Guardian: To Vilify Israel, the Truth can Go Hang!

Professor Barry Rubin writes:

Josh Pollack, a very serious expert on arms, and Avner Cohen, probably the world's leading expert on Israel's nuclear program, point out that the Guardian story is...about nothing.

First, the issue is clearly one of missile sales, NOT nuclear weapons in any way.

Second, all the documents show--even if they are true!--is that a. the South Africans decided they wanted to buy missiles from Israel and b. there was one discussion on missiles in which Peres merely explained what Israel had.

There is NO evidence of serious negotiations on missile sales, much less any actual sales.

They didn't even read the documents properly.

It's something like this:

Bill: I'd like to buy a car from Joe.

Joe: We have three kinds of cars for sale.

That's it.

Read this great article:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2745/avner-cohen-on-israel-and-south-afri...

Georgina Henry sent a letter to the JC stating that The Guardian/CiF was 'Fair and Balanced'. What a hoot. The Guardian is on a crusade to legitimatize Israel. Nothing is missed.

This is a commentary on a book written by an avid Israel hater who is using a selection of documents, (not all the documents), to make a case against Israel that it is irresponsible and has nuclear weapons and technology. In other words, if you object to an irresponsible country like Iran possessing nuclear weapons, you must object to Israel also possessing nuclear weapons because they were intending to sell these weapons to the Apartheid regime of South Africa.
The Guardian has been manipulating its readers. It uses misrepresentation and omission to do this.

This particular episode is actually somewhat of a godsend in that it can be used to show Guardian readers how their 'newspaper' is no longer to be trusted with the so called 'news' that it prints.

Og course, the the obsessive Israel haters who flock to CiF, this will be viewed quite differently but there are probably still many Guardian subscribers who are rational and have been wondering about the 'newspaper' that they subscribe to.

Resign Alan Rusbridger

This lie is every but as disgusting as Tonge's call for an Inquiry into the blood libel allegations in Haiti

Go Now!

http://www.newstime.co.za/SouthAfrica/Pik_Botha_:_Definitely_no_nuclear_...

Former South African foreign minister Pik Botha said on Monday that it was highly unlikely that the Israeli government formally offered nuclear weapons to South Africa in the apartheid era,
.
Reacting to a report published by Britain's Guardian newspaper on Monday Botha said : "I doubt it very much. I doubt whether such an offer was ever made. I think I would have known about it."

The article quoted minutes from a series of top secret meetings in 1975 in which Israeli president Shimon Peres, who was then defence minister, allegedly offered his then South African counterpart PW Botha nuclear warheads "in three different sizes". The Guardian said the documents provided evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

In response Botha said that at the time he was ambassador to the United States and the United Nations, so he could not have been involved in such meetings. But as minister of foreign affairs from April 1977, and, towards the end of his term, as negotiator with the United States on the signing of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, he had known "what was going on". In real terms Botha was one of the leading figures in the apartheid government and the idea that he would not have been made aware of the offer is inconceivable.

In amplification he confirmed : I was very closely connected with our Atomic Energy Board and later Corporation. I would have known about it.

While Botha had also known Peres and other senior Israeli leaders it was of course possible that an offer was made at a low level, between officials. But for it to have any significance, it should have been brought to the attention of the South African ministers connected with the country's own weapon production.

On this point he is adamant : "As a serious offer of one government to another, my answer is no. Definitely not."

Peres Response

News agencies reported earlier that the allegation in The Guardian prompted a strongly worded response from Peres' office wherein he stated that there is no basis in reality for the claims published this morning by The Guardian that in 1975 Israel negotiated with South Africa the exchange of nuclear weapons.

The response further stated : "Israel has never negotiated the exchange of nuclear weapons with South Africa. There exists no Israeli document or Israeli
signature on a document that such negotiations took place. The Guardian had written the piece based on "selective interpretation of South African documents and not on concrete facts."

In accordance with the alleged South African documents - which are dated March 31, 1975 and marked "top secret" - Peres' offer was made in response to
Botha's request for Israel to supply them with warheads. The documents make no mention of any "exchange" between the parties.

South Africa had not yet acquired nuclear capabilities at that point in time and would not do so for several years. According to a memo : At the talks, Israeli officials "formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal. It also said Peres and Botha signed an agreement about military ties between the two countries, including a clause which said "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

Discovery of the documents

It was apparently found by US academic Sasha Polakow-Suransky while researching a book on the close relationship between Israel and South Africa.

The Guardian alleges that Israel tried to stop Pretoria from declassifying the documents in response to a request from Polakow-Suransky, whose book "The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's secret alliance with apartheid South Africa", is published in the United States this week.

At present Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-60s. In September 1979, Israel and South Africa allegedly carried out a secret nuclear test on an offshore platform in the southern Indian Ocean.

This came to light in another declassified document which was released in Washington in 2006 at the request of the security studies centre at Georgetown University. The document, which was prepared for the White House, said Israel and South Africa, which was then under apartheid rule, were co-operating on military issues, including nuclear research.

Just before apartheid ended, under UN supervision, South Africa dismantled its nuclear weapons programme.

Jonathan Freedland

http://cifwatch.com/2010/05/25/psychedelic-mushroom-clouds-at-the-guardi...

AKUS expertly fillets the lie and spits it out

Rusbridger - Go Now!

The Guardian, when based in Manchester, was of course the preeminent voice of British Liberalism. As is widely known, under its distinguished editor, C.P.Scott, it was arguably the most pro-Zionist newspaper in Great Britain.
Today, however, it is the notorious accomplice of totalitarian leftism, and as the admirable site CiFWatch has repeatedly documented, has slipped across the murky barrier from anti-Zionism into antisemitism.
I saw yesterday's headline the evening before, on a survey of "tomorrow's newspapers" on Sky News.
So bright and early - about this time - I looked at the Guardian's CiF page and, sure enough, the demonisation had begun in a blog related to their "scoop". However, at that stage there was only one comment up, a reasonable pro-Israel one by Ha-Masmer. I can't post on there myself - my computer makes a revving noise as if struggling to leave a site it regards as contaminated and I can't transmit comments - but I noticed, later in the morning, other good posts by Ha-Masmer and by Isotope, among others - pro-Israel posts in the usual sea of anti-Israel comments by the usual suspects.
It was with genuine surprise that I noticed, in the afternoon, that those pro-Israel posts by the two persons I've mentioned (and which I knew to be in no way "offensive") had been "removed by a moderator". Intrigingly, the first of Ha-Masmer's posts - the one which was online very early in the morning - remained far longer than his second one, only to also have gone the way of so many robustly pro-Israel comments by the evening.
Shameful!

(1) Let us assume that Israel has hasd nuclear weapons for a long time. Has she ever used them? Has she ever threatened to use them?

(2) Let us assume that apartheid South Africa had nuclear weapons. Did she ever use them? Did she ever threaten to use them?

Of course there are countries like Pakistan and North Korea who do actually have nuclear weapons. And Ahmadinejad's Iran is trying to become a nuclear power.

Now let us assume that you were all in kindergarten. And let us assume that the teacher sat you down in a circle and asked you all which country was more threatening to your survival?

What would you put your hand up and say?

Yvetta,
The Guardian, like many other anti-zionist sites, can only survive by creating a one-sided argument. It cannot cope with a debate. It is too much for its tiny totalitarian mind. That is why it had to censor Ha-Masmer's posts.

Most blogs censor my posts. And that is the reason that I have become the "Blacklisted" Dictator.

To some extent, I find their pathetic censorship quite encouraging. In their hearts they know, that they haven't got a leg (or rational argument), to stand on.

And just like Hitler and Stalin, they will end up in the dustbin of history ( of course, many millions might be killed in the process but that, unfortunately, is just par for the course....of course!)

We need an on-line campaign and petition started with the aim of forcing Alan Rusbridger to resign from his anti-semitic rag.
The JC hard copy should publish the full story and call for Rusbridgers resignation this week.
Are you up to the challenge Stephen?

i will repeat my earlier comments...

For Jonathan and others that try to discredit these claims of Israel's close relationship with South Africa's apartheid regime ignore the fact that John Vorster visited Jerusalem in 1976 (despite being an open supporter of Hitler), which is frankly bizarre.

secondly, this evidence is not going to simply go away by claiming its 'guardian nonsense' as widely occurs on these blogs. Its based on Sasha Polakow-Suransky's six years of research at Oxford university,this included access to declassified South African documents, (that Israeli officials sought to prevent being declassified) along with a hundred or so private interviews the author conducted.

So Vanunu was right... Israel has nuclear weapons and has tried to sell them to apartheid regimes

http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/liberal-left-uk-newspapers-launch-new...

Robin Shepherd weighs in.

@ibrows

Oh ... Oxford ..... then I must be mistaken about the shoddiness of the Guardian's article!

How snobbish is that!

If you bothered to look at the YouTube of SP-S's interview with Al Jazeera yesterday (that AKUS links to on CiFWatch) you will see SP-S racing to distance himself from the Guardian's pile of stinking dung.....

@BD

the Guardian is only 'one-sided' in terms of discussing views you don't agree with. The Jewish Chronicle is the most one sided, one dimensional and will not hear of any criticism of Israel, regardless of whether it is true or not.

You claim to dislike censorship, but this appears to only be the case when your being censored, while simultaneously endorsing call for the removal of 'anti-semitic' comments, which are only 'anti-semitic' if this definition means 'critical of Israel'

Jonathan,

Have actually read the book or seen the evidence then? Or are you simply dismissing it as it paints Israel in a negative light, the latter of course!

Its getting confusing keeping up with your changing argument Jonathan, so is Polakow-Suransk a 'cheerleader' for Goldstone, or simply distanced himself from a key point made in his own book?

@ibrows

"Have you read the book?"

That argument won't wash and is a sign of your desperation.

I read yesterday's Guardian - just like you - and my deconstruction of it is based on McGreal's article.

McGreal - in his haste to vilify Israel - goes much further than SP-S.

You are just digging yourself in deeper. Utterly pointless.

I read McGreal's article and saw SP-S interview yesterday, its clear that Peres had discussions with South Africa regarding nuclear weapons, and the talks are detailed in South African documents, Peres has signed a least one of these documents a secrecy agreement.

But Jonathan you still have not answered why Peres met with a Hitler supporter - Vorster and Peres signed a document to try and keep their discussion secret? a meeting that discussed nuclear weaapons. Plus SP-S confirms that Israel's military relationship with Israel continued until nearly 1990.

and still you claim there is nothing in this??? Doesn't seem to me that SP-S has distanced himself from this conclusion at all

"It is clear that Peres had discussions with South Africa regarding nuclear weapons"

Please supply evidence. There is none in either the McGreal article and associated documents (published by the Guardian) or in the SP-S interview on Al Jazeera).

Stop wasting everyone's time.

Its in the SP-S interview, watch it again with your eyes open, if you can bear to!

You still keep ignoring my question of why Peres met with a Hitler supporter, SP-S produces documentary evidence in his book, and discusses it in the interview, peres signed a secrecy document.

Perhaps you should report Peres to CiFWatch

Jonathan:

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 corp 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 than anything to do with nuclear armaments.

There is no evidence in the SP-S interview that nuclear missiles were discussed. Even he admits that the "three sizes" reference is "ambiguous" - and he is a young academic with his first book to sell!

3:07 SP-S "There is not a smoking gun"

At 1:30 SP-S says "South Africans perceived that there were nuclear missiles on the table" but in order to say that he has to piece together different bits of "evidence" to build an edifice which they do not possibly support.

He is basically taking 2 and 2 and adding them up to make 136. Draw your own conclusion about the worth of his PhD thesis. No doubt Avi Shlaim was his PhD supervisor at Oxford.....

Now run away and find another dead horse to flog

Thanks AKUS. Your piece on CiFWatch today is brilliant. Everyone should read it.

Ibrows,
Just for the record, I have never asked for the removal of any posts or comments on this blog. I have never "flagged as offensive" anything that has appeared.

I think there's alot to be said for not "flagging as offensive" - It's instructive to know how the enemy's mind works!

ibrows

Only a simpleton would think that the Guardian doesn't have a hateful and vindictive narrative when it come sto Israel - and often Jewish matters too. I suggest you check out Cifwatch.

Rusbridger should be ashamed. The Guardian stinks.

Amber, you ignore the wider context, the guardian is critical of Israel, yes, like it is critical of the british government, like it is critical of many topics. Does this make it 'anti-british', just because you may not agree with all its comments. Why do you desperately want a world with a singular pro-Israel narrative, nothing and no state is beyond or above criticism

To cry foul when there is any criticism of the state is to go down the dangerous chinese route of censorship

ibrows, wake up and smell the sewer water.
Virtually day in, day out, Rusbridger's grubby organ is raping Israel.
Flagrantly oppressive regimes abroad, whose hapless victims incude dissenters/democrats, members of minority religions, gays, and women,it tends to leave alone.

Yvetta

So your implying now that the Guardian is only critical of Israel, and no other states, is that what your saying lets be clear.

If this is what your saying its total nonsense. today there are amongst others stories on the unrest and killings in Kingston, and a article that is critical of... wait for it (heres a clue, its not Israel).. Ethiopia for the imprisonment of opposition leaders during the sham elections

ibrows, my escape clause is "tends to leave alone".
Rusbridger's organ rubs so many of us up the wrong way (so to speak!) because it is so very obsessed with Israel; vilifying Israel is meat and drink to CiF, to mix my metaphors.

Hi, Jonathan,

This is from MEMO- seems perfectly reasonable and accurate to me.

And you look so rational- the ZF must be proud of you. Keep up teh good work!

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/europe/1484-uncovered-the-u...