State Dept. Claims “We Follow the Law in Every Instance" but Stonewalls on Law About Israeli Nukes

Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s last article admonished Biden to abide by Glenn-Symington amendment and cut off billions in funding to repeated nuclear proliferator Israel.

[Video on Rumble, above, has enhanced audio, as does Rokfin. Also via YouTube without enhanced audio.]

Sam Husseini: Last time, you claimed: “We follow the law in every instance.”

But Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s last article was an admonishment to this administration — headlined “Joe Biden should end the US pretence over Israel’s ‘secret’ nuclear weapons.”

The subhead was: “The cover-up has to stop – and with it, the huge sums in aid for a country with oppressive policies towards Palestinians”

The Archbishop noted specifically: “Amendments by former Senators Glen—Stuart Symington and John Glenn … ban US economic and military assistance to nuclear proliferators and countries that acquire nuclear weapons.” He noted that Israel not only got nuclear weapons, but also: “There is overwhelming evidence that it offered to sell the apartheid regime in South Africa nuclear weapons in the 1970s and even conducted a joint nuclear test. The US government tried to cover up these facts.”

The Archbishop added: “The US government should uphold its laws and cut off funding to Israel because of its acquisition and proliferation of nuclear weapons.”

Are you not in violation of this US law (which is part of the Arms Export Control Act) as the late Archbishop charges?

Ned Price: This administration follows the law. We have an ironclad relationship with Israel, as I mentioned before. We are committed to Israel’s security. That, of course, remains the same. We’ve spoken a lot about Israel and that bilateral relationship today, but that security partnership is strong and we’re committed to preserving that and to strengthening that.

[Motioning to another reporter] Yes.

Sam Husseini: But I just cited a specific law. Will you reply to the law? Are you not in violation of the Glenn/Symington Amendments to the Arms Export Act?

Ned Price: We follow the law in all instances.

[Motioning to another reporter] Yes.

Sam Husseini: You have to specify. You have to give me more information than that. It says that there should be a cutoff of U.S. aid to a country that proliferates nuclear weapons — or the president can issue a waiver. There has been no information of any sort of waiver. Have there been any waivers?

Ned Price: I’m not familiar with the details of this law, but I can tell you that we follow the law in —

Sam Husseini: I’m not talking about details; I’m talking about the core.

Ned Price: — in every – in every instance.

[Motioning to another reporter] Go ahead.

Sam Husseini: I’m talking about the core of the law.

Ned Price: [Motioning to another reporter] Go ahead.

Sam Husseini: Are – I’m citing a law and you’re not responding to any specifics on this specific law.

Ned Price: Again, I’m not familiar with the details of this law.

Sam Husseini: Will you get back on this with us – to us?

Ned Price: I’m not familiar with the details of this law, but of course we —

Sam Husseini: Will you get back on the specifics here?

Ned Price: If we have anything to share on this law, we’ll let you know. [Motioning to another reporter] Yes.

Price’s core response — “This administration follows the law. We have an ironclad relationship with Israel, as I mentioned before” — was reminiscent of that of Mike Pence when I asked him to acknowledge Israel’s nuclear weapons.

Pence said: “I am aware that Israel is our most cherished ally. And I strongly support Israel's right of self-defense and to take such actions as are necessary to secure their homeland as much as we take actions to secure ours."

See: “Mike Pence: The Leading Member of the "Israel, What Nuclear Weapons?" Flat Earth Society”.

Related articles: “The Absurd US Stance on Israel’s Nukes: A Video Sampling of Denial” and “At State Dept: I Ask About Torture, Saudi Arabia and Israel”.

Earlier in the briefing, this took place:

NED PRICE: [Talking about settlement building] So Israel, of course, is going to make its own sovereign decisions. …

SAID ARIKAT:  And at the same time, you said that that is on Israel.  Of course, it’s an Israeli sovereign decision.  That’s what you said.  So if Israel tomorrow says I’m going to annex half of the West Bank, I’m going to annex somewhere, that is also sovereign decision; you agree?  That is a sovereign Israeli decision?  That will not prompt you to take any action beside or beyond expressing how deeply troubled you are?

NED PRICE:  Said, that’s a hypothetical and it’s a hypothetical that you know as well as I is not going to happen tomorrow.  It’s also a hypothetical that is inconsistent – would be inconsistent with everything that we have said about the strong urging we have put forward to both parties – to Israelis and Palestinians – that they should refrain from steps that serve only to exacerbate tensions and to put even further distance between where we are now and an ultimate two-state solution.

SAM HUSSEINI:  But why call it a sovereign decision if they don’t have sovereignty?

SAID ARIKAT:  Can I finish, please?  Okay.  So, I mean you’re also saying that we don’t want to compromise the effort towards a two-state solution, right, although knowing full well that every time there is a new settlement that really compromises that outcome?  Not only that, if you are unable to persuade the Israelis to backtrack on a settlement that they have termed as illegal, how are you going to force the Israelis to remove 700 settlers and maybe 300 on some settlement?  How will you do that?  If you – there is nothing wrong with the strength of your tone.  The problem is that you are not utilizing any of the tools to press upon the Israelis to take action to fulfill those words that you are saying. …

Full video and transcript of this briefing.

---