UN tells Israel to let in nuclear inspectors

[IshCong]

Botched the code on this one, should be better down below.
Double-post an accident. ~,~

[IshCong]

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.

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.

It may also be that America is largely interested in Iran and Iranian nuclear weapons due to Israel, so they may feel that they have to be somewhat overt about it to make America and Americans understand why they're making a fuss over a nation a depressingly large number of its citizens cannot locate on a map. That said, you do raise a good point here.

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.

Indeed, and likely that is the whole point of the resolution. While it made sense for Israel to be cagey in times prior, this resolution is likely aimed at causing the situation to be 'more trouble than it is worth'. We shall see how this plays out. At least for now, I don't think Israel will sign the NPT or permit inspectors access. The fall-out from that may decide much.

[Risottia]

Including Finland and America, I guess, which, being UN members, are part of the gang of anti-semitic dictatorships. Right?

This is not the first time I'm saying this, but please, NSGers, don't think Hippostania's comments in any way reflect the general comments of other Finns.

Hey, you're talking to a guy who had to tolerate having Berlusconi as PM for about ten years.

Hippo is free to say what he wants - and I will counter what he says if I feel it' the case. My earlier reference to Finland and America was a mere attempt at extending his reasoning to the two countries for whom he usually expresses a strong liking - not an attack on Finns and Americans. Just to be very clear.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I actually dont think they have to.

Interesting. Do North Korea and Iran have to?

UN resolutions, as I found out last night, are legally non-binding.
So no.

Again, I question the point of the UN, which seems to be relying exclusively on bullying member nations through peer pressure to actually following anything.

[Len Hyet]

Can somebody answer me this:

I believe the NPT has a clause which allows states who had nuclear capabilities before some year to keep their nuclear weapons.

Does anybody know the exact year/wording?

[CTALNH]

spoilers: they will say refuse and the U.S. and the posters on this forum will back them up and then go back to chanting BOMB IRAN

As I former US military member... I think Israel should join the NPT. And I don't think we need to bomb Iran. I'm certain ISrael will refuse, of couse... this has nothing to do with my opinion.... merely an educated guess based on past experience with watching the stuff Israel does.

Oh s#@&@% their going to bomb Iran aren't they?

[Forster Keys]

Making Israel conform to the same nuclear weaponry standards set and followed by the overwhelming majority of the world is clearly anti-Semitic and a travesty of enormous proportions.

[Len Hyet]

As I former US military member... I think Israel should join the NPT. And I don't think we need to bomb Iran. I'm certain ISrael will refuse, of couse... this has nothing to do with my opinion.... merely an educated guess based on past experience with watching the stuff Israel does.

Oh s#@&@% their going to bomb Iran aren't they?

It's unlikely.

[TomKirk]

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.

Why? India and Pakistan officially reveal that they have nuclear weapons, have no intention of ever signing the NPT, and nobody obsesses in the General Assembly about beating up on either of them. Israel's "political cost" comes from existing, and will remain the same no matter what they do.

[TomKirk]

Can somebody answer me this:

I believe the NPT has a clause which allows states who had nuclear capabilities before some year to keep their nuclear weapons.

Does anybody know the exact year/wording?

The exemption is for the permanent members of the Security Council, who (not entirely by coincidence) are the countries which had nuclear weapons prior to the NPT's drafting.

[Len Hyet]

Can somebody answer me this:

I believe the NPT has a clause which allows states who had nuclear capabilities before some year to keep their nuclear weapons.

Does anybody know the exact year/wording?

The exemption is for the permanent members of the Security Council, who (not entirely by coincidence) are the countries which had nuclear weapons prior to the NPT's drafting.

I thought it might be something like that.

Thank you

[IshCong]

Interesting. Do North Korea and Iran have to?

UN resolutions, as I found out last night, are legally non-binding.
So no.

Again, I question the point of the UN, which seems to be relying exclusively on bullying member nations through peer pressure to actually following anything.

North Korea is not a signatory to the NPT. EDIT: Well, not anymore. It withdrew in '03, apparently.
Iran is, and is thus (ostensibly) supposed to comply with the terms of the NPT. Iran has violated the NPT at least once, however.

[IshCong]

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.

Why? India and Pakistan officially reveal that they have nuclear weapons, have no intention of ever signing the NPT, and nobody obsesses in the General Assembly about beating up on either of them. Israel's "political cost" comes from existing, and will remain the same no matter what they do.

You'll find that India and Pakistan aren't as controversial a topic as Israel and you'll note that there can be more than one source of political cost. In this case, even assuming that there is a political cost to Israel's existence, that in no way refutes the statement that it is even more politically costly for Israel to be an openly nuclear power that refuses to sign the NPT. As this shows, they're getting flak for the situation as is, being openly nuclear is likely going to worsen that unless they also sign the NPT and disarm, and that is undesirable to Israel so they are unlikely to do it presently. The notion that somehow no matter what Israel does has no effect on how much political good-will it has to use is clearly flawed, unless one thinks Israel could, for example, nuke Iran and somehow not dramatically lessen how much good-will it has.

[Kemalist]

spoilers: they will say refuse and the U.S. and the posters on this forum will back them up and then go back to chanting BOMB IRAN

This. Who cares if Israel cares about international laws or not or even clearly challenge them (Iran is being criticized for allegedly not complying with the necessities of NPT while nobody says anything to Israel who has not even signed the treaty)

The spoiled boy should be tolerated by his parents after all, no matter what.

[Len Hyet]

spoilers: they will say refuse and the U.S. and the posters on this forum will back them up and then go back to chanting BOMB IRAN

This. Who cares if Israel cares about international laws or not or even clearly challenge them (Iran is being criticized for allegedly not complying with the necessities of NPT while nobody says anything to Israel who has not even signed the treaty)

The spoiled boy should be tolerated by his parents after all, no matter what.

I believe this thread is about the fact that the UN voted with an overwhelming majority to show contempt for Israel's lack of admittance of IAEA inspectors.

So what are you on about?

[Dilange]

If they are going to try this shit with Israel, they need to do it with north Korea, India, and Pakistan. If the United Nations doesnt do that, then its anti-Israel policy.

[Senkaku]

The Israelis want the Iranians to, so they should too.

[Kemalist]

This. Who cares if Israel cares about international laws or not or even clearly challenge them (Iran is being criticized for allegedly not complying with the necessities of NPT while nobody says anything to Israel who has not even signed the treaty)

The spoiled boy should be tolerated by his parents after all, no matter what.

I believe this thread is about the fact that the UN voted with an overwhelming majority to show contempt for Israel's lack of admittance of IAEA inspectors.

So what are you on about?

There is the fact that Israel is not harshly bashed and criticized as much as Iran.

There is a difference between the attitudes " Stop the nuclears now you fucking evil bitch, I'm sanctioning you until you do that! " and " Oh, not to be rude, but could you please more careful about your nuclears ? " and as Israel does not give a fuck about it, their response will probably like " It's ok, if you say so, sorry for bothering. "

[Lowell Leber]

spoilers: they will say refuse and the U.S. and the posters on this forum will back them up and then go back to chanting BOMB IRAN

^Pretty much....EDIT: Pretty much as in thats what I plan on doing!

[Dilange]

There is the fact that Israel is not harshly bashed and criticized as much as Iran.

There is a difference between the attitudes " Stop the nuclears now you fucking evil bitch, I'm sanctioning you until you do that! " and " Oh, not to be rude, but could you please more careful about your nuclears ? " and as Israel does not give a fuck about it, their response will probably like " It's ok, if you say so, sorry for bothering. "

Sorry for us trying to get Iran to follow what the NPT, which it signed, says. I mean we really must be assholes for that.

[Tmutarakhan]

Why? India and Pakistan officially reveal that they have nuclear weapons, have no intention of ever signing the NPT, and nobody obsesses in the General Assembly about beating up on either of them. Israel's "political cost" comes from existing, and will remain the same no matter what they do.

You'll find that India and Pakistan aren't as controversial a topic as Israel

Exactly, even though the number of refugees created in 1947-49 was far larger in the India-Pakistan case, even though Kashmir remains a bleeding sore which has cost more lives over the years than all the blowups over Palestine put together. But the UN club has decided that bullying a small country is more fun than bullying a large one.

There is the fact that Israel is not harshly bashed and criticized as much as Iran.

[Kemalist]

There is the fact that Israel is not harshly bashed and criticized as much as Iran.

There is a difference between the attitudes " Stop the nuclears now you fucking evil bitch, I'm sanctioning you until you do that! " and " Oh, not to be rude, but could you please more careful about your nuclears ? " and as Israel does not give a fuck about it, their response will probably like " It's ok, if you say so, sorry for bothering. "

Sorry for us trying to get Iran to follow what the NPT, which it signed, says. I mean we really must be assholes for that.

At least they are not one of those who still have not signed it. Who is more threating here ?

[Dilange]

At least they are not one of those who still have not signed it. Who is more threating here ?

North Korea. Then the Pakistan and India conflict. Those three have also not signed the treaty also, and I can se those nations using nukes before Israel.

But between Israel and Iran, Iran definately. Iran wants wipe Israel off the map. Israel wont do shit unless the United States will be right behind them.

[IshCong]

You'll find that India and Pakistan aren't as controversial a topic as Israel

Exactly, even though the number of refugees created in 1947-49 was far larger in the India-Pakistan case, even though Kashmir remains a bleeding sore which has cost more lives over the years than all the blowups over Palestine put together. But the UN club has decided that bullying a small country is more fun than bullying a large one.

Or at least easier. =T

[IshCong]

If they are going to try this shit with Israel, they need to do it with north Korea, India, and Pakistan. If the United Nations doesnt do that, then its anti-Israel policy.

Various parties have tried repeatedly to get North Korea to both sign and comply with the NPT. North Korea being, well, North Korea has proven...difficult to deal with, to say the least.