UN tells Israel to let in nuclear inspectors

[Shofercia]

If this helps Israel's political capital, why's Israel spending it to prevent UN's nuclear inspectors from going in?

Oh, Israel was going to do that anyway. It looks worse if they say they have nukes and don't permit the inspectors access than it does if they don't confirm that they have nukes and tell the inspectors that they don't have access. Thus, it would cost less political capital. Less, not none, and the situation may change if more pressure is brought on Israel, which is, of course, the whole point of this resolution.

Thing is, Israel's being sneaky, and sneakiness costs political capital. Finding loopholes in UN's NPT Law looks great in a Courtroom, but to the public, it looks like the government are being sneaky bastards, meaning that the people are going to not support Israel, and if your the government of Nation X, and your people want you to be pro-Palestine, and you don't care either way, you'll vote pro-Palestine to gain popularity. Thus the issue's hurting Israel.

On the other hand if they admitted to having nukes, then they'd be in violation of a treaty, but they'd loose the whole sneakiness aspect, and it's a toss up. Israel violating a treaty is nothing new. Israel being super-sneaky and possibly being embarrassed by the UN - that's new. Which one's less beneficial to Israel?

[IshCong]

Oh, Israel was going to do that anyway. It looks worse if they say they have nukes and don't permit the inspectors access than it does if they don't confirm that they have nukes and tell the inspectors that they don't have access. Thus, it would cost less political capital. Less, not none, and the situation may change if more pressure is brought on Israel, which is, of course, the whole point of this resolution.

Thing is, Israel's being sneaky, and sneakiness costs political capital. Finding loopholes in UN's NPT Law looks great in a Courtroom, but to the public, it looks like the government are being sneaky bastards, meaning that the people are going to not support Israel, and if your the government of Nation X, and your people want you to be pro-Palestine, and you don't care either way, you'll vote pro-Palestine to gain popularity. Thus the issue's hurting Israel.

Israel isn't violating, or finding loopholes in, the NPT. It just hasn't signed the NPT, so the NPT won't apply, and doesn't apply, to Israel. The rest of the paragraph is irrelevant, as it was based on a flawed assumption.

On the other hand if they admitted to having nukes, then they'd be in violation of a treaty,

Which treaty would Israel be violating that Israel signed?

but they'd loose the whole sneakiness aspect, and it's a toss up. Israel violating a treaty is nothing new. Israel being super-sneaky and possibly being embarrassed by the UN - that's new.

No more new than treaty violation.

Which one's less beneficial to Israel?

Israel isn't presently violating the NPT, since Israel never signed the NPT. Again, a flawed assumption makes your post largely irrelevant.

[Ralkovia]

Unfortunately, the UN can't force a country to abide their restrictions. They can do as much as frown upon them.
They can guide, recommend and nag, but they don't have any real power over ANY nation.
If Israel don't want them to know about their nuclear programs, they'll not let any inspectors.
If they don't want to join the NRC, they'll not, and there's little to nothing the UN can do.

Also... Why does the US don't want the UN to inspect Israel's nuclear facilities?
Suspicious...

They'll discover where we hide our Jew Gold!

I mean....YOU HEARD NOTHING.

QUICK MOSSAD!

[Delanshar]

To all those people equating Israel with Iran.

The situation isn't the same.

Israel never signed the NPT while Iran did. Thus there isn't any legal way that the UN can impose oversight over the Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program. Iran, on the other hand, signed it and now legally must abide by it.

If someone didn't sign a treaty then they aren't bound by said treaty. It's pretty basic International Law.

[Agymnum]

If Israel is so afraid of some nuclear inspectors, I don't think we want them being our allies.

[Greater Nilfgaard]

If Israel is so afraid of some nuclear inspectors, I don't think we want them being our allies.

Are you kidding? It means they don't bend under international pressure. Thats the Exact sort of Great Souled nation that you want as your ally.

They will help you in your time of need, no matter what the rest of the world thinks.
This is good. The world is far too awash with vanity. People care about how others view them and nothing else.

This sentiment must be purged.

[Agymnum]

If Israel is so afraid of some nuclear inspectors, I don't think we want them being our allies.

Are you kidding? It means they don't bend under international pressure. Thats the Exact sort of Great Souled nation that you want as your ally.

They will help you in your time of need, no matter what the rest of the world thinks.
This is good. The world is awash with vanity. People care about how others view them and nothing else.

This sentiment must be purged.

Yeah, I'm against the US having allies in-general, and having an ally refuse to comply with the UN just makes me suspect them of foul-smelling bullshit.

Honestly, we don't need their help. If anything they're the ones who need ours and we're wasting our goddamn time trying to help everyone. Help yourself before thinking of others.

[The God-Realm]

Unfortunately, the UN can't force a country to abide their restrictions. They can do as much as frown upon them.
They can guide, recommend and nag, but they don't have any real power over ANY nation.
If Israel don't want them to know about their nuclear programs, they'll not let any inspectors.
If they don't want to join the NRC, they'll not, and there's little to nothing the UN can do.

Also... Why does the US don't want the UN to inspect Israel's nuclear facilities?
Suspicious...

They'll discover where we hide our Jew Gold!

I mean....YOU HEARD NOTHING.

QUICK MOSSAD!

Leave me alone! I will give you my Nazi gold from my Stepfather! My family are moneylenders too! I have a beard...

Mossad why ;~;

[Shofercia]

Thing is, Israel's being sneaky, and sneakiness costs political capital. Finding loopholes in UN's NPT Law looks great in a Courtroom, but to the public, it looks like the government are being sneaky bastards, meaning that the people are going to not support Israel, and if your the government of Nation X, and your people want you to be pro-Palestine, and you don't care either way, you'll vote pro-Palestine to gain popularity. Thus the issue's hurting Israel.

Israel isn't violating, or finding loopholes in, the NPT. It just hasn't signed the NPT, so the NPT won't apply, and doesn't apply, to Israel. The rest of the paragraph is irrelevant, as it was based on a flawed assumption.

Not signing the NPT, while demanding that other NPT signatories adhere to it, make Israel look a bit hypocritical, and hiding behind the "but we never signed NPT, they did" is still bad PR.

On the other hand if they admitted to having nukes, then they'd be in violation of a treaty,

Which treaty would Israel be violating that Israel signed?

I meant "if they admitted to having nukes and signed the NPT".

but they'd loose the whole sneakiness aspect, and it's a toss up. Israel violating a treaty is nothing new. Israel being super-sneaky and possibly being embarrassed by the UN - that's new.

No more new than treaty violation.

Wrong! Here's Israel violating an International Treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ettlements

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Which one's less beneficial to Israel?

Israel isn't presently violating the NPT, since Israel never signed the NPT. Again, a flawed assumption makes your post largely irrelevant.

Where did I say that Israel's violating the NPT?

[IshCong]

Israel isn't violating, or finding loopholes in, the NPT. It just hasn't signed the NPT, so the NPT won't apply, and doesn't apply, to Israel. The rest of the paragraph is irrelevant, as it was based on a flawed assumption.

Not signing the NPT, while demanding that other NPT signatories adhere to it, make Israel look a bit hypocritical, and hiding behind the "but we never signed NPT, they did" is still bad PR.

They haven't signed because they aren't officially a nuclear power, that's the whole point. Israel's political cost is at a high if it reveals that it has nuclear weapons, is officially a nuclear power, and refuses to sign the NPT. It is not going to sign the NPT. Thus, that is precisely why Israel is not stating that it is a nuclear power.

Which treaty would Israel be violating that Israel signed?

I meant "if they admitted to having nukes and signed the NPT".

Ah. You confused me, since merely admitting they have nukes violates no treaties, AFAIK.

No more new than treaty violation.

Wrong! Here's Israel violating an International Treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ettlements

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

That Israel is considered to be violating international law with the settlements, and been called on it, is my whole point. This isn't new. Israel has been producing weapons without overtly stating as much since (most likely) the '60s. Your own link gives:

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980.

Thus, my statement. (I suppose, in retrospect, they've been doing this for a longer period of time than it has been since they have been determined to be violating international law with the settlements.)

Israel isn't presently violating the NPT, since Israel never signed the NPT. Again, a flawed assumption makes your post largely irrelevant.

Where did I say that Israel's violating the NPT?

Your statement said they were 'finding loopholes' in it, which is only relevant if they'd signed it.

[Calenhardon]

Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, who are these 100 people who want Israel to comply with a non-binding resolution for it to comply with a treaty it never agreed to?

[Nazis in Space]

You're clearly not.

I'm not trying to be funny here. I'm genuinely telling you to read the post I replied to, and then think about it. Really, really hard.

Israel can't do whatever it wants in all cases without violating international law. I'm aware of this. However, how does international law apply to this situation?

Utterly irrelevant. The post I quoted clearly stated that Israel, just like any other nation, can do 'Whatever it wants'. No other qualifiers, which is to say, not just pertaining to this case, but to any and all possible cases for anything, ever, regardless of what the issues or who the involved entities are. That's incorrect because such a thing as international law exists.

That you and several others are lacking the mental acumen to actually read and understand posts consisting of two sentences (I.e. the post I quoted and replied to) is, well, pretty sad, but hardly my fault.

Thus far, you don't appear to do a whole lot of thinking.

Oh, that's helpful. :roll:

It's not actually difficult, though. All you've to do is to actually read the posts in question, as opposed to substituting whatever's written there with what you're imagining.

For that matter, reading the OP would be pretty helpful, too. It should make it blatantly clear just how hilariously beside the point you are.

You mean the non-binding UN resolution that only encourages Israel to do anything?

Precisely. Which is why it should, to any rational human being with a minimum of reading comprehension, be clear that I cannot possibly refer to this specific case - though of course, the apparently-missed fact that the person I was responding to did simply deny the very existence of international law - not in this specific case, but universally, which is the precise claim I took issues with -, and me doing nothing more than pointing out (Complete with citation) that this is false should be more than enough to tip pretty much everyone off.

That's what I referred to when I suggested that Lanos didn't read a thing about what I (Or the poster I quoted) actually wrote, and instead choose to substitute the written text with his vivid imagination. An action you, and at least one other person is likewise guilty of.

Now, I imagine that you'd just about love to suggest that I'm engaging in sophistry here - that I attempted to 'Trap' you in a prolonged bout of sophistry. Alas, I must once again refer to the somehow-overlooked fact that I didn't engage you in this debate. You engaged me in it, after I'd simply pointed out, to a person that claimed that any nation can do whatever it wants, that this is false, and international law actually exists (It can be broken, of course, just like criminal law - but that's not usually an argument used to point out that anyone can, say, mug someone else. 'Doing whatever one wants' in contexts like the one we're operating in in this thread are generally assumed to refer to being able to legally do things). You and several others then proceeded to vividly imagine (I don't know... 'shrooms?) that I'd written something completely different, taking my contribution out of context (That is, thoroughly and utterly ignoring the post I'd replied to, and indeed, specifically quoted to make the context clear. Not that this worked, of course, but to be frank, I'm not liable for the intellectual failings of others).

The argument could be made that if one posts in a given thread, one can expect the posts to be relevant to the OP - unfortunately, topic drift is a thing (And a very common thing at that), as are humorous interludes, etc. pp. Conversations evolve. In this instance, the conversation (Well, that's false... Not the whole conversation. The conversation-fork I engaged in) had evolved to cover the reality of international law being, well, extant - once again (And possibly futilely so, given your continuing failure to read and comprehend the posts in question, but hey), this is made extraordinarily obvious by the combination of post-I-quoted and post-by-me. Indeed, clarifying such conversation forks is one of the purposes of the quoting function.

Ultimately, however, there's little I can do. This post included, I've suggested to read and comprehend the post I quoted in four separate posts. In at least three of these instances, the point when so far over your head, I'm pretty sure Voyager 2 is going to need another few decades before it gets close. Considering this precedent, everything I've written in this post is all too likely to fall on deaf ears. Again. And again. And again.

I consider it typing training, though~

[IshCong]

-snipped for brevity-

So, basically, nothing you've said relates to this case at all, and that was the answer to my question all along.
Awesome.

[Kummen]

Israel needs to be more clear about their nuclear program.
In example:
"FUCK WITH US AND WE WILL WIPE YOUR COUNTRY OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH YOU GENOCIDAL HOLOCAUST DENIERS!!!"

And that is how any country with a pair would be clear with the world about their nuclear weapons arsenal.

Makes sense to me.

[Nazis in Space]

-snipped for brevity-

So, basically, nothing you've said relates to this case at all, and that was the answer to my question all along.
Awesome.

It relates to the post I quoted, which occured in this thread. That's about as topical as it gets.

As said, it's not my fault you - and several others - are chronically incapable of reading (Understanding/ paying attention to) the quoted sections in a given post, even after being repeatedly made aware of them. And it is at best bad form to substitute the not-read part with your admittedly vivid imagination and/ or faulty mindreading powers to claim I've written something I... Haven't actually written.

Now, I'll admit, my response to your reading failure was rather arrogant (Up until that last post where I finally spelled out what should've been obvious from the start). But, if it makes you happy, I wont hold your failures in this thread against you. We all make mistakes~

[Greater Nilfgaard]

Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, who are these 100 people who want Israel to comply with a non-binding resolution for it to comply with a treaty it never agreed to?

Every place has some weak willed people

[IshCong]

So, basically, nothing you've said relates to this case at all, and that was the answer to my question all along.
Awesome.

It relates to the post I quoted, which occured in this thread. That's about as topical as it gets.

"This case". As in, the case of the UN telling Israel to sign the NPT and let in inspectors via non-binding GA resolution. I asked what your post had to do with any of that. Turns out, nothing you've said thus far relates to that. That is the answer to my question. A one line sentence you were unable to make clear after repeated posts. But, if it makes you happy, I won't hold your failures to communicate or arrogance in this thread against you. We all make mistakes~

[Shofercia]

Not signing the NPT, while demanding that other NPT signatories adhere to it, make Israel look a bit hypocritical, and hiding behind the "but we never signed NPT, they did" is still bad PR.

They haven't signed because they aren't officially a nuclear power, that's the whole point. Israel's political cost is at a high if it reveals that it has nuclear weapons, is officially a nuclear power, and refuses to sign the NPT. It is not going to sign the NPT. Thus, that is precisely why Israel is not stating that it is a nuclear power.

And I'm saying that Israel keeping silent about it is going to make Israel incur a higher political cost.

Wrong! Here's Israel violating an International Treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ettlements

That Israel is considered to be violating international law with the settlements, and been called on it, is my whole point. This isn't new. Israel has been producing weapons without overtly stating as much since (most likely) the '60s. Your own link gives:

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980.

Thus, my statement. (I suppose, in retrospect, they've been doing this for a longer period of time than it has been since they have been determined to be violating international law with the settlements.)

Right, but I was saying that Israel being caught while acting sneaky would be something that's new. And something that might actually happen. Either way, I'm getting popcorn.

[Nazis in Space]

It relates to the post I quoted, which occured in this thread. That's about as topical as it gets.

"This case". As in, the case of the UN telling Israel to sign the NPT and let in inspectors via non-binding GA resolution. I asked what your post had to do with any of that. Turns out, nothing you've said thus far relates to that. That is the answer to my question. A one line sentence you were unable to make clear after repeated posts. But, if it makes you happy, I won't hold your failures to communicate or arrogance in this thread against you. We all make mistakes~

But the answer to your question was (For the reasons outlined earlier) given before you even asked it - that being, incidentally, why I told you to read said post again. Which leaves us with fairly little space as to why you asked this question. There's precisely two possibilities: You didn't comprehend my post (The assumption I was working under), or 2. you decided to engage in thinly disguised spam.

Hm.

[Sucrati]

Allow the inspectors in but tell them that they will be kept within the bounds of a security force to ensure that no material, unless required, will be leaving with the Inspectors. That way the UN and Israel will be secure in the fact that nothing is left open for anyone but those who are supposed to have the material gets it. That and any locations where the nuclear weapons are stored must be kept as secret as possible so those who would want to steal or sabotage the weapons cannot.

And if it's verified that Israel has nuclear weapons, (in my opinion, they do), then that should most likely stop any real attempts at an invasion force from 'pushing Israel into the sea' or something along those lines.

If they don't have nuclear weapons, the IDF is still capable of defending what territory that Israel legitimately owns as a nation. They have proved it time and time again, all without the deterrent of nuclear weapons.

Either way, nuclear weapons or not, the IDF as stated, is capable of defending what territory is under the control of Israel (Not talking about Gaza or the West Bank).

[IshCong]

They haven't signed because they aren't officially a nuclear power, that's the whole point. Israel's political cost is at a high if it reveals that it has nuclear weapons, is officially a nuclear power, and refuses to sign the NPT. It is not going to sign the NPT. Thus, that is precisely why Israel is not stating that it is a nuclear power.

And I'm saying that Israel keeping silent about it is going to make Israel incur a higher political cost.

Your own argument suggests otherwise. You speak of Israel looking hypocritical, but Israel looks even more hypocritical if it is openly and officially a nuclear weapons state, hasn't signed the NPT, doesn't let inspectors in, and keeps cajoling Iran to do the same.

That Israel is considered to be violating international law with the settlements, and been called on it, is my whole point. This isn't new. Israel has been producing weapons without overtly stating as much since (most likely) the '60s. Your own link gives:


Thus, my statement. (I suppose, in retrospect, they've been doing this for a longer period of time than it has been since they have been determined to be violating international law with the settlements.)

Right, but I was saying that Israel being caught while acting sneaky would be something that's new. And something that might actually happen. Either way, I'm getting popcorn.

Israel's been known to be doing this, being sneaky, building nuclear weapons and not admitting it publicly, for ages. This isn't new either. Unless you're referring to something else?
(Mind sharing the popcorn? )

---

"This case". As in, the case of the UN telling Israel to sign the NPT and let in inspectors via non-binding GA resolution. I asked what your post had to do with any of that. Turns out, nothing you've said thus far relates to that. That is the answer to my question. A one line sentence you were unable to make clear after repeated posts. But, if it makes you happy, I won't hold your failures to communicate or arrogance in this thread against you. We all make mistakes~

But the answer to your question was (For the reasons outlined earlier) given before you even asked it - that being, incidentally, why I told you to read said post again.

Right, we've discussed your inability to simply say, "No, nothing I'm saying has any bearing on the UN resolution, Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, or Israel's response to the UN resolution" in favor of vagueness and self-admitted arrogance.

Which leaves us with fairly little space as to why you asked this question.

Silly me, posting regarding the topic. How dare I.

There's precisely two possibilities: You didn't comprehend my post (The assumption I was working under), or 2. you decided to engage in thinly disguised spam.

Hm.

3: I thought we'd try and post on topic.

[Nazis in Space]

But the answer to your question was (For the reasons outlined earlier) given before you even asked it - that being, incidentally, why I told you to read said post again.

Right, we've discussed your inability to simply say, "No, nothing I'm saying has any bearing on the UN resolution, Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, or Israel's response to the UN resolution" in favor of vagueness and self-admitted arrogance.

It's really not vague. The post and what it was in reference to was about as explicit as it gets.

It was, of course, arrogant, but that's hardly surprising when people ask for clarification on something perfectly clear. You didn't argue for or against this post, you asked what it was in reference to, when said reference was specifically quoted before it. Typically, you see that kind of mannerism from people suffering from downs syndrome - no, this isn't meant to be an insult, I mean that people with downs syndrome (One's living nearby, we occasionally see each other in a fast food place) are indeed the ones who exhibit precisely this kind of behaviour. Since I'm pretty confident that you're not suffering from downs syndrome, this leaves me with the inescapable conclusion that you're intentionally refusing to take the post as what it is and ask for what amounts to a repost for... No particular reason? Being an ass? Shit and giggles? I don't know, really. But regardless of the precise motivations you had, they weren't conductive to treating you like a child and patiently explaining everything step by step and multiple times over like you would to a particularly dim child (Well, I eventually did do this... Nevermind). Hence, 'Arrogance'.

Which leaves us with fairly little space as to why you asked this question.

Silly me, posting regarding the topic. How dare I.

But you didn't. I clarified the incorrect statement of another user. It could - indeed, it should - have ended then and there. Claim that international law doesn't exist made -> claim that international law doesn't exist refuted -> done. You'll notice that the correction of false details tangentially related to the original topic isn't uncommon - indeed, it is universal, and it should be, seeing as correcting errors is generally a pretty useful thing to do.

However, you choose to make it Claim that international law doesn't exist made -> claim that international law doesn't exist refuted -> start a pointless back-and-forth not pertaining to the specific tangential factoid at hand, nor pertaining to the OP, seeing as it isn't an international law issue, and I hadn't made a single, not even the tiniest reference that it could be so.

[Shofercia]

And I'm saying that Israel keeping silent about it is going to make Israel incur a higher political cost.

Your own argument suggests otherwise. You speak of Israel looking hypocritical, but Israel looks even more hypocritical if it is openly and officially a nuclear weapons state, hasn't signed the NPT, doesn't let inspectors in, and keeps cajoling Iran to do the same.

So Israel should either sign and abide by the NPT, or get an NPT signatory, like the US, to cajole Iran on Israel's behalf. That way, there's no hypocrisy. Dun, dun, dun!

Right, but I was saying that Israel being caught while acting sneaky would be something that's new. And something that might actually happen. Either way, I'm getting popcorn.

Israel's been known to be doing this, being sneaky, building nuclear weapons and not admitting it publicly, for ages. This isn't new either. Unless you're referring to something else?
(Mind sharing the popcorn? )

But they rarely get caught. With this being an "open secret" and UN knocking on Israel's doors, that means that they're closer to being caught than they ever were. Hence the popcorn.

[IshCong]

Right, we've discussed your inability to simply say, "No, nothing I'm saying has any bearing on the UN resolution, Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, or Israel's response to the UN resolution" in favor of vagueness and self-admitted arrogance.

It's really not vague. The post and what it was in reference to was about as explicit as it gets.

If at least four different people didn't get it, then it is apparently only explicit to you. Ordinarily I'd assume that it was the fault of the reader, but after several people read several posts by you, the first and then the several posts 'explaining' things, it's clear what the common denominator is.

It was, of course, arrogant, but that's hardly surprising when people ask for clarification on something perfectly clear.

Also arrogant: Repeatedly stating you were perfectly clear when it is self-evident you were anything but.

You didn't argue for or against this post, you asked what it was in reference to, when said reference was specifically quoted before it. Typically, you see that kind of mannerism from people suffering from downs syndrome - no, this isn't meant to be an insult, I mean that people with downs syndrome (One's living nearby, we occasionally see each other in a fast food place) are indeed the ones who exhibit precisely this kind of behaviour. Since I'm pretty confident that you're not suffering from downs syndrome, this leaves me with the inescapable conclusion that you're intentionally refusing to take the post as what it is and ask for what amounts to a repost for... No particular reason? Being an ass? Shit and giggles?

"No, this isn't an insult, I'm just likening you to a person with Down's Syndrome while asking if you're an ass."

I don't know, really. But regardless of the precise motivations you had, they weren't conductive to treating you like a child and patiently explaining everything step by step and multiple times over like you would to a particularly dim child (Well, I eventually did do this... Nevermind). Hence, 'Arrogance'.

Alternatively you could have just answered the question in one simple line, not numerous vague posts several people couldn't make sense of and then a condescending block of, largely redundant, text. Is that too much to ask?

Silly me, posting regarding the topic. How dare I.

But you didn't.

Asking how international law applies to the topic/thread isn't posting regarding the topic?

I clarified the incorrect statement of another user. It could - indeed, it should - have ended then and there. Claim that international law doesn't exist made -> claim that international law doesn't exist refuted -> done. You'll notice that the correction of false details tangentially related to the original topic isn't uncommon - indeed, it is universal, and it should be, seeing as correcting errors is generally a pretty useful thing to do.

However, you choose to make it Claim that international law doesn't exist made -> claim that international law doesn't exist refuted -> start a pointless back-and-forth not pertaining to the specific tangential factoid at hand, nor pertaining to the OP, seeing as it isn't an international law issue, and I hadn't made a single, not even the tiniest reference that it could be so.

I asked how international law related to the topic of this thread. The answer: It doesn't, apparently. Nothing you've posted has. You could have just said as much, but instead you opted for self-admitted arrogance and condescension. Congratulations?

---

Your own argument suggests otherwise. You speak of Israel looking hypocritical, but Israel looks even more hypocritical if it is openly and officially a nuclear weapons state, hasn't signed the NPT, doesn't let inspectors in, and keeps cajoling Iran to do the same.

So Israel should either sign and abide by the NPT,

Highly unlikely.

or get an NPT signatory, like the US, to cajole Iran on Israel's behalf. That way, there's no hypocrisy. Dun, dun, dun!

Cajoling the US into cajoling Iran is about as hypocritical as cajoling Iran directly, really. Either way, Israel would be pressuring Iran, directly or indirectly, to the same end. At least directly they have more freedom of motion.
Of course, plenty of others are cajoling Iran anyway.

Israel's been known to be doing this, being sneaky, building nuclear weapons and not admitting it publicly, for ages. This isn't new either. Unless you're referring to something else?
(Mind sharing the popcorn? )

But they rarely get caught. With this being an "open secret" and UN knocking on Israel's doors, that means that they're closer to being caught than they ever were. Hence the popcorn.

They've essentially already been 'caught' here, as it is an open secret. The UN resolution is non-binding, which means Israel is only any closer to being any more 'caught' (which presumably means it being overtly and officially recognized that Israel has nuclear arms) if Israel permits it to be so.

[Shofercia]

or get an NPT signatory, like the US, to cajole Iran on Israel's behalf. That way, there's no hypocrisy. Dun, dun, dun!

Cajoling the US into cajoling Iran is about as hypocritical as cajoling Iran directly, really. Either way, Israel would be pressuring Iran, directly or indirectly, to the same end. At least directly they have more freedom of motion.
Of course, plenty of others are cajoling Iran anyway.[/code]

Not if Israel does it covertly, via AIPAC. It's the usual Modus Operandi, so I'm a bit surprised why they didn't just run with that, this time.

They've essentially already been 'caught' here, as it is an open secret. The UN resolution is non-binding, which means Israel is only any closer to being any more 'caught' (which presumably means it being overtly and officially recognized that Israel has nuclear arms) if Israel permits it to be so.

Yeah, but now UN is pressuring Israel to admit weapon inspectors. Israel will probably resist, and lose political capital as a result.