Iran, Syria and NPT nations invert reality

News item:

The Prime Minister’s office on Saturday called the resolution adopted by the NPT Review Conference on a nuclear free Middle East in 2012 “deeply flawed and hypocritical,” saying it “ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world.”

The resolution singles out Israel, calling on it to accede to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to allow inspection of its nuclear sites…

“As a non-signatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this Conference, which has no authority over Israel. Given the distorted nature of this resolution, Israel will not be able to take part in its implementation,” the statement concluded.

The double standard is truly breathtaking. India and Pakistan, also non-signatories to the treaty, are not mentioned, despite having come close to nuclear war on at least one occasion. And Iran — which has signed the treaty and is presently violating it with impunity — was not named either. Yet Iran (and Syria, which recently had to have its non-nuclear status enforced by Israeli F-15’s) both signed the resolution!

I wrote about the relationship of Israel to the NPT a few weeks ago (“Israeli nukes are legal and pro-peace“). One commenter on that article suggested that Israel should sign the NPT — but as a legitimate nuclear power like the US, Russia, Great Britain, France and China. Fat chance.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Share:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • NewsVine

2 Responses to “Iran, Syria and NPT nations invert reality”

  1. Shalom Freedman says:

    As I understand it the Obama Administration expressed objection to the singling out of Israel. But what may be more important is that the whole initiative might not have taken place without the raising of the issue by the Obama Administration in connection with its conversations with Egypt.
    The sense is however that the actions of the Obama Administration are weakening Israel.

  2. Robman says:

    It is yet another example of appeasement under Obama.

    This is where appeasement leads, every time. Obama probably agreed behind the scenes to pressure Israel for the sake of “even-handedness”, and as usual, the petrodollar pimp lobby took that and turned it into yet another opportunity to pressure Israel in a most “un” even-handed manner.

    American leaders – and Obama is no exception, he’s just the worst so far – still insist on using this flawed “rational actor” model in justifying their dealings with the region. The Arabs/Moslems of SW Asia are anything but “rational”; they are at cross-purposes with themselves, driven by their insecurities, pride, and clerics into emphasizing the notion of ‘putting the Jews in their place’ far beyond anything else (like developing their own sorry societies). This “even-handed” crap is simply a cynical game.

    Imagine if you had two children. One was well-behaved, a model student, a pleasure to be with, etc.. The other was always getting into trouble of one sort or another, making everyone around him miserable.

    Every time you tried to sanction the latter child for one misdeed or another, they would cry, ‘No fair! How come I’m the one always being punished? How come you never punish the other one?”

    They do this EVERY TIME, so that in the name of being “fair”, you are finally convinced that you must come up with reasons to punish the other well-behaved one just to placate the “bad” one (who, not only never commits to mend their ways, but, if cornered, goes so far as to insist that even if they are “bad” sometimes, it is only because they are “driven” to such behavior by your “favoritism” of the good one – that and being “humiliated” by the example of the good one).

    In other words, per the complaints of the “bad” one, the only way that you can really be “fair” is to NEVER punish him, but to ALWAYS punish the other one! Give into such ‘logic’ once, and this validates the strategy of the bad one; they will see that you accept their phony construct, and having set this precedent, they will demand it all the more until it is the rule.

    So, there you have it. In one paragraph, the history of U.S. – and Western in general – relations with the Middle East.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.