“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Monday, May 24, 2010

Did Israel Attempt to Supply Nuclear Capabilities to Apartheid South Africa?



Is this story true? The evidence presented by the Guardian

This Guardian article about a proposal for Israel to supply nuclear weapons to South Africa has some interesting implications for other aspiring nuclear powers in the Middle East, namely Iran. How does one argue against Iran having nuclear weapons if the only nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel, has given serious consideration to sell the weapons to a state such as South Africa?

Does that not give moral cover to an Iranian argument for wanting nuclear balance with nuclear Israel?

How did Israel get the technology to develop its nuclear capability?

If the story is true, does that not present an ethical conundrum for the United States?

It could be argued that no Middle East power should have nuclear weapons (as if we could do anything about it) because even Israel was tempted to spread and distribute nuclear weapons to third parties, clearly an action hostile to stated US policy.

Does this story provide an argument for the Iranians to justify the legitimacy of their need for an Iranian nuclear deterrent?

Does this story, if true, undercut the justification for a vehement US policy against Iranian nuclear aspirations?


_____________________________


Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons
Exclusive: Secret apartheid-era papers give first official evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons

Chris McGreal in Washington
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons, Sunday 23 May 2010 21.00 BST


Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.

They will also undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.

South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.

The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials "formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal".

Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.

The memo, marked "top secret" and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: "In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere."

But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.

The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.

The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong's memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.

In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.

Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel's prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.

South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.

The documents confirm accounts by a former South African naval commander, Dieter Gerhardt – jailed in 1983 for spying for the Soviet Union. After his release with the collapse of apartheid, Gerhardt said there was an agreement between Israel and South Africa called Chalet which involved an offer by the Jewish state to arm eight Jericho missiles with "special warheads". Gerhardt said these were atomic bombs. But until now there has been no documentary evidence of the offer.

Some weeks before Peres made his offer of nuclear warheads to Botha, the two defence ministers signed a covert agreement governing the military alliance known as Secment. It was so secret that it included a denial of its own existence: "It is hereby expressly agreed that the very existence of this agreement... shall be secret and shall not be disclosed by either party".

The agreement also said that neither party could unilaterally renounce it.

The existence of Israel's nuclear weapons programme was revealed by Mordechai Vanunu to the Sunday Times in 1986. He provided photographs taken inside the Dimona nuclear site and gave detailed descriptions of the processes involved in producing part of the nuclear material but provided no written documentation.

Documents seized by Iranian students from the US embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution revealed the Shah expressed an interest to Israel in developing nuclear arms. But the South African documents offer confirmation Israel was in a position to arm Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads.

Israel pressured the present South African government not to declassify documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky. "The Israeli defence ministry tried to block my access to the Secment agreement on the grounds it was sensitive material, especially the signature and the date," he said. "The South Africans didn't seem to care; they blacked out a few lines and handed it over to me. The ANC government is not so worried about protecting the dirty laundry of the apartheid regime's old allies."


120 comments:

  1. Bad News Day For Israel

    Australia has expelled an Israeli diplomat after a probe revealed Israel was behind the forging of four Australian passports linked to the murder of a Hamas operative in Dubai.

    Foreign Minister Stephen Smith told parliament that Israel's conduct was "not the actions of a friend".

    Britain took similar action in March, concluding there was strong evidence that Israel was responsible for the use of doctored UK passports in the plot.

    The Hamas man was killed in January.

    'Sorrow not anger'
    At least four fabricated Australian passports were used in the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

    The originals belonged to Australians living in Israel, and the Australian government has decided that the Israeli government was responsible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A rouge nation produces a rouge poster.

    Count the lines, count the words, if you're of a mind to. I did not.
    It is all "misdirection".

    Gotta love it.

    Nuclear rouges, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, nuclear proliferators extraordinaire.

    As I have been saying, for years.

    Further vindication of the 'desert rat', from 'good and reliable' sources.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. First vindication is offered by true blue, red blooded American Jews, now further vindication of my position, provided by the government of South Africa.

    The freely elected, democratic government of South Africa provides the truth regarding Israel providing nuclear weapon technologies to other rouge States.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That is spamming and not appreciated. It adds nothing to the conversation. I would appreciate it , if you took the time to focus your argument and remove the comments that no one is going to read.

    A well constructed reply would be far more persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rouge nuclear proliferators:
    Pakistan is number 1
    Israel follows closely behind.

    There were rumors that the South Africans had detonated a device, in the ocean in the South Pacific, as I recall. If true, then that would put Israel in the number on spot, of rouge nuclear proliferators, but I'm not sure that those rumors, of that nuclear detonation, are accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Washington, DC, May 5, 2006 - Many U.S. government officials and scientists disagreed with the findings of a presidential panel that the double flash signal picked up by a U.S. nuclear detonation detection satellite (Vela 6911) in late September 1979 was possibly not a nuclear test, according to a number of studies posted today by the National Security Archive.

    The signal appeared to come from a 3,000 mile area that included the South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, tip of Africa, and part of Antarctica. A presidential panel concluded in May 1980 that the signal was more likely an artifact of a meteoroid hitting the satellite and sunlight reflecting off particles ejected as a result of the collision.

    In addition to the report of the presidential panel, the posting includes reports produced by the DCI's Nuclear Intelligence Panel (completely redacted), and scientists and analysts at Los Alamos, SRI International, Sandia, the Intelligence Community, the Defense Intelligence Agency, Mission Research Corporation, and the Aerospace Corporation. Included are several reports which concluded that a nuclear test was the most probable explanation of the Vela detection and/or specifically questioned the presidential panel's explanation.


    The Vela Incident

    Israel is, I think after some further reading moved to:
    NUMBER ONE !!

    Top nuclear rouge and proliferator in the Whirled!

    ReplyDelete
  29. You are going to have to do that police call of your blog, yourself, Deuce.

    Seems to me.

    ReplyDelete
  30. That nuclear weapons will not stop demographic realities from exerting themselves, evidenced in South Africa.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Cash, allen, cash.

    Just as the Israel sold UAV technologies to Russia, who then transferred those technologies to Iran, according to a post by you and analysis by rufus and I.

    Israel will sell any technology it obtains, for cash and prizes.

    It is not a matter of which particular Israeli makes the deal.
    They all operate in what they perceive to their governments' "best Interest".

    Which centers around cash, power and prizes.

    ReplyDelete
  33. When multiple, independent sources all report the same thing, over a period of decades, it's true.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "When multiple, independent sources all report the same thing, over a period of decades, it's true."

    Not necessarily so.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ahh, but Quirk, in the modern whirled, perception is reality.

    If you read it in the newspaper, its' true.

    I've publish newspapers, I know.

    I was just agreeing, with allen, as to the public's perception of the truth to those reports.

    In our own past, Jon F.Kennedy's "Missile Gap" a story that was false, but considered true by many, even to this day.

    Politics is not science. Perception counts, totally.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I do remember an intelligence report that two huge explosions occured off shore in South Africa in the late 70's.

    I was correct:

    South African officials say they never conducted a full-fledged nuclear test. But Soviet satellites detected preparations for a test site in the Kalahari Desert in 1977. Washington and Moscow pressured Pretoria to shut it down. In September 1979, however, an American satellite detected a distinctive double flash off the southern coast of Africa. The satellite data offered strong evidence that the flash had been caused by a low-yield nuclear explosion.

    In June 1980, the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) reported to the National Security Council that the 2-3 kiloton nuclear test had probably involved Israel and South Africa. U.S. intelligence had tracked frequent visits to South Africa by Israeli nuclear scientists, technicians and defense officials in the years preceding the incident and concluded that "clandestine arrangements between South Africa and Israel for joint nuclear testing operations might have been negotiable." Such speculation was fueled in 1986 when Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu was interviewed by the London Sunday Times. Vanunu said that it was common knowledge at Dimona that South African metallurgists, technicians, and scientists were there on exchange programs.

    After Pretoria joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1991, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) started visiting South African nuclear plants to verify that Pretoria had accounted for all its secret bomb material. One of the lead inspectors recently told the Risk Report: "It was a tremendous experience...we enjoyed the highest level of cooperation that you could hope for...we were able to reconstruct the activity of the enrichment facility on a daily basis, and do forensic analysis of the records."


    Wisconsin Project

    ReplyDelete
  38. It is obvoius that the South Africans did not develop the nuclear technology with the help of Russia, China, France, UK or the US.

    Who else had it?

    ReplyDelete
  39. When all the various reports are in, it seems that there is a preponderance of evidence that Israel behaved as is claimed in the latest Guardian article.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. A preponderance of evidence that Israel is a rouge nuclear proliferator.

    Public vindication is sweet.
    Let me tell you.

    First with Iraq, now with Israel.

    How sweet it is!

    ReplyDelete
  42. If "connect the dots" is the name of the nuclear terror game, well, we all get to play.

    Pakistan and Israel, keeping both our enemies closer than we keep our friends.

    I guess Mario Puzo understood the realities behind the basic formulation of current US foreign policy.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Just as I suggested that our Jewish friends here at the EB cool their jets with regard to demanding an immediate response by ROK on NK after the sinking of the ROK ship, I'd suggest the same here.

    As it turned out they appear right in saying that NK did it. However, what was the result of waitng a couple months? US and other countries' expert have helped prove that it was a NK torpedo that was responsible. The net effect, it is easier to garner public support for sanctions against NK.

    Rat's point about public oppinion is true but let's face it the article comes from the Guardian hardly an unbiased source.

    The fact is that if the documents sighted in the book are legitimate the research can be duplicated by other independant sources.

    Would it suprise me if the story was true? Not especially. Do I have to make a judgment right now? I can wait. Will this make a difference with regard to Iran? Zip. If Iran wants the bomb, they will get it.

    Did Israel provide SA (not South Australia Sam) with anything on this deal? Not clear, although I did rush through the article since I was getting ready for a doctors appointment. Heck, I am also sure we have a contingency plan in a drawer somewhere to invade Canada. As in this story, that may never happen.

    Not that I expect rat to let this juicy piece slide.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  44. Even the coal, and nat gas that we consider to be so abundant will be seriously depleted in 40, or 50 years. As a result, "Many" (Most?) Countries will have Nuclear Reactors. Especially, those in the Middle East with Oil Revenues with which to purchase the technology.

    Many countries will have Nuclear Weapons. Many Countries in the Middle East will have Nukes. We need to get out of That Valley of Death as quickly as possible.

    Missile Defense, and Ethanol. That's our "ticket home."

    ReplyDelete
  45. It is, Quirk, another piece of the puzzle, as we put the many disparate pieces together.

    Connecting the dots, as it were.

    That this nuclear story resurfaces, concurrently with Mr Beinart's piece, providence at work.

    Do you or others have to draw a conclusion, today? Of course not.

    But that there exists a preponderance of evidence of Israel's rouge behavior, undeniable.

    That the Israeli may have an excuse, a mitigating factor for their actions, likely.

    As they did in the USS Liberty episode. They may have thought South Africa, that they were really part of the United States.

    Identification, friend or foe, is as allen so often reminds us, oh so difficult.

    In Israel's case though, it is easy. They continually operate against the "Best Interests" of the United States.

    What ever the motivating factor in their errors regarding identification of friends and foes, may be.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The whole thing is depressing, but in my mind it's hard to blame Israel for nuking up, living amongst such hatred all around, as she is. I expect South Africa to slowly go the way of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, that's just the way it is. Victor David Hanson on Swedes---http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/reflections-on-small-town-america/-----what you got to do is, just work your guts out. His little town sounds much like my own, where I grew up.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And to call the Israelis "eurotrash"---that is a statement the owners of the blog should not allow, in my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  48. And to say they are so 'club med'---well, hell, there wasn't nothin' there, before they came back. Just a backwater, till some people that had been through hell, true hell, the survivors, came home, and put their minds, hearts and guts to it. And did it. Bless them.

    ReplyDelete
  49. It was the industry of the Jews, naturally talented, given to hard work, in a desert, that sucked the 'palestinians' in, it was Jewish creativity, that made that desert bloom. As a farmer, I really admire that. Really, really admire it. I stand up for them, the Jews, they are the best people there.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Peter Beinart responds to some of his critics:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-23/why-israel-has-to-do-better/full/

    ReplyDelete
  51. I've read your article, and disagree with most of it. So much money has gone to 'the palestinians' and ended up in Swiss bank accounts, or paying for fancy apartments in Paris. F 'em. All they do is hate.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hate, hate, hate, is all they know to do. HATE They like that. But CREATE SOMETHING? Never never never.

    ReplyDelete
  53. If you are given a greenhouse, you don't tear it down.

    ReplyDelete
  54. WIO and Allen.

    please consider the futileness of posting at this blog anymore. it has definately taken on a stormfront slant to it and you will never ever be able to effect attitudes here. The cards have been purposely stacked against you and you have been set up to lose. I guarantee you that your energies can be much better applied elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  55. reality is what you make and it's obvious you dont play fair. if the microscope was put on you, you would be in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "it has definately taken on a stormfront slant"

    We've tried to get rid of bob. He insists on coming back.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I can't understand why racists, and supremacists want to post on a blog that is neither.

    ReplyDelete
  58. And if, God forbid, we lose What Is, we lose access to the Secret And Quite Possibly Critical Brisket Code.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Rat,

    As usual, the Quirkster, voice of reason and restraint, merely tries to bring a little amity to a bitter and divided world.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  60. I don't know who anon is, but he or she is a nice person. I'm, guessing a girl, just my hunch. Nice person.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Easy Ruf.


    We don't hear much from Anon but he does provide the all important
    Greek chorus when anything Jewish or Israeli surfaces here.

    And if either WiO or Allen left half of the rat's raison d'etre would be gone. We might end up having to hear more about 'bear wrangling'.

    (Although that might be more entertaining now that I think about it.)

    As for Bob becoming incensed at the objectionable language used at the EB...well...one can only


    :)
    :)
    :)



    .

    ReplyDelete
  62. I don't know who anon is, but he or she is a nice person. I'm guessing a she, just a hunch. I'd always stand up for the Jewish farmers, who are much like me, and I think WiO and Allen to be the two best posters here, by far. Those two guys have been the only ones gave a glance at my old theme, that there might be more to life than ethanol. I'm happy to go, it is a hard habit to break, when you get pissed off, reading nonsense from Arizona and Mississippi.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Trish,

    Lest you panic, pleae remember that you stll have a Rosicrucian Adept here at the EB.

    The answers you seek are only a keystroke away.

    Special discounts on 'secret knowledge' available to all bar patrons. There is a slight premium for "very secret knowledge'.

    And then, of course 'the good stuff' ...well... Oh, never mind, you couldn't afford that anyway.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Not the Brisket Code!"

    Sure. Go ahead. Laugh now.

    Brisket-lovers know better.

    ReplyDelete
  65. There was a wonderful psychological analysis in 'Cults' of rats brain, but it is too long to post. Ruf we know, is just a drunk, on ethanol, not dangerous, rather be afraid of rat.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Oh hell, Trish. When you said 'Brisket Code' you were actually talking about briskets.

    I thought it was that special knowledge you get by being Jewish that let you interpret the Bible.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  67. I realize as much, Q, which is why we remain civil and polite.

    Even when there may be disagreements as to purpose, principle and anything else imaginable. Though there may be agreement, on occasion, as well.

    Funny that the fella that frequently used obscenity and the foulest of language to describe a woman of his desires, objects to the use of "Eurotrash".

    Injures his sensibilities, it does.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Trish is smart, but not particularily insightfull.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Really, it is such a wholesome word, Eurotrash.

    Those that expat from a free and prosperous Europe, to go mess with the foreign native folk, down at the beach.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Oh hell, Trish. When you said 'Brisket Code' you were actually talking about briskets."

    : )

    ReplyDelete
  71. I see Blogger is screwing up again.

    A couple of my posts hav been deleted as well as a couple of Rufus'

    I had previously posted one with the same abservation about Mr. Bob and his selective umbrage.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  72. Eurotrash------is a disgusting word, and hammers he that uses it. You are a piece of shit, rat, and you should be ashamed of yourself, but you will not be.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Eurotrash, a great word to describe the haters that migrate to the Middle East, from Eastern Europe.

    Like that Lieberman fella, the one that represents Israel to the whirled.

    He personifies Israel, by their own decision and design.

    He is Eurotrash, personified.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I suggest, shut this place down, duece and whit, it is not worth it. All you are doing, is giving a forum to pieces of crap like rat, day after day.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Thank the Living Christ, I have no Italian in me.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Just the mention of "Bear Wrangling" makes me smile. :)

    ReplyDelete
  77. Notice the hater, when after losing the intellectual debate, the call for censorship.

    Dovetails nicely with the Authoritative desires of the Eastern Europeon mind.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I was born n the United States, to folks that were born in the United States.

    Never been to Italy, have no plans to go there.

    There is nothing Italian about me.
    Not a passport I carry, nor a language I speak.

    My Swedish ancestry, so much closer to my heart. At least a family member has visited there, back to the home place of my Great Grandparents.

    Though she is not returning there, not anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  80. the rats ass is already a confirmed and self identifiied criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  81. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Who cares about the Popes?

    Or what dogmas they believed.

    The Israeli never have denied they attacked the USS Liberty, on the open ocean.

    No, they never did that.

    They claim a mistake was made.
    Makes no difference, in any case. The motive is not judged, only the results. The result, the Israeli killed US sailors, on the high seas, in a series of attacks upon a scantly armed ship flying the US Standard.

    Their motive, unimportant, then and now.
    Only the results matter.
    Not their mitigating circumstance.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Keeps drawing you back, boobie.

    Like a moth to the flame.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "I don't know who anon is... but...I'm, guessing a girl..."


    Why doesn't this suprise me?



    .

    ReplyDelete
  85. If you believe that perception does not create reality, in politics, then there is little wonder that Peter Beinart is ahead of your curve.

    ReplyDelete
  86. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  87. And that the youth of your sectarian community in the United States are abandoning the conflation of Judaism and Israel that is essential to Israeli propaganda schemes.

    ReplyDelete
  88. If I were to worry about anything, today, it would be "what to do about the Yuan, and what to do about Imported Oil."

    We need to solve this Yuan thing pretty damned quick, and get busy on the "Imported" oil thing, as well.

    This "Euro Crisis" has given China a perfect excuse for delaying action on the Yuan, and it's probably going to take some real Hardball to get them to move now.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Messaging & Sociology are not Astronomy nor Physics.

    Frank Luntz advises upon word choices, to shape perceptions, to effect political realities.
    The imperfect work of man, not the perfect symmetry of the stars.

    That you and yours are so far behind the curve, in regard communication skills, well that's just fun to watch.

    The current scrambling.

    Beinart, Goldberg and Luntz, they're on the 'right' track.
    Get on board, or miss the ride.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I post the news that is reported and place it in context with my experiences.

    I ask questions and in this particular case we have a set of events that started in the late 70's and may be relevant to current events. I doubt you will hear much about it in the media.

    I usually make it very clear where I stand on any subject unless I am ambivalent on it. On this post the elements are basic.

    Is Israel a nuclear power? Yes.

    Is Israel trying to present Iran as a threat? Yes.

    Does Israel have the high moral ground to prevent Iran from getting the nuclear weapons it wants? Yes, but less so if this story is true.

    Do I want Iran to have nuclear weapons? No.

    Do I want to go to war to stop it? No, that is not in US interests. I don't think it is Israel's interest.

    Israel clearly can nullify any combination of Middle East powers. That is as good as it gets.

    A preemptive war against Iran will at best be modestly successful in the short run and disastrous in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I would add, Deuce, that the Iranians are much less of a threat than the Israeli represent them as.

    Especially militarily. They are a toothless tiger, outside Iran.

    They do provide meager military supplies their proxies, all the way to the Med, but that is pretty much the historic norm, for those Persians.

    As General P said while in the UAE, the air assets of the UAE would devastate the Iranian Air Force in any aerial combat scenario.

    No, the Iranians are no real military threat outside of Iran. They are irritating and obnoxious to be sure. But they are boxed in and under-gunned.

    Soon to smother in their own excrement, if given the opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  92. And rest assured, the Iranians will be as nuclear capable as the Japanese.

    On the threshold of capacity, always.

    It's old technology, 1940's technology.

    It's been a MAD whirled, it remains a MAD whirled.

    Get used to it, if you are not already. Nothing different, nothing new. The threat has existed, in my whirled, since before I was born. The first "Duck and Cover" film making the rounds of US schools in 1951.

    Produced by the Civil Defense branch of the U.S. government, Duck and Cover features an animated character named Bert the Turtle, who proceeds to demonstrate the protective benefits of ducking and covering (his head disappears into his shell when faced with danger).

    This was all accompanied by a catchy, albeit morbid, tune about the proper reaction to a nuclear bomb:


    "There was a turtle by the name of Bert
    and Bert the turtle was very alert;
    when danger threatened him he never got hurt
    he knew just what to do...
    He ducked!
    And covered!
    Ducked!
    And covered! He did what we all must learn to do'
    You And you And you And you!'
    Duck, and cover!'


    Despite the film's amusing flaws (or rather because of them), Duck and Cover has become a cult hit and is still shown today on television programs that are discussing the Cold War.

    Baby boomers may not find this so amusing, however, as they had the thought of imminent Soviet attacks on their minds daily.

    To this day, adults complain of Red Scare nightmares that were induced by government tools like Duck and Cover.


    Now that last part, Red Scare nightmares ...
    That was not the result for me, but maybe that's what's shaking boob by the lapels.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Teach your kids to duck and cover.

    No worries.
    Worked for me and mine.

    It'll work for you and yours.

    Israel is all nuked up, and still feels insecure.

    Wonder if the Iranians know about Bert the Duck and Cover Turtle?

    ReplyDelete
  94. If not, then they will not have fear embedded in their hearts, by the propagandists.

    Another part of Mr Beinarts' observations that dovetails to political reality.

    How the Israeli propagandists use victimhood and fear to drive their message in the US, and how that device has failed to deliver, what with the reality of the post '67 Levant being what it is.

    Israel is one of the top ten vacation destinations in all the whirled.
    There are no Israeli victims, there.
    Not as seen from here, in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  95. That is why they continue with their gloom and doom, rufus.

    They want to drive the fear factor, any way they can.

    Fear the Muslim, that is their rant
    Fear the Black, that too is chorused.
    Fear the Brown.
    Fear the Foreign.

    Their message, always revolves around fear, gloom and doom.
    War on the horizon, always.

    Sometimes it is.
    Sometimes it should be.

    But not today, not by US, not for the reasons enunciated by the haters.

    ReplyDelete
  96. boob even tells the readers to fear me.

    It is funny, really.

    The depth that is not reached, how the same story line is played, over and again, to no effect.

    boob's afraid, and so all the whirled must mirror his fear.

    ReplyDelete
  97. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  98. boob only fears that you might come up and shoot him, as you once let out that you might do, when you got pissed once. I'm not really afraid though, in fact, it migtht be a thankfullness, MR. Self Confessed Criminal. I don't think you got the guts, so I ain't really worried.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I love it, the reality of rouge.

    As the Queen is paraphrased "I say what I say and I mean what I say".

    That some read other meanings into it, all to cute.

    ReplyDelete
  100. rat, really, go out and get some job, some meaningful work, even its only Meals on Wheels.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Find that reference and post it boob.

    If I EVER threatened you with violence to your person...

    See if anyone else recalls the month it may have occurred.
    whit or Deuce, even doug.

    You are a sack of no consequence.

    ReplyDelete
  102. O but yes you did, though I'm not going back to find it. Just get a job with Meals on Wheels, make something of your stupid life.

    ReplyDelete
  103. That's what I thought.
    See ya', well I hope not.

    ReplyDelete
  104. "A Pew Environmental Group study found that governments have been ineffective at stopping illegal fishing. Pew international policy director Susan Lieberman cited "the deplorable state of fisheries on the high seas" based on U.N. figures showing three-quarters of the world's fish stocks are overfished and said global fisheries could "crash" by mid-century."

    Teach a Man to Fish? Eh, Probably Not a Good Idea.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  105. Another view from the AP:

    "Appearing alongside the article, the partially censored documents show a formal request from the South Africans for nuclear-capable warheads, and minutes of meetings in which then-Defense Minister Peres listed weapons available for sale.

    "But they do not appear to confirm any transfer of weapons, or any explicit offer from the Israelis to sell nuclear materials or nuclear-capable weapons to the South Africans.

    "The documents accompanying the story do show Peres' signature on minutes from a meeting where the then-defense minister discussed payloads available in "three sizes," one of several phrases that Peres said The Guardian misconstrued."


    It's All About What the Meaning of 'Is" Is

    .

    ReplyDelete
  106. Well, Q, if that was all there was, well then, I'd agree, its' not that much. Not a preponderance of evidence, the notes of the meeting, in and of itself.

    But in fact, it is just one piece of a greater mosaic.
    Just one of the many pixels in the picture.

    I'd agree that the entire picture, it is not a crisp closeup, in full focus of what happened.

    But as a dot, in that mosaic, it cannot be ignored, not when it completes the picture of nuclear knowledge and expertise being proliferated, even if a itself weapon was not delivered.

    Even through the fog of time, deniablity and statecraft, the foggy picture is enough, there was clearly, visible proliferation of the "Secrets".

    Nuclear proliferation is at the heart of the issue. as Mr Cheney said ...

    ... the threat we face now, the idea of a terrorist in the middle of one of our cities with a nuclear weapon, is very real ...

    Who has nuclear weapon capacity that is not monitored by the IAEA, but Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India.

    The NorKs may not "really" have a nuke, if they do, it is not combat ready.

    The other three on the list, they have combat capable nuclear capacity.

    Their past behavior may be an indication of future actions.
    Especially when nuclear knowledge is the stock of trade, not a device itself.

    As Pakistan has assisted both NorK and Iran. The Israeli assisting the South Africans.

    Indicative of governments discounting the danger to humanity that nuclear weapons proliferation represents, in both cases.

    ReplyDelete
  107. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  108. And more than one way to say, "Yes".

    The two of them, they found an 'acceptable and deniable' middle road, and the South Africans got the bomb.

    Bottom line.

    The Israeli were proliferating nuclear knowledge, just like Dr Kahn was for the Pakistani Generals.

    Same game, different players.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Deuce asked the question:

    Did Israel supply nuclear capabilities to Apartheid South Africa?

    They might have but is that simply a diversion at this point? What is the point? To disarm Israel? To make Israel sign on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

    Why? To appease the Iranians? To comfort the Arabs?

    I see no point in that. In fact, the Guardian article shows how sick the whirled is. The Iranians are the roques, the terrorists and yet who gets the blame? Once again, the Jews!

    And speaking of the Jews, the Jew baiting here at the EB needs to stop.

    The passive aggressive BS has gotten very tiresome. To the point where I am tempted to delete comments. But don't worry, I'm more likely to depart the premises for good. I'm not sure if I want to be associated with this place anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Moral Equivalence Rides Again

    Today, must be moral equivalence day. This morning on the local talk radio, when the host said that we should look more carefully at travel and immigration from "certain countries," a caller with a Spanish accent called asking
    "Who is the US to define terrorism when it has such a sullied history?" He pointed that the explosion of the Maine was a case of terrorism used as pretext for US expansion in the Caribbean.

    It's idiotic and possibly suicidal to go down that road and when some Alinsky type brings it up, my antenna go on high alert.

    ReplyDelete
  111. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  112. "And speaking of the Jews, the Jew baiting here at the EB needs to stop."

    Tell me Whit do you think your comments are likely to change rat?

    Regarding the rest of us, perhaps you can give me an example of what you understand to be "Jew baiting" so that I can be sure to avoid it.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  113. Good lord, just takes a look at Allen's response to your note.

    If rat wasn't here, either WiO or Allen would eventually bring back every conversation to either Jews or Israel. With the rat thrown in the mix, there is absolutely no way of avoiding it.

    So please, give us some examples of what is and what is not acceptable.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  114. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete