Speaking of things that cost me readers...

...as the argument over Bob Somerby apparently did, here's another topic that has driven people away in the past: Israel.

US President Barack Obama welcomed a nuclear non-proliferation deal reached Friday at a UN conference but "strongly" opposed singling out Israel over talks for a Mideast atomic weapon-free zone.

In the words of Obama's national security advisor, General James L. Jones,

"We will not accept any approach that singles out Israel or sets unrealistic expectations. The United States’ long-standing position on Middle East peace and security remains unchanged, including its unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security."

Jones added that Washington had reservations about the declaration because it names Israel while ignoring Iran. "The United States deplores the decision to single out Israel in the Middle East section of the NPT document," he said.

Did it ever occur to the WH and its acolytes on this issue that the reason the declaration might have "singled out" Israel is that Israel is the only nation in the region with nuclear weapons? And it is one of the few nations in the world that has refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

What's particularly notable about the WH's expressed position is that it promises that the US will actively block (in Jones' words, "will not permit") the establishment of a 2012 regional conference to make the Middle East a nuclear-weapons-free zone. That's because, Obama said,

"a comprehensive and durable peace in the region and full compliance by all regional states with their arms control and nonproliferation obligations are essential precursors for its establishment."

So first, it's "we're not going to allow even the idea of talking about getting rid of nuclear weapons to be discussed until after everyone decides there's no need for them anymore - whenever that will be." Whose arsenal does that protect?

And "nonproliferation obligations?" Israel is not a signer of NPT - it has no such obligations! So who, oh who, could the Big O be referring to?

So US policy on the matter comes down to this: "Israel gets to keep its nukes as long as it wants and has no obligations under NPT - but Iran, which does not have nuclear weapons and may or may not be trying to develop them, must submit to every demand we put on it."

Because, y'see, Israel's nukes are merely defensive, just like ours which is why we don't have to submit to inspections of our facilities even as we demand others allow them. But even the possibility that Iran wants nukes is "a threat to the world."

In January 2009. in the wake of the Israeli assault on Gaza, I wrote of

the stomach-churning, spirit-destroying conviction that our new Change-ident isn't going to change a goddam thing on this and will be every bit as much an Israeli sycophant as those who preceded him.

I've found no reason to change that assessment. And if you want to question it, I'll have to insist that you answer this question: If the conference declaration had "singled out" Iran without mentioning Israel, do you think the Obama crowd would be "deploring" that?