nuclear weapons on Japanese soil.

Not long after taking power last year, the Democratic Party of Japan revealed that they had found documents proving that their predecessors had signed secret deals with the United States as early as 1960 regarding nuclear weapons. The announcement came with the pledge of a full report.

Rumors of the deal, a flagrant violation of Japan’s non-nuclear stance since it was attacked with nuclear weapons in 1945, have been long-standing, but the LDP governments had repeatedly denied that any such deal existed. It is unclear what, if any, legal ramifications those who were in power at the time might face, but the current government is likely to gain big from uncovering it.

The US State Department downplayed the possibility that it might have any impact on US-Japan relations, saying they had lived up to their end of the treaties. This does appear to be the case, though they had to know at the time that the treaties were illegal under Japanese law. The Pentagon, for its part, refused to comment at all, saying that they don’t discuss specific nuclear weapons movements.

Source

Added April 2010

Japan Tokunoshima islanders reject US Marines base

Recent

Amir, ten years old, abducted by Israeli soldiers from his bed

“This Time We Went Too Far” Truth and Consequences in the Gaza Invasion

E-book on Jewish National Fund’s role in colonization of Palestine

Israel on Trial – The Russell Tribunal on Palestine

Water shortage in Fiji, not for US Water Corporation however

Rachel Corrie’s parents Get Nasty Letter from professor at Haifa University

Dubai police chief to seek Netanyahu arrest

Published in: on March 10, 2010 at 2:57 am  Comments Off on Japan Report: Private Agreements Allowed US to Bring Nukes  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Legally Israel owes the US Billions

Israeli Nukes, US Foreign Aid and the Symington Amendment.
Documents
The following document case file reveals the slow decline of  the policy of “strategic ambiguity” whereby US and Israeli officials deny the existence of the Israeli nuclear weapons arsenal in order to continue unfettered US military aid.

Document/File Date Contents

1960 (PDF) CIA Special National Intelligence Estimate released on June 5, 2009.  Israel’s nukes and role in foreign policy “assertiveness.”

“Possession of a nuclear weapon capability, or even the prospect of achieving it, would clearly give Israel a greater sense of security, self-confidence, and assertiveness…Israel would be less inclined than ever to make concessions…”

1963 President John F. Kennedy insists on US inspections of Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor in a secret letter to Prime Minister Levi Eskol.

1970 Treaty on the Non proliferation of Nuclear Weapons enters into force.

1976 The US passes the Symington Amendment of  1976. Symington Amendment prohibits most U.S. foreign aid to any country found trafficking in nuclear enrichment equipment or technology outside international safeguards. Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

1977 Glenn Amendment of 1977 calls for an end to aid to countries that import reprocessing technology.

1986 The Sunday Times publishes “The secrets of Israel’s nuclear arsenal/ Atomic technician Mordechai Vanunu reveals secret weapons production.”

2008 Former president Jimmy Carter names Israel as a nuclear weapons power.

2008 The US Army names Israel as a nuclear weapons power.

2009 AIPAC and ZOA lobby for $2.775 billion in US military aid for Israel

2009 Congress advised (via fax) that US aid is governed by the Symington Amendment.

2009 President Barak Obama advised (via letter) that US aid is governed by the Symington Amendment

Source


June 1976: Symington Amendment Passed Restricting Aid to Nuclear Proliferators

Senator Stuart Symington. [Source: Bettman / Corbis]Legislation introduced by Stuart Symington, a Democratic senator from Missouri, is passed by the US Congress to set out the US position on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. The legislation, which becomes known as the “Symington amendment,” bans US assistance to any country found to be trafficking in nuclear enrichment or reprocessing technology that is not governed by international safeguards. Authors David Armstrong and Joe Trento will later comment that this puts “both Pakistan [which is thought to be involved in such trafficking] and the Ford administration on notice that nonproliferation would now be taken seriously.”

The CIA report of 1960 states that Israel is going to build Nuclear Weapons.

From 1976 on, all Aid given to Israel should be returned to the citizens of the US.   Legally speaking.

Israel has fraudulently, been taking aid from the US..

They hid their Nuclear bomb building complex,  from the US as noted by Mordechai Vanunu.

That is a legal opinion.

The US is also breaking their own law by giving Aid to Israel.

That too is a legal opinion.

Reminds me of a Dirty Cop stealing drugs from a bust, then sells it to a Drug Lord who in turn,  sells it to people on the streets and neither one ever get busted.

Both are guilty of a crime.

In this case however the Tax Payer is the one who is being ripped off.

President John F. Kennedy insists on US inspections of Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor in a secret letter to Prime Minister Levi Eskol.

He was assassinated. So Who Benefited the most by J.F. Kennedy’s Death? Israel came out a big winner /no inspections /more Aid/ability to pursue Nuclear bombs/ And Terrorism

UN nuclear assembly has called for Israel to open its nuclear facilities to UN inspection

Resolution 487 (1981)Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA/Refrain from Acts or Threats

Israel’s Dirty Nuclear Secrets, Human Experiments  and WMD/Mordechai Vanunu

Iran Proposes Control System Aimed at Eliminating Nuclear Weapons

The UN Mission 575 Page Report on Gaza/Israel War

Resolution 1887 2009

THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ( NPT ) HTML

From 2001 UN  Israel IAEA

The General Assembly adopted five resolutions on the armed Zionist aggression, namely resolutions 36/27, 37/18, 38/9, 39/14 and 40/6, under the item entitled “Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its
grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international
peace and security”. In the aggregate of these resolutions, the Assembly:

The following is a list of United Nations resolutions that concern Israel and bordering states such as Lebanon From 1947 to 1989 the UN Security Council passed 131 resolutions directly addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict. In early Security Council practice, resolutions did not directly invoke Chapter VII. They made an explicit determination of a threat, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and ordered an action in accordance with Article 39 or 40. Resolution 54 determined that a threat to peace existed within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter, reiterated the need for a truce, and ordered a cease-fire pursuant to Article 40 of the Charter. Although the phrase “Acting under Chapter VII” was never mentioned as the basis for the action taken, the chapter’s authority was being used.

  • 1947
    • November 29: UN General Assembly Resolution 181: recommending partition of the British Mandate into Jewish and Arab states
  • 1948
    • December 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 194: conditional right of return of refugees
  • 1949
    • May 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 273: admission of Israel to the UN
  • 1975
    • March 22: UN General Assembly Resolution 3379: equating Zionism with Racism
  • 1991
    • December 16: UN General Assembly Resolution 4686: annulled Res. 3379
  1. Resolution 42: The Palestine Question (5 March 1948) Requests recommendations for the Palestine Commission
  2. Resolution 43: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Recognizes “increasing violence and disorder in Palestine” and requests that representatives of “the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab Higher Committee” arrange, with the Security Council, “a truce between the Arab and Jewish Communities of Palestine…Calls upon Arab and Jewish armed groups in Palestine to cease acts of violence immediately.”
  3. Resolution 44: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Requests convocation of special session of the General Assembly
  4. Resolution 46: The Palestine Question (17 Apr 1948) As the United Kingdom is the Mandatory Power, “it is responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in Palestine.” The Resolutions also “Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine” to stop importing “armed bands and fighting personnel…whatever their origin;…weapons and war materials;…Refrain, pending the future government of Palestine…from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;…refrain from any action which will endager the safety of the Holy Places in Palestine.”
  5. Resolution 48: The Palestine Question (23 Apr 1948)
  6. Resolution 49: The Palestine Question (22 May 1948)
  7. Resolution 50: The Palestine Question (29 May 1948)
  8. Resolution 53: The Palestine Question (7 Jul 1948)
  9. Resolution 54: The Palestine Question (15 Jul 1948)
  10. Resolution 56: The Palestine Question (19 Aug 1948)
  11. Resolution 57: The Palestine Question (18 Sep 1948)
  12. Resolution 59: The Palestine Question (19 Oct 1948)
  13. Resolution 60: The Palestine Question (29 Oct 1948)
  14. Resolution 61: The Palestine Question (4 Nov 1948)
  15. Resolution 62: The Palestine Question (16 Nov 1948)
  16. Resolution 66: The Palestine Question (29 Dec 1948)
  17. Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
  18. Resolution 73: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
  19. Resolution 89 (17 November 1950): regarding Armistice in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and “transfer of persons”.
  20. Resolution 92: The Palestine Question (8 May 1951)
  21. Resolution 93: The Palestine Question (18 May 1951)
  22. Resolution 95: The Palestine Question (1 Sep 1951)
  23. Resolution 100: The Palestine Question (27 Oct 1953)
  24. Resolution 101: The Palestine Question (24 Nov 1953)
  25. Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (29 Mar 1955) ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid.
  26. Resolution 107: The Palestine Question (30 Mar)
  27. Resolution 108: The Palestine Question (8 Sep)
  28. Resolution 111: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”.
  29. Resolution 113: The Palestine Question (4 Apr)
  30. Resolution 114: The Palestine Question (4 Jun)
  31. Resolution 127: ” … ‘recommends’ Israel suspends its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”.
  32. Resolution 138: Question relating to the case of Adolf Eichmann, concerning Argentine complaint that Israel breached its sovereignty.
  33. Resolution 162: ” … ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”.
  34. Resolution 171: ” … determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”.
  35. Resolution 228: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”.
  36. Resolution 233 (June 6, 1967
  37. Resolution 234 (June 7, 1967
  38. Resolution 235 (June 9, 1967
  39. Resolution 236 (June 11, 1967
  40. Resolution 237: ” … ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”.
  41. Resolution 240 (October 25, 1967: concerning violations of the cease-fire
  42. Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel’s neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
  43. Resolution 248: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”.
  44. Resolution 250: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”.
  45. Resolution 251: ” … ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250″.
  46. Resolution 252: ” … ‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”.
  47. Resolution 256: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”.
  48. Resolution 258
  49. Resolution 259: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”.
  50. Resolution 262: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”.
  51. Resolution 265: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on Salt, Jordan”.
  52. Resolution 267: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”.
  53. Resolution 270: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”.
  54. Resolution 271: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”.
  55. Resolution 279: ” … ‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”.
  56. Resolution 280: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”.
  57. Resolution 285: ” … ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”.
  58. Resolution 298: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”.
  59. Resolution 313: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”.
  60. Resolution 316: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”.
  61. Resolution 317: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”.
  62. Resolution 331
  63. Resolution 332: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”.
  64. Resolution 337: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”.
  65. Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): cease fire in Yom Kippur War
  66. Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
  67. Resolution 340
  68. Resolution 341
  69. Resolution 344
  70. Resolution 346
  71. Resolution 347: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”.
  72. Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
  73. Resolution 362
  74. Resolution 363
  75. Resolution 368
  76. Resolution 369
  77. Resolution 371
  78. Resolution 378
  79. Resolution 381
  80. Resolution 390
  81. Resolution 396
  82. Resolution 398
  83. Resolution 408
  84. Resolution 416
  85. Resolution 420
  86. Resolution 425 (1978): ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”. Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was completed as of 16 June 2000.
  87. Resolution 426
  88. Resolution 427: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon”.
  89. Resolution 429
  90. Resolution 434
  91. Resolution 438
  92. Resolution 441
  93. Resolution 444: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”.
  94. Resolution 446 (1979): ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
  95. Resolution 449
  96. Resolution 450: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”.
  97. Resolution 452: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”.
  98. Resolution 456
  99. Resolution 459
  100. Resolution 465: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”.
  101. Resolution 467: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”.
  102. Resolution 468: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”.
  103. Resolution 469: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”.
  104. Resolution 470
  105. Resolution 471: ” … ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
  106. Resolution 474
  107. Resolution 476: ” … ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are ‘null and void'”.
  108. Resolution 478 (20 August 1980): ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’.
  109. Resolution 481
  110. Resolution 483
  111. Resolution 484: ” … ‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors”.
  112. Resolution 485
  113. Resolution 487: ” … ‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”.
  114. Resolution 488
  115. Resolution 493
  116. Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
  117. Resolution 498: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”.
  118. Resolution 501: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”.
  119. Resolution 506
  120. Resolution 508:
  121. Resolution 509: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”.
  122. Resolution 511
  123. Resolution 515: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”.
  124. Resolution 516
  125. Resolution 517: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.
  126. Resolution 518: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”.
  127. Resolution 519
  128. Resolution 520: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”.
  129. Resolution 523
  130. Resolution 524
  131. Resolution 529
  132. Resolution 531
  133. Resolution 536
  134. Resolution 538
  135. Resolution 543
  136. Resolution 549
  137. Resolution 551
  138. Resolution 555
  139. Resolution 557
  140. Resolution 561
  141. Resolution 563
  142. Resolution 573: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
  143. Resolution 575
  144. Resolution 576
  145. Resolution 583
  146. Resolution 584
  147. Resolution 586
  148. Resolution 587 ” … ‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”.
  149. Resolution 590
  150. Resolution 592: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”.
  151. Resolution 594
  152. Resolution 596
  153. Resolution 599
  154. Resolution 603
  155. Resolution 605: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
  156. Resolution 607: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
  157. Resolution 608: ” … ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”.
  158. Resolution 609
  159. Resolution 611
  160. Resolution 613
  161. Resolution 617
  162. Resolution 624
  163. Resolution 630
  164. Resolution 633
  165. Resolution 636: ” … ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
  166. Resolution 639 (31 Jul 1989)
  167. Resolution 641 (30 Aug 1989): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
  168. Resolution 645 (29 Nov 1989)
  169. Resolution 648 (31 Jan 1990)
  170. Resolution 655 (31 May 1990)
  171. Resolution 659 (31 Jul 1990)
  172. Resolution 672 (12 Oct 1990): ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for “violence against Palestinians” at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
  173. Resolution 673 (24 Oct 1990): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
  174. Resolution 679 (30 Nov 1990)
  175. Resolution 681 (20 Dec 1990): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
  176. Resolution 684 (30 Jan 1991)
  177. Resolution 694 (24 May 1991): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
  178. Resolution 695 (30 May 1991)
  179. Resolution 701 (31 Jul 1991)
  180. Resolution 722 (29 Nov 1991)
  181. Resolution 726 (06 Jan 1992): ” … ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
  182. Resolution 734 (29 Jan 1992)
  183. Resolution 756 (29 May 1992)
  184. Resolution 768 (30 Jul 1992)
  185. Resolution 790 (25 Nov 1992)
  186. Resolution 799 (18 Dec 1992): “. . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
  187. Resolution 803 (28 Jan 1993)
  188. Resolution 830 (26 May 1993)
  189. Resolution 852 (28 Jul 1993)
  190. Resolution 887 (29 Nov 1993)
  191. Resolution 904 (18 Mar 1994)
  192. Resolution 1039 (29 Jan 1996)
  193. Resolution 1052 (18 Apr 1996)
  194. Resolution 1057 (30 May 1996)
  195. Resolution 1068 (30 Jul 1996)
  196. Resolution 1073 (28 Sep 1996)
  197. Resolution 1081 (27 Nov 1996)
  198. Resolution 1095 (28 Jan 1997)
  199. Resolution 1109 (28 May 1997)
  200. Resolution 1122 (29 Jul 1997)
  201. Resolution 1139 (21 Nov 1997)
  202. Resolution 1151 (30 Jan 1998)
  203. Resolution 1169 (27 May 1998)
  204. Resolution 1188 (30 Jul 1998)
  205. Resolution 1211 (25 Nov 1998)
  206. Resolution 1223 (28 Jan 1999)
  207. Resolution 1243 (27 May 1999)
  208. Resolution 1254 (30 Jul 1999)
  209. Resolution 1276 (24 Nov 1999)
  210. Resolution 1288 (31 Jan 2000)
  211. Resolution 1300 (31 May 2000)
  212. Resolution 1310 (27 Jul 2000)
  213. Resolution 1322 (07 Oct 2000)
  214. Resolution 1328 (27 Nov 2000)
  215. Resolution 1337 (30 Jan 2001)
  216. Resolution 1351 (30 May 2001)
  217. Resolution 1559 (2 September 2004) called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
  218. Resolution 1583 (28 January 2005) calls on Lebanon to assert full control over its border with Israel. It also states that “the Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for the purpose of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425.
  219. Resolution 1648 (21 December 2005) renewed the mandate of United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 30 June 2006.
  220. Resolution 1701 (11 August 2006) called for the full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.
  221. Resolution 1860 (9 January 2009) called for the full cessation of war between Israel and Hamas.

Over the years nothing has improved.  From Day one Israel has been a problem.

Israel Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act, 2010
Bill HR 3160 IH

Israel will get
$2,828,860,000 That’s almost 3 billion.
Except for 25 million it is all for weapons and the military.
So why do Americans tolerate this?

Search for US Bills here

I just put in Word/Phrase  “Israel” in search box. Exact Match only, All Bills, House and Senate, From 1907 through 2009. Anything with the word Israel in it should come up for you. It is a very long list. An amazing long list.

Related Articles

Poll: Should Israel be disarmed of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Israel and US were behind the Georgian Attacks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Israel: True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

They also torture children. There two very good reports at this link. PA minister accuses Israel of neglecting prisoners’ health

GLENN BECK: Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu

Gaza (1): A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Netanyahu compares Iran to Nazi Germany in UN speech/ Why is he lying?

September 24 2009

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caused a stir at the United Nations Thursday when he waved old construction plans for the infamous Nazi death camp at Auschwitz in an attempt to convince the international community to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

“The most urgent challenge facing this body today is to prevent the tyrant of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said during his speech, referring to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The comparison between Iran and the Nazi regime comes days after Ahmadinejad again denied the Holocaust.

At the UN, Netanyahu warned that Iran’s nuclear program threatens the whole world, not just Israel.

“Perhaps some of you think (Ahmadinejad) and his odious regime, perhaps they threaten only the Jews. Well, if you think that, you’re wrong. You’re dead wrong,” he said.

Iran continues to deny it is producing nuclear weapons but the country has refused to stop enriching uranium, which can be used to make bombs.

Israel says Iran is a threat because it has a nuclear program, missiles, and its leader frequently talks of Israel’s demise.

During his speech, Netanyahu also showed a copy of minutes from a 1942 meeting at Wannsee Lake in Germany, where Nazis formalized plans to kill millions of Jews.

The blueprints to Auschwitz included details for gas chambers and other facilities at a Nazi-run camp in occupied Poland, where three million Jews died during the Second World War.

The U.S., Israel, and other nations say they want to stop any possible nuclear ambitions Iran may have through sanctions.

There has been speculation Israel might launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear sites as it did against an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

This week, Netanyahu said again that “all options are on the table” and Israel “reserves the right of self-defence.”

Netanyahu met briefly with Prime Minister Stephen Harper before Harper went on to Pittsburgh for the G20 summit.

Canada’s delegation walked out of the UN assembly on Wednesday when Ahmadinejad spoke.

Nuclear weapons

Netanyahu’s move came after that the United Nations Security Council  unanimously adopted a U.S.-sponsored resolution calling for stepped-up efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote worldwide disarmament.

From its opening paragraph, the resolution makes clear the council’s commitment “to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.”

It backs the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and calls for the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, two key agreements on nuclear arms control.
The resolution also reaffirms previous sanctions that were imposed on North Korea and Iran for their nuclear activities, but does not call for any new sanctions.

“There is no better way to begin this historic day than to pledge to end nuclear testing,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon before the vote. “The CTBT is a fundamental building block for a world free of nuclear weapons.”

U.S. President Barack Obama presided over the meeting, reaffirming that nuclear arms reduction is one of his administration’s priorities. It was the first time a U.S president has chaired a meeting of the Security Council, said U.S. deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff.

“The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons,” Obama said following the vote. “It brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal.”

“International law is not an empty promise, and treaties must be enforced,” he said. “We will leave this meeting with renewed determination.”

The leaders of China and Russia were among those who voted in favour of the resolution, which passed by a 15-0 margin.

After the vote, Ban described the resolution’s adoption as a watershed occasion.

“This is a historic moment, a moment offering a fresh start toward a new future,” he said.

Major countries that have not signed on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty include India, Pakistan and Israel. The draft resolution calls on all countries that have not signed the treaty to do so, in order “to achieve its universality at an early date.”

Presiding over the UN meeting on Thursday fits with Obama’s pledge to support nuclear nonproliferation initiatives. In a speech the U.S. president gave in Prague five months ago, he said he wanted to see “a world without nuclear weapons.”

Obama’s aides called the adoption of the resolution an endorsement of his nuclear agenda.

Under the Bush administration, the U.S. opposed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. However, Obama plans to court support for the treaty in the U.S. Senate.

Source

Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to compare Iran to Hitlers Germany??????????

He really needs to get a grip on reality.  Iran is nothing like Germany was during the second world war. Not even close. Anyone who believes this man needs an education in the worst way.

Israel is much like Germany however.

They are a mirror image in many ways.

Even the UN made that clarification, “Pertaining to Gaza”.

The way the Palestinians are imprisoned, is much like a concentration camp.

The treatment of prisoner is deplorable. They still torture people, they even “torture children”.

This coming from the country who “forges or steals passports” from other countries, so their spies can scurry around the world assassinating people.

Setting off “car bombs” or bombing people as they sleep in their beds, in other countries I might add. Knowing what I know I have to wonder how many so called suicide bombers, reported on the news, may have actually been “assassinations”?????

Car bombing isn’t that a pretty common thing?  One has to wonder just how many bombs Israel has planted around the world and had other people from other countries blamed for it? That is what they do.

They even fooled the Americans into Bombing  Libya, with the use of the Trojan transmitter, sneaky and cunning. Not so for Libya of course.

One has to wonder how many other wars they have deliberately started?

They are a terrorist nation if there ever was one.

They hide their nuclear capabilities for years. When an employee blew the Whistle they had him  kidnapped form another country and put in prison for years.

Israel made employees of the Nuclear facility drink radioactive material as an experiment.

Israel has over 200 nuclear bombs and refuses to sign the Non proliferation Treaty.

The UN wants weapons inspectors in there and you can be they won’t get in.

J. F. Kennedy wanted inspectors in there during his Presidency and was assassinated before he could finished the job. Kennedy went through hell with Israel.

Even then Israel was doing some very underhanded trickery.

After Kennedy’s assassination,, everything went just the way Israel wanted. To perfect actually. As a result of his death and LBJ taking the Presidency The following occurred.

  • US  foreign and military aid to Israel increased dramatically once LBJ became president.
  • Rather than trying to maintain a BALANCE in the Middle East, Israel suddenly emerged as the dominant force.
  • Since the LBJ administration, Israel has always had weaponry that was superior to any of its direct neighbors.
  • Due to this undeniable and obvious increase in Israel’s War Machine, a constant struggle has been perpetuated in the Middle East.
  • LBJ also allowed Israel to proceed with its nuclear development, resulting in them becoming the 6th largest nuclear force in the world.
  • Finally, our huge outlays of foreign aid to Israel (approximately $10 billion/year when all is said and done) has created a situation of never-ending attacks and retaliation in the Middle East, plus outright scorn and enmity against the U.S. for playing the role of Israel’s military enabler.
  • LB Johnson was the best thing that could have ever happened to Israel.
  • LBJ even turned a blind eye to the USS Liberty attack. He gave them free reign to do whatever they wanted. Kennedy’s death was the best thing that could have ever happened for Israel. This was done to con the US into war with Egypt.

Iran has nuclear facilities yes, Nuclear Hydro.

How many countries around the world have Nuclear Hydro?

Iran has also signed the Non proliferation Treaty something the UN is trying to get Israel to do, but to date has refused. They like their 200 plus nuclear bombs.

Talk about calling the kettle BLACK.

Israel wants to con the rest of the world “again” into going to war. Only this time it is  with Iran. Who has a whole lot of oil to boot.

Anyone who believes Benjamin Netanyahu needs to do a very through reality check. He has even ordered “people assassinated”.

If Ahmadinejad is ever assassinated, you can rest assured,  Israel would be responsible.

That is what they do. They have been doing things like that for years.

They even assassinate other Jews. One of the first being, the young martyr, Dr. Yaakov Yisrael Dehan was murdered on July 1, 1924. He was a man who devoted all his energies and the best years of his life to saving the remnant of loyal Jews, and to promote peace with the veteran Arab residents of the Holy Land. Through his knowledge of politics and diplomacy, Dehan contributed much to crystallizing an independent position for Orthodox Jewry unaffiliated with the Zionist leadership.

The web they weave when they practice to deceive.

Resolution 487 (1981)Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA/Refrain from Acts or Threats

UN nuclear assembly has called for Israel to open its nuclear facilities to UN inspection

Unanimous! UN resolution aims for nuclear-free world

To Israel Hamas is not al-Qaida

Not one penny has reached Gaza to rebuild

IOF willfully kill a Palestinian child in al-Jalazoun refugee camp, north of Ramallah

PA minister accuses Israel of neglecting prisoners’ health

Israel’s Dirty Nuclear Secrets, Human Experiments  and WMD

There are many stories in the Archives pertaining to Israel and her criminal activity. Happy hunting.

Indexed List of all Stories in Archives

Published in: on September 25, 2009 at 8:31 pm  Comments Off on Netanyahu compares Iran to Nazi Germany in UN speech/ Why is he lying?  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Israel’s Dirty Nuclear Secrets, Human experiments and WMD

A symptom, not a solution

August 20 2009

In a human experiment that took place 11 years ago at the nuclear reactor in Dimona, employees were coerced into drinking a mixture containing a concentration containing at least seven times more uranium than the allowable quantity in drinking water.

The experiment, as Yossi Melman reported in Haaretz, contravened the Declaration of Helsinki, and may have caused real damage to the health of the participants. When the report came out, the Atomic Energy Commission quickly asked the Committee for Nuclear Safety to appoint a special committee to investigate the experiment.

It is hard not to be amazed at the number of committees that are supposed to oversee the safety of operations at nuclear centers in Israel, including secret Knesset sub-committees, the state comptroller and internal auditors working at all those secret centers.

The system-wide failures in oversight and supervision of the experiment in question is therefore astonishing. It may be assumed that if the report had not come out in Haaretz, responsibility for this experiment would not have come under review.

The nature of these human experiments carried out by government entities like the Negev Nuclear Research Center in Dimona, the Israel Institute for Biological Research, or the Israel Defense Forces enjoys secrecy under the pretext of security considerations. The public has learned to acquiesce to these experiments, on the unfounded assumption that they are necessary to strengthen the state’s ability to protect its citizens.

The systems of oversight for these experiments were put in place to reassure the public, and especially those who take part in the experiments, that they are protected by watchful, professional authorities that act as a wall against any breach of law or protocol, in order to prevent improper experimentation.

However, it turns out that there are cracks, at the very least, in this protective wall. That is the case with the uranium-drinking experiment, the dives in the Kishon River, the anthrax experiments, the nerve gas at the Institute for Biological Research and apparently other cases that are still waiting to be aired, or those that “for security reasons” will never be publicized.

These cases require the experiments’ supervisors to reexamine the efficacy of their implementation, and use their authority to set clearer and more transparent procedures that do not permit looking the other way or circumvention. A special investigative committee is part of the symptom, not the solution.

Source

Israel: Ex-staffer at Dimona nuclear reactor says made to drink uranium
Report by Yossi Melman,
There is also a video at the site . The video is extremely informative.  Secret nuclear and biological weapons programs in Israel

I also found this in my wanderings

Dimona’s Buried Nuclear Waste Spreads Cancer and Sterility in Southern Hebron and Negev

GAZA, July 6, 2004 (IPC + Agencies) – – Nearly 70 cancer cases and the sterile rate soared to 62% among males and females in the villages south of Hebron was mainly caused by the nuclear waste buried by Israel in Hebron’s mountains.

Many physicians and officials south of Hebron City, adjacent to the Negev Desert, warned of the growing number of people afflicted with cancer and attributed the cause to the nuclear radioactive wind the region.

The Palestinian villages located south of Hebron’s mountains witnessed a growing number of cancer cases and unprecedented mutation rates as most of the specialists said that it is likely due to environmental pollution.

The professor (Y.A) of physics and a specialist of atomic science said that the air in southern Hebron is contaminated by the nuclear radioactive leakage as the area is very close to the Israeli Dimona reactor and to the nuclear waste dumps in the area.

There are no cement blocks around the reactor operating to lower the hazardous impacts of such high radioactivity.

The professor recited the case of his mother who died of visceral cancer, and after a check up, the cause was mainly due the high rates of radioactive elements.

The radioactivity has a tremendous power that could penetrates to the genes of the human, affecting the chromosome that are inherited generation after generation.

Dr. Mahmoud Sa’ada, the co-founder of the Palestinian Medical Relief, was quoted by the Al Nakab daily as saying, “I am a general physician who has been working for 30 years in Al Thaheryia adjacent to Hebron and I could ascertain that during the last years most of the cancer cases has no other diagnosis but nuclear radioactivity.”

He added, “now there are 70 cancer cases in Al Thaheryia admitted to Beit Jala hospital. Recently, a baby was born with red colored half face, and after examining each case it’s hardly to attribute the case to inherited deformations.”

Meanwhile, the rate of sterility has been notably increased to 62% in the villages south of Hebron due to the radioactivity.

Israel has always had a policy of nuclear ambiguity, saying only that it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the region.
Late of last June, the Israeli cabinet approved to distribute iodine-based tablets to people living near the Israeli nuclear reactors to give them some protection in case of radioactive leakage.

The pills were to be given to people living near the Dimona reactor, in the southern Negev Desert and those close to the Nahal Sorek nuclear plant, southwest of Jerusalem, officials said on condition of anonymity.

Israel has had nuclear technology for decades but refused to comment on reports of obtaining nuclear weapons.

In 1986, former Dimona technician Mordechai Vanunu provided photographs and descriptions of the reactor to The Sunday Times magazine in London. Based on Vanunu’s material, experts said at the time that Israel has the world’s sixth-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.

The Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, is due to arrive in Israel on Tuesday to discuss a nuclear-free Middle East but the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said earlier today that Israel has no intentions of deviating from its present nuclear policy.

Sharon spoke to the Israeli Army radio hours before the visit of IAEA director, where he said that Israel’s ‘nondisclosure’ policy would be maintained and that Israel has all the weapons it needs to protect itself.

Related links:

Dimona Reactor… a Mystery Threatening the Middle East

International Press Center (IPC)

September 18, 2003

Preface

“The Israeli nuclear reactor of Dimona is vulnerable to meltdown, like the Russian reactor of Chernobyl two decades ago, which caused a humanitarian and ecological catastrophe. If Dimona melts down, it would affect an area 500 aerial kilometers in radius, reaching Cyprus and the entire neighboring region”, warned Dr. Yousef Abu Safiya, Head of the Palestinian Environment Quality Authority.

A recent study conducted by the Jordanian authorities after a request from the Palestinian Environment Quality Authority revealed that the Israelis are aware of the possibility of a meltdown in Dimona reactor, which in turn would affect the whole region, mainly the Jordanian southern city of Tafila.

The study also showed that radioactive substances are leaking from the Dimona reactor in a way that has increased rates of cancer diseases among nearby populations, particularly those of Tafila City.

What make these assumptions largely based on solid ground are the latest satellite images of the Dimona reactor, which showed that its walls have cracks, which cut its assumed age into half.

With thorough investigation into Dimona Israel’s nuclear plant, one can observe the following facts:

Location:

The location of Dimona’s reactor in the Negev desert is a delicate one, situated between Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority’s territories. The reactor was built in 1963, as part of a deal with France, who pledged to build the reactor in exchange for helping it and the United Kingdom in attacking Egypt in what was known as the 1956-tripartite. As for funding the reactor’s driving material, the United States took care of that, in addition to giving assistance with moving quantities of enriched Uranium to Israel.

The area on which the Dimona reactor is built on includes nine buildings, including the reactor building itself. Each building is tasked with producing a certain type of materials used to produce weapons of mass destruction, such as Plutonium, Lithium and Beryllium, used to manufacture nuclear bombs, in addition to producing radioactive Uranium and Triennium.

The Dimona reactor is considered to be the most mysterious secrets of the “nuclear world”, as Israel categorically refused, since its establishment in 1948 and after building the reactor, any routine inspection that other reactors around the world goes through, which “forcibly” open their reactors’ doors in fear of the American waving of the “club” of international resolutions.

No Inspection Beyond this Point!

Israel might be considered the only state that opposes to the inspection visits conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) all over the world, added to its rejection, until this very day, to sign the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was signed by all Arab states.

In spite of the complete American support for the Israeli policy, the Americans have expressed their concern over the reactor, as news revealed an American attempt to send some of its nuclear-program officials to inspect Dimona reactor apart from those working in the IAEA, but Israel refused to allow them in, continuing the reactor’s legacy of being “visitation-proof”, as only Israelis are allowed in.

The Fifth Nuclear Power

Israel is considered the fifth nuclear power in the world. In addition to owning nuclear bombs that can be dropped from the air, its nuclear arsenal includes also nuclear warheads that can reach a distance of 1,500 kilometers, using the Israeli-made “Jericho” missiles.

Estimations show that Israel is in possession of 200 nuclear bombs, but Arab sources indicate that Israel own massive quantities of Uranium and Plutonium that enables it of producing an additional 100 bombs. Israel, in the meantime, seeks to increase the production efficiency of its reactor to about three times its current efficiency –from 28 to 100 megawatts.

According to recent reports, the Israeli nuclear reactor consumed 1,400 tons of Uranium last year, which indicates that its efficiency might have reached 150 megawatts.

Dimona’s Hazards

In a study requested by the Palestinian Ministry of Environment Quality from the Jordanian authorities, it was revealed that the average manifestation of cancer in the Al Tafila governorate, south of Jordan, is higher than the other Jordanian governorates and surrounding Arab countries.

According to Dr. Abu Safiya, high cancer rates were recorded in all the southern Jordanian governorates, which confirmed the possible direction of nuclear dust that might be leaking from Dimona.

It was recently revealed that five Israeli families lost their sons who worked in Dimona reactor, and they filed charges in the Central Court in Tel Aviv against the Israeli government and the reactor’s administration, demanding compensations for the cancer that killed those workers due to radiation exposure.

According to the lawsuit, the prosecutors are relatives to five Israelis who worked for a long time in the nuclear “village”: Ze’eiv Schforn, born in 1931 and started working in Dimona in 1962 as the head of the supply crew. He was diagnosed with abdominal caner in 1966 and died in 1967. The second employee was Simon Dray, born in 1942 and worked in Dimona from 1966 until 1992 in the cleaning and decontamination unit. In 1996 he was diagnosed with pharyngeal cancer, and died in 1998. The third was Moshe Zegori, born in 1947, and worked in the reactor from 1965 until 1985, also in cleaning and decontamination. Before he left his job he found out that he had a malignant tumor in his head, and died in 1987. The fourth employee was Yousif Cohen, born in 1938, and worked in the reactor from 1970 until 1995, in maintenance. In 1997 he was diagnosed with several malignant tumors, and died in 1998.

The fifth employee is still suffering from cancer in his body, and is constantly under treatment. He worked in the reactor from 1969 until 1996, in maintenance and mechanical engineering.

The prosecutors of those victims are demanding the Israeli government to take responsibility for their deaths, due to the radiation exposure they suffered inside the reactor, which caused fatal malignant tumors. At the same time, they claim that the reactor’s administration didn’t take enough precaution measures and never warned the employees about the radiation hazard.

Worn-out Reactor

As reports indicate, the reactor has become old now, as its isolation walls have worn-out, which might cause the leakage of some radiation from the reactor, a thing that will lead to devastating health and ecological damages to the surrounding area.

According to the reports also, the reactor suffers from a dangerous crack caused by “neutron” radiation, which caused structural damage, as neutrons cause small gas bubbles inside the concrete support, making it fragile and susceptible to cracking.

The United Arab Emirates-based “Al Bayan” newspaper revealed recently that a serious debate was going on now about whether to stop working in the reactor before the catastrophe occurs or not. Additionally, a report made the by Israeli second TV channel mentioned that dozens of the reactor’s employees died of cancer, and that the reactor’s administration refuses to reveal the true number of casualties and fatalities.

The Dimona reactor wasn’t also immune to many working accidents that happened inside it, including the burning of hazardous and poisonous materials without providing the employees with suitable protective equipment, as many of them died because of that. As well, quantities of radioactive heavy water and nuclear waste leaked into a natural geographical hill extending along the reactor.

Expired!

By continuing to maintain and operate Dimona reactor, Israel is committing a crime against humanity that will be added to the atrocities it perpetrated along its history. Since 1971, the reactor has never been provided with new cooling towers, even though the reactor’s efficiency has increased since then.

Dr. Abu Safiya pointed out that the most dangerous hazards of Dimona reactor is in the element producing Plutonium, which is used to make nuclear bombs. It’s one of the resultant elements of Uranium DK dissipation, and it can be used to synthesize enriched Uranium. It contains 20% out of the 0.05% Uranium, which is the highly radioactive substance that can be used in nuclear fission to manufacture either nuclear bombs or atomic fuel.

Abu Safiya warned that there’s a regional and long-term threat in Dimona reactor, represented in the presence of these nuclear bombs in the possession of a country such as Israel, a thing that raises questions about the inspection visits in Iraq and demanding Iran to be inspected too, as well as surprise inspections by the IAEA officials, while Israel publicly admit to possessing nuclear weapons.

In response to that, Shimon Peres, temporary chairman of the Israeli Labor party, claimed that there’s no comparison between Iraq and Israel, because, according to his claims, Iraq is ruled by a “dictator”, while Israel is a “democratic” state!

Right after this statement, Israel used poisonous gases in the city of Khan Younis, which caused dozens of Palestinian citizens to suffer from unconsciousness and severe illnesses, added to the spasms and hysterical conditions some of them suffered from after inhaling such internationally-banned gases.

Commenting on this incident, Dr. Abu Safiya said that “we ascertained that these are nerve gases, by analyzing a specimen of the Israeli bombs that didn’t burn completely. Through analysis, we revealed that it is composed of a group of nerve gases, due to which affected citizens suffered from spasms… this is an evidence against the state that Peres say it’s “democratic”, which used internationally-banned weapons against the Palestinian people.”

Noteworthy that exposure to small amounts of radiation on the long run might pose a serious threat to embryos and children, as well as causing cancer.

Israel Least Damaged

Dr. Abu Safiya demanded the IAEA “if they truly seek integrity” to run checks in order to discover the level of radiation in the region around the Dimona reactor.

“If we conduct, for example, a Contour Survey for all directions to see the level of radiation and who’s affected the most, we would find that Israel is the safest, having its population localities in the north far from the reactor. In addition, 95% of the wind direction in Palestine is northwestern, which is opposite to the Israeli population localities,” Dr. Abu Safiya said.

The simplest radiation leak resulting from Dimona reactor is that of the depleted Uranium, which is of catastrophic implications, as it is considered one of the heavy elements that ruin kidney, liver and respiratory system functions, leading to death. Only one atom of radioactive Uranium is enough to cause fatal cancer.

What About the Reactor’s Waste?

As for the waste products resulting from nuclear enrichment operations in Dimona reactor, Dr. Abu Safiya said that it’s buried in areas near the Palestinian Authority controlled territories, as well as Jordanian and Egyptian ones, especially in those areas where the flow of aquifer water and direction of the wind is not in Israel’s favor. A report by Israel’s second TV channel revealed that Dimona reactor’s waste products are buried in the areas east of the Al Bureij refugee camp and the town of Deir El Balah. Currently, the Palestinian Authority for Environment Quality is trying to get a permission to get water analysis equipment inside Gaza Strip to check these areas, but Israel is refusing.

“During the current Intifada, Israelis have buried nearly 50,000 tons of industrial chemical waste in Gaza Strip, only 30 meters deep, on an area of 5,000 square meters, as they stole the arable soil and moved it inside Israel and buried industrial waste in its place. This means that there’s 150,000 cubic meters of poisonous waste buried in Gaza, which is a catastrophe. Moreover, Israel isn’t affected by this waste because it was buried opposite to the flow of aquifer water,” Abu Safiya narrated.

In the West Bank, most of what’s buried is in the direction of the eastern hills, because it’s not included in the Israeli-controlled lands, unlike the western hills. Now, the eastern hills are polluted with chemical waster and pesticides.

Covering Up for Their Crimes

In Ramallah and Hebron, the Palestinian Authority had some basic equipment to measure radiation and environmental pollution. These equipment didn’t only check radiation, but pollution in general, such as soil, water, air and chemical pollution.

In this subject, Dr. Abu Safiya said that small devices were discovered inside helicopters, which is used to regulate the fan’s rotation, as well as providing the pilot with some technical data. These devices, if exposed to a person or played with by children, might lead to death or blood and gene mutations, as it contains radioactive materials. The Minister added that “after these devices wore out, the Israelis dump them in the Palestinian controlled lands, and we found three of these devices in Ramallah, one of which was in President Yasser Arafat’s office ‘Al Moqata’a’.” Such devices were also found during the Israeli invasion of Ramallah City on March 29, 2002, after the Authority received warnings of suspicious radioactive materials. When specialists from the Authority of Environment Quality reached the area and checked these parts, they found out that it contained glowing radioactive materials. The instruments those specialists had indicated that radiation levels exceeded the maximum limit. When the manufacturing company was contacted concerning that, the company replied that these parts were sold to the Israeli Air Force, and that it’s used in helicopters of the type CH53.

As soon as the Israeli occupying forces invaded Ramallah, the radiation checking equipment were destroyed, including those equipment used to check the radioactive parts. Additionally, IOF blew up the environment laboratory in Hebron and Ramallah, and destroyed all the equipment by throwing them from the fifth floor.

Lately, a cargo of Israeli waste was uncovered in the city of Hebron, which was composed of 80 barrels, in addition to 120 others in the town of Al Ezareya, Jerusalem district. Furthermore, IOF moved in a cargo of 2,500 tons of radioactive base coarse, and the radiation was further confirmed when it was checked. The shipment was coming from Italy, and when the Israeli Ministry of Environment discovered that the radiation level of the base coarse was four times higher than that internationally allowed, the shipment was illegitimately diverted to Gaza City.

Unveiling the Hidden

The Israeli government has recently decided to boycott the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) after the latter made a documentary film about the Israeli nuclear weapons. Sources in the Israeli Foreign Ministry explained that the film is Anti-Semitic –an accusation used by Israel to anyone or anything that they don’t like.

The BBC had broadcasted previews of the documentary film, in which the narrator’s voice is heard on the background of the Israeli reactor core in Dimona and the photo of Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed the Israeli nuclear secrets, and the narrator asks: Which country in the Middle East possesses nuclear weapons without declaring that? Which country in the Middle East possesses the chemical and biological ability without declaring that? Which country in the world throws away the revealer of its nuclear secrets in jail for 18 years?

As for the producer of the documentary, he interviewed several senior Israeli officials, including that chairman of the Israeli Labor party, Shimon Peres, who is also considered the godfather of the Israeli nuclear program, and the man who created the nuclear reactor in Dimona. The producer asked Peres why Iraq aren’t allowed to possess nuclear weapons while Israeli can, and the answer was clearly not satisfactory, and Peres found a claim to justify this question.

As for Mordechai Vanunu, who is staying in Israeli jails since 1986, as the Israeli court indicted him of espionage, treason and selling Israeli nuclear secrets to the “Sunday Times” British newspaper, and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Now, he spent 16 years of it. Vanunu said that the Israeli authorities prevented him from meeting his British lawyers. “Now, Peres won’t be able to lie to [Ronald] Reagan about not owning nuclear weapons. Now everybody knows that,” Vanunu said.

Israel Protecting Itself

Israel surrounds itself with all means of protection. For example, every Israeli citizen has a pill of “stable Iodine”, and can be taken anytime, as it gives radiation protection.

It was revealed that Israeli provided all its citizens with such a pill, under the pretext of fearing an Iraqi nuclear strike, but the truth confirmed that they dispensed it because of fearing the meltdown of their own reactor, not only Dimona, but the other research facilities around Israel.

On the Palestinian level, the Authority of Environment Quality has tried to take some kind of protection, and sent a letter to the IAEA and Arab Ministers of Health, considering that the Palestinians are the weakest point and closest to the reactor, as Palestinian controlled lands are only 50 aerial kilometers away from Dimona reactor, but all these letters were rejected!

Among the examples that might be shown to indicate the amount of damage caused to the Palestinians due to any nuclear meltdown, the explosion that occurred in the pesticide factory in the city of Al Majdal (Ashkelon), where the stench of the pesticides reached Palestinian cities and towns due to thermal turnover and wind. Here, Dr. Abu Safiya pointed out to the danger that might happen in case an amount of radiation leaks from Dimona reactor, which will jeopardize the entire surrounding region and on a large geographical scale.

Dimona
Negev Nuclear Research Center
Kirya le-Mechkar Garinii (KAMAG)

Dimona Reactor Dome The Dimona heavy water reactor and an installation for processing irradiated fuel are used to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. Approximately 2,700 scientists, technicians, administrative staff, and other workers are employed at Dimona. Since the facility was constructed in the late 1950’s the surrounding land has been altered to sustain groves of palms and gardens positioned to obscure the facility from the road and air.

Begining around 1958 with French assistance, Israel constructed a natural uranium, heavy-water, research reactor at Dimona in the Negev Desert, about 8.5 miles from the town of the same name and some 25 miles from the Jordanian border. The Dimona facility was constructed in secret and is not under international inspection safeguards. The facility was first noticed by American intelligence when U-2 spyplanes overflew Dimona in 1958. It was not conclusively identified as a nuclear site until two years later. This reactor, nominally rated at 26 megawatts thermal, was put on line in early 1964. However according to Pierre Pean, French officials were surprised to discover that the cooling circuits designed to support three times the nominal power level, which permitted a scale-up to 70MWt without the addition of extra cooling circuits. If true, the power level of the reactor was reportedly 70MWt from the outset. Perhaps the power level has been increased to 150MWt some time after 1976, according to Barnaby.

An installation for processing irradiated fuel was completed with French assistance in the mid-1960s. Between 15 and 40-60 kilograms of fissionable plutonium can be processed annually. This facility probably has the capacity to produce plutonium for five to ten nuclear warheads a year.

In 1986, descriptions and photographs provided by the Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu were published in the London Sunday Times of the Dimona facility. This information supported the conclusion that Israel had a stockpile of 100 to 200 nuclear devices, a significantly larger nuclear capability than previously estimated.

Dimona consists of nine of these blocks called machons (in Hebrew facility or institute).

  • Machon 1 – The large silver-domed reactor containment vessel, nearly 20 meters [about 60 feet] in diameter, is visible from a nearby highway. Uranium fuel rods remain in the reactor for a few months before being discharged for reprocessing. The heavy water used as a moderator is cooled by ordinary water through a heat exchanger, which reportedly results in steam sometimes visible from the outside. Reports of annual production of as much as 60-kg of plutonium suggest that the reactor power level has been upgraded to 120-150 megawatts, much higher than the original power of 26 megawatts. Tritium can be produced by irradiating lithium-6 targets in the reactor. The reactor is four decades old, and may be reaching the end of its practical lifetime.
  • Machon 2 – Of the 2,700 employees at Dimona, it is said that only 150 are permitted access to Machon 2, which reportedly extends six floors underground. The chemical reprocessing plant removes plutonium produced in the reactor from the spent uranium rods. Before reprocessing begins, the rods are stored in water filled tanks for several weeks while the short-halflife radio-isotopes decay. The residual uranium is reprocessed to be used in new fuel rods. The facility also separates lithium-6 from natural lithium for use in thermonuclear weapons. According to Vanunu, the average weekly production is 1.2 kilograms of pure plutonium, enough for 4-12 nuclear weapons per year.
  • Machon 3 – The facility includes processing of natural uranium for the reactor, and conversion of lithium 6 into a solid for use in thermo-nuclear warheads.
  • Machon 4 – This facility is dedicated to the treatment of radioactive waste products. It includes a waste treatment plant and high-level waste storage. Low-level waste is mixed with tar, taken out in cans and buried nearby.
  • Machon 5 – Uranium from Machon 3 is made into rods coated in aluminum to be sent to the reactor.
  • Machon 6 – Supply of services to other Machons, including electricity, steam and specialized chemicals (nitrogen etc). It also hosts emergency electrical generators.
  • Machon 7 – Unknown – may no longer exist.
  • Machon 8 – Large laboratory for testing purity of samples from Machon 2, experiments on new processes. A secret unit (Unit 840) has been making enriched uranium since 1979-80 on a production scale. This may consist of a gas centifuge faclity for the production of enriched uranium.
  • Machon 9 – A laser isotope separation facility can be used to enrich uranium and to increase the proportion of isotope plutonium-239 in plutonium.
  • Machon 10 – Depleted uranium made into tips of shells for Israeli use and for export to Switzerland.

Israel may have developed a nuclear weapons capability incorporating enriched uranium. Up to 100 kilograms of enriched uranium missing from a facility at Apollo, Pennsylvania, are believed to have been taken to Israel, although other reports suggest that much of the material was recovered from the floors and ventilation ducts of the plant when it was decommissioned. In 1968, 200 tons of uranium ore disappeared from a ship in the Mediterranean Sea and probably diverted to Israel.

Plutonium production reactors which are both cooled and moderated by heavy water [like the Israeli reactor at Dimona] require about 0.75 tons of heavy water per thermal megawatt, and lose about 0.5 % of this heavy water each year.

“Dimona needed about 18t of heavy water to start operation…. France very likely agreed to supply Dimona’s heavy water along with the reactor…. From 1959 to 1963 Israel imported 20t from Norway and 3.9t from the United States. This would supply Dimona indefinitely if the reactor stayed at its rated power of 24 megawatts…. For the reactor to produce the 40 kilograms of plutonium per year described by Vanunu, it would have had to be scaled up to more than 100 megawatts…. If the amount of coolant were quadrupled, which could allow quadrupled power, Dimona would need about 36t of heavy water — 12t of moderator and 24t of coolant. The 36t is slightly less than the total that Israel could have received from Norway, the United States, and France.” HEAVY WATER CHEATERS by Gary Milhollin Foreign Policy Winter 1987-1988, p. 100-119.

Source

Why Not Crippling Sanctions for Israel and the US?

Mass demonstration planned outside Israel’s Ofer prison holding 11,000 Palestinian political prisoners

Israeli navy fires on Gaza fisherman/UN report on Gaza Crisis

Israel’s former prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has been indicted on three counts of corruption

Published in: on September 1, 2009 at 8:19 am  Comments Off on Israel’s Dirty Nuclear Secrets, Human experiments and WMD  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Army rabbi ‘gave out hate leaflet to troops’,Israel: ’We Could Destroy All European Capitals’

rabbi-avi-ronzki_

By Ben Lynfield in Jerusalem

January 27  2009

The Israeli army’s chief rabbinate gave soldiers preparing to enter the Gaza Strip a booklet implying that all Palestinians are their mortal enemies and advising them that cruelty is sometimes a “good attribute”.

The booklet, entitled Go Fight My Fight: A Daily Study Table for the Soldier and Commander in a Time of War, was published especially for Operation Cast Lead, the devastating three-week campaign launched with the stated aim of ending rocket fire against southern Israel. The publication draws on the teachings of Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, head of the Jewish fundamentalist Ateret Cohanim seminary in Jerusalem.

In one section, Rabbi Aviner compares Palestinians to the Philistines, a people depicted in the Bible as a war-like menace and existential threat to Israel.

In another, the army rabbinate appears to be encouraging soldiers to disregard the international laws of war aimed at protecting civilians, according to Breaking the Silence, the group of Israeli ex-soldiers who disclosed its existence. The booklet cites the renowned medieval Jewish sage Maimonides as saying that “one must not be enticed by the folly of the Gentiles who have mercy for the cruel”.

Breaking the Silence is calling for the firing of the chief military rabbi, Brigadier-General Avi Ronzki, over the booklet. The army had no comment on the matter yesterday.

Rabbi Arik Ascherman, the executive director of the Rabbis for Human Rights group, called the booklet “very worrisome”, adding “[this is] a minority position in Judaism that doesn’t understand the … necessity of distinguishing between combatants and civilians.”

Source

Israeli Professor: ’We Could Destroy All European Capitals’

January 26 2009

An Israeli professor and military historian hinted that Israel could avenge the holocaust by annihilating millions of Germans and other Europeans.

Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Crevel said Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.

“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.”

Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, pointed out that “collective deportation” was Israel’s only meaningful strategy towards the Palestinian people.

“The Palestinians should all be deported. The people who strive for this (the Israeli government) are waiting only for the right man and the right time. Two years ago, only 7 or 8 per cent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 per cent, and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent.”

Creveld said he was sure that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wanted to deport the Palestinians.

“I think it’s quite possible that he wants to do that. He wants to escalate the conflict. He knows that nothing else we do will succeed.”

Asked if he was worried about Israel becoming a rogue state if it carried out a genocidal deportation against Palestinians, Creveld quoted former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who said “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”

Creveld argued that Israel wouldn’t care much about becoming a rogue state.

“Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that this will happen before Israel goes under.”

Source

Israel must be disarmed. They are a threat to all of Europe. Would they do it of course they would why wouldn’t they?

A few Testimonies From Soldiers:

Rank: first sergeant

Unit: Golani

Description:

I remember instances– an instance where Israeli Arabs who came out from Jenin at night at a late enough hour and it was very suspicious… Israeli Arabs who came out from Jenin– I checked– I checked their ID cards– in our post there was a placard about how forged ID cards look– their ID cards were simply a little old.

Interviewer: Regular blue cards?

Regular blue cards– the picture was cut with straight corners rather than rounded corners and that was one of the elements– it seems that that was one of the elements of the new ID cards– someone who got his ID in the 1970s which would be very logical for someone who is thirty.

Interviewer: He has an old ID

He has an old ID, not forged, we thought that we were talking here about…

Interviewer: That someone is trying to get around you?

Exactly, to get around, someone who looks like an Israeli is trying to pass into Israel– it was very worrying … they were taken but there was no proportionality– we took them and tied them up and did a kind of Shabaq investigation we crosschecked them we talked with them we yelled at them we blindfolded them we didn’t urinate on them or do anything horrible but we scared them a lot we used psychological intimidation on these two it cam–

Interviewer: What did you do?

What?

Interviewer: How do you psychologically intimidate– how did you do that?

We tied them up, blindfolded them, stripped them completely, put them into the posts…

Interviewer: Completely?  Naked naked?

No, underwear, underwear, we put them in one of the posts, anti-fire posts, fire-resistant posts– that way it’s claustrophobic– you feel these four people yelling at him you liar you terrorist

Interviewer: Was there also physical violence there?

I, I’m sure, look, I’m sure that there were also those things, I already don’t remember.  Little by little it sunk in that they were Israelis, their Hebrew was good enough, their stories matched, the police came and we gave them to the officers.

Interviewer: How much time were they with you in the “investigation”?

Two hours, an hour and a half.

Interviewer: And after how much time did you call the police?

No, at the beginning we notified the brigade– I don’t think– we didn’t want to do– that is to say

Interviewer: The police took them?

Yes– I don’t know if I…

Rank: Sergeant

Unit: Nahal brigade

Place of incident: Atarot-Kalandia

Description:

10/2000

There wasn’t really a checkpoint in Kalandia [at that time]. We would stand there at the fence of the airport, as if this was aiding the guys who were guarding the airport. There were riots and we would shoot… how do you call it –

Rubber [rubber coated metal bullets].

Rubber, stun grenades. And all the time we were playing ‘Catch’ with the kids throwing stones. We would set traps for them there.

What do you mean by traps?

Traps, let me give you a somewhat funny example. We would put a can with a stun grenade inside, take out the safety pin, and place on it sweets, desserts that we would take from the kitchen. Then the kids would come, look at them and when they picked it up, the grenade would explode in their face. That’s one. I’ll give you another example. There was a couch that they would move all day, so we would booby trap the couch with stun grenades.

Where was this couch placed?

It was placed in the middle of where we were… there was a certain place where they would throw stones. And we were sick of them, like, taking the couch. So we (grinning)… and my platoon commander were wounded during this. He tried to set a trap and a stun grenade blew up in his hand, such things, it was a period then… And let me tell you, it was a crazy time.

Rank: Staff sergeant

Unit: Armored forces

Place of incident: Daharia junction

Description: Daharia junction. South Daharia. Palestinians pass through that roadblock on their way to work in Be’er-Sheva. They have to pass; some on foot. Tens of Palestinians a day. One of the officers wanted to keep the order, wanted them to stand in a straight line – like a ruler. He ran beside them and made them straighten up. They didn’t do it well enough, so the first person he saw at the beginning – about 50 years old with an 8-year-old kid or something similar, a little boy – the officer shot in the air and they straightened up. And on another occasion…

To straighten up the line?

To straighten up the line. And on another occasion he just beat the hell out of a person… He hit the man’s face with the handle of his rifle, kicked him in the groins, spat on him, cursed him – simply went berserk. In front of the man’s little boy. He just humiliated him.

Rank: Staff Sergeant

Unit: Paratroops

Place of incident: South Mount Hebron

Description:

Late 2001

Beside ordinary roadblocks, we would also block the main access roads. What does ‘block the main access roads’ mean? They give you an enormous Volvo mechanical shovel, they say: drive along Road no.60, and block any side-road that goes into it. OK, cool. It doesn’t matter that on some of these roads there’s somebody’s home and that he has a dirt-road leading to the main road, because the Palestinian Authority’s Public Works Division doesn’t function too well. So they didn’t pave a road to the house, just a dirt road. A command is a command, and so we would block the roads… Pretty soon we’d become bored, and of course there wasn’t an officer present, and the mechanical shovel’s driver is a bored reservist, so we started doing “Monster Truck Rally” [English in the original] – in the U.S you have these trucks with enormous wheels, we started playing this “Monster Truck Rally” game: to check what the shovel can cross and what it can lift. We would approach a house: ‘c’mon, can you hoist his car up in the air?’ – ‘Look at that, I can hoist the car, I believe I can.’ Boom! He would lift it up in the air and put it down on the path, blocking his path with his own car.

And presumably leave it like that …

Yes, leave it like that. ‘Can you…’ whatever… ‘Can you hoist his terrace?’ – ‘I don’t know, it’s heavy stone.’ – ‘C’mon, Shimon, what do you mean you can’t?’ – ‘I’ll try.’ ‘C’mon.’ Boom! Lifts up his terrace. Out of boredom you overturn peoples’ terraces, their cars. You trash them. No reason, it’s just a game. You see, I was 19-20 at the time. You give a child this enormous shovel – he can do anything… He can run wild. We did run wild. We moved boulders, blocked entrances to houses, uprooted gates. Just like that, we played with the shovel. And, of course, wherever you put up barriers, they’re open again the next day. They too have shovels. So I remember how me and my friend were pissed off that they should open these barriers. I go and put up these barriers, and fuck it the next day… It took me hours to put them up. What we did was – one time we were on a patrol, and we saw this JCB shovel and stopped and said to the guy “OK now you come with us to do a job”. I don’t know where he was going, but we appropriated his JCB for a couple of hours and used it to put up barriers.

You appropriated a Palestinian shovel …

Complete with the Palestinian guy inside. We said, ‘now you block all these roads.’ We did it all over again, put all the barriers up again. We detained him for maybe 2-3 hours. I don’t know for how long. Just out of boredom. No other reason.

Rank: First Sergeant

Place of incident: Nablus

Description:

End of 2003

There was an operation where we were supposed to enter the city. We called it “Yossi Bachar’s Horror Show”. Aviv Kohavi was replaced by Yossi Bachar. You know, every new brigade commander wants to leave an impression, wants to make a big entrance. He got us into this completely useless operation… and in the end of this operation there was this part when we put ‘New-Jerseys’ roadblocks, those plastic roadblocks. So we were putting these New-Jersey’s roadblocks, and the battalion commander gave an order… because we put these New Jerseys to block the traffic… in Nablus… Getting to the point, we put these New Jerseys and the kids there, those who throw stones all the time, would come and move them away. There was a mess. We couldn’t… In the beginning we would put the New Jerseys and the local residents would move them away, so we put it again, and then there were riots and stown throwing and it became a complete mess. Then the battalion commander gave the order: “Whoever touches the roadblock, the New Jerseys, must be shot in the legs.” Live ammunition. Shoot his legs. We were, I was, supposed to do it. In my Army vehicle there was talk, and we asked whether he was out of his mind; a person touches the roadblock – are we to shoot him in the legs? [We thought] he was just making noise.

Apparently this specific battalion commander. thought very highly of setting personal example. In a roadblock he came to – I was not personally there, but the guys from the commanding crew [soldiers who join the commander on operations]… And actually this was a known case: the man drove his jeep next to some New Jersey, and saw this kid touching it – apparently at some distance – and aimed at the kid’s leg. But, you know, instead of hitting the kid in the legs he hit him in the chest, and killed him. For touching a New Jersey. If you’ll excuse me, I do not think of touching a New Jersey as a reason for death.

How do you know the kid is dead?

Hear say. But the kid is dead. This is a well-known story. We got back to base from this operation, we talked, and then the guys who were with the commanding crew say: “Hey guys, *** killed a kid, a kid murderer, kid murderer, he killed a kid.” They told us the story. People who saw it happen. I’m pretty sure. I cannot think that someone went and checked his pulse, but not many kids survive a bullet in the chest.

There are many more.

Breaking the Silence- Soldiers’ Testimonies From Hebron 2005-2007,

Break the Silence 2

Break the Silence 3

Indexed List of all Stories in Archives


Published in: on January 28, 2009 at 4:01 am  Comments Off on Army rabbi ‘gave out hate leaflet to troops’,Israel: ’We Could Destroy All European Capitals’  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Canada signs Nuclear deal with India

January 22 2009

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has signed a memorandum of understanding on next-generation reactors for India as the Canadian government closes in on a nuclear co-operation deal with the South Asian nation.

It’s a watershed moment for Canada, which angrily stopped nuclear co-operation with India in 1974 after the government used plutonium from a Canadian reactor to build an atomic bomb.

International Trade Minister Stockwell Day made the announcement Thursday from Mumbai, where he was wrapping up a four-day trade mission with some of the top CEOs of Canada’s nuclear industry.

At the urging of the United States, the international community agreed last September to lift the three-decade ban on nuclear trade with India — even though India still refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The end of the moratorium has sparked a global sales rush to the rising economic power, which wants to build 25 to 30 new reactors in coming years. It has also left nuclear non-proliferation advocates deeply uneasy.

“The signals we got very clearly from the government here is that there is room for Canada, there’s room for Canada’s industry and they want Canada involved,” Day said from Mumbai.

Indian officials are very interested in buying Canadian components, uranium and hazardous waste treatment systems, Day said.

AECL, the troubled Crown corporation that has recently undergone a privatization review by the Conservative government, signed a deal this week with a leading Indian engineering firm to start costing out Candu ACR-1000 reactors — the prelude to a possible sale.

A formal government-to-government agreement permitting international nuclear inspections must be finalized before any commercial deals are sealed.

“It represents a huge opportunity for Canada and for the Canadian nuclear industry as a whole, not just AECL,” said Dale Coffin, a spokesman for the corporation.

Day said he expects uranium sales from Canadian giant Cameco Corp., whose senior executives accompanied Day on the trade mission, could “move ahead very quickly.”

Source

Just a couple of more reasons to remove the conservatives from power.

That coalition Government is looking better all the time.

Nuclear Reactors are not the way to go.

They are dangerous.

Wind energy or solar would be a better alternative.

A safer  way to go as well.

Radiation is anything but safe.

Just because the US says it’s ok, does not mean it’s ok either.

If the US tells Canada to go jump off a Bridge, will they do that too.

Privatization I think not. This type of entity should never be in the hands of any private Company.  Just goes to show how stupid,  stupid really  is.

India must also sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I wouldn’t be to quick to give them anything until they do. They have already proven that they will not keep their word. Why would anyone give them a second chance considering they haven’t signed the Treaty and all.

Even Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India should too. Especially if they want Nuclear Reactors. Otherwise the agreement should be scraped.

Nuclear is not the way for any country to go. There are alternatives. Unless of course they want their cancer rates to increase.

So one has to wonder, who is in charge of Canada?

Canada or the US?

Published in: on January 25, 2009 at 7:27 am  Comments Off on Canada signs Nuclear deal with India  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

War “Pollution” Equals Millions of Deaths

New stories are added as I find them.

All new links are at the bottom of the page.

Iraq War Pollution Equals 25 Million Cars

Burning Oil in Iraq

Photo: Burning oil fields in Iraq by Shawn Baldwin

The greenhouse gases released by the Iraq war thus far equals the pollution from adding 25 million cars to the road for one year says a study released by Oil Change International, an anti petroleum watchdog.  The group’s main concerns are the environmental and human rights impacts of a petroleum based economy.

The study, released last March on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, states that total US spending on the war so far equals the global investment needed through 2030 to halt global warming.

Of course skeptics and oil companies will be right to ask how these numbers were calculated.  The group claims Iraq war emissions estimates come from combat, oil well fires, increaesd gas flaring, increased cement manufacturing for reconstruction, and explosives.

The Report: A Climate of War

Source


“Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.” – 1992 Rio Declaration

The application of weapons, the destruction of structures and oil fields, fires, military transport movements and chemical spraying are all examples of the destroying impact war may have on the environment. Air, water and soil are polluted, man and animal are killed, and numerous health affects occur among those still living. This page is about the environmental effects of wars and incidents leading to war that have occurred in the 20th and 21st century.

Timeline of wars

Africa

“My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can’t deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars” – Guns ‘n Roses (Civil War)

In Africa many civil wars and wars between countries occurred in the past century, some of which are still continuing. Most wars are a result of the liberation of countries after decades of colonialization. Countries fight over artificial borders drawn by former colonial rulers. Wars mainly occur in densely populated regions, over the division of scarce resources such as fertile farmland. It is very hard to estimate the exact environmental impact of each of these wars. Here, a summary of some of the most striking environmental effects, including biodiversity loss, famine, sanitation problems at refugee camps and over fishing is given for different countries.

Congo war (II) – Since August 1998 a civil war is fought in former Zaire, now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The war eventually ended in 2003 when a Transitional Government took power. A number of reasons are given for the conflict, including access and control of water resources and rich minerals and political agendas. Currently over 3 million people have died in the war, mostly from disease and starvation. More than 2 million people have become refugees. Only 45% of the people had access to safe drinking water. Many women were raped as a tool of intimidation, resulting in a rapid spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV-AIDS. The war has a devastating effect on the environment. National parks housing endangered species are often affected for exploitation of minerals and other resources. Refugees hunt wildlife for bush meat, either to consume or sell it. Elephant populations in Africa have seriously declined as a result of ivory poaching. Farmers burn parts of the forest to apply as farmland, and corporate logging contributes to the access of poachers to bush meat. A survey by the WWF showed that the hippopotamus population in one national park decreased from 29,000 thirty years previously, to only 900 in 2005. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) listed all five parks as ‘world heritage in danger’.

Ethiopia & Eritrea – Before 1952, Eritrea was a colony of Italy. When it was liberated, Ethiopia annexed the country. Thirty years of war over the liberation of Eritrea followed, starting in 1961 and eventually ending with the independence of Eritrea in 1993. However, war commenced a year after the country introduced its own currency in 1997. Over a minor border dispute, differences in ethnicity and economic progress, Ethiopia again attacked Eritrea. The war lasted until June 2000 and resulted in the death of over 150,000 Eritrean, and of hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians. During the war severe drought resulted in famine, particularly because most government funds were spend on weapons and other war instrumentation. The government estimated that after the war only 60% of the country received adequate food supplies. The war resulted in over 750,000 refugees. It basically destroyed the entire infrastructure. Efforts to disrupt agricultural production in Eritrea resulted in changes in habitat. The placing of landmines has caused farming or herding to be very dangerous in most parts of the country. If floods occur landmines may be washed into cities. This has occurred earlier in Mozambique.

Rwanda civil war – Between April and July 1994 extremist military Hutu groups murdered about 80,000-1,000,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda. Over 2,000,000 people lost their homes and became refugees. Rwanda has a very rich environment, however, it has a particularly limited resource base. About 95% of the population lives on the countryside and relies on agriculture. Some scientists believe that competition for scarce land and resources led to violence prior to and particularly after the 1994 genocide. It is however stated that resource scarcity only contributed limitedly to the conflict under discussion. The main cause of the genocide was the death of the president from a plane-crash caused by missiles fires from a camp.

The many refugees from the 1994 combat caused a biodiversity problem. When they returned to the already overpopulated country after the war, they inhabited forest reserves in the mountains where endangered gorillas lived. Conservation of gorilla populations was no longer effective, and refuges destroyed part of the habitat. Despite the difficulties still present in Rwanda particularly concerning security and resource provision, an international gorilla protection group is now working on better conditions for the gorillas in Rwanda.

Somalia civil war – A civil war was fought in Somalia 1991. One of the most striking effects of the war was over fishing. The International Red Cross was encouraging the consumption of seawater fish to improve diets of civilians. For self-sufficiency they provided training and fishing equipment. However, as a consequence of war Somali people ignored international fishing protocols, thereby seriously harming ecology in the region. Fishing soon became an unsustainable practise, and fishermen are hard to stop because they started carrying arms. They perceive over fishing as a property right and can therefore hardly be stopped.

Sudan (Darfur & Chad) – In Sudan civil war and extreme droughts caused a widespread famine, beginning in 1983. Productive farmland in the southern region was abandoned during the war. Thousands of people became refugees that left behind their land, possibly never to return. Attempts of remaining farmers to cultivate new land to grow crops despite the drought led to desertification and soil erosion. The government failed to act for fear of losing its administrative image abroad, causing the famine to kill an estimated 95,000 of the total 3,1 million residents of the province Darfur. As farmers started claiming more and more land, routes applied by herders were closed off. This resulted in conflicts between farmers and rebels groups. In 2003, a conflict was fought in Darfur between Arab Sudanese farmers and non-Arab Muslims. The Muslim group is called Janjaweed, a tribe mainly consisting of nomadic sheep and cattle herders. Originally the Janjaweed were part of the Sudanese and Darfurian militia, and were armed by the Sudanese government to counter rebellion. However, they started utilizing the weapons against non-Muslim civilians. The tribe became notorious for massacre in 2003-2004. In December 2005 the conflict continued across the border, now involving governmental army troops from Chad, and the rebel groups Janjaweed and United Front for Democratic Change from Sudan. In February 2006 the governments of Chad and Sudan signed a peace treaty called the Tripoli Agreement. Unfortunately a new rebel assault of the capital of Chad in April made Chad break all ties with Sudan. The Darfur Conflict so far caused the death of between 50,000 and 450,000 civilians. It caused over 45,000 people to flea the countries of Sudan and Central Africa, into north and east Chad. Most refugees claim they fled civilian attacks from rebel forces, looting food and recruiting young men to join their troops.

America

Pearl Harbor (WWII) – When World War II began, Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Consequentially, the United States closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping, and initiated a complete oil embargo. Japan, being dependent on US oil, responded to the embargo violently. On December 1941, Japanese troops carried out a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, aimed at the US Navy stationed there. Despite the awareness that Japan might attack, the US was surprisingly unprepared for the Japanese aggression. There were no aircraft patrols, and anti-aircraft weapons were not manned.

For the attack five Japanese submarines were present in the harbor to launch torpedos. One was discovered immediately, and attacked by the USS Ward. All five submarines sank, and at least three of them have not been located since. As Japanese bombers arrived they began firing at US marine airbases across Hawaii, and subsequently battle ships in Pearl Harbor. Eighteen ships sank, including five battleships, and a total of more than 2,000 Americans were killed in action. The explosion of the USS Arizona caused half of the casualties. The ship was hit by a bomb, burned for two days in a row, and subsequently sank to the bottom. The cloud of black smoke over the boat was mainly caused by burning black powder from the magazine for aircraft catapults aboard the ship.

Leaking fuel from the Arizona and other ships caught fire, and caused more ships to catch fire. Of the 350 Japanese planes taking part in the attack, 29 were lost. Over sixty Japanese were killed in actions, most of them airmen.

Today, three battle ships are still at the bottom of the harbor. Four others were raised and reused. The USS Arizona, being the most heavily damaged ship during the attack, continues to leak oil from the hulk into the harbor. However, the wreck is maintained, because it now serves as part of a war memorial.

World Trade Centre explosion – The so-called ‘War on Terrorism’ the United States are fighting in Asia currently all started with the event we recall so well from the shocking images projected on news bulletins. On September 11, 2001, terrorists flew airplanes into the buildings of the World Trade Centre. It is now claimed that the attack and simultaneous collapse of the Twin Towers caused a serious and acute environmental disaster.

We will live in the death smog for a while,
breathing the dust of the dead,
the 3 thousand or so who turn to smoke,
as the giant ashtray in Lower Manhattan
continues to give up ghosts.
The dead are in us now,
locked in our chests,
staining our lungs,
polluting our bloodstreams.
And though we cover our faces with flags
and other pieces of cloth to filter the air,
the spirits of the dead aren’t fooled
by our masks
.” Lawrence Swan, 05-10-2001

As the planes hit the Twin Towers more than 90.000 litres of jet fuel burned at temperatures above 1000oC. An atmospheric plume formed, consisting of toxic materials such as metals, furans, asbestos, dioxins, PAH, PCB and hydrochloric acid. Most of the materials were fibres from the structure of the building. Asbestos levels ranged from 0.8-3.0% of the total mass. PAH comprised more than 0.1% of the total mass, and PCBs less than 0.001% of total mass. At the site now called Ground Zero, a large pile of smoking rubble burned intermittently for more than 3 months. Gaseous and particulate particles kept forming long after the towers had collapsed.


Aerial photograph of the plume

The day of the attacks dust particles of various sizes spread over lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, for many miles. Fire fighters and medics working at the WTC were exposed, but also men and women on the streets and in nearby buildings, and children in nearby schools. In vivo inhalation studies and epidemiological studies pointed out the impact of the dust cloud. Health effects from inhaling dust included bronchial hyper reactivity, because of the high alkalinity of dust particles. Other possible health effects include coughs, an increased risk of asthma and a two-fold increase in the number of small-for-gestational-age baby’s among pregnant women present in or nearby the Twin Towers at the time of the attack. After September, airborne pollutant concentrations in nearby communities declined.

Many people present at the WTC at the time of the attacks are still checked regularly, because long-term effects may eventually show. It is thought there may be an increased risk of development of mesothelioma, consequential to exposure to asbestos. This is a disease where malignant cells develop in the protective cover of the body’s organs. Airborne dioxins in the days and weeks after the attack may increase the risk of cancer and diabetes. Infants of women that were pregnant on September 11 and had been in the vicinity of the WTC at the time of the attack are also checked for growth or developmental problems.

Asia

Afghanistan war – In October 2001, the United States attacked Afghanistan as a starting chapter of the ‘War on terrorism’, which still continues today. The ultimate goal was to replace the Taliban government, and to find apparent 9/11 mastermind and Al-Qaeda member Osama Bin Laden. Many European countries assisted the US in what was called ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’.

During the war, extensive damage was done to the environment, and many people suffered health effects from weapons applied to destroy enemy targets. It is estimated that ten thousand villages, and their surrounding environments were destroyed. Safe drinking water declined, because of a destruction of water infrastructure and resulting leaks, bacterial contamination and water theft. Rivers and groundwater were contaminated by poorly constructed landfills located near the sources.

Afghanistan once consisted of major forests watered by monsoons. During the war, Taliban members illegally trading timber in Pakistan destroyed much of the forest cover. US bombings and refugees in need of firewood destroyed much of what remained. Less than 2% of the country still contains a forest cover today.

Bombs threaten much of the country’s wildlife. One the world’s important migratory thoroughfare leads through Afghanistan. The number of birds now flying this route has dropped by 85%. In the mountains many large animals such as leopards found refuge, but much of the habitat is applied as refuge for military forces now. Additionally, refugees capture leopards and other large animals are and trade them for safe passage across the border.

Pollution from application of explosives entered air, soil and water. One example is cyclonite, a toxic substance that may cause cancer. Rocket propellants deposited perchlorates, which damage the thyroid gland. Numerous landmines left behind in Afghan soils still cause the deaths of men, women and children today.

Cambodia civil war – In 1966 the Prince of Cambodia began to lose the faith of many for failure to come to grips with the deteriorating economic situation. In 1967 rebellion started in a wealthy province where many large landowners lives. Villagers began attacking the tax collection brigade, because taxes were invested in building large factories, causing land to be taken. This led to a bloody civil war. Before the conflict could be repressed 10,000 people had died.

The rebellion caused the up rise of the Khmer Rouge, a Maoist-extremist organization that wanted to introduce communism in the country. In 1975 the organization, led by Pol Pot, officially seized power in Cambodia. The Khmer considered farmers (proletarians) to be the working class, as did Mao in China earlier. Schools, hospitals and banks were closed, the country was isolated from all foreign influence, and people were moved to the countryside for forced labor. People were obligated to work up to 12 hours a day, growing three times as many crops, as was usually the case. Many people died there from exhaustion, illness and starvation, or where shot by the Khmer on what was known as ‘The Killing Fields’.

The Khmer Rouge regime resulted in deforestation, caused by extensive timber logging to finance war efforts, agricultural clearance, construction, logging concessions and collection of wood fuels. A total 35% of the Cambodian forest cover was lost under the Maoist regime. Deforestation resulted in severe floods, damaging rice crops and causing food shortages. In 1993, a ban on logging exports was introduced to prevent further flooding damage.

In 1979 the Khmer Rouge regime ended with an invasion by Vietnam, and the installation of a pro-Vietnamese puppet government. Subsequently, Thai and Chinese forces attempted to liberate the country from Vietnamese dominance. Many landmines were placed in the 1980’s, and are still present in the countryside. They deny agricultural use of the land where they are placed. In 1992 free elections were introduced, but the Khmer Rouge resumed fighting. Eventually, half of the Khmer soldiers left in 1996, and many officials were captured. Under the Khmer regime, a total of 1.7 million people died, and the Khmer was directly responsible for about 750,000 of those casualties.

Hiroshima & Nagasaki nuclear explosions – Atomic bombs are based on the principle of nuclear fission, which was discovered in Nazi Germany in 1938 by two radio chemists. During the process, atoms are split and energy is released in the form of heat. Controlled reactions are applied in nuclear power plants for production of electricity, whereas unchecked reactions occur during nuclear bombings. The invention in Germany alarmed people in the United States, because the Nazi’s in possession of atomics bombs would be much more dangerous than they already where. When America became involved in WWII, the development of atomic bombs started there in what was called the ‘Manhattan Project’. In July 1945 an atomic bomb was tested in the New Mexico desert. The tests were considered a success, and America was now in possession of one of the world’s deadliest weapons.

In 1945, at the end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, nuclear weapons were applied to kill for the first time in Japan. On August 6, a uranium bomb by the name of Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, followed by a plutonium bomb by the name of Fat Man on Nagasaki on August 9. The reason Hiroshima was picked was that it was a major military centre. The bomb detonated at 8.15 p.m. over a Japanese Army parade field, where soldiers were already present. Nagasaki was picked because it was an industrial centre. The bomb, which was much larger than that used on Hiroshima, exploded at 11.02 a.m. at an industrial site. However, the hills on and the geographical location of the bombing site caused the eventual impact to be smaller than days earlier in Hiroshima.

The first impact of the atomic bombings was a blinding light, accompanied by a giant wave of heat. Dry flammable materials caught fire, and all men and animals within half a mile from the explosion sites died instantly. Many structures collapsed, in Nagasaki even the structures designed to survive earthquakes were blasted away. Many water lines broke. Fires could not be extinguished because of the water shortage, and six weeks after the blast the city still suffered from a lack of water. In Hiroshima a number of small fires combined with wind formed a firestorm, killing those who did not die before but were left immobile for some reason. Within days after the blasts, radiation sickness started rearing its ugly head, and many more people would die from it within the next 5 years.

The total estimated death toll:
In Hiroshima 100,000 were killed instantly, and between 100,000 and 200,000 died eventually.
In Nagasaki about 40,000 were killed instantly, and between 70,000 and 150,000 died eventually.

The events of August 6 and August 9 can be translated into environmental effects more literally. The blasts caused air pollution from dust particles and radioactive debris flying around, and from the fires burning everywhere. Many plants and animals were killed in the blast, or died moments to months later from radioactive precipitation. Radioactive sand clogged wells used for drinking water winning, thereby causing a drinking water problem that could not easily be solved. Surface water sources were polluted, particularly by radioactive waste. Agricultural production was damaged; dead stalks of rice could be found up to seven miles from ground zero. In Hiroshima the impact of the bombing was noticeable within a 10 km radius around the city, and in Nagasaki within a 1 km radius.

Iraq & Kuwait – The Gulf War was fought between Iraq, Kuwait and a number of western countries in 1991. Kuwait had been part of Iraq in the past, but was liberated by British imperialism, as the Iraqi government described it. In August 1990, Iraqi forces claimed that the country was illegally extracting oil from Iraqi territory, and attacked. The United Nations attempted to liberate Kuwait. Starting January 1991, Operation Desert Storm began, with the purpose of destroying Iraqi air force and anti-aircraft facilities, and command and control facilities. The battle was fought in Iraq, Kuwait and the Saudi-Arabian border region. Both aerial and ground artillery was applied. Late January, Iraqi aircraft were flown to Iran, and Iraqi forces began to flee.

The Gulf War was one of the most environmentally devastating wars ever fought. Iraq dumped approximately one million tons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf, thereby causing the largest oil spill in history (see environmental disasters). Approximately 25,000 migratory birds were killed. The impact on marine life was not as severe as expected, because warm water sped up the natural breakdown of oil. Local prawn fisheries did experience problems after the war. Crude oil was also spilled into the desert, forming oil lakes covering 50 square kilometres. In due time the oil percolated into groundwater aquifers.

Fleeing Iraqi troops ignited Kuwaiti oil sources, releasing half a ton of air pollutants into the atmosphere. Environmental problems caused by the oil fires include smog formation and acid rain. Toxic fumes originating from the burning oil wells compromised human health, and threatened wildlife. A soot layer was deposited on the desert, covering plants, and thereby preventing them from breathing. Seawater was applied to extinguish the oil fires, resulting in increased salinity in areas close to oil wells. It took about nine months to extinguish the fires.

During the war, many dams and sewage water treatment plants were targeted and destroyed. A lack of possibilities for water treatment resulting from the attacks caused sewage to flow directly into the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Additionally, pollutants seeped from bombed chemical plants into the rivers. Drinking water extracted from the river was polluted, resulting in widespread disease. For example, cases of typhoid fever have increased tenfold since 1991.

Movement of heavy machinery such as tanks through the desert damaged the brittle surface, causing soil erosion. Sand was uncovered that formed gradually moving sand dunes. These dunes may one day cause problems for Kuwait City. Tanks fired Depleted Uranium (DU) missiles, which can puncture heavy artillery structures. DU is a heavy metal that causes kidney damage and is suspected to be teratogenic and carcinogenic. Post-Gulf War reports state an increase in birth defects for children born to veterans. The impact of Depleted Uranium could not be thoroughly investigated after the Gulf War, because Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate. Its true properties were revealed after the Kosovo War in 2001 (description below). DU has now been identified as a neurotoxin, and birth defects and cancers are attributed to other chemical and nerve agents. However, it is stated that DU oxides deposited in the lungs of veterans have not been thoroughly researched yet. It was later found that this may cause kidney and lung infections for highly exposed persons.

After the Gulf War many veterans suffered from a condition now known as the Gulf War Syndrome. The causes of the illness are subject to widespread speculation. Examples of possible causes are exposure to DU (see above), chemical weapons (nerve gas and mustard gas), an anthrax vaccine given to 41% of US soldiers and 60-75% of UK soldiers, smoke from burning oil wells and parasites. Symptoms of the GWS included chronic fatigue, muscle problems, diarrhoea, migraine, memory loss, skin problems and shortness of breath. Many Gulf War veterans have died of illnesses such as brain cancer, now acknowledged as potentially connected to service during the war.

Iraq & the United States – The war in Iraq started by the United States in 2003 as part of the War on Terrorism causes poverty, resulting in environmental problems. Long-term environmental effects of the war remain unclear, but short-term problems have been identified for every environmental compartment. For example, some weapons are applied that may be extremely damaging to the environment, such as white phosphorus ammunition. People around the world protest the application of such armoury.

Water
Damage to sanitation structures by frequent bombing, and damage to sewage treatment systems by power blackouts cause pollution of the River Tigris. Two hundred blue plastic containers containing uranium were stolen from a nuclear power plant located south of Baghdad. The radioactive content of the barrels was dumped in rivers and the barrels were rinsed out. Poor people applied the containers as storage facility for water, oil and tomatoes, or sold them to others. Milk was transported to other regions in the barrels, making it almost impossible to relocate them.

Air
Oil trenches are burning, as was the case in the Gulf War of 1991, resulting in air pollution. In Northern Iraq, a sulphur plant burned for one month, contributing to air pollution. As fires continue burning, groundwater applied as a drinking water source may be polluted.

Soil
Military movements and weapon application result in land degradation. The destruction of military and industrial machinery releases heavy metals and other harmful substances.

Read more on restoring water systems in Iraq

Israel & Lebanon – In July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket attack on Israeli borders. A ground patrol killed and captured Israeli soldiers. This resulted in open war between Israel and Lebanon.

The war caused environmental problems as Israelis bombed a power station south of Beirut. Damaged storage tanks leaked an estimated 20,000 tons of oil into the Mediterranean Sea. The oil spill spread rapidly, covering over 90 km of the coastline, killing fish and affecting the habitat of the endangered green sea turtle. A sludge layer covers Beaches across Lebanon, and the same problem may occur in Syria as the spill continues to spread. Part of the oil spill burned, causing widespread air pollution. Smog affects the health of people living in the city of Beirut. So far problems limiting the clean-up operation of oil spills have occurred, because of ongoing violence in the region.

Another major problem were forest fires in Northern Israel caused by Hezbollah bombings. A total of 9,000 acres of forest burned to the ground, and fires threaten tree reserves and bird sanctuaries.

Russia & Chechnya – In 1994 the First Chechen War of independence started, between Russian troops, Chechen guerrilla fighters and civilians. Chechnya has been a province of Russia for a very long time and now desires independence. The First War ended in 1996, but in 1999 Russia again attacked Chechnya for purposes of oil distribution.

The war between the country and its province continues today. It has devastating effects on the region of Chechnya. An estimated 30% of Chechen territory is contaminated, and 40% of the territory does not meet environmental standards for life. Major environmental problems include radioactive waste and radiation, oil leaks into the ground from bombarded plants and refineries, and pollution of soil and surface water. Russia has buried radioactive waste in Chechnya. Radiation at some sites is ten times its normal level. Radiation risks increase as Russia bombs the locations, particularly because after 1999 the severeness of weaponry increased. A major part of agricultural land is polluted to the extent that it can no longer meet food supplies. This was mainly caused by unprofessional mini-refineries of oil poachers in their backyards, not meeting official standards and causing over 50% of the product to be lost as waste. Groundwater pollution flows into the rivers Sunzha and Terek on a daily basis. On some locations the rivers are totally devoid of fish. Flora and fauna are destroyed by oil leaks and bombings.

Vietnam war – The Vietnam War started in 1945 and ended in 1975. It is now entitled a proxy war, fought during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union to prevent the necessity for the nations to fight each other directly. North Vietnam fought side by side with the Soviet Union and China, and South Vietnam with the United States, New Zealand and South Korea. It must be noted that the United States only started to be actively involved in the battle after 1963. Between 1965 and 1968 North Vietnam was bombed under Operation Rolling Thunder, in order to force the enemy to negotiate. Bombs destroyed over two million acres of land. North Vietnam forces began to strike back, and the Soviet Union delivered anti-aircraft missiles to North Vietnam. The ground war of US troops against the Viet Cong began. The United States would not retreat from Vietnam until 1973, and during those years extremely environmentally damaging weapons and war tactics were applied.

A massive herbicidal programme was carried out, in order to break the forest cover sheltering Viet Cong guerrillas, and deprive Vietnamese peasants of food. The spraying destroyed 14% of Vietnam’s forests, diminished agricultural yield, and made seeds unfit for replanting. If agricultural yield was not damaged by herbicides, it was often lost because military on the ground set fire to haystacks, and soaked land with aviation fuel en burned it. A total of 15,000 square kilometres of land were eventually destroyed. Livestock was often shot, to deprive peasant of their entire food supply. A total of 13,000 livestock were killed during the war.

The application of 72 million litres of chemical spray resulted in the death of many animals, and caused health effects with humans. One chemical that was applied between 1962 and 1971, called Agent Orange, was particularly harmful. Its main constituent is dioxin, which was present in soil, water and vegetation during and after the war. Dioxin is carcinogenic and teratogenic, and has resulted in spontaneous abortions, chloracne, skin and lung cancers, lower intelligence and emotional problems among children. Children fathered by men exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War often have congenital abnormalities. An estimated half a million children were born with dioxin-related abnormalities. Agent Orange continues to threaten the health of the Vietnamese today.

“Drafted to go to Vietnam
To fight communism in a foreign land.
To preserve democracy is my plight
Which is a God…Given…Right.
Greenery so thick with hidden enemies
Agent Orange is sprayed on the trees.
Covering me from head to toe
Irate my eyes, burns through my clothes.
Returned home when my tour was done
To be told “You have cancer, son”.
Agent Orange is to blame
Government caused your suffering and pain.
Fight for compensation is frustrating and slow
Brass cover-up, not wanting anyone to know.
From cancer many comrades have died
Medical Insurance have been denied.
Compensation I now receive
My health I hope to retrieve.
In Vietnam , I was spared my life
Just to be stabbed with an Agent Orange knife” Yvonne Legge, 2001

Today, agriculture in Vietnam continues to suffer problems from six million unexploded bombs still present. Several organisations are attempting to remove these bombs. Landmines left in Vietnam are not removed, because the Vietnamese government refuses to accept responsibility.

Europe

Kosovo war – The Kosovo war can be divided up in two separate parts: a conflict between Serbia and Kosovo, and a conflict between Kosovo and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The first conflict originated in 1996 from the statement of Slobodan Milocevic that Kosovo was to remain a part of Serbia, and from the resulting violent response of Albanian residents. When Serbian troops slaughtered 45 Albanians in the village of Racak in Kosovo in 1999, the NATO intervened. NATO launched a 4-month bombing campaign upon Serbia as a reply to the massacre at Racak.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) investigated the environmental impact of the Kosovo war. It was concluded that the war did not result in an environmental disaster affecting the entire Balkan region. Nevertheless, some environmental hot spots were identified, namely Belgrade, Pancevo, Kragujevac, Novi Sad and Bor.

Bombings carried out by the United States resulted in leakages in oil refineries and oil storage depots. Industrial sites containing other industries were also targeted. EDC (1,2-dichloroethane), PCBs en mercury escaped to the environment. Burning of Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) resulted in the formation of dioxin, hydrochloric acid, carbon monoxide and PAHs, and oil burning released sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead and PAHs into the air. Heavy clouds of black smoke forming over burning industrial targets caused black rain to fall on the area around Pancevo. Some damage was done to National Parks in Serbia by bombings, and therefore to biodiversity. EDC, mercury and petroleum products (e.g. PCBs) polluted the Danube River. These are present in the sediments and may resurface in due time. EDC is toxic to both terrestrial and aquatic life. Mercury may be converted into methyl mercury, which is very toxic and bio accumulates. As a measure to prevent the consequences of bombing, a fertilizer plant in Pancevo released liquid ammonia into the Danube River. This caused fish kills up to 30 kilometres downstream.

In 1999 when NATO bombed Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, the resulting environmental damage was enormous. Petrochemical plants in suburbs started leaking all kinds of hazardous chemicals into air, water and soil. Factories producing ammonia and plastics released chlorine, hydrochloric acid, vinyl chloride and other chlorine substances, resulting in local air pollution and health problems. Water sources were polluted by oil leaking from refineries. The Danube River was polluted by oil more severely, but this time hydrochloric acid and mercury compounds also ended up there. These remained in the water for a considering period of time and consequently ended up in neighbouring countries Rumania and Bulgaria.

Clean drinking water supplies and waste treatment plants were damaged by NATO bombings. Many people fled their houses and were moved to refugee camps, where the number of people grew rapidly. A lack of clean drinking water and sanitation problems occurred.

Like in the Gulf War, Depleted Uranium (DU) was applied in the Kosovo War to puncture tanks and other artillery. After the war, the United Kingdom assisted in the removal of DU residues from the environment. Veterans complained of health effects. It was acknowledged by the UK and the US that dusts from DU can be dangerous if inhaled. Inhalation of dust most likely results in chemical poisoning.

World War I: Trench Warfare – In 1914, the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary resulted in the First World War, otherwise known as The Great War, or WWI. It started with Austria-Hungary invading Serbia, where the assassin came from, and Germany invading Belgium. The war was mostly in Europe, between the Allies and the Central Powers.

Allies: France, United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Russia, Poland, Serbia, Montenegro, Rumania, Albania, Greece, Portugal, Finland, United States, Canada, Brazil, Armenia, Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa, Liberia, China, Japan, Thailand, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama
Central Powers: Austria-Hungary, Germany, Turkish Empire, and Bulgaria

The war was fought from trenches, dug from the North Sea to the border of Switzerland. In 1918 when the war was over, empires disintegrated into smaller countries, marking the division of Europe today. Over 9 million people had died, most of which perished from influenza after the outbreak of the Spanish Flu (see environmental disasters). The war did not directly cause the influenza outbreak, but it was amplified. Mass movement of troops and close quarters caused the Spanish Flu to spread quickly. Furthermore, stresses of war may have increased the susceptibility of soldiers to the disease.

In terms of environmental impact, World War I was most damaging, because of landscape changes caused by trench warfare. Digging trenches caused trampling of grassland, crushing of plants and animals, and churning of soil. Erosion resulted from forest logging to expand the network of trenches. Soil structures were altered severely, and if the war was never fought, in all likelihood the landscape would have looked very differently today.

Another damaging impact was the application of poison gas. Gases were spread throughout the trenches to kill soldiers of the opposite front. Examples of gases applied during WWI are tear gas (aerosols causing eye irritation), mustard gas (cell toxic gas causing blistering and bleeding), and carbonyl chloride (carcinogenic gas). The gases caused a total of 100,000 deaths, most caused by carbonyl chloride (phosgene). Battlefields were polluted, and most of the gas evaporates into the atmosphere. After the war, unexploded ammunition caused major problems in former battle areas. Environmental legislation prohibits detonation or dumping chemical weapons at sea, therefore the cleanup was and still remains a costly operation. In 1925, most WWI participants signed a treaty banning the application of gaseous chemical weapons. Chemical disarmament plants are planned in France and Belgium.

World War II: – World War II was a worldwide conflict, fought between the Allies (Britain, France and the United States as its core countries) and the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy and Japan as its core countries). It started with the German invasion of Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1939, and ended with the liberation of Western Europe by the allies in 1945.

Estimates for the total casualties of the war vary, but most suggest that some 60 million people died in the war, including about 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians.

World War II: Hunger winter – In late 1944, the allied troops attempted to liberate Western Europe. As they reached The Netherlands, German resistance caused the liberation to be halted in Arnhem, as allied troops failed to occupy a bridge over the River Rhine. As the Dutch government in exile in Britain called for railway strikes, the Germans responded by putting embargo on food transport to the west. This resulted in what is now known as the Hunger Winter, causing an estimated 20,000-25,000 Dutch to starve to death. A number of factors caused the starvation: a harsh winter, fuel shortages, the ruin of agricultural land by bombings, floods, and the food transport embargo. Most people in the west lived off tulip bulbs and sugar beet. Official food rations were below 1000 cal per person per day. In May 1945 the Hunger Winter ended with the official liberation of the west of The Netherlands.

Source

The there is this.  So what do they do with weapons of mass destruction?  Coming to an Ocean Near YOU! The cost in dollars for the pollution caused by war is staggering. The cost to human life is horrendous. The price of war to the Environment is deadly.  This is of course a Global problem.  What you don’t see can hurt you.  If you don’t know it is only because they don’t want you too. They will never tell you the true unless we as a Global community force them to. This will affect our children for many years to come. War is probably one of the worst polluters on the planet.  Stopping the WAR MACHINE is in everyone’s best interest.

Here you find tons of weapons that were dumped into the oceans among other things.

Depleated Uranium Information

The US Dumps staggering amounts of Chemical weapons in the oceans.

THE DEADLINESS BELOW

The US  still air testing bombs in the US.
US Air Testing Bombs

This to is a form of pollution a very deadly one.

Injuries and Deaths From Landmines and Unexploded Ordnance in Afghanistan, 2002-2006

This is part of the war pollution as well.
Uranium Mining, Grand Canyon now at Risk, Dangers, Pollution, History

Plague of bioweapons accidents afflicts the US

US Nuclear Weapons accidents – 1981 report

Added January 9 2009

Israel killing their own by Using Deadly Weapons of Mass Destuction again Gaza

Added November 18 2009

Doctors report “unprecedented” rise in deformities, cancers in Iraq (Photos)

Added January 9 2010

Cancer and Deformities – The Deadly Legacy of the Invasion of Iraq

NATO bombings: Aftermath takes toll on Serbia, now left with DU Poisoning (Radiation and DU fallout maps included.)

Addiction is also part of war pollution. Because of the NATO and US invasion in Afghanistan, Heroin addiction has grown like wildfire around the world. Millions are now addicted to Heroin.

Afghanistan: Troops Guarding the Poppy Fields

Hush’ over Afghan mission must end

Switzerland’s explosive war effort threatens environmental disaster

Pentagon’s Role in Global Catastrophe: Add Climate Havoc to War Crimes and War Pollution

“Military emissions abroad are exempt from national reporting requirements under U.S. law and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

Added January 3 2010

Gaza sees more newborns of malformation

Added January 24 2010

Study finds: Iraq littered with high levels of nuclear and dioxin contamination

Added March 1 2010

2.5 million Iraqi women were widowed by Iraq war

Added March 17 2010

Another Gulf War Syndrome? Burn Pits

Added March 18 2010

More Toxic waste for Veterans to deal with.

Erroneous Reports Deny our Veterans Benefits

Added July 22 2013

Najaf: A toxic “health catastrophe” – US weapons blamed for Iraq’s birth defects