In Cairo, he said, “When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.” Shortly thereafter in the same speech, the President said, when speaking of Iran:

But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

Clearly, these paragraphs in general, and specifically those verses that I have highlighted, concern Israel.

Speaking to the UN General Assembly this past September, the President noted that he had “outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.” The first of the “four pillars” the President cited as being important for “the future that we want for our children concerned nuclear non-proliferation. He said:

First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.

This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man’s capacity to kill had to be contained. For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a superpower stand-off. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine….

All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. Let me be clear, this is not about singling out individual nations — it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation’s demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.

A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome, and that is the basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have a responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them.

Certainly, with these two speeches in mind, the Arab world must have expected the Obama Administration to sign the NPT. Yet, now the Obama Administration seems to be against this. Why? It may have something to do with ideals meeting reality.

As Israel clearly benefits from nuclear ambiguity and even more-so from the belief that it indeed possesses nuclear weapons, it makes no sense for Israel to sign on to the NPT. More importantly for the issue at hand, and another issue that has been ignored for the most part entirely, is that the United States benefits by Israel’s nuclear ambiguity. As an ambiguous nuclear power, the threat of Israeli nuclear action has helped the United States maintain dominance in the region. As a declared nuclear power, the United States would have to deal with Arab nations demanding Israel’s disarmament while at the same time facing other Nations such as North Korea and Iran who are working on nuclear weapons programs, with North Korea already possessing them and Iran nearing that point. Other nations may demand to be allowed to obtain them. If Israel were to be disarmed, chemical and biological weapons take on much larger importance and conventional armies become significantly more useful against it. The threat of another major war would increase dramatically. Israel’s nuclear ambiguity is not only best for US interests, but best for peace in the region. Thus, the reality of the situation is that it remains best for the United States not to pressure Israel to sign the NPT in spite of the fact that nuclear non-proliferation is the Obama Administration’s top foreign policy goal.

The gist of the article is a debate between Israeli president and former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. But before we get to all that, we have to have the set-up. First, tar Netanyahu as the one preventing peace because—wait for it—he refuses to stop building settlements.

The difficulty has been compounded by the fact that in March a right-leaning government replaced the previous more moderate one in Israel.

Several months ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to accept the principle of a Palestinian state – a position his predecessors had already adopted but his Likud party has not – but said it would have to have limits on its rights to have a military or control its airspace.

Next, give Moussa a chance to respond to the above, but don’t have Peres respond to it. Have Peres talk about a completely different topic.

Then, slam Peres and compliment Moussa, almost in the same breath (but while allowing Moussa to accuse the Israelis of duplicity):

Peres – pushing the boundaries on a role that is meant to be ceremonial and somewhat above the political and diplomatic fray – argued that even the borders initially delineated for the Palestinian state could be considered provisional and ultimately expanded.

“You want us to believe that?” thundered the urbane Moussa. “Another one of the tricks!”

Another way of telling which way the article is biased: There are ten paragraphs that contain quotes or paraphrases by Moussa. There are only six containing Peres’ quotes or paraphrases—and the article is titled “Peres: Palestinian state first, full peace later.”

I think, though, the thing that really got me is describing Moussa as “urbane” right after implying that Peres isn’t acting in his government’s best interest. In point of fact, nobody in Israel is complaining that Peres is overstepping his bounds, or if they have, I haven’t seen it. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good anti-Israel slap.

The Associated Press: the anti-Israel Energizer bunny. They just never stop.

CAIRO, June 5 (Xinhua) — The Arab League (AL) Council has decided to hold an extraordinary meeting on June 15 to discuss the Israeli settlement activities in the disputed territory, an AL spokesman said on Thursday.

Abdel Aleem al-Abiyad, spokesman for AL chief Amr Moussa, made the announcement in a brief press release on Thursday, saying the meeting will be held at the level of permanent delegates.

On Sunday, Israeli Housing Ministry published a bid for the construction of more than 800 apartment units in east Jerusalem, the latest decision to build more houses in the disputed territory since the resumption of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks at the U.S.-sponsored Annapolis conference last November.

Hey, Arab League: Bite me.

“To tell you the truth I don’t quite understand this. Must Israel ask permission from some other authority in the world? It has been our capital for 3,000 years. We have been there since the time your forefathers used to drink wine, bury their daughters alive, and pray to multiple gods.”

Keidar was referring to a period Arabs call Jahiliyyah (ignorance of divine guidance), which prevailed in the Arab world before the time of the Islam. “So then,” he continued, “why must we speak about this? It has been our city for 3,000 years and will be for eternity.”

(Can’t wait to see a full transcript of that interview.)