Posted on 05/06/2009 7:44:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Washington Times reports that Barack Obama may counter demands from Israel to confront Iran over their nuclear program by confronting Israel over theirs. Eli Lake has the exclusive on the Obama administration’s strategy to force Israel under the umbrella of the non-proliferation treaty, apparently as a condition to getting Iran to surrender their nukes. The effort will include India and Pakistan, and comes from a 2006 Saudi peace plan that would leave Israel at the mercy of the armies surrounding the state:
"President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say."
The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.
Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.
Gottemoeller has a track record of demanding Israeli disarmament:
" However, Ms. Gottemoeller endorsed the concept of a nuclear-free Middle East in a 2005 paper that she co-authored, “Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security.”
“Instead of defensively trying to ignore Israels nuclear status, the United States and Israel should proactively call for regional dialogue to specify the conditions necessary to achieve a zone free of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons,” she wrote.
The paper recommends that Israel take steps to disarm in exchange for its neighbors getting rid of chemical and biological weapons programs as well as Iran forgoing uranium enrichment.
The Obama administration appointed Gottemoeller, fully cognizant of her thinking on this issue. One has to assume that her appointment to the senior position at State constitutes an endorsement of those positions. It wouldn’t be the most radical thinking about Israel from this administration; Samantha Powers, who works between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, once called for a Western occupation of Israel and forced disarmament of their entire army.
Gottemoeller’s speech had to have been cleared by the Obama administration, and so appears to represent their foreign-policy position. The Bush administration and its predecessors handled the situation more tactfully, supporting a “nuclear-free Middle East” without naming names. Why? The position of Israel in the Middle East is unique. They are not just simply another nation among many. They had been the one successful continuous democracy in that region, save Turkey, and quite obviously surrounded by nations explicitly threatening to annihilate them. Israel had to develop a deterrent that would keep a nation of 5 million people alive among 100 million enemies.
Over the years, some of those neighbors have moderated their stance somewhat towards Israel; Egypt and Jordan have diplomatic relations with Israel, but in Egypt’s case only because Washington pays them to do it. None of the rest of the nations in that region even recognize Israel’s existence, and two of them — Syria and Iran — have a long-running proxy war of terror running against Israel. Under those conditions, Israel can be forgiven for thinking that a deterrent is still a damned good idea.
Besides, the Iranian nuclear program threatens the US as well. We want to stop Iran from building nukes to keep them out of the hands of terrorists, and not just those aimed at Israel. They don’t call us the Great Satan out of respect, after all, and Iranian leadership has been just as annihilationist towards America as it has been towards Israel. Instead of disarming our allies, maybe we should just concentrate on disarming our enemies.
History repeats itself. Each time the cycle repeats, it's worse than the one before it.
What I see is Judeo-Christian western cultural values
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
versus Islamic death cults values.
The quoted text below lays out a plan for three world wars ending with Luciferian World Government.........
............Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion............
Who wouldn't want to be a fly on the wall at that meeting ?
I am now beginning to entertain ideas that I thought were over the top, i.e. 0bama is in thrall to the Spirit of the Anti-Christ.
Just to be clear: I'm not talking about the Jews ... I'm talking about what Obama's narcissism is telling him about the Jews will think.
They're not necessarily the same thing. OTOH, you could be right ... Obama's not just a celebrity in his own mind.
They don't play poker where 0bama got his chops.
He won't see this coming.
Excellent strategy.
If Netanyahu does come, I want to see if there is a live follow up presser with a slow burn exhibited by both parties.
0bama may just shine Netanyahu on, like he did to Gordon Brown after their meeting.
Hee hee...
Exhausted by weeks of prayer with my prayer group (and even some fasting) before the election, I literally pulled the covers up over my head and was deeply depressed the day AFTER election. My thinking has now evolved into a different perspective: God has already written the last chapter, and HE WINS! With most books, I NEVER read the last chapter first. I am coming around to seeing Obama NOT as the free agent he claims to be, but a person that God will use for His own purposes. He is an unwitting “puppet” of the Lord before whom he will one day BOW. Somehow all of this is working for Israel’s good.
Obama doesn’t have the ability to force Israel to do anything. If I were Israel, I’d certainly ignore the fascist muslim in the White House.
Ancient Israel stood up to the Roman Empire, modern Israel can stand up to Rome’s successor, the US. Better to not have to, of course, but Israel must act in its own interest first. The fact is that Israel shouldn’t give up ANY weapon, and certainly not based on a treaty (much less a hoped-for agreement) with regimes that are based on a culture and religion that says that lying to one’s enemies is a virtue. Nukes are Israel’s only material guarantee that they will still be there - without them, the whole country would become an oven before long.
Bibi ought to say “We will give up our ultimate means of self-defense after you give up yours, just like we’ll give up our sovereign territory after you give back the entire SW United States to Mexico. Until then, don’t lecture us about anything, and don’t demand that we do anything that we believe will endanger our people. Oh, and if you want to cut off aid, go ahead - we’re not some bank or auto company that you can boss around because you give us a few dollars. We are, of course, eternally grateful to the American public and past American Presidents who share our values and value our friendship.”
Brilliant plan when Israel has no way to defend herself with conventional weapons against the overwhelming disparity in land and military size of its enemies. If Israel gives up her nukes, she would be obliterated within a week.
I hope Bibi comes on May 18th to personally deliver the after action report on taking out Iran’s nukes!
Look up! For when these things begin to happen, your Salvation draweth nigh! See you in the air!
Unfortunately, the or whats can involve fighter jets, spare parts and other critical military material Israel can only obtain from the US.
Israel can probably reverse engineer just about anything they need to - survival comes before legal niceties. Further, I'll bet that they can work out a very nice agreement with China to exchange technology for military equipment. Again, survival first.
Oh, and if BO wants to ensure that Iran gets thoroughly nuked, there are few better ways than to tell Israel "good luck guys, we're not backing you any more, we like the Arabs and Iran better." Because in that scenario, Israel is at its relative strongest vs. its known and probable enemies at exactly the moment that it is cut off - it weakens thereafter, and would be utterly insane not to deal with Iran within weeks at most.
Also, both BO and Iran seem to be entirely discounting Israel's most effective weapon, one that is unerringly swift, accurate and effective. They only have one, but that's all that they need - its the Mk. 1 Lord of Hosts.
And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
G-d to Abraham, Genesis 12:3
That would be be bad.
Pres. Obama might do just that...
“Jooos, lay down your weapons.”
“Kenyan, come and get them!”
http://moviesonline.ca/TheFeed/index.php?id=300-laydownyourweapons
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.