State Dept. Calls on Israel to “Foreswear” Nuclear Arms

[Static]

Thoughts?

State Dept. Calls on Israel to “Foreswear” Nuclear Arms
17:51 Apr 03, '05 / 23 Adar 5765


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.

[scattergood]

Static:

Thoughts?

It'd be great if everybody gave up nuclear arms, but it won't happen. Until the states around Israel recognize their right to exist, desist in incitment and villification of Jews and Israel, stop their support for terror, start economic ties and have 'normal' relationships there is no way in heck that Israel will give up nukes.

What do you thin has kept Israel safe since 73? Don't you think that if they could have Egypt, Syria, SA, Jordan, et al would have taken another crack at Israel's destruction? Nukes are just one of the arrows in the quiver that has helped keep Israel alive.

[Static]

It'd be great if everybody gave up nuclear arms, but it won't happen. Until the states around Israel recognize their right to exist, desist in incitment and villification of Jews and Israel, stop their support for terror, start economic ties and have 'normal' relationships there is no way in heck that Israel will give up nukes.

What do you thin has kept Israel safe since 73? Don't you think that if they could have Egypt, Syria, SA, Jordan, et al would have taken another crack at Israel's destruction? Nukes are just one of the arrows in the quiver that has helped keep Israel alive.

However morally opposed to it I am, I do concur. Nuclear weapons are a horrible thing, period, but I also doubt Israel would even exist today if it didn't have them.

[Womble]

If the rumors are true and Israel does have nukes, we are just about the only country in the world who actually needs them, and no amount of pressure, from the US or whoever, can force Israel to scrap the most effective guarantee of its safety.

That said, I am not at all convinced that Israel even has nuclear weapons in the first place. I have a nice little conspiracy theory of my own regarding Mossad, Shimon Peres, the Dimona reactor and the Vanunu case.

[Static]

That said, I am not at all convinced that Israel even has nuclear weapons in the first place. I have a nice little conspiracy theory of my own regarding Mossad, Shimon Peres, the Dimona reactor and the Vanunu case.

Oooh, conspiracy theories! Do share!

[Womble]

Oooh, conspiracy theories! Do share!

Ok then.

1)The only real source of information about Israeli nuclear capabilities has been Vanunu's testimony. All other reports are based on his infamous interview plus projections of how many more nukes Israel could supposedly manufacture. And Vanunu is an odd creature: a rabid pro-Palestinian activist (he already was running around with the extremists since his student years) who gets a job at the country's most guarded top secret project- just how likely is that?
2)The first and most natural reaction of any country that gets nuclear weapons is going public and making as much noise about it as possible. All states who had gained nuclear capabilities did exactly that- India, Pakistan, North Korea and I believe South Africa as well. This makes perfect sense- nuclear weapons are a deterrent, and to scare the enemy with them this enemy should be aware beyond doubt that you have them. Israel is the only country that insists on playing the "don't confirm, don't deny" game, which seemingly brings no real benefits.
3)Israel's nuclear programme was founded by a person least likely to do that-none other than Shimon Peres, best known as a big expert on deception and political trickery ("the stinky trick" anyone?)
4)In the past, Golda Meir and all other Israeli leaders had only one thing to say when asked about the nuclear issue- "Israel will not be the first state to introduce nukes to the Middle East".

5)People who have some dirt on the government that is still fresh and useable don't get released as easily as Vanunu was. Compare that to Pollard case, for example- the US would rather cut their left hand off than let Pollard go free, while Israel enables the "nuclear spy" to walk around giving interviews and meeting with assorted activist scum.

All this has an interesting possible explanation- that Israel's presumed nuclear capabilities are a giant- and successful- campaign of deception, aimed to make the Arabs believe that we have nuclear weapons while keeping our hands clean as far as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is concerned. Vanunu, then, is a puppet used by the Mossad to leak disinformation into the ever hungry European and Arab tabloids, and he is most likely being used "blind" and actually believes all the he is telling.

[CLL1709]

I seems to me that Israel would be nuts to "foreswear" its nuclear arsenal, even if it doesn't have one, and the last thing it should do is depend on anything coming out of the US Department of State that deviates from the Bush administration. That said, I was surprised by the recent apparent outreach to Hizbellah, or whatever it was. (Is there a thread on that question anywhere?) My infinitesimal experience with State on the cocktail circuit convinced me that one could never get any question answered or pin down any opinion of a diplomat, BUT all bets are off in the first months of either a new administration or a new secretary when some bureaucrat analyst would voice opinions, because they feel they know best how to run everything in foreign policy better than any appointed smuck, even talented ones like Ms. Rice.

If I were Israel and had no arsenal, once I got a whif of Iran's plans I sure as heck would be cooking in Dimona.

[Mediocrates]

The State Dept is talking pure hypocrisy since among all the NPT signatories includes several nuclear nations. What the NPT says is that nuclear states will not PROLIFERATE technology to non nuclear states. It is not a disarmament agreement. For if it were then the US, Russia, France, the UK and China would not have nuclear weapons either. What is clear though is that Israel needs to change its opacity doctrine.

[KettleWhistle]

Israel has never used nuclear weapons, and has never threatened any country with nuclear weapons. So these are just political jabberings and nothing but.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/20...l/04_03_1.html


IRAN ALLOCATES $2.5B FOR NUKE WARHEADS

LONDON [MENL] -- Iran was said to have allocated $2.5 billion to obtain three nuclear warheads in 2005.

The Iranian opposition said the Islamic leadership in Teheran approved a project to procure nuclear warheads meant to be deployed on Shihab-class intermediate-range missiles produced by Iran. The opposition said that nearly a year ago Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei ordered Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani to procure the warheads.

"In mid-2004, Khamenei allocated $2.5 billion to obtain three nuclear warheads by their own means [production] or buy them abroad," National Council of Resistance of Iran foreign affairs committee chairman Mohammad Mohaddessin told a news conference in Paris on Thursday.

Mohaddessin did not say whether the money has already been spent, but stressed that Teheran wanted to acquire the warheads in 2005. He said he received this report hours earlier and had no further information on the project.

[varian]

NPT = Oslo = just more bureaucratic bushgallata. The US State Department has been a flatliner for decades.