Posted on 04/03/2005 9:48:32 AM PDT by Nachum
In a move that could curtail Israeli power in the Middle East, the US is calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and forego the use and stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Twice in the past two weeks, State Department officials have compared Israel’s status as a nuclear power with that of India and Pakistan, calling on all three nations to give up their nuclear arms.
The statements were made by two mid-level State Department Officials, ahead of the NPT Review Conference, scheduled to open in New York on May 2.
The purpose of the conference is to evaluate implementation of the NPT and determine its future course. The officials’ comments regarding Israel’s weapons capability were made, apparently, in order to put the issue of Israel’s nukes on the conference’s agenda. The comments appeared to deviate from Bush Administration policy, which up to now, refrained from using terminology that confirms Israel’s status as a nuclear nation.
The most recent statement came from Jackie Wolcott Sanders, the president’s representative for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. In an essay titled “How to Strengthen the NPT” Sanders mentions Israel, along with India and Pakistan, within the context of enforcing “universal NPT adherence,” but adds that it’s not likely “in the foreseeable future.”
“The Review Conference should reinforce the goal of universal NPT adherence and reaffirm that India, Israel and Pakistan may join the NPT only as non-nuclear-weapon states. Just as South Africa and Ukraine did in the early 1990s, these states would have to forswear nuclear weapons and accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear activities to join the treaty. At the same time, we recognize that progress toward universal adherence is not likely in the foreseeable future,” writes Sanders.
She adds, “The United States continues to support the goals of the Middle East resolution adopted at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, including the achievement of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.”
Another statement, using similar language, was made by Mark Fitzpatrick, acting deputy assistant secretary for nuclear proliferation, on March 17, at a Meeting of the Organization of American States Committee on Hemispheric Security, in Washington, D.C. He also held the status of Israel’s nuclear armaments on a par with those of Pakistan and India:
“The Conference should also reinforce the goal of universal NPT adherence and reaffirm that India, Israel and Pakistan may join the NPT only as non-nuclear-weapon states. Just as South Africa and Ukraine did in the early 1990s, these states should forswear nuclear weapons and accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear activities.”
Fitzpatrick’s comments regarding Israel were made just after proclaiming, “Iran and North Korea must not be permitted to violate the NPT without consequences.”
The statements of the two officials contrast with President Bush’s own reference to the NPT in a speech he made on March 7 when he called for enforcing the treaty’s provisions on NPT members, which conveniently include both Iran and North Korea. Bush did not refer to his policy regarding non-member states, which include Israel, Pakistan, and India.
The U.S. State Department has often taken pro-Arab positions on the Arab-Israeli dispute over the years, and has been wary of projecting Israeli power in the Middle East.
Sometimes the department’s positions ostensibly contradict those of the president. For example, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently declared in two separate newspaper interviews that President Bush did not make any guarantees to Israel regarding Israel’s right to retain certain settlement blocs as part of a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians. The president purported to make such promises to Israel in a letter he wrote to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last spring, but the interpretation of Bush’s statements have been the subject of much controversy, some of it spurred on by State Department officials.
All this demonstrates is that the hypocritical world prefers its Jews dead. After the U.S. gives up the last of its nuclear weapons and its been verified that the mass murdering nations have done the same and there is peace on earth for ten years, only then should anyone have the chutzpah to talk to Israel about giving up its nukes.
Israel's nukes are a factor that promotes peace.
Im sure you need someone to help look after the condo don't you? *wink* *wink*
You are right. The United States needs a peaceful Middle East to ensure a steady oil supply. We should force Israel to give up its nukes or cut off the billions we give them each year.
To be honest, if I can drum up enough business in KL
over the next year, I may stay there permanently.You could always stay there when I travel though. I have several good friends and business associates in KL. I have been reading your blog for several months now, and I will contact you when I get there.
Tim
& how much oil does the US get from the M.E??
I hope you like the blog. it is a passion of mine now - if it paid I would be at full time - I just wish I had more time to dedicate to it. I still manage to update daily almost.
Look forward to seeing you when you come. Don't forget good tequila.
Larry
There is only one solution to a peaceful Middle East, and in fact peace in at least 11 other parts of the world. Peace can happen within 24 hours of the day the Islamic world rejects its culture of hate and death.
Most figures I have seen put the number at about 25% of our oil imports, with Europe being much higher. The fact is that over 60% of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East...makes it kinda an important area don't you think?? I don't drive an SUV, but I still need to get to work every day.
It would also help if Israel withdrew from some or all of its illegal settlements on other folks land.
Unless you're flying in a two seater, LOL. Seriously, F-16's are Barak (Lightning, if I remember correctly), so are F-16 drivers Thunderpilots now?
"The U.S. State Department has often taken pro-Arab positions on the Arab-Israeli dispute over the years, and has been wary of projecting Israeli power in the Middle East.
Sometimes the department’s positions ostensibly contradict those of the president. "
====
Some serious house cleaning needs to be done in the State Department. This is nothing new -- the place is full of these "mid level officials", who always take the position of the enemy against the US.
That's kooky talk!
We don't get a barrel of oil from Israel. Israel hasn't
aided us in our Iraq wars. We don't really need them.
Illegal to the Arabs, not the Jews.
Why don't you just put "kick me" in your tag line?
I know, however If there had been next elections, Germans would probably have chosen Adolf again, at least until 44.
My point is that democracy doesn't guarantee peace. Democracy may works in Iraq and would work probably also in Iran, but the result of democracy in Saudi Arabia would be worse than current situation.
BTW I don't If Israelis should give up nukes or not - I'm just not very interested in this issue, but this position of State Department is just a part of diplomacy - US government sometimes just has to say something like this If wants to have opportunity to be a negotiator in Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. Aid worth billions would be cut off If US government really wanted to kick Israelis.
Your statement saying Israelis living among Arabs is the problem demonstrates that you do not know the actual history of the region; it also demonstrates racism on your part. Arabs live among Jews and have the rights of citizenship. Eleven percent of the Israeli Knesset are duly elected Arabs. You are repeating, knowingly or unknowingly, a bogus, revisionist history talking point that's been repeated so many times in the past 30 years that alot of people actually think it's fact, including a lot of the main stream media. Israel spends practically nothing on PR. Israel lacks the hundreds of billions spent annually by the panIslamic propaganda machine to promulgate falsehoods, bolstered further by Marxists who want to create division and chaos in the world. Israel's constitution and its people welcome all and yearn for peace among all peoples. Just the opposite with the Arab world.
The question is: what will the Palestinian Arabs need to do to bring peace? That's really the only question.
When Israel gave 98.5% of what was agreed to under Oslo Accords, the Palestinians did not stop the incitement, did not sto the killing and did not stop calling for death to Americans and Jews and did not stop demanding more land and more land. History shows that nothing Israel would ever give, even the last inch of the country, would placate this cancerous culture of hate and death which has already spread throughout the world. Most of the conflicts in the world today are due to Islamic all consuming hate and its culture of death. The source of the problem is Arab hate and its culture of death. Arab leaders deflect attention away from their own totalitarian methods and lack of caring for the common people by keeping the flames of hate burning against others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.