Liberal Left UK newspapers launch new “apartheid” agenda against Israeli nuclear status
When the two leading voices in Britain’s liberal-left newspaper media, the Guardian and the Independent, strike out on the same subject at the same time, you are usually being given a signal that something is afoot. The BBC, in thrall to the thinking and worldview of both papers, will soon follow suit and before you know it a new item has been placed at the top of the mainstream political agenda.
With an editorial on the subject today in the Guardian and an op-ed today by leading commentator Donald Macintyre in the Independent, that item is Israel’s nuclear programme. The quest to disarm Israel has been given a new lease of life by a new book from Sasha Polakow-Suransky entitled “The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa”.
The Guardian claimed an exclusive in revealing key details from the book, principally Israel’s alleged willingness to give South Africa nuclear weapons, in a report yesterday which has been comprehensively demolished in a piece on Cif Watch (which readers can see by clicking here) and in a piece by Jonathan Hoffman in the Jewish Chronicle (which readers can see by clicking here).
So what’s this all about? Well talk about killing two birds with one stone: you get to lash out at Israeli “hypocrisy” for having nuclear weapons of its own while simultaneously calling for Iran not to be allowed to acquire them, and you get another opportunity to besmirch the Jewish state’s reputation via a linkage with apartheid South Africa. They died and went to heaven! Except it’s all bunkum. Here’s why:
First, the evidence is thin, as both of the critiques referred to above point out. There is no proof, and leading figures from the South African government at the time doubt its veracity.
Second, so what if Israel had some form of military cooperation with apartheid South Africa anyway? Israel was operating in the context of widespread arms embargos against it and in a security environment where the threats to its existence were clear. This implies nothing in terms of an affinity between the two systems of government. It’s just guilt by association. Britain did not become a communist country because it had an alliance in World War Two with Stalin’s Soviet Union.
Third, the broader issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme as a barrier to peace in the Middle East — a core argument pushed by the Guardian — is a red herring. The Guardian refers to Israel’s monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region and its simultaneous demands to stop Iran from going nuclear as “an unexamined contradiction which undermines much Middle Eastern diplomacy and cannot be for ever skirted”.
But there is no contradiction, as long as you step outside the blinkered multiculturalist assumptions which inform the Guardian’s thinking. Israel is a liberal-democracy which threatens no-one. Iran is an Islamist tyranny which openly calls for Israel’s destruction. Different rules apply because Israel and Iran are constructed as states on different principles. A surgeon wielding a knife in the operating theatre is different from a mugger wielding a knife on the street. Both have knives, but one has an infinitely superior claim to be doing so than the other. Again, there is no contradiction.
In sum, this is a non-issue designed to abuse Israel’s reputation with dubious evidence and flawed reasoning. It is also a thinly veiled attempt to divert attention from the real security issue in the Middle East: the looming threat of a nuclear armed Iran. But just watch how this story takes off…
May 25th, 2010 at 9:52 am
‘Private Eye’- (not known for a sympathetic approach to Israel )- calls the Grauniad’s editor ‘Rubbisher’ : I can see why.
May 25th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
A couple of additional points.
1. Polakow-Suransky should be fired from his position for the shoddy research and vastly exaggerated claims that he apparently (I have not read his book) makes
2. In one of the Peres letters displayed by the Guardian there is reference to SA buying tanks from Israel and assisting with the development of the tanks. You have to remember the time frame that these discussions were taking place to understand the relevance of that reference. Israel had just emerged from the Yom Kippur war in which its tank corps had been severely damaged and depleted by the Egyptian and Syrian armies using Russian-made Sagger missiles, and was desperately short of tanks. The British Centurions and the US Pattons had woefully underperformed against these missiles, and Israel was about to start the enormously expensive task of designing and producing the Merkhava tank, specifically designed to overcome the disadvantages of the Western tanks.
It is also possible that Israel was discussing the resale of captured Russian tanks to South Africa after they had been refurbished and updated by Israel, a small number of which were later incorporated into the Israel Armored Corp until they were replaced by Israel’s own tanks.
When I “connect the dots” I suspect that Israel was vastly more interested in foreign investment in that program rather than anything to do with nuclear armaments.
May 25th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Again the Zionist regime is on its heels and wants to divert attention to Iran. They cannot handle the spotlight and will point the finger somewhere else. Well, it is all catching up with you and the lies and propaganda cannot go on forever. It is about time the world starts coming to this realization and point the finger back where it all started…with the Israeli government and their Zionist policies.
May 25th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
When I read comments like Sam’s (#3), I understand quite well why Israel needs atomic weapons. The purpose of Israel is to save the Jews from such hate-filled maniacs. Atomic weapons are a deterrent to both Iran and Sam.
May 25th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Robin Shepherd says: Aside from the nonsense about bombing the Palestinians on a daily basis etc which is self-evidently false, every point you make is refuted in my own post and more especially in the pieces by AKUS and Jonathan Hoffman links for which are in that post. But feel free to make a fool of yourself in public any time you like…
——————————-
Israel threatens no one – bar the Palestinians who they occupy and bomb daily…not to mention Lebanon, Syria and Iran who they threaten pretty much on a daily basis – note, Lebanon and Syria they like to bomb every once in a while.
No proof? Of course not…in your world, a document signed by Peres and the facist nazi Vorster is not considered proof – of course, a person leading a non-violent demonstration against the apartheid wall in Jerusalem is proof enough that he is a terrorist aiming to drive Jews into the sea…strange how your criteria for proof is different depending on who is presenting the proof.
Btw – Vorster – the Nazi – visiting Israel and hanging out with Rabin and Peres – is that considered proof? Or let me guess – they were trying to help him change his views? Lol.
And we should consider the time this happened…right…basically you are saying that Israel – supported militarily and financially by the US since the 60s at least, if not before, had no other choice but to seek support from a white supremacist, racist, violent apartheid South Africa…lol…do you actually believe the crap you write?
No point in continuing with responding to this – too busy making sure this article is read by as many people around the world as possible.
May 25th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
As noted in the Jerusalem Post:
“In a period of less than 24 hours, between the evening of May 23 and the afternoon of May 24, The Guardian published eleven articles about Israel. All except one dealt with Israel’s alleged nuclear weapons arsenal.”
Little doubt then that this is a concerted attempt by the Guardian to whip up anti-Israel hysteria. Just when you thought they could sink no lower, they prove you wrong.
May 25th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Both countries were in an embargo environment and both faced direct and proxy threat from Communist Russia. It was natural for there to have been an alliance despite the fact that the SA government had earlier directly threatened the nation’s Jews over Israeli voting against them at the U.N. The noticeable Jewish involvement in anti-Apartheid activity did not endear the Nationalists to the Jews either.
Incidentally I have some knowledge regarding the 1979 nuclear test, and it almost certainly didn’t happen. In all likelihood there was a malfunction in the US satellite or it picked up a random flash of radiation from space.
May 25th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
The Guardian removed most replies critical of its very weird and imagionary interpertations of documents that simply do not show what the Guardian claims they show.
The Guardian is very much like the old Soviet Pravda newspaper in its utter disregard, and even contempt, for the truth.
May 25th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Hiya Sam!
http://cifwatch.com/2010/01/30/we-loved-your-comment/
I think you should read this. It fits you very well.
May 25th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
get this lovely article from the Economist’s print edition from last week – headed “Israel and South Africa – Cold minds, warm hearts -
How two outsiders gave each other succour and weapons”.
Some of the choicer quotes as follows:
“… it would be hard for them to shrug off the fact that even when South Africa faced blanket international sanctions, one country continued to supply it copiously with arms and helped it to build a nuclear bomb: Israel.”
“That the collaboration [BETWEEN ISRAEL AND SOUTH AFRICA] became so deep and long-lasting testifies to how realpolitik can mutate into Weltanschauung, the word the Nazis used for a “world view”. Nazi sympathisers may have helped propel the architects of apartheid to power, but letters between Jewish Israeli and white South African leaders, quoted in “The Unspoken Alliance”, illustrate a shared conviction: here were two small nations surrounded by hostile hordes, fighting for their land and identity, standing as bulwarks against Soviet empire-building.”
“This is a deft, pacy and revealing account, and for the most part, admirably dispassionate. It strays into polemic only in the epilogue, where the author warns that Israel may face South Africa’s fate if it does not mend its behaviour towards the Palestinians. Judging by their fury at Mr Goldstone, Israeli officials know this all too well—but still think they can bluster their way out.”
Amazing how the Economist can market itself as an objective observer in the Middle East debate, when it produces this kind of drivel … especially the lovely, and entirely gratuitous, reference to the Nazis – yet another clumsy attempt to taint Israel with the “Nazi” brush.
May 25th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
“It strays into polemic only in the epilogue, where the author warns that Israel may face South Africa’s fate if it does not mend its behaviour towards the Palestinians. Judging by their fury at Mr Goldstone, Israeli officials know this all too well—but still think they can bluster their way out.”
You can almost see the writer licking his lips as he contemplates the destruction of the Jewish state. Notice also how he talks about Israel having to mend its ways as if he were lecturing a naughty child.
Everyone should read Bret Stephens’ famous article (he was at that point the editor of the Jerusalem Post) in which he all but says that the Economist is an anti-Semitic magazine. You can find it here (scroll down):
Bret Stephens’ Eye on the Media: Fear and loathing at ‘The Economist’
http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000179.html
May 25th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Another superb analysis from you, Robin, of the increasingly sinister motivations and machinations of the so-called liberal-left media regarding valiant Israel in its struggle to survive.
Doubtless, as you predict, Al Beeb will be sure to follow where Rusbridger’s grubby organ has led.
May 25th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Sam – a post with no substance at all. What a talent!
May 26th, 2010 at 1:56 am
KMB once again tries to sneak in an assertion that Israel is somehow a Nazi state by association with Vorster.
Table 8.8 on Page 230 of “Isolated states: a comparative analysis”
By Deon Geldenhuys lists visits by South African Heads of State.
Of all these countries, only Israel is singled out by KMB (probably through a combination if ignorance and blind hatred) as hosting the “Nazi” Vorster. But, if we take the line promoted by KMB and others, should we assume that all the countries listed below were Nazi or Apartheid fellow-travelers, and possessed of nuclear know-how that South Africa was eagerly seeking? Certainly Britain and France had the technology.
D.F.Malan visited Britain in 1953 (for the Coronation, apparently) Israel, Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands.
J.G. Strijdom visited Britain in 1956.
H.F. Verwoerd (the father of Apartheid)visited Britain in 1961
B. J. Vorster visited Rhodesia, Malawi,Portugal, Spain, France, And Switzerland in 1970
J.J. Fouche visited Iran, Austria in 1971 and Malawai in 1972
B.J. Vorster visited Ivory Coast (1974), Liberia, Paraguay and Uruguay (1975), West Germany and Israel (1976)
P.W. Botha visited Taiwan (1980) Britain, Portugal, West Germany, Austria, Italy, Vatican, Switzerland, and France (1984)
Etc. etc. – the list continue with visits by P.W. Botha into 1988.
So, among all these many visits – and the list continues – there were exactly two visits by South African Heads of State in the 30 or so years between 1953 and 1984
May 26th, 2010 at 6:48 am
Bottom line:
Did Israel sell nuclear weapons to South Africa?
Answer: No.
Ever?
Answer: No
Not even a small sized one?
Answer: I said NO.
Do the Guardian and Independent newspapers have an agenda to discredit Israel in every which way?
Answer: ahem , cough, not really really, just .. blah… ye…n..o