Israeli Apologists: Justify This

[Commodore]

The UN has overwhelmingly passed a resolution in a 161-5 vote demanding Israel immediately cease any development or acquisition of nuclear weapons and submit any of their nuclear facilities to the oversight of the IAEA.

The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved an Arab-backed resolution Tuesday calling on Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and put its nuclear facilities under international oversight.

The resolution, adopted in a 161-5 vote, noted that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that is not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It called on Israel to "accede to that treaty without further delay, not to develop, produce test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons" and put its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency

I agree wholeheartedly with this resolution, but I know all the Israeli sympathizers out there will find some ridiculous reason why Israel shouldn't have to surrender its nukes, yet continue to maintain that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is something that simply cannot happen.

So my question to the Israeli sympathizers and apologists is: Why do you feel Israel should be allowed to develop and acquire nuclear weapons but Iran should not? Also, how is it not hypocritical of the Israeli government to threaten Iran with military action for developing nuclear weapons, but then scoff at a UN resolution with overwhelming international support that demands they end their own nuclear program?

EDIT: Whoops forgot the link: Here it is

 

[bhsup]

Done.

Well, that was easy. Next?

 

[Berzerker]

I dont mind if Israel and Iran have nukes

 

[Commodore]

Done.

Well, that was easy. Next?

Wow, you really missed the point, huh?

 

[Borachio]

So my question to the Israeli sympathizers and apologists is: Why do you feel Israel should be allowed to develop and acquire nuclear weapons but Iran should not? Also, how is it not hypocritical of the Israeli government to threaten Iran with military action for developing nuclear weapons, but then scoff at a UN resolution with overwhelming international support that demands they end their own nuclear program?

I'm not an Israel sympathizer or apologist. I think.

But here's my best guess at the answer: because Israel sees itself in a uniquely vulnerable position and feels threatened by most of its immediate neighbours.

This simply isn't the case with Iran. Moreover, Iran has made its antithetical attitude towards Israel very plain in the past.

Too simplistic an answer? Maybe it is.

 

[bhsup]

Wow, you really missed the point, huh?

No, not really. Iran has an obligation under that treaty to not develop or maintain nuclear weapons. Israel has no such obligation as they never signed the treaty. Am I missing something else in play here?

 

[Commodore]

No, not really. Iran has an obligation under that treaty to not develop or maintain nuclear weapons. Israel has no such obligation as they never signed the treaty. Am I missing something else in play here?

Yeah, as a nation that has not signed the treaty you reference, they have no right to threaten Iran with military action for developing nuclear weapons. Israel is also a member of the United Nations and should strive to comply with all of its resolutions that pertain to them, even if they are not legally binding.

EDIT: Also, looking at the list shows that Iran signed the treaty in 1968. The government that signed the treaty was overthrown in 1979. Is there any evidence that the government that took over in 1979 still even recognizes the treaties signed by the old government? It seems to me that if a government is overthrown, any treaties it signed should no longer be legally binding to the new government and they should be under no obligation to continue to honor them.

 

[bhsup]

Their reason for freaking out over Iran having nukes is because it is a direct threat to their existence. The fact that Israel had nukes since the 70s at least and not used them on others shows Israel is not a threat to others in the area just for having them.

The two countries are not the same, at all and you cannot compare them like they are. So, what is left? The NNPT, which Iran signed and Israel didn't. So Israel can tell the UN to go pound sand, which they should anyway, no matter what, since it is the UN and it should always be told that.

 

[luiz]

Yeah considering Israel never committed to not pursuing nuclear weapons I don't see how they should be forced to surrender their nukes any more than say the US.

My position on nuclear proliferation BTW is that it's not something that can be really dealt with by treaties. Countries will develop them or not based on a strategic cost-benefit analysis. For Israel having nukes clearly passes the test. For Iran? Doubtful, as the present sanctions that have locked the country in deep crisis show.

 

[Commodore]

Their reason for freaking out over Iran having nukes is because it is a direct threat to their existence. The fact that Israel had nukes since the 70s at least and not used them on others shows Israel is not a threat to others in the area just for having them.

The two countries are not the same, at all and you cannot compare them like they are. So, what is left? The NNPT, which Iran signed and Israel didn't. So Israel can tell the UN to go pound sand, which they should anyway, no matter what, since it is the UN and it should always be told that.

Then they should withdraw from the UN. It is my opinion that any nation not willing to follow the decisions made by the UN should not be allowed to have a voice in the organization.

And perhaps you were typing your reply while I was editing my post, but I stated the government in Iran that signed the treaty was overthrown a decade later. I admit that I do not know if the new government recognizes the treaties signed by the old one, but if they don't then this treaty is no longer legally binding for them until they decide to sign it again.

 

[bhsup]

I don't think that's how it works, Commodore. That would be waaaay to easy of an out for countries to get out of agreements.

"Oopsie, we just dissolved this government. You'll have to try to renegotiate with whatever the hell is in charge next week."

 

[Borachio]

Isn't that in effect what they do when it suits them?

Such a thing does have a huge cost in terms of international credibility, though.

 

[Commodore]

I don't think that's how it works, Commodore. That would be waaaay to easy of an out for countries to get out of agreements.

"Oopsie, we just dissolved this government. You'll have to try to renegotiate with whatever the hell is in charge next week."

But why shouldn't it work that way? If a government is overthrown by its people it means that government has lost the mandate of the people and so any agreement that government made with other nations can no longer been seen as valid. So as much of a pain in the butt as it would be, I think treaties should become void and must be renegotiated if a new government comes to power in a nation.

The idea behind it being that the new government is just that, a new government. That means they get a clean slate and should enjoy the privilege of cherry-picking which obligations of the old government they wish to continue to honor.

 

[ori]

When did treaties become void after a government change? and wouldn't this apply to all treaties at the same time? So if Iran is still a UN member even though it entered prior to the revolution why should other treaties become non-binding?

As for Israel: the non-proliferation treaty is still a voluntary measure originally designed as a a trade with civil technology being exchanged for forgoing military technology. There is no treaty most certainly not the UN charter forcing anyone to enter into the non-proliferation treaty, it does lack a get-out clause though.

There is much that can be criticized about Israel's politics and policies with quite valid grounds, including their threats against real or perceived enemies (Iran which routinely calls for attacks on Israel may not be the best example) - but Israel actually adhering to the UN charter and the non-proliferation treaty (as in choosing to not follow the recommendations of the General Assembly [and per the UN charter the GA cannot do more than issue recommendations] and as in choosing to not sign the treaty) is not really something you need to be an apologist for to point out as not being one of the valid causes of criticism.

 

[Borachio]

The UK is signatory to around 15,000 international treaties. Are you seriously suggesting they renegotiate the lot every 5 years?

 

[bhsup]

I think Commodore meant 'government' in the American sense and not the British sense, Borachio. What we call government is the US federal government which as been the same since the adoption of our Constitution back in the 18th century. Your usage of government would be more in line with our usage of administration.

 

[jackelgull]

the problem with any country having nuclear weapons is that crazies can take over the government and decide to launch a nuclear holocaust on another non nuclear nation and by the time any response can be made there is nothing to be done. it will come at he cost of international credibility but there are some people who don't really care about that and they're generally the ones who'll use nukes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Israel is immune to resolutions by the UN General Assembly. If it ever gets to the security council they will just use their veto.

 

[Borachio]

Oh. OK, Mr Sup. Fair enough, I guess.

I can't think of anything to argue with about that.

So, you're saying the UK has had the same government since the Restoration of 1660? Which actually (!) predates the UK itself.

 

[bhsup]

I suppose so, yeah, though I am vague enough on your history to not really claim that with any certainty. Perhaps the Act(s) of Union would be considered a new govt? Dunno the nitty gritty enough to say one way or another.