Israel formally acknowledges destroying suspected Syrian reactor in 2007

[webfact]

Israel formally acknowledges destroying suspected Syrian reactor in 2007

 

An undated image released by the U.S. Government shows the suspected Syrian nuclear reactor building under construction in Syria. REUTERS/U.S. Government/Handout

 

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The Israeli military formally acknowledged on Wednesday its destruction of a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, saying the air strike removed a major threat to Israel and the region and was a "message" to others.

 

Wednesday's announcement about "Operation Out of the Box" was made after Israeli military censors lifted a more than 10-year order that had barred Israeli officials from discussing it.

 

The Israeli military's announcement was followed up by a release of newly declassified materials including photographs and cockpit video said to show the moment that an air strike destroyed the Al-Kubar facility in the desert near Deir-al-Zor, more than 480 km (300 miles) inside Syria.

 

"The message from the attack on the nuclear reactor in 2007 is that the State of Israel will not allow the establishment of capabilities that threaten Israel's existence," the military chief, Lieutenant-General Gadi Eizencot, said in the statement issued on Wednesday.

 

"This was our message in 2007, this remains our message today and will continue to be our message in the near and distant future."

 

The timing of Israel’s decision to go public and justify the strike more than a decade ago comes after repeated calls in recent months by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the United States and international community to take tougher action on Syria’s ally, Iran.

 

Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that Israel will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon – “not now, not in 10 years, not ever” - or to build missile factories in Syria that could threaten Israel, or provide advanced weapons for Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shi'ite group in Lebanon.

 

The Trump administration has also been locked in nuclear

 

brinkmanship with North Korea - which the United States has previously said it believed supplied the Al-Kubar reactor.

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency has deemed it "very likely" that the site "was a nuclear reactor that should have been declared".

 

Syria, a signatory of the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has always denied that the site was a reactor or that Damascus engaged in nuclear cooperation with North Korea.

 

Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful.

 

Reuters could not immediately verify the authenticity of the materials released by the Israeli military on Wednesday.

 

(Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-03-21

[YetAnother]

12 minutes ago, webfact said:

and was a "message" to others.

how is it a message to others if they couldnt tell anyone about it for 11 years ? thus old news

[Morch]

The timing "may" also have something to do with both the Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister at the time (Olmert and Bark, respectively) publishing (or about to publish) their autobiographies. The operation is one of them things fueling their long standing animosity.

[mwbrown]

Funny, Israel refuses to declare their own nuclear weapons program.  Sounds like somebody should fly in and bomb that to smithereens.

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, mwbrown said:

Funny, Israel refuses to declare their own nuclear weapons program.  Sounds like somebody should fly in and bomb that to smithereens.

 

If hostile neighboring countries could, they would. Perhaps. Then again, hitting an active reactor is not quite the same as hitting a "cold" one.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, YetAnother said:

how is it a message to others if they couldnt tell anyone about it for 11 years ? thus old news

 

I don't think the intended recipients of the message were ever in doubt about the initiator.

[Baerboxer]

Isn't that an act of War? Carried out before declaring War?

 

So the UN security council will be issuing a strong condemnation, imposing severe sanctions, etc etc?

 

Cause not. US won't allow it.

[Jingthing]

44 minutes ago, mwbrown said:

Funny, Israel refuses to declare their own nuclear weapons program.  Sounds like somebody should fly in and bomb that to smithereens.

Yeah, sure, dare you to try ... 

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Isn't that an act of War? Carried out before declaring War?

 

So the UN security council will be issuing a strong condemnation, imposing severe sanctions, etc etc?

 

Cause not. US won't allow it.

Yeah, sure, the UN has been so fair and balanced towards Israel. Now about that Brooklyn Bridge for sale, it's on special this week ... 

[midas]

5 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Isn't that an act of War? Carried out before declaring War?

 

So the UN security council will be issuing a strong condemnation, imposing severe sanctions, etc etc?

 

Cause not. US won't allow it.

 

since when has Israel taken any notice of what the UN says ?

Edited March 21, 2018 by midas

[Jingthing]

 
since when has Israel taken any notice of what the UN says ?

You could say that about a number of countries but it's a fact that the UN goes after Israel way over a fair proportion relative to her acknowledged faults. Why is that? Hmm.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

41 minutes ago, midas said:

 

since when has Israel taken any notice of what the UN says ?

 

But obviously no issues with Syria, an NPT signatory, violating terms.

 

 

 

[bedouin1990]

For once, I am in complete agreement with Jingthing.

[Thorgal]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

But obviously no issues with Syria, an NPT signatory, violating terms.

 

 

 

 

For violating terms, you need to have at least 1 operating nuclear facility. And to have a nuclear facility you need to have at least a reactor, cooling tower/equipment, centrifuges, turbines, feed line, etc...

 

Moreover,  a violation needs to addressed by the NPT council through its members. Not by a random state who isn't member of the NPT...

 

 

[geriatrickid]

7 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Isn't that an act of War? Carried out before declaring War?

 

So the UN security council will be issuing a strong condemnation, imposing severe sanctions, etc etc?

 

Cause not. US won't allow it.

No it was not. Syria was in a state of hostilities against Israel. It still is.  Tell us when Syria ended it's war against Israel.

 

The UN security council allowed the unauthorized nuclear weapons facility to be built. Keep in mind the principle  of law that holds that a criminal engaged in an illegal act cannot  claim the protection of the law against those who would stop the illegal act.

The technology was provided illegally  and sourced from North Korea and Pakistan.

 

 

Does it gnaw at you that you can't come right out and say how much you hate Israel and can't find a way to say it?

[IAMHERE]

9 hours ago, mwbrown said:

Funny, Israel refuses to declare their own nuclear weapons program.  Sounds like somebody should fly in and bomb that to smithereens.

Plenty of surrounding nations would if only they could. 

[Morch]

 

@Thorgal

 

Rubbish. Both with regard to your made up conditions on what constitutes a violation , and the mode in which things were actually addressed on this front.

 

Signatories to the NPT accept restrictions regarding efforts to acquire or develop related capabilities. It is only in your mind that the agreement becomes relevant only after it is breached. Further, the "NPT council" dreamed up, is actually the IAEA, which forwards its conclusions to the UNSC. Somehow, both failed to see things as prescribed in your post:

 

Quote

For nearly three years, Syria refused the IAEA requests for further information on or access to the Dair Alzour site. On 24 May 2011, IAEA Director General Amano released a report concluding that the destroyed building was "very likely" a nuclear reactor, which Syria was required to declare under its NPT safeguards agreement. On 9 June 2011, the IAEA Board of Governors found that this constituted non-compliance, and reported that non-compliance to the UN Security Council. The vote was 17–6, with 11 abstentions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#IAEA_non-compliance_finding

 

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Morch

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.  

 

[Jingthing]

People should consider getting their facts right before commenting and spouting irrational and false anti-Israel propaganda --

 

Quote

In Israel, a little more than half of all Jews are Mizrachim, descended from Jews who have been in the land since ancient times or who were forced out of Arab countries after Israel was founded.

http://www.jewfaq.org/ashkseph.htm

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Elfin said:

 

 

The usual drivel from a usual suspect, and nothing on topic as such. Tossing about incorrect figures in this context seems to be specialty of yours.

 

Count how many casualties and refugees caused by the Syrian Civil War vs. relevant UN/UNSC resolutions. Now do the same with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Consider that one managed to far "out do" the other and within a few years. Re-think "proportional".

 

And yes, this topic isn't even about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict....

[Elfin]

Morch, if you were paying attention, I was responding to Jingthing's comments. If you accuse me of being off topic, then so is Jingthing. Correct?

Oh, and I did not quote any figures.

[Morch]

37 minutes ago, Elfin said:

Morch, if you were paying attention, I was responding to Jingthing's comments. If you accuse me of being off topic, then so is Jingthing. Correct?

Oh, and I did not quote any figures.

 

Bringing up UN/UNSC resolutions and pointing out that Israel gets mentioned in these way more than other countries, regardless of faults etc. is one thing. What you were about is hijacking the topic (Syria, Nuclear facility attacked, Israel) so that you could get a general bash in.

 

As for your liberal use of figures ("given Israel has a majority of European and Russian Jews living there") - even if it was correct, the bigoted implication (that they are expected to display higher standards) isn't. Doubt you really thought your "argument" all the way through, even with regard to the imported context added.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Morch

[Thorgal]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@Thorgal

 

Rubbish. Both with regard to your made up conditions on what constitutes a violation , and the mode in which things were actually addressed on this front.

 

Signatories to the NPT accept restrictions regarding efforts to acquire or develop related capabilities. It is only in your mind that the agreement becomes relevant only after it is breached. Further, the "NPT council" dreamed up, is actually the IAEA, which forwards its conclusions to the UNSC. Somehow, both failed to see things as prescribed in your post:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#IAEA_non-compliance_finding

 

 

 

The OP refers to "supposed" fabrication of nuclear weapons in Syria. So far, no condemnation/conclusive report has been given to any manufacturing of any Syrian nuclear weapons at level of IAEA/UNSC.

 

Syria allowed IAEA inspectors prior to the 2011 report to the UNSC. Traces of uranium originating from the IAF bombs were reported. Nothing more. No traces/proof of any manufacturing facility and its necessary equipment as mentioned in my previous post. No traces of yellow cake, radioactivity, etc.

 

Syria refused a second IAEA inspection due to the Syrian civil war.

 

The site was taken by the Syrian rebels in 2015. Later on by Al Nusra. And finally by ISIL. The last ones even started excavations in the hope to find nuclear weapons.

 

The countries with suspicions and who voted in favor of a UNSC penalty against Syria didn't acted manu militari  against ISIS franchise in that time if it has been voted as a live nuclear plant.

 

Nothing in the OP mentions any conclusive evidence. Didn't know that any degree of guilt has to be voted in case you didn't found sufficient and/or corroborative evidence...

 

Thanks for the wiki-link.

[geriatrickid]

5 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

The OP refers to "supposed" fabrication of nuclear weapons in Syria. So far, no condemnation/conclusive report has been given to any manufacturing of any Syrian nuclear weapons at level of IAEA/UNSC.

 

Syria allowed IAEA inspectors prior to the 2011 report to the UNSC. Traces of uranium originating from the IAF bombs were reported. Nothing more. No traces/proof of any manufacturing facility and its necessary equipment as mentioned in my previous post. No traces of yellow cake, radioactivity, etc.

 

Syria refused a second IAEA inspection due to the Syrian civil war.

 

The site was taken by the Syrian rebels in 2015. Later on by Al Nusra. And finally by ISIL. The last ones even started excavations in the hope to find nuclear weapons.

 

The countries with suspicions and who voted in favor of a UNSC penalty against Syria didn't acted manu militari  against ISIS franchise in that time if it has been voted as a live nuclear plant.

 

Nothing in the OP mentions any conclusive evidence. Didn't know that any degree of guilt has to be voted in case you didn't found sufficient and/or corroborative evidence...

 

Thanks for the wiki-link.

 

Nothing you wrote matters in respect to the event. Nothing.

Syria declared war on Israel.

Syria has not rescinded that declaration of war.

Any attack on Syria is part of the war that Syria initiated and never ended.

By the same token, when Syria was shelling Israel it justified that shelling as part of its war.

You do not have a legal, nor a moral leg to stand on, not that you  ever did.

 

If Syria wants to play the pity game, it first needs to stop its war against Israel.

 

[Morch]

 

@Thorgal

 

There word "supposed" doesn't even appear in the OP, and the OP is not about the "fabrication of nuclear weapons in Syria". That's just the twist you try to inject. The OP is about Israel attacking a Syrian nuclear facility - which, under other circumstances, could have led to Syria acquiring the capability of developing nuclear weapons. Hence, the IAEA/UNSC comments/condemnations were not about "nuclear weapons", but about the covert attempt (which is against Syria's formal international commitments) to acquire such capability.

 

As opposed to your description of Syria's supposed cooperation with the IAEA, the IAEA reports paint a different picture, and do not support the notion that uranium traces found originated from "IAF  bombs" (that was actually more of a Syrian version). And, of course, there were traces and indications which did lead the IAEA to conclude that Syria was not conforming with it's commitments and obligations. That you assert otherwise is simply counterfactual, if not entirely surprising.

 

Your nonsense trying to spin the ISIS angle are ridiculous, and again, not really relevant or factual.

 

Deny it all you will, the bottom line is that the IAEA and the UNSC adopted a view different than your "alternative" one.

 

 

[gk10002000]

Didn't they take out the Iraq French reactor Osiris back in 1980 ish?

Edited March 23, 2018 by gk10002000
correction