Ex-Israel PM doesn't deny air strike on Syria

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by JEDIYoda, Nov 25, 2010.

  1. JEDIYoda

    JEDIYoda Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    23,977
    Likes Received:
    18
    Tell the world something they did not already know...lol

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_syria

    By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Josef Federman, Associated Press – 1 hr 16 mins ago

    JERUSALEM – Israel's former prime minister said Thursday that he can't deny ex-President George W. Bush's claim in a new book that Israel destroyed a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria.

    It was Ehud Olmert's first public comment on the mysterious September 2007 incident, which happened while he was in office.

    At the time, Syria announced that its airspace had been invaded by Israel but said nothing about what had been hit. The Israeli government has remained silent.

    In Bush's new memoir, the former president claimed the target was believed to be a Syrian nuclear reactor being built with North Korean assistance.

    He said that Israel first asked the U.S. to bomb the site, and after the U.S. turned down the request, Israel carried out an attack itself. Bush also suggested that he approved the mission.

    The strike came about a year after Israel's inconclusive war against Hezbollah, in which Lebanese guerrillas battled Israel's powerful army to a stalemate. The poor performance raised questions about Israel's deterrent capabilities.

    "Prime Minister Olmert's execution of the strike made up for the confidence I had lost in the Israelis during the Lebanon war," Bush wrote, adding that the Israeli leader rejected a suggestion to go public with the operation.

    "Olmert told me he wanted total secrecy. He wanted to avoid anything that might back Syria into a corner and force (Syrian President Bashar) Assad to retaliate. This was his operation, and I felt an obligation to respect his wishes," Bush wrote.

    Speaking to foreign journalists Thursday, Olmert said Israel took a position that "we will never comment on it."

    He said he has not read Bush's book, but had seen this section. "I can only say that I don't want (to), and I can't deny it," he said.
     
  2. Lemon law

    Lemon law Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    20,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    IN all due respect to JediYoda, its my understanding there are some basic historical errors in the Olmert GWB relationship distortions that should be corrected before the pre-history can be properly understood.

    1. That by using satellite surveillance data, it was Israel that first noticed something really big was being constructed in Syria, and that was many years before the actual Israeli strike. Subsequent observation and the standard what is it questions followed for some period of time as Syrian construction proceeded. At some point a critical mass of though emerged among Israeli intel analysts, that building looks almost exactly like known designs for North Korean nuclear reactors.

    2. When exactly Israel went to Washington with their panic panic panic plans to make a
    preemptive strike on the suspected Syrian reactors, but three things are now fairly well known. Israel was already shared intel on this Syrian construction with Washington so CIA analysts were also watching, but for a period of at least six months to well over a year, GWB waited. Meanwhile GWB basically said the USA would not support Israel if Israel committed such an act of war on Syria while Israel kept nagging GWB for their complicity. What changed the mind of GWB may never be know, but at some point GWB gave Israel the green light. And once Israel had that green light from GWB, Israel soon bombed the Syrian site.

    That Israeli bombing of a Syrian territory was technically an act of war, could have resulted in an ugly larger mid-east war, but Syria, for reasons of its own did not push the Issue while Israel admitted no public complicity.

    And now to sell some books and excuse himself from his actual actions, now GWB comes out with some revisionists history, and so does Olmert. Which may be all well and fine for public consumption, but I very much doubt any responsible historians will be fooled.

    I may not even know even close to a 1/4 of it, but the JediYoda version is not even close as he represents current PR as fact. After all, GWB was not supposed to admit Israeli complicity, but did. What the hell can Olmert do but admit Israel did it when GWB just outed him?

    WE can all agree on the final results, the Syrian site was bombed without serious international consequences.
     
  3. JEDIYoda

    JEDIYoda Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    23,977
    Likes Received:
    18
    actually we cannot agree because you have no clue what exactly went down or how...

    Your understanding is flawed.....regardless if it was an act of war.
    If Israel feels the need they will act on their own and do the same to Iran, which technically would be an act of a war that iran does not want at all!!

    yet behind closed doors Israel would be everybodys friend....

    yet you have not let me down with all your speculation that is not supported by facts....
     
  4. Freshgeardude

    Freshgeardude Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Syria didnt go and attack israel because they knew very well their reactor was illegal under international law AND they knew israel wouldnt allow it for israel's security


    lets also remember how israel held back when they could have (and should have) carpet bombed damascus.


    pretty sure assad wouldnt forget about history that easily
     
  5. P4man

    P4man Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    really? Which law? You realize unlike Israel, Syria is actually a party to the non-proliferation treaty? Not only does that allow them to build nuclear reactors, under the third pillar of the NPT it even obliges the other signatories to assist Syria with their civilian nuclear program. (That goes for Iran too BTW, as its also a signatory to the NPT, but for some reason we we only remember the NPT doesnt allow them a nuclear weapons program, but we seem to forget that very treaty explicitly allows Iran a full nuclear cycle, including fuel enrichment with our support. Of course we also forget the first pillar of that same treaty obliges the nuclear states to disarm. Selective reading I suppose).

    In return the UN is allowed to inspect the facilities and monitor the nuclear cycle to ensure no weaponization program is taking place. Such safeguards are in place in Syria (although unlike Iran, Syria hasnt yet agreed to the additional protocol proposed later).

    Buildings which are under construction do not fall under any of these obligations, not even for countries who signed the additional protocol; they dont even have to be declared, let alone inspected until they have gone operational and/or you have introduced nuclear materials in them. You cant build a nuke in 24 hours you see.

    I really wonder which law you think Syria broke.
     
    #5 P4man, Nov 25, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2010
  6. Freshgeardude

    Freshgeardude Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0

    They never declared they had a reactor lol.


    which is why they never did anything about it.

    if they admitted to israel destroying their reactor, they would incriminate themselves.


    if they had nothing to hide for a peaceful, civilian reactor, then by all means israel commited an act of war, but the facts point to an illegally built reactor for non-civilian use.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

    so they found uranium particles but the investigation was blocked by syria.

    hmm, innocent syria was attacked by israel?
     
    #6 Freshgeardude, Nov 25, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2010
  7. P4man

    P4man Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who says they had? Who says if it was under construction, that they had to declare it? In fact, under the standard NPT safeguards, they may not even have to declare operational nuclear reactors.

    Even if the site was illegal (you still have to point me to the law they supposedly broke), that doesnt make Israel's attack legal.

    What Israel should have done is provide the information to the IAEA so they could inspect the site and determine whether or not the site was in violation with the NPT. In fact, AFAIK, the US was legally bound to do just that, if they got the information from Israel (which itself is not bound to the NPT as they never signed it). Israel doesnt have a mandate to bomb any country or any site that it suspect is violating international agreements it itself doesnt abide by!

    I dont see how you could investigate a site that was bombed in to oblivion without finding uranium residue. Depleted uranium is commonly used in ammunition. Ask the iraqi's they know all about it.

    As for not cooperating with the inquiry, that doesnt prove guilt and AFAICT they are not violating their agreements and are not legally bound to allow it. Sounds very much like the weapon inspectors in Iraq that sadam kicked out, not because he had WMDs but because they were not longer searching for them but for anything else useful in the war that was coming anyway.

    If you are going to use treaties and laws to prevent nuclear proliferation, than you should stick to the treaties and laws and not use it only when it suits you. Actions such as these and the endless sanctions against Iran only provide countries with an incentive not to sign the NPT treaty or get out. If you only get the sticks but not carrots, why would you impose it upon yourself?

    In fact, why would you not want to persue a nuclear bomb if that is what it takes to prevent the US or Israel from attacking you and achieving their desired regime change?
     
  8. Lemon law

    Lemon law Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    20,991
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  9. Harabec

    Harabec Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one really cares about international treaties, the bottom line was that a hostile country was developing something we didn't want it to so it got blown up.
    You can scream "illegal" after we take care of the problem.
     
  10. JEDIYoda

    JEDIYoda Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    23,977
    Likes Received:
    18
    -- hahahahaaaaa...my God, your logic just amazes me at how fallicious your thinking is...rofl..hahahaa
     
    #10 JEDIYoda, Nov 26, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2010
  11. Lemon law

    Lemon law Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    20,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Therein lies the rub, who is the "WE" that took care of the "Problem". And whom is the "THEY" who took the bullshit?

    The point is and remains, the world is now a vastly different place than it was in 2007, can Israel continue to pull the same stunts they did in 2007, or will they finally over reach and screw their own pooch,
     
  12. Freshgeardude

    Freshgeardude Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0

    WWYBYWB?


    anyways

    lol report it to IAEA!

    what a joke.

    look at their efforts to stop Iran. or even North Korea!

    NK was behind the building of the syrian reactor, paid for by the iranian government.
     
  13. P4man

    P4man Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah very funny. Feel free to make fun of international law and treaties, throw the NPT in the bin, but then dont claim those laws are on your side and dont be surprised if countries like Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia or former soviet sattelite states conclude its better for them not to comply to the NPT, get out and actually arm themselves with nukes. They look at Israel, NK, pakistan, india and Iran and see that happens if you comply to the NPT and what if you dont. Why risk complying and still getting hit with sanctions and bombs, while still not being permitted, let alone helped to develop nuclear cycle for energy, while the states that got out or never got in, not only have the full cycle and are independent for their nuclear energy needs, they are under almost no risk of regime change.

    North Korea got out of the NPT and then build their bomb (if they really did, AFAICS the jury is still out if they really succeeded). Under the NPT safeguard agreement they did not build a bomb secretively, nor has any state ever. Let that sink in for a moment before ridiculing it.

    As for Iran. You are reading too much media propaganda. Im sure you would have mentioned Iraqs WMDs or nuclear program 10 years ago. Stop reading the warmongering media propaganda and start reading the treaties and national intelligence estimates. Iran is no nuclear threat, there is no way they can secretly build a bomb under the current inspection regime, they are by and large abiding by their promises and the treaties they signed (unlike for instance the US).

    The problem with Iran is that the US doesnt like the regime, just like the regime in Baghdad fell out of its grace once it stopped taking orders and started selling its oil in euro's. US prefers equally cruel dictatorships that sell oil in dollars for some reason. This is not about law or treaties. Its not even about a nuclear proliferation. Its simply about oil and regime change. Wake up and smell the coffee.
     
  14. Freshgeardude

    Freshgeardude Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0

    you have got to be kidding me.


    you might be the first idiot on this forum to ever be on Iran's side of the nuclear debate.


    They have repeatably defied international laws forbidding them to enrich uranium. There are sanctions passed by the UN and the US seperatly to cripple their economy.

    they refuse to stop.

    They hid the fact that they had nuclear reactors, and even more after the first was announced.

    wait what? last I've heard, they arent allowing IAEA inspectors anywhere near anything the has the word nuclear in its description.

    the treaties they signed meant they were suppose to alllow inspectors and let known reactors they have built.

    they havent done those things ( the latter being announced just recently)


    they are by no means abiding by their promises.


    you need to stop reading a corner of the internet article.
     
  15. P4man

    P4man Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Like I said, stop reading only corporate media. Start reading the bare unbiased facts. Its pointless to get in to the details if you actually think there is an international law forbidding iran to enrich uranium. Read the bloody NPT for yourself, its in plain english. If the legalise is too hard, try wikipedia:
    Iran voluntarily stopped enrichment for a while, it voluntarily accepted extra inspections and safeguards way beyond what the NPT requires. The discussion about whether or not they violated those extra restrictions (not the NPT again, AFAIK no one ever accused them of that) is a joke, its about paperwork that may or may not have been filed days to late and other inconsequential matters. Oh and about a laptop the US supposedly found containing old documents, but for some reason they wont let anyone verify whats on the laptop. But Iran is somehow supposed to explain whats on it anyhow.

    Then you also swallow all the nonsense of that secret enrichment plant that was nothing but just a hole in the ground. Undeclared, but it was only a hole in the ground completely compliant with IAEA regulations and since opened to inspection (way before they were required as its not nearly operational yet).

    Im not defending Iran's regime in general, I dont like any theocracy, Islam or other and I wont be sorry if this one disappears, but that doesnt change the facts. Iran has the right to enrich uranium for civilian use, under the NPT which they signed and agreed to (and no matter what security counsil resolutions demand. Its not like Israel cares a lot about those). Denying them that right gives them every incintive to get out of the NPT, kicking the inspectors out and maybe even actually build a nuke.

    I have very little admiration for their regime but the way to put up with all this nuclear nonsense, I have to respect. I would not. never. If I sign a contract, either you also keep to your promises, or its null and void. And if you constantly threaten me with sanctions, bombs and regime change, I would do what it takes to protect myself. Kudo's to Iran for not losing its cool there.

    I suppose that only shows what kind of sources you get your information from.
     
    #15 P4man, Nov 26, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2010
  16. P4man

    P4man Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Except you have shown no evidence it was illegal, and I wonder which country is to be considered "hostile", the one dropping bombs (and regularly invading its neighbours), or the one building a site that may or may not have been nuclear and may or may not have been in violation of a treaty the other country even refuses to sign.

    I know the israeli government has absolutely zero respect for international law, treaties or geneva conventions, let alone UN resolutions, but just dont be hypocritical pretending this act was legal under any of that.
     
  17. Harabec

    Harabec Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    0
    When did I ever say anything was legal/illegal? Am I the Israeli government?
    I am simply stating how things are from our POV :)

    Personally, I don't know much about the whole thing, although I'd be hesitant to speak against it because, well, its Syria.
    Regardless, going through official channels like the UN does exactly nothing and everyone knows that. It is silly to expect a country to act like a child screaming for its parents (the UN) to do something when said parents are blind, mentally ill and in a wheelchair.

    BTW, going off-topic for a bit, darfur refugees are still pouring over, trying to enter the only country that won't shoot them on sight. Sending them back to Sinai means certain death. What would you do with them? I'm bringing this up because a few days ago an officer refused to take a group of refugees back to the border for that reason as he thought it constitutes an illegal order.
     
  18. P4man

    P4man Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, its as silly as going to the police or a court when you suspect misdoings, instead of taking a gun and shooting the suspected thief (and a few innocent bystanders).

    The UN isnt perfect, but the NPT works. At least it has worked for 40 years. If it stops working, its most likely because of the US subverting the process for its political goals (like taking the Iranian issue to the UNSC when the NPT is quite clear that this is ONLY allowed if nuclear materials were diverted for non-peaceful use, which didnt happen in Iran as the IAEA themselves agreed. That alone renders those sanctions illegal).

    If on top of that, we allow countries to take matters in to their own hands, go and bomb suspected sites without even providing a shred of evidence, we might as well abolish international law and the NPT, and face all the consequences.

    Id say thats for another topic.
     
  19. Lemon law

    Lemon law Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    20,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    P4man is correct, what Israel did was an act of war and illegal to boot. But still might made right and the Israeli bombing of Syrian territory did not create severe international consequences. Nor did the Israeli bombing of an Iraqi reactor way over a decade and a half before the Syrian site was bombed.

    The problem may become, that Israel gets a God complex and over confident, as they again picture themselves as David v Goliath with David winning every time. Because all it takes is once for Israel to over reach, and ole Goliath may end up being the one stomping David in the end.

    At the same time the USA is losing international credibility at an ever faster speed. First came all the bullshit screming about Iraqi WMD that turned out not to exist, and now we are trying to arm twist the entire world about imposing ever more sanctions on Iran.
    And as before in the Iraqi case, UN inspectors do their best to pander to US pressure, but the larger world is not getting on the US bandwagon in imposing draconian sanctions on Iran. Meanwhile Israel and the USA then scream panic, terror, Iranian WMD, ever louder, while the larger world realizes the USA is FOS. And more sooner than later, and especially if Obama fails to deliver an Palestinian State, the USA may find itself the totally ignored little boy who cried wolf while the rest of the world goes on their merry way.
     
  20. EagleKeeper

    EagleKeeper Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    42,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is it Obama's responsibility to deliver a Palestinian state?
     
  21. P4man

    P4man Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    It wouldnt be, if he (well, the US) would stop supporting Israel's illegal occupation, wars of aggression and other human right violations. The main reason there is little to no hope for an israeli palestinian solution is that israel feels no pressure whatsoever to abide by international law. And that is thanks to the US. In that sense, the US has a colossal moral responsibility.

    Not that it will happen.
     
  22. EagleKeeper

    EagleKeeper Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    42,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    So let Israel and the Palestinians decide what they want to do.

    Keep everyone else out of it. And I mean everyone. No back door support. People want to bring up the past as a reason for contininue support of one side or another.

    This is a Palestinian/Israeli issue. Both have been supported in the past; what they did with the support was up to them.

    Now they make them live with the consequences of their actions
     
  23. P4man

    P4man Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah that would be fair, wouldnt it. After we've allowed Israel to control 100% of Palestinian terroritory for over 4 decades, destroying their economy, stealing their resources, after we let it build settlements that now control more than 40% of the West Bank, after we armed them to the teeth and even let them have nukes, while making sure no possible ally of the Palestinians poses any real threat (let alone a nuclear one), NOW let them just sort it out among themselves. That will guarantee a fair and just outcome, no doubt.

    And actually, even that is still more than I would hope for at this point.
     
  24. EagleKeeper

    EagleKeeper Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    42,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you want to look at the past 40 years and conviently ignore before then.

    Why?

    Israel was not the US creation, neither was Palestine.
    The Palestinians have been supported by the Soviets and the Arabs for the most part.

    Those entities screwed up in destroying Israel when they could have; also neither wanted a state of Palestine. That is a question that people are afraid to task. Why!

    What is in the past that some are so afraid to look into?
     
  25. EagleKeeper

    EagleKeeper Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    42,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    And you have other info regarding the IAEA and Syria in what happened for the first two years after the bombing?

    If so, please enlighten us to what that information is?