Apples and Oranges? - Disparity in enforcing UN Resolutions

Can some one tell me why Iran should comply with this UN resolution?

TEHRAN, August 6 (RIA Novosti) - The UN Security Council resolution on Iran is unacceptable, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Sunday.

The UN Security Council voted July 31 in favor of a resolution to set August 31 as a deadline for Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities. If Iran fails to fulfill the UN's demands, economic and diplomatic sanctions may be imposed on the Islamic Republic.

Asefi said the resolution did not recognize Tehran's right to civil nuclear technologies.

UN Security Council resolution on Iran unacceptable - official

When Israel still hasnt complied with this one?

U.N. Security Council Resolution 242
The United Nations responds to Israel's territorial gains in the Six Day War.

November 22, 1967


The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

* Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
* Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; Affirms further the necessity
* For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
* For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
* For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" which is obviously the West Bank and Gaza. Correct me if I am wrong but does it say "Israel go build illegal settlements in the occupied territory"? Why is it alright for Israel to thumb its nose at a unanimous UN Security Council resolution but not when Iran does it? Double standards?

[edit on 9/8/06 by subz]

Sibz, one country ignoring the U.N. is not a reason for another to do so. I understand the point you are attempting to make (and I tend to agree with it), but I don't personally think this thread is the correct way to do it. Get people to watch the video the Pie Man posted called "Peace, Propoganda and The Promised Land" and I think you'll sway more people to your point of view.

[edit on 9-8-2006 by Astronomer70]

Isn't there a resolution regarding Nukes and that they wanted inspections done in israel too? I could have swore there was one.
They wanted transparency and also monitoring. Im at work now so I will see if I have time to look it up when I get home.




Pie

It high lights bias in our news media and in the US double standards in response to adherence to UN resolutions.

It's fine and dandy for Israel to flout upteen UN Security Council resolutions and break the UN Charter at every turn yet when Iran defies the council all hell breaks loose.

I found this interesting. It implies that America blocked UN attempts to get Israel to monitor its Nuclear facilites and to allow inspections. HOLY CRAPPOLA!
America was actually aiding Israel in keeping its Nuclear capabilities secretive by Vetoing El Baredi's and the UN's suggestion.

ElBaradei to focus on Israel's nuclear weapons

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Tuesday July 6, 2004
The Guardian


The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, arrives in Israel today to urge the government to begin talks about ridding the Middle East of nuclear arms, whether or not it finally admits to manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.
Israel has no intention of acknowledging that it has nuclear weapons, or of opening its reactors to international inspection. But the visit of the International Atomic Energy Agency chief comes as Israel is increasingly sensitive to pressure for it to be subject to the same standards of international accountability demanded of other countries in the Middle East.

The release from prison of the nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu sharpened the focus on Israel's arsenal.

For several months now Dr ElBaradei has publicly prodded the Israelis toward discussions on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East.

"I believe in the importance of holding a dialogue on the subject and I don't see a reason why Israel isn't ready to at least start the discussion," he told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz in December.

"My fear is that without such a dialogue there will continue to be incentives for the countries of the region to develop weapons of mass destruction to match the Israeli arsenal."

Israel maintains a policy of what it calls "nuclear ambiguity". It argues that neither confirming nor denying it has such weapons helps deter its enemies. The US Central Intelligence Agency estimates that Israel has between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads, making it the world's fifth largest nuclear power.

Israel's refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has prompted 13 votes by the UN general assembly since 1987 calling on it do so. The US has blocked any move to take the issue to the security council.

Source

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Sibz, one country ignoring the U.N. is not a reason for another to do so. I understand the point you are attempting to make (and I tend to agree with it), but I don't personally think this thread is the correct way to do it. Get people to watch the video the Pie Man posted called "Peace, Propoganda and The Promised Land" and I think you'll sway more people to your point of view.

[edit on 9-8-2006 by Astronomer70]

Actually, it is. If one country can get away with disregarding the UN then why shouldn't other nations? Do you see my point? "If he can get away with it, then why can't I?"

Yes, this even applies to the US, something I support. Ironically, I'd have more respect for the UN if they were smacking down my own country when it went against their orders. Ofcourse if they were doing that to everyone then many of the world's problems would be gone. (They'd be replaced by all new ones)

Originally posted by Langolier
Actually, it is. If one country can get away with disregarding the UN then why shouldn't other nations? Do you see my point? "If he can get away with it, then why can't I?"

Because we've been taught (correctly) from a very early age that just because Billy gets away with doing something wrong doesn't give us an excuse to do wrong. Iow, pointing to bad behavior as justification for more bad behavior is not valid.

For a more current example, the US must follow a different set of rules than the insurgency when fighting in Iraq. And we are constantly called on the carpet if we don't.

Originally posted by jsobeckyBecause we've been taught (correctly) from a very early age that just because Billy gets away with doing something wrong doesn't give us an excuse to do wrong. Iow, pointing to bad behavior as justification for more bad behavior is not valid.

For a more current example, the US must follow a different set of rules than the insurgency when fighting in Iraq. And we are constantly called on the carpet if we don't.

Well lets say Billy is constantly doing wrong, (the list of Israel defying U.N. resolutions is long) and everyone lets him get away with it, how can we expect others to listen to U.N. Im not saying that it is right for Iran to defy the U.N. but we can hardly expect it of them. This is a double standard in the international community.