What are we getting from Israel?

[Platapus]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cle_top10_read

Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret

President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.

The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May.

Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.

Israel had been nervous that Mr. Obama would not continue the 1969 understanding because of his strong support for nonproliferation and priority on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The U.S. and five other world powers made progress during talks with Iran in Geneva on Thursday as Iran agreed in principle to transfer some potential bomb fuel out of the country and to open a recently disclosed facility to international inspection.

Mr. Netanyahu let the news of the continued U.S.-Israeli accord slip last week in a remark that attracted little notice. He was asked by Israel's Channel 2 whether he was worried that Mr. Obama's speech at the U.N. General Assembly, calling for a world without nuclear weapons, would apply to Israel.

"It was utterly clear from the context of the speech that he was speaking about North Korea and Iran," the Israeli leader said. "But I want to remind you that in my first meeting with President Obama in Washington I received from him, and I asked to receive from him, an itemized list of the strategic understandings that have existed for many years between Israel and the United States on that issue. It was not for naught that I requested, and it was not for naught that I received [that document]."

The chief nuclear understanding was reached at a summit between President Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that began on Sept. 25, 1969. Avner Cohen, author of "Israel and the Bomb" and the leading authority outside the Israeli government on the history of Israel's nuclear program, said the accord amounts to "the United States passively accepting Israel's nuclear weapons status as long as Israel does not unveil publicly its capability or test a weapon."

There is no formal record of the agreement nor have Israeli nor American governments ever publicly acknowledged it. In 2007, however, the Nixon library declassified a July 19, 1969, memo from national security adviser Henry Kissinger that comes closest to articulating U.S. policy on the issue. That memo says, "While we might ideally like to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact."

Mr. Cohen has said the resulting policy was the equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell."

The Netanyahu government sought to reaffirm the understanding in part out of concern that Iran would seek Israeli disclosures of its nuclear program in negotiations with the United States and other world powers. Iran has frequently accused the U.S. of having a double standard by not objecting to Israel's arsenal.

Mr. Cohen said the reaffirmation and the fact that Mr. Netanyahu sought and received a written record of the deal suggest that "it appears not only that there was no joint understanding of what had been agreed in September 1969 but it is also apparent that even the notes of the two leaders may no longer exist. It means that Netanyahu wanted to have something in writing that implies that understanding. It also affirms the view that the United States is in fact a partner in Israel's policy of nuclear opacity."

Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, declined to comment, as did the White House National Security Council.
The secret understanding could undermine the Obama administration's goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In particular, it could impinge on U.S. efforts to bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, two agreements that U.S. administrations have argued should apply to Israel in the past. They would ban nuclear tests and the production of material for weapons.

A Senate staffer familiar with the May reaffirmation, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said, "What this means is that the president gave commitments that politically he had no choice but to give regarding Israel's nuclear program. However, it calls into question virtually every part of the president's nonproliferation agenda. The president gave Israel an NPT treaty get out of jail free card."

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the step was less injurious to U.S. policy.
"I think it is par for the course that the two incoming leaders of the United States and Israel would want to clarify previous understandings between their governments on this issue," he said.

However Mr. Kimball added, "I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Netanyahu. President Obama's speech and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1887 apply to all countries irrespective of secret understandings between the U.S. and Israel. A world without nuclear weapons is consistent with Israel's stated goal of achieving a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. Obama's message is that the same nonproliferation and disarmament responsibilities should apply to all states and not just a few."
Israeli nuclear doctrine is known as "the long corridor." Under it, Israel would begin to consider nuclear disarmament only after all countries officially at war with it signed peace treaties and all neighboring countries relinquished not only nuclear programs but also chemical and biological arsenals. Israel sees nuclear weapons as an existential guarantee in a hostile environment.

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said he hoped the Obama administration did not concede too much to Israel.

"One hopes that the price for such concessions is Israeli agreement to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty and an acceptance of the long-term goal of a Middle East weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone," he said. "Otherwise, the Obama administration paid too much, given its focus on a world free of nuclear weapons."

I wonder what, if anything, the United States is getting from Israel as part of this "understanding" agreement? I also wonder if this "understanding" is even a good idea.

[Tchocky]

It certainly puts another spin on the Iranian inspections negotiations..

Nice to see a clear-headed article from the Washington TImes, though. THe headline is hilarious.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

THe headline is hilarious.

Indeed.

the story of how Israel's nuclear policy came to happen, is one thing, and perfectly open for debate - like is the very founding fo the state of Israel. However, this is the present, and situations have chnaged and developed since then, sometimes for the better, in this case most times for the worse. Changing the nuclear policy of Israel now is - in the light of N-Korea and Iran - as much an option as is demanding the deconstruction of the state of Israel.

People may not be happy with the circumstances that led to the present status. Nevertheless the present is what we have to deal with, not so much the past. And judging the present by demands and reasons of 2-3 generations ago is confused and can only lead to failure in the widest meaning of the word.

So, I accept the Israeli nukes the same way like I accept the existence of the state of Israel. Both are fact that can only be rejected or reversed at the price of creating new unrest, injustice, and violence against innocents - and even on a greater scale, probably, than before. When I support Israel, emotional sympathy has little to do with it, but a mixture of pragmatism and a reasonable assessement of options available, and their consequences. which makes my - even critical - support for Israel probably even more solid a support than that of philantropists who only talk abstract things like culture and value and historic alliances, but in the storm of winds in that region constantly get blown back and forth and say "Yes" with their lips and do "No" by their deeds.

But maybe the world can learn a lesson or two from the example of modern Israel so that the same failures of the post-war fourties and the janus-headed nuclear policy will not be repeated. But many people seem to be eager to just do that repetition of old patterns as long as it forms effects in favour of their political views. that way, new misery is sure to be created. Policies ignoring realities - no matter the reason - do not solve things, but create problems. they are foolish becasue they always only adress fantasies inside people's heads.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Both are fact that can only be rejected or reversed at the price of creating new unrest, injustice, and violating innoents

When it suits you, you promote unrest and radical changes in the
status-quo.
When it doesn't, you speak against things that might cause unrest and
radical changes in the status-quo.

In one post you want to maintain the status-quo, avoid unrest and the
violation of innocents, then in another you want "civil disobedience on a
scale that deadlocks the state" on an "international level".

[Onkel Neal]

Opinions can be complex things.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

When it suits you, you promote unrest and radical changes in the
status-quo.
When it doesn't, you speak against things that might cause unrest and
radical changes in the status-quo.

In one post you want to maintain the status-quo, avoid unrest and the
violation of innocents, then in another you want "civil disobedience on a
scale that deadlocks the state" on an "international level".

Tricky, eh?

For the one-formula-for everything-approach to world and things, ask Stephen Hawkings.

Ooops, I forgot: already years ago he has given up his belief that there could ever be something like one big world-formula explaining all and everything.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Opinions can be complex things.

Exactly.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Letum

In one post you want to maintain the status-quo, avoid unrest and the
violation of innocents, then in another you want "civil disobedience on a
scale that deadlocks the state" on an "international level".

OMFG did youjust quote Michael Moore!?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

OMFG did youjust quote Michael Moore!?

No, he quoted me from a thread where I commented on the German social and political landscape, and the elections we just had.

the link between a corrupted political regime in Germany and the West, and the Israeli nuclear policy and the history that led to the existence of the state of Israel and that threatens it from within today, l I still have not gotten, though.

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I wonder what, if anything, the United States is getting from Israel

Screwed, is what the US is getting.

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

Screwed, is what the US is getting.

Absolutely!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

Screwed, is what the US is getting.

I fear that you are correct in this.