Iran demands israel (apartheid state) be forced to join NPT

Iran demands Israel be forced to join NPT


SPUTNIK – Iran’s permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a biting response to his Israeli counterpart’s claim that Iran and Syria posed “significant proliferation threats” to the Middle East and the world.

Iranian IAEA Ambassador Kazem Gharibabadi urged the international community to pressure Israel to sign onto Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), saying that doing so would be the only way to bring peace to the Middle East.

Speaking at the 62nd Annual Session of the ongoing IAEA General Conference in Vienna, Gharibabadi charged Israel with threatening its neighbors, pointed to its possession of nuclear weapons, and chastised the IAEA for giving in to Israeli pressure and not following up on what he said were the country’s “dangerous” nuclear activities.

According to the ambassador, little progress has been made on nuclear disarmament, one of the NPT’s major stated objectives, in the fifty years since the treaty was signed. Gharibabadi also pointed to the Middle East Nuclear Weapon Freeze Zone idea, a UN project dating back to 1970s aimed at prohibiting nuclear weapons in the region, and how this proposal too has suffered from a “lack of political will.”

Gharibabadi’s remarks came on the heels of comments at the conference by Israel Atomic Energy Commission chairman Ze’ev Snir, who also called on the international community to take action against alleged Iranian and Syrian nuclear activities. The two countries, he said, “pose significant proliferation threats to the region and the world.”

Snir warned about an “outrageous threat” by Iran [to] attack Israeli nuclear sites, and called Tehran a threat to “regional peace and security.” The Israeli ambassador called on the IAEA to conduct a thorough verification of Iran’s activities, saying the country’s nuclear weapons ambitions were “a documented fact.”

Israel, which has a policy of neither admitting or denying the existence of a nuclear weapons program, is presently believed to be the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons, with estimates that it has anywhere between 80 and 400 warheads deliverable by a variety of air, sub and missile platforms.

Iran, an NPT signatory under observance by the IAEA over compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, is barred from the creation of nuclear weapons. The fate of the 2015 deal, which was signed by the Iran, the United States, Russia, China, and several European countries, was put into question after Washington withdrew from the deal in May 2018 and vowed to impose unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Last month, during a visit to an Israeli nuclear facility, Israeli Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu made what has been widely interpreted to have been a veiled warning about Israel’s nuclear capabilities and their possible use if the country was ever attacked. Iranian Foreign Minister called the remarks hypocritical and “beyond shameless.”

Signed in 1968 and stepping into force in 1970, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is tasked with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and furthering the goal of eventual global nuclear disarmament. Under the treaty, Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and China are recognized as nuclear weapons states. Non-signatories include Israel, India, Pakistan and South Sudan. North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003.



A good idea, but one which israel (apartheid state) would instruct the USA to veto: Gutteres Suggests Armed UN Presence to Insure Palestinian Protection

Gutteres Suggests Armed UN Presence to Insure Palestinian Protection


18 Aug
8:07 PM

The United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, presented four proposals, this Friday, aimed at protecting Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and in the besieged Gaza Strip, including the deployment of observers and increased humanitarian and development assistance.

Guterres presented his proposals in a 14-page report prepared at the request of the United Nations General Assembly, after 171 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip by Israeli forces since March 30th, known as the start of “The Great March of Return.”

The UN General Assembly had requested the report, in a resolution adopted in June with 120 votes in favor, eight against and 45 abstentions, which condemned Israel for excessive force against Palestinians and also denounced the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel.

According to Ma’an News Agency, the UN had requested proposals to ensure “the safety, protection, and well-being of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation, including recommendations regarding an international protection mechanism.”

Guterres wrote, in his report “the combination of prolonged military occupation, constant security threats, weak political institutions, and a deadlocked peace process provides for a protection challenge that is highly complex politically, legally and practically.”

Guterres started with the first proposal regarding strengthening the UN field presence and providing it with human rights monitors to assess the situation, in the occupied territories, with “armed UN peacekeepers or armed forces from a group of like-minded states operating under a UN mandate could be deployed to offer physical protection. This option, however, would need a Security Council mandate and the United States, a close ally of Israel, would likely wield its veto.”

Guterres continued to the second proposal about increasing humanitarian and development assistance; he wrote “a UN or non-UN civilian observer mission could be deployed into the occupied territories with a specific mandate to report on protection and well-being issues and provide local mediation. This would also need a UN mandate.”

The third proposal suggested was to form a civilian monitoring mission deployed in sensitive areas such as checkpoints, crossings, and near illegal Israeli settlements, whose task would be to report on protection issues.

Guterres wrote, “could be expanding current UN programs and development and humanitarian aid to address the needs of Palestinian civilians more effectively and strengthen Palestinian institutions.”

The fourth and final proposal was concerning the deployment of a police or military force authorized by the UN, whose mission would be to provide physical protection to Palestinian civilians.

“Could be to send additional UN human rights, coordination and political officers to boost monitoring and reporting on the situation and increase the UN’s visibility,” Guterres wrote.

Guterres concluded “the best way to ensure the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilian population is still the negotiation of a comprehensive, just, and final settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

Additionally, throughout the report, Guterres stressed that for each of the proposals, cooperation by both Israel and Palestine would be necessary. However, it is unlikely that Israel would agree to any of these proposals.

The USA is a totally unsuitable place to have the UN HQ: US Refused Visa to Palestinian Officials Speaking at UN Meeting

US refused visa to Palestinian officials attending UN meeting

(MEMO— Six Palestinian officials who were scheduled to give a presentation at the UN office in New York have been denied visas by the US without any explanation. The officials were due to attend a high-level meeting on development last week to present a report on Palestinian implementation of UN goals for 2030.

In their absence, Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour had to step in and make the presentation on behalf of Palestine, which has non-member observer status at the United Nations.

Mansour broke the news to reporters and said that “the Israeli occupying power complicated the matter” by refusing to allow several of the experts to go to Jerusalem to check on their visas.

Mansour said that as the host country the US has violated the UN agreement by refusing entry to a delegation from one of the members of the world body. It’s reported that he will send a letter of protest to the General Assembly committee dealing with host country relations.

In the absence of his colleagues Mansour informed the UN that the Palestinian Authority was “trying [our] best” to meet the 17 goals to end extreme poverty in Palestine but their task was hampered by the Israeli occupation.

The US is reported to be looking into the complaint. In the meantime, this incident will be judged as another example of its hostility towards the Palestinians. Relations began to sour dramatically after President Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the US embassy there.

The Trump administration has also cut funds to the UN Palestinian refugee agency, leaving UNRWA struggling to fill a major budget gap for its education and health programs.

‘Imagine outcry if israelis were held in open air prison like Gaza & 120 were shot dead’


‘Imagine outcry if Israelis were held in open air prison like Gaza & 120 were shot dead’

The UN resolution condemning Israel shows overwhelming international recognition that what’s going on in Gaza is wrong and that there’s no future in continuing this oppression, investigative journalist Rick Sterling told RT.

The UN has adopted a nonbinding resolution condemning Israel’s excessive use of force during clashes in Gaza which have left more than 120 Palestinians dead since the end of March.

The resolution was passed by the General Assembly in New York with 120 votes in favor and eight against. However, the text does not include a US amendment, blaming Hamas for inciting violence, as it did not get enough support.

Israel and the United States strongly opposed the vote calling it biased and one-sided, while the Palestinian side said that a resolution was not enough.

Investigative journalist Rick Sterling told RT that the UN condemnation of Israel’s use of deadly force shows the isolation of the US and Israel on this issue.

“There was a 120 votes ‘Yes’, and eight votes ‘No.’ But of those eight, five of them are tiny island nations, like the Solomon Islands… and other countries that few people have heard of before. Only three countries have actually opposed the resolution: that was Israel, the US and Australia,” said Sterling.

Sterling believes that it shows the overwhelming international recognition of what is going on in the Gaza Strip. “The facts are very clear. Over the last two months about a 130 Palestinians killed, many thousands seriously injured…And as much as the US and Nikki Haley may deny it, it is being recognized increasingly around the world,” he added.

Sterling claimed that “the situation is very biased” saying that “you’ve got approximately 2 million [Palestinian] people in what amounts to an open air prison.”

“Just imagine the reverse scenario: imagine that 2 million Israelis were held captive in an open air prison and when they protested, 120 of them were shot and killed. Just imagine what kind of outcry there would be about that. The situation is biased. That is the reality. It is totally unjust and it needs to be called to account for the good of everyone,” he explained.

Israel and the US claims Hamas is responsible for much of the violence. “The resolution is one-sided, makes not one mention of Hamas which routinely initiates violence,” the US envoy Haley said during the debate preceding the vote, adding that: “What makes Gaza different is that attacking Israel is their favorite political sport.”

Sterling argued that the blaming of Hamas “is just a distraction” and that “it is a form of deception to mislead the people [and stop them] from seeing what it pretty clear.”

“You’ve got unarmed protesters who are in Gaza, hundreds of yards from the so-called fence and they are being shot by snipers with live ammunition. This is what is going on. It is really a testament to the courage of Palestinians that they have kept going on and also a testament of desperation of how grim the situation is. They’ve seen thousands of their fellow women and men, including medics, shot and injured or killed. And yet Palestinians continued going out week after week protesting against oppression.”

Asked about the prospects of the border standoff between Israel and Gaza being resolved, Sterling said that there is a clear recognition that there is no future in continuing this kind of oppression. “In the long run, there is got to be a real change in the situation there and so, this resolution at the UN General Assembly is a small but positive step in the right direction,” he concluded.

Dr Gina Loudon, political analyst and author, noted that the resolution adopted in the General Assembly is non-binding, “but what it can do is exert political pressure on them to act and I believe part of what was passed was something along the lines of a resolution asking for some sort of action.”

Loudon said she had just returned from Israel and studied the issue.  “I agree with the [US and Israeli] ambassadors that this is a vital mistake and if people knew the true story about Israel regarding Hamas, this vote would not have gone this way,” she told RT.

She also argued that “a lot of times these deaths of these Palestinians, are actually because they are using civilians as human shields. And a lot of times…the violence is actually initiated by Hamas, certainly not by Israel. It is a very frustrating situation I know from most Israelis that I talk to,” Loudon added.

This article was originally published by “RT

120 Countries at UN Condemn israel Over Gaza Violence

Information Clearing House” –  UNITED NATIONS: The UN General Assembly on Wednesday adopted by a strong majority of 120 countries an Arab-backed resolution condemning Israel for Palestinian deaths in Gaza and rejected a US bid to put the blame on Hamas.


At least 129 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire during protests near the border with Gaza that began at the end of March. No Israelis have died.

The resolution put forward by Algeria and Turkey on behalf of Arab and Muslim countries won 120 votes in the 193-member assembly, with 8 votes against and 45 abstentions.

An amendment presented by the United States condemning Hamas for “inciting violence” along the border with Gaza failed to garner the two-third majority needed for adoption.

Addressing the assembly, US Ambassador Nikki Haley dismissed the resolution as biased against Israel and accused Arab countries of trying to score political points at home by seeking to condemn Israel at the United Nations.

“For some, attacking Israel is their favorite political sport. That´s why we are here today,” said Haley.

“I wish everyone supporting this one-sided resolution would put as much energy into encouraging President Abbas to the negotiating table,” she said.

The resolution deplored Israel´s use of “excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force” against Palestinian civilians and called for protection measures for Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Arab countries backing the measure turned to the General Assembly after the United States used its veto in the Security Council to block the resolution on June 1.

Unlike the Security Council, resolutions adopted by the assembly are non-binding and there is no veto.

UN chief to propose protection

The resolution tasks UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres with the drafting of proposals for an “international protection mechanism” for the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

These could range from setting up an observer mission to a full-blown peacekeeping force, but action on any option would require backing from the Security Council, where the United States has veto power.

Palestinian Ambassador Riyad Mansour dismissed the US amendments blaming Hamas as “games and gimmicks” and urged ambassadors not to be “fooled” by the US proposal.

“We are asking for a simple thing,” Mansour told the assembly. “We want our civilian population to be protected.”

Turkey´s Ambassador Feridun Hadi Sinirlioglu defended the resolution, saying it was “about taking sides with international law” and showing the Palestinians that the world “does care about their suffering.”

Taking the podium, Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon assailed the measure as an “attempt to take away our basic right to self-defense.” He warned ambassadors that by supporting the resolution “you are empowering Hamas.”

The US amendment condemning Hamas received 62 votes in favor, with 58 against and 42 abstentions. The United States sought to challenge the ruling requiring a two-thirds majority but that was defeated in a separate vote.

“We had more countries on the right side than the wrong side,” Haley said in a statement.

The General Assembly last held a similarly contentious vote on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in December, when it rejected President Donald Trump´s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel´s capital and move the US embassy there.

Haley had warned at the time that Washington was “taking names” of countries that supported the resolution. That vote was 128 to 9, with 35 abstentions.

Backed by Arab countries, the Palestinians had lobbied to win as many votes as those cast in support of the Jerusalem resolution.




The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.


Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and Palestine – UN General Assembly


General Assembly: 10th emergency special session – Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory

The General Assembly, Recalling its relevant resolutions regarding the question of Palestine, Recalling also its relevant resolutions on the protection of civilians,

Posted June 13, 2018


“By supporting this resolution you are colluding with a terrorist organization, by supporting this resolution you are empowering Hamas,” Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon told the General Assembly before the vote.

Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Solomon Islands and Togo joined Israel and the United States in voting against the resolution.

israel Withdraws From Race for UN Security Council Seat

Israel Withdraws From Race for UN Security Council Seat

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Israel withdrew on Friday from a race against Germany and Belgium for two seats on the United Nations Security Council in 2019-20.

FILE PHOTO: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the weekly cabinet meeting at the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem April 15, 2018. Gali Tibbon/Pool via Reuters/File Photo

The 193-member U.N. General Assembly is due to vote next month on five new members for a two-year term starting on Jan. 1, 2019. Israel, Germany and Belgium were competing for two seats allocated to the Western European and Others Group.

Germany and Belgium are now running uncontested, but they still need to win more than two-thirds of the overall General Assembly vote to be elected.

“It was decided that we will continue to act with our allies to allow for Israel to realise its right for full participation and inclusion in decision-making processes at the U.N.,” Israel’s mission to the United Nations said in a statement.

Regional groups generally agree upon the candidates to put forward and competitive races for seats are increasingly rare. Each year the General Assembly elects five new members.

Richard Grenell, who was sworn in as the U.S. ambassador to Germany on Thursday, said in March that the United States had brokered a deal in the 1990s with countries in the U.N.’s Western European and Others Group to allow Israel to run uncontested for a seat.

Grenell, who was the U.S. spokesman at the U.N. from 2001 to 2009, tweeted about the issue on March 14. “Israel has waited 19 years! The US must demand that Europe keep its word,” he said.

German diplomats denied any such agreement was made. The Israeli mission to the U.N. declined to comment at the time on Grenell’s tweet.

The council, on which the five permanent members – the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia – hold veto powers, is the only U.N. body that can make legally binding decisions, as well as imposing sanctions and authorizing the use of force.

To ensure geographical representation on the council, there are five seats for African and Asian states; one for Eastern European states; two for the Latin American and Caribbean states; and two for Western European and other states.

Indonesia and the Maldives are competing for one Asia-Pacific seat in 2019-20, while South Africa and the Dominican Republic are running uncontested for the African and Latin American and Caribbean group seats.


South Front


Lebanon: a Powder Keg That Will Ignite a Wider Regional Conflict

Written by Peter Korzun; Originally appeared on

On May 6, Lebanon will hold its first parliamentary election since 2009 to usher in a system of proportional representation. To be sure, it is a small country, but the event will have a very significant effect on the shape of the Middle East’s political and military landscape.

Will there be a power shift? It’s hard to predict, but the election will be watched closely by many Middle Eastern actors, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The pro-Iranian, anti-Israeli, and anti-American Hezbollah is a rising force, militarily and politically. That group has a good chance of sweeping the election, picking up seats, and turning the balance in its favor, which would send jitters across Israel and provoke deep concern among those who oppose Tehran. The EU realizes that if Syrian refugees leave Lebanon because of instability caused by the election results, their destination will be the European Continent.

Some experts believe a war between Israel and Hezbollah is almost inevitable. It’s just a matter of time. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres believes that a direct clash between Israel and Hezbollah would be a truly nightmarish scenario. That Shia Muslim group has roughly 150,000 missiles and rockets of various ranges in its inventory and boasts a fighting force of about 50,000 soldiers, counting the reservists. A Hezbollah force estimated to be 10,000 strong is operating in southern Syria near the border with Israel. The Jerusalem Post writes that according to experts’ estimates as many as 1,500 to 2,000 rockets could be fired into Israel daily during the next war, compared with only about 130-180 that the country received each day during the Second Lebanon War.

In December 2017, Israeli Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz threatened to bomb Lebanon “back to the stone age” if the country’s government did not prevent Hezbollah from setting up Iranian rocket platforms. Israel has its own reasons to be primed for a wider conflict in the region.

Meanwhile, it is erecting a border wall with Lebanon. Beirut says that several sections cross into its territory, constituting an assault on Lebanon’s national sovereignty. In February, US and Israeli troops held an exercise to practice for a potential war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. In March, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) honed its skills in preparation for waging battles on multiple fronts. On April 9, the Israeli Air Forces launched a strike on the T-4 Airbase near Palmyra in central Syria where Iranian military personnel were stationed. Iranians suffered casualties and vowed to respond. It’s impossible to strike Hezbollah in Syria without hitting Iranian forces, turning any Israeli-Hezbollah clash into an Israeli-Iranian war, which will inevitably draw in other actors, sparking a wider conflict.

The unsettled maritime dispute over the natural gas deposits in the Mediterranean has greatly heightened tensions, as the boundaries of the “Levantine Basin” often cross underneath the disputed borders between rival nations. The waters under contention are a triangular area of sea measuring around 330 square miles. The last thing Israel and the other countries of the anti-Iranian axis want is for those gas deposits to enrich Lebanon, with Hezbollah getting a large share of the wealth.

A potential conflict between US-supported Israel and Lebanon would no doubt spill over into Syria, where Hezbollah is seen by Israel as a threat, prompting air strikes that would be delivered from time to time in order to disrupt its communications and take out its assets. The forces opposing the Syrian government and Iran will intensify their efforts to turn the tide of the war they are losing. It is unlikely that any relevant actors will stay idle.

US President Trump is widely expected to “decertify” the Iran deal next month. The deadline is May 12. This will certainly add fuel to the fire. It’s hard to imagine American forces in Syria idly watching the fight if an Israeli-Iranian conflict should spark. There are other signs the US is preparing for war there. The idea of deploying a large Arab force in Syria has been recently floated. Qatar is being coerced into sending its forces. Something is clearly being cooked up.

A conflict in Lebanon that would spill over into Syria and then other countries in the Middle East is fraught with potentially dire consequences. The only actor that can prevent a worst-case scenario is Russia, a country with enormous regional clout that has a presence in Lebanon as well as in Syria. It has a military agreement in effect with Beirut and enjoys a special relationship with the Lebanese President Michel Aoun. Russia is the dominant power in Syria that controls both the skies as well as large swaths of land in the de-escalation zones. Unlike the other powers involved, it has good working relations with Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Syrian government, making it a perfect mediator — the sole actor fit for the job. Otherwise, May will go down in history as the month a major war shook the Middle East.

Related News

%d bloggers like this: