Will Obama make Israel get rid of nukes?Will Obama make Israel get rid of nukes?
Obama has invited Israeli PM Netanyahu to a nuclear summit next week’s in Washington DC.
I suspect Obama will tell Israel to get rid of their nukes.
Bibi wisely decided not to come. Its a TRAP. Also read
America, Israel's enemy and this also
Will Obama make Israel get rid of nukes? . . . . . . . . Will Obama make Israel get rid of nukes?
May 3, 2010
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will try this week at the United Nations to keep the worst-kept secret in the Middle East:
Israel's status as a nuclear power.
In recent weeks, the U.S. government has held talks with Egypt on a proposal to eliminate nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
The U.S. diplomacy on the proposal also has been coordinated closely with Israel, according to a senior White House official.
That proposal is likely to be a major point of debate this month at the review conference for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that is set to begin in New York on Monday.
HELLary Clinton is leading the U.S. delegation to the opening of the conference.
The United States is trying to rally the U.N. Security Council to pass a fourth resolution to sanction Iran's nuclear program. The conference will focus on ways to strengthen the fraying treaty and isolate Iran, U.S. officials said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will attend the conference as the head of his country's delegation. He is expected to raise the issue of Israel's nuclear weapons to deflect attention from Iran's enrichment of uranium.
Iran could have an ally in traditional rival Egypt, whose delegation will be pushing for a resolution that would have the effect of singling out Israel, one of the three countries in the world that has never signed the NPT.
As an undeclared nuclear power, the Israeli government does not confirm that it has nuclear weapons. It is illegal in Israel for newspapers to print that the country has nuclear arms.
For 40 years, the United States has been a partner in Israel's nuclear opacity as well. In a deal fashioned in 1969 between President Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, the United States does not pressure Israel to join the treaty, which would require the Jewish state to give up its nuclear weapons. Israel, in turn, does not acknowledge it has the weapons.
The Egyptian working paper of March 2010 on the nuclear-free Middle East threatens to upset this secret understanding. Specifically, it would require member states of the NPT to "disclose in their national reports on the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East all information available to them on the nature and scope of Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel."
The Egyptian working paper also calls for a conference by 2011 on making the Middle East free of nuclear weapons and a special envoy to coordinate such a conference.
Speaking to reporters Friday, Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary of state for international security and arms control, said the United States supports in principle the long-term goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.
But she said that a conference on this issue should follow a comprehensive peace in the region and should address weapons of mass destruction programs in addition to nuclear weapons.
"We believe that this is a very worthy goal, something that we have supported since 1995," Ms. Tauscher said. "But we are concerned that the conditions are not right. And unless all members of the region participate, which would be unlikely unless there is a comprehensive peace plan that is being accepted and worked on, then you couldn't have the conference that would achieve what we are all looking to achieve, which is for the region to make its own decisions and come together and find a way to do that."
Ms. Tauscher's position is substantively no different from the secret Israeli strategic doctrine known as the "long corridor," which establishes conditions — such as peace agreements with its neighbors — for Israel to relinquish its nuclear weapons.
The official Israeli statement, for example, from the International Atomic Energy Agency conference in September endorsed the long-term goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.
It also said, "in our view, progress towards realizing this vision cannot be made without a fundamental change in regional circumstances, including a significant transformation in the attitude of states in the region towards Israel."
An Israeli official said Sunday: "We haven't changed our policy. We are in favor of and support a nuclear-free Middle East. We believe this should be a culmination of a process and not the beginning of a process, this is a process that includes individual and bilateral peace agreements."
At last year's U.N. General Assembly, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he sought and received assurances from President Obama on a series of strategic understandings between the two countries. The Washington Times first reported last year that one of those reassurances was the Meir-Nixon understanding.
Over the weekend, U.S. officials tried to lower expectations that Egypt would modify its proposal for a nuclear-free Middle East. "We are still in the early stages of negotiations," a senior White House official said.
One possible compromise would be for the United States to accept naming an envoy or coordinator for a regional conference on seeking a Middle East that is free of weapons of mass destruction.
"It appears that the various key players could reach agreement in principle to name a special envoy and to call upon states in the region to meet to discuss the issue," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "This is a helpful, country-neutral way to deal with the Iranian issue and Israel's controversial nuclear program."
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said a deal with the Egyptians is within reach.
"The key is for the U.S. administration to quietly let the Egyptians know that at the presidential and vice-presidential level, the United States takes the issue of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East seriously."
On April 13, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. met with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and other foreign ministers during the summit on uncontrolled nuclear material.
A senior administration official said, "At the lunch, they discussed the NPT and how to strengthen it."
Obama After Israel’s NukesObama After Israel’s Nukes
May 6, 2010
the Obama administration appears to be more worried about Israel’s nuclear program.
It appears the next phase in the standoff over Iran’s apocalypse-inducing nuclear weapons program is beginning to come into focus.
In the months ahead, don’t be surprised if the efforts of the Obama administration to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions become predicated on the nuclear disarmament of the Jewish state.
Why is this likely? Simple:
Such a mandate is the inevitable outgrowth of the foolish yet increasingly pervasive tendency to consider as equals the nuclear ambitions of Israel and Iran.
This false moral equivalence between the nuclear programs of Iran and the Jewish state is currently on display in New York,
at the month-long Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
The conference is supposed to focus on revising and updating the NPT, of which Israel has never been a signatory.
But when the conference opened Monday, it quickly became evident that UN member states had set their sights on a “predictable target.”
That would be Israel.
In one of the first addresses Monday morning, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa spoke on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, which is the largest single coalition within the United Nations (118 of the 192 UN countries are members). According to Asia Times, Natalegawa noted specifically that it was Israel’s refusal to sign the NPT that had “resulted in the continued exposure of non-nuclear-weapon states of the [Middle East] to nuclear threats by the only country possessing these weapons of mass destruction.”
Forget Iran’s fearless scramble for nukes—most UN member states apparently believe the greatest nuclear threat in the Middle East comes from Israel’s refusal to sign the NPT.
After Natalegawa’s address, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only head of state who personally attended the conference, took the podium. Following his requisite praises of Allah and ominous invocation for the speedy arrival of the Mahdi, Ahmadinejad waxed eloquent for 35 minutes—in front of the representatives of 168 countries who didn’t leave the room—on how the NPT can be improved, and how the United States and the “Zionist regime” are the central cause of nuclear proliferation.
“Regrettably, the government of the United States has not only used nuclear weapons, but also continues to threaten to use such weapons against other countries, including Iran,” Ahmadinejad “righteously” lamented. That’s not all, according to Iran’s president. The “Zionist regime” has “stockpiled hundreds of nuclear warheads,” and with support and sustenance from America, has “waged many wars in the region and continues to threaten the people and nations of the region with terror and invasion.”
Seriously, can you think of the last time Israel engaged in a conflict that was not strictly defensive?
This moral equivalence at the UN comes amid recent reports that Egypt too is preparing to step up pressure on Israel about its nuclear arsenal. On Tuesday, the Christian Science Monitor reported that “Egypt is … declaring that the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East cannot be tied solely to Iran’s nuclear ambitions but must also address the region’s only existing nuclear power: Israel” (emphasis mine). Speaking in New York last week, Egypt’s ambassador to the UN stated: “We refuse the existence of any nuclear weapons in the [Middle East], whether it is in Iran or whether it is in Israel.”
Think on that: These people behave as though there’s no difference between Israel having nukes and Iran having nukes!
Not surprisingly, Egypt’s renewed efforts to focus on Israel’s nuclear weapons have caught the attention of the Obama administration. On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the “U.S. is negotiating with Egypt a proposal to make the Middle East [including Israel] a region free of nuclear weapons.” Although the Obama administration apparently assured Israel that it’s not about to impose a nuclear-free zone on the Middle East, there’s little doubt it is prepared to tackle the issue of Israel’s nukes more directly than previous administrations.
“We’ve made a proposal to them [Egypt] that goes beyond what the U.S. has been willing to do before,” a senior administration official told the Wall Street Journal.
Clearly, this Cairo-Washington axis does not bode well for Israel. “As far as Israel is concerned this is very problematic,” stated Dr. Eytan Gilboa, a senior researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. “The fact that the U.S. is pushing this along with Egypt could threaten our vital national security at a time when relations with the U.S. are tense and the threat from Iran is becoming more and more serious every day.”
The notion that Israel’s nuclear weapons destabilize the Middle East is simply absurd. Even more absurd though, is that such a notion is being openly and widely entertained at a UN conference on the NPT, which America’s president has said is the “cornerstone of the world’s efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.” As Bret Stephens wrote in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday, “Iran, in connivance with the usual Middle Eastern suspects (and their useful idiots in the West), is trying to use the NPT as a cudgel to force Israel to disarm.”
It is unlikely that after the current conference in New York, America and the West will begin immediately to explicitly and forcefully demand that Israel sign the NPT and start tossing away its nuclear weapons. Inevitably, however, this conference—as well as the joint agreement between America and Egypt regarding Israel’s nukes—will foster the false moral equivalence between Israel’s nuclear program and Iran’s nuclear program. The more the nuclear ambitions of Israel and Iran are discussed in the same conversation, the more ingrained and mainstream the moral equivalence will become.
Expect it to become widely accepted that curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions is contingent upon on addressing the issue of Israel’s nukes!
American leaders’ growing failure to discern between the foreign-policy objectives of nations like Israel and Iran is a sign of the moral decay besieging Washington. It is no secret that Israel developed nuclear weapons during the heat of the Cold War as a defensive measure. Or that Israel has possessed nukes for roughly four decades, and has never come close to exploding a single bomb—not even during the heat of its many wars. Or that Israel never officially discusses its nuclear cache and never parades them about.
It is no secret that Israel for decades has been a stable and responsible proprietor of nuclear weapons!
Yet to Mr. Obama, there appears to be little distinction between Israel’s nukes and the nuclear aspirations of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Even though Iran exists today as the number-one state sponsor of terrorism. Even though Tehran bankrolls the activities of terrorist proxies in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon and further afield. Even though Iranian mullahs and government leaders alike boast publicly about America’s annihilation and the Jewish state’s demise. And even though Iran’s president prays openly for the return of the Mahdi and is actively working to precipitate the planet-engulfing chaos and violence that he says will precede it.
This week, as Ahmadinejad was swooning before the UN, news broke that on his way to New York he had stopped by Zimbabwe, where he apparently struck a deal with Robert Mugabe that will allow Iran to swap oil for uranium. President Obama ignores the fact that Tehran is developing an advanced ballistic missile program and putting satellites into space, all in preparation for the moment—which many believe is now imminent—when it can bolt a nuclear payload to a missile and fire it into Israel, or Europe, or even the United States.
When will this moral ambivalence finally end? Believe it or not, you can answer that question. How? By looking into the “more sure word” of Bible prophecy. God informs us through a multitude of prophecies in both the Old and New Testaments that America—as a direct result of its moral ambivalence which is caused by disobedience to God’s laws—will end up prostrate and helpless before its enemies.
US, Egypt seek Mideast nuclear arms ban dealUS, Egypt seek Mideast nuclear arms ban deal
Lest anyone mis-understand, they want Israel to be nuke-less, but only evil Islam to have them.
May 22, 2010
This could eventually force Israel to scrap its atomic bomb arsenal, UN diplomats say
The United States and Egypt are working to bridge differences on a proposed Middle East nuclear arms ban, an idea that could one day force Israel to scrap any atom bombs it has, UN diplomats say.
The US efforts to secure a deal with Egypt and other Arab countries reflect Washington's concern to win their backing for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program
by offering a concession over US ally Israel, even though Washington says such a ban is impossible without peace in the Middle East.
Western diplomats say that the success or failure of a month-long meeting on the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) currently under way in New York hinges on the
sensitive negotiations on an Egyptian proposal to hold a conference on establishing a zone free of nuclear arms in the Middle East.
"If we can't get a deal on the Middle East in the next few days, the NPT review conference will probably collapse," a Western diplomat told Reuters. "It's what happened in 2005."
Another Western diplomat familiar with the talks was guardedly optimistic.
Despite the appearance of a chasm separating the Arabs from the United States and the four other permanent
UN Security Council members, "informal conversations indicate the sides are not in reality too far apart," he said.
"The next few days will be critical," the envoy added.
NPT review conferences are held every five years to take stock of and assess compliance with the anti-nuclear arms pact.
They make decisions by consensus, which makes it difficult to reach agreements, since all 189 NPT signatories have a veto.
The last review conference in 2005 was widely viewed as a failure. It collapsed due to Egypt's outrage at the failure to move forward on the
Middle East nuclear-arms-free zone idea and developing nations' anger at the United States for refusing to reaffirm disarmament pledges from 2000.
Both Egypt and the US are eager to avoid another collapse. Cairo does not want to be labeled as a spoiler again, while the United States wants an outcome that helps ratchet up the
pressure on Iran and supports Barack Obama's determination to move toward a world free of nuclear arms.
If there is no deal on the Middle East, envoys say, there can be no agreement on a final declaration that "names and shames"
Iran and North Korea and acknowledges the disarmament steps the big powers have taken, which Washington and its allies want.
The United States and the four other countries allowed to keep nuclear arms under the NPT - fellow Security Council veto powers Britain, France, China and Russia --
have been negotiating with the Arabs on the sidelines of the NPT meeting, which concludes at the end of next week, to secure a deal.
Egypt, which chairs the powerful 118-nation bloc of non-aligned developing nations, circulated a proposal to all 189 NPT signatories calling for a
conference by next year on ridding the Middle East of nuclear arms in which all countries in the region would participate.
Washington came up with a counterproposal, which calls for "the convening of a conference in 2012-2013 of all states of the Middle East to discuss implementation of the 1995 resolution in its entirety."
The 1995 resolution adopted by NPT signatories calls for making the Middle East a zone without atomic bombs or other weapons of mass destruction, and
notes that the Middle East peace process could help to make it a reality.
Israel neither confirms nor denies having nuclear arms.
Egypt has insisted that both Israel and Iran would have to participate in such a conference, even though
Tehran does not recognize Israel's right to exist. Western diplomats agree, but say that Israel would be reluctant to participate.
Still, the Jewish state could be persuaded, they say.
"Israel will attend if the cost of not attending is higher than the cost of attending," a senior Western diplomat said.
Among the possible enticements for Israel would be to ensure that any such regional conference also covers biological and chemical weapons, not just nuclear arms,
as well as regional security and other issues, Western diplomats said.
Like nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, Israel never signed the NPT and is not officially at the NPT review conference.
Egypt and Syria are outside the chemical weapons convention that bans production, stockpiling and use of chemical arms.
Diplomats say the sticking points include the format for such a conference and the question of whether it should be organized by the United Nations, as the Arabs would like.