Israelis piqued by nuclear "confirmation"

[rs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061207/ts_nm/nuclear_israel_gates_dc_3



By Dan Williams Thu Dec 7, 10:22 AM ET

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Robert Gates, the incoming U.S. secretary of defense, won plaudits in Washington this week for his candor on the Iraq war.

Some Israelis were less pleased, however, to hear Gates mention with equal frankness what U.S. administrations have long avoided saying in public -- that the Jewish state has the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal.

To be fair, it was pretty oblique.

If, by "oblique" you mean he came right out and said it.

During his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Gates mentioned why Iran might be seeking the means to build an atomic bomb: "They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf," he said.

The remark led Israeli news bulletins. State-run radio suggested Gates may have breached a U.S. "don't ask, don't tell" policy that dates back to the late 1960s.

Oooohh the stuff is gonna hit the fan now... Don't ask don't tell... Oooooohhhh!

"It's quite unprecedented," a retired Israeli diplomat told Reuters on Thursday when asked about Gates's testimony. "I can only assume he has yet to get to grips with the understandings that exist between us and the Americans."

According to recently declassified documents cited by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists magazine, under President Richard Nixon the United States knew Israel had developed nuclear weapons but opted against pressing its ally to come clean on the capability and accept international regulation.

Israel neither confirms nor denies having the bomb as part of a "strategic ambiguity" policy that it says fends off numerically superior enemies while avoiding an arms race.

This sanctioned reticence is a major irritant for Arabs and Iran, which see a double-standard in U.S. policy in the region.

U.S. AID

By not declaring itself to be nuclear armed, Israel also skirts a U.S. ban on funding countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction. It can thus enjoy more than $2 billion in annual military and other aid from Washington.

Though Gates was appointed as part of a move by President Bush to revitalize prospects for Iraq and a wider peace in the Middle East, no one has yet gone as far as to propose openly that Washington review Israel's open secret.

god forbid...

"I am not aware of any change in U.S. policy on discussing Israel and its nuclear capability," said Stewart Tuttle, spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.

Shimon Peres, who helped found Israel's main atomic reactor in the 1950s, officially for civilian use, and is now senior deputy to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, sounded similarly unperturbed.

"This announcement makes no fundamental difference," he told Israel Radio.

As we still own the government of the USA anyway.

"Whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons, the fact is that Israel is the only country threatened with destruction ... Israel is not threatening any country. Weapons do not fire themselves, people fire them."

"Israel is not threatening any country" except perhaps Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai peninsula, Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian territories. "Weapons do not fire themselves, people fire them." and specifically people of the IDF and they fire them at unarmed civilians, you know, women and children. After all there are three kinds of terrorists, those with bombs strapped to them, those destined to grow up to be terrorists, and mothers who have babies that grow up to be terrorists. We need to kill them all.

He was apparently referring to arch-foe Iran, whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the elimination of the "Zionist regime" but denied his country seeks nuclear arms.

 

[anart]

Considering that nothing in politics happens 'by accident' - if it happens, you can bet it was planned that way - one wonders why Gates made this little slip of the tongue? Gates goes back a very long way as part of the 'system', he knew exactly how what he said would be interpreted - so what is the message he's sending, I wonder. (or am I reading too much into it?)

 

[Mr. Premise]

OK, LNL, you wanted evidence of who calls the shots:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061207/ts_nm/nuclear_israel_gates_dc_3

"It's quite unprecedented," a retired Israeli diplomat told Reuters on Thursday when asked about Gates's testimony. "I can only assume he has yet to get to grips with the understandings that exist between us and the Americans."

 

[Mr. Premise]

You are absolutely not reading too much into it. This is very significant, I think.

He is sending a message, I think, that the establishment in the U.S. will TRY to tilt a bit away from Israel and a bit towards Iran/Syria/Palestine. Let's see if they can pull it off. How this all works out will help answer the question: who is the client state here?

Considering that nothing in politics happens 'by accident' - if it happens, you can bet it was planned that way - one wonders why Gates made this little slip of the tongue? Gates goes back a very long way as part of the 'system', he knew exactly how what he said would be interpreted - so what is the message he's sending, I wonder. (or am I reading too much into it?)

 

[PopHistorian]

Could this be the first perceptible hint at the possibility of a double-double cross?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Jimmy Carter's recent book on Palestine Apartheid is also a shot across the bow, I think. Check out this interview in The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/061211ta_talk_paumgarten

In it, the interviewer Nick Paumgarten asked him why all the things Carter detailed about the plight of the Palestinians can't be found in the New York Times. Carter responded with a smile: "I need to ask YOU that."

Carter also said that he knew James Baker agreed with him on this.

"I think it's unquestionable-and I know how Baker feels, but I'm not going to say how he feels-that one of the main obstacles to any progress in Iraq is the lack of any progress in Palestine."

As if on cue, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert yesterday said that he disagrees with any link between the situation in Iraq and Palestine.

Yesterday a scholar at the Carter Center, Kenneth Stein, resigned in protest over the book: http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9htfMIvpXlFLyMASzjQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBjcXBoZjEwBHBvcwMzBHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=13mqfav7f/EXP=1165686447/**http%3a//www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/16190361.htm%3fsource=rss%26channel=inquirer_nation:

Although the book apportions blame to Israel, the Palestinians and outside parties - including the United States - for the failure of decades of peace efforts, it is sharply critical of Israeli policy and concludes that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land."

Kenneth Stein, a professor at Emory University, accused Carter of factual errors, omissions and plagiarism. "Being a former president does not give one a unique privilege to invent information," Stein wrote in a harshly worded e-mail to friends and colleagues explaining his resignation as the center's Middle East fellow.

So battle lines are being drawn. It feels really strange at this point.

Could this be the first perceptible hint at the possibility of a double-double cross?

 

[Mr. Premise]

I forgot the best part of the Carter interview:

It is his contention that the situation in the Occupied Territories "is not debated or acknowledged or even known in this country," and that the "tremendous aversion" here to criticism of Israel's policies has contributed to the disintegration of the peace process. "I can't imagine a Presidential candidate saying, 'I'm going to take a balanced position toward the Israelis and the Palestinians,' and getting elected," he said. "It's inconceivable. AIPAC is smart enough to penetrate any sort of circumlocutions."

 

[kimiko]

Interesting that an article made it onto Yahoo news that says "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the elimination of the "Zionist regime", rather than the usual "wiped off the map" canard.

 

[Scottie]

Interesting that an article made it onto Yahoo news that says "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the elimination of the "Zionist regime", rather than the usual "wiped off the map" canard.

Exactly. I almost fell off my chair! They have always been VERY careful to NOT report what Ahmadinejad actually said, just as they have been very careful not to step on the Zionists' toes.

Something is afoot, methinks, and it's a stinky one.

 

[Charles]

Could this be the first perceptible hint at the possibility of a double-double cross?

Exactly AdPop, double-double cross has passed my mind also. It even has passed along the conversation's I had last night. So the same thing "crossed" our minds !

But I still don't know, for sure.

That something suddenly changes direction, on this BBM, is clear to me. Or maybe it is made to be clear to me? That too is still possible, me thinks.

What caused the demotion of Jack Straw? Was it that he said that a military strike against Iran was impossible or inconceivable or something like that, and that only diplomatic efforts could make the difference or "a" difference? Or was it because he said that Israel too has nuclear weapons, and that diplomatic initiatives should be undertaken there too?

Difference this time (the statements of Robert Gates) is that he (Jack Straw) had a difficult relation with Blair already. Hmm, thing is that I don't think that such plays at such "levels", which leaves us with his statements.

And then comes Gates, and he is allowed to say the exact same thing without similar repercussions ??

What we have to remember in this is that we are months passed Straw's demotion. Irak is really, really bad. It is worse than a civil war. And while the USians might have tried to use ethnic and religious differences to ignite a civil war, it is quite possible that the US, AND Israel, did not expect it to be sooo difficult. Like they've overdone it is what passes my mind, and underestimated the sturdiness of Iraqi people.

So, is it conceivable that both parties decided to break apart seemingly for the moment, so that other initiatives could be explored? Other routes. Plan A failed, move on to plan B?
I am thinking of a PR stunt. US openly takes some distance from Israeli "politics" to gain sympathy with the masses. I personally would say: "How stupid can you get?" But it works! It has worked so many times in the past! Still, I don't think it will work this time.

Although the book apportions blame to Israel, the Palestinians and outside parties - including the United States - for the failure of decades of peace efforts, it is sharply critical of Israeli policy and concludes that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land."

Kenneth Stein, a professor at Emory University, accused Carter of factual errors, omissions and plagiarism. "Being a former president does not give one a unique privilege to invent information," Stein wrote in a harshly worded e-mail to friends and colleagues explaining his resignation as the center's Middle East fellow.

So battle lines are being drawn. It feels really strange at this point.

Yes exactly.
And here lies the trap, the crux of the matter maybe. When all is pointing towards, or is made to be pointed out to us, that "the battle lines are being drawn", does that mean that we should (robotically) choose a party? A side along the battle lines?
I don't have anything to do with the passed "US" strategy, nor "Israel" strategy. And there are sooo many other things that try to pull me to take sides this way or that way.

In the end, I'd rather have NONE of all these artificial sides.

I'd have some "space and time" to be able to see the diversity with all the REAL sides or angles with which we look or could be able to look, into our world, and learn from all these sides.

Maybe it is not a double-double cross. It is a triple cross. And that is their game and we are the game.

 

[Laura]

Well, then there is this:

http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein12082006.html

Words Even an Ex-President Can't Say in America
The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter

By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN

It seems Israel's "supporters" have conscripted me in their lynching of Jimmy Carter. Count me out. True, the historical part of Carter's book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, contains errors in that it repeats standard Israeli propaganda. However, Carter's analysis of the impasse in the "peace process" as well as his description of Israeli policy in the West Bank is accurate - and, frankly, that's all that matters.

A wag once said that there is no Pravda (Truth) in Izvestia (News) and no Izvestia in Pravda. The same can be said of our Pravda (The New York Times) and Izvestia (The Washington Post). Today both party organs ran feature stories trashing Carter using Kenneth Stein's resignation from the Carter Center as the hook. (I was sitting in the airport when this earth-shattering story came on CNN.) But like John Galt, many people must have wondered, Who (the hell) is Kenneth Stein? Stein wrote exactly one scholarly book on the Israel-Palestine conflict more than two decades ago (The Land Question in Palestine, 1984). Even in his heyday, Stein was a nonentity. When Joan Peters's hoax From Time Immemorial was published, I asked his opinion of it. He replied that it had "good points and bad points." Just like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Later Stein wrote a sick essay the main thesis of which was, "the Palestinian Arab community had been significantly prone to dispossession and dislocation before the mass exodus from Palestine began" - so the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 was really no big deal ("One Hundred Years of Social Change: The Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Probem," in Laurence Silberstein (ed.), New Perspectives on Israeli History, 1991).

The Pravda ( NYT) story was written by two reporters who seem to have made a beeline for the newsroom from their bat mitzvahs. They quote Stein to the effect that Carter's book is "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments". I doubt there's much to this. Most of the background material is Carter's reminiscences. Maybe he copied from Rosalyn's diary (she was his note taker). Then Pravda reports that "a growing chorus of academics...have taken issue with the book". Who do they name? Alan Dershowitz and David Makovsky. Makovsky is resident hack at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Israel Lobby's "think"-tank.

Pravda saw no irony in citing Dershowitz's expertise for a story on fabrication, falsification and plagiarism regarding a book on the Israel-Palestine conflict. As always, one can only be awed by the party discipline at our Pravda. It makes one positively wistful for the days when commissars quoted Stalin on linguistics.

 

[a.saccus]

Jimmy Carter's recent book on Palestine Apartheid is also a shot across the bow, I think.[...]

Well, then there is this: [...]

Norman Finkelstein

Words Even an Ex-President Can't Say in America The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter [...]

In following these up, I found -- of all things -- confirmation of Reed's comments about the effect of "The Lobby" on Truman. And from a high Israeli official!

http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2006...y-what-jewish-critics-of-israel-are-free.html

The paddling Jimmy Carter is receiving for making criticisms of Israel that are common in Israel demonstrates a law of the Israel conversation: It is one thing for Jews to criticize Israel, but it's not O.K. for non-Jews to do so.[...]

The law came to mind after I got a small book published by the American Jewish Historical Society, called "Essays on American Zionism." (1980). There is an essay in this book by Abba Eban, the famously eloquent Israeli Ambassador to the U.N.

Eban's essay is about Jewish influence on the White House. "Influence" is his word, so is "pressure." In fact Eban describes as absolutely key to Israel's emergence the very thing that the Times recently dismissed as an antisemitic delusion -- Jewish influence on Harry Truman.

-- "Public influence" by the American Zionist movement leader Rabbi Abba Silver "would have failed if other avenues of pressure and influence had not been brought to bear on presidential decisions."

-- Before the 1944 Democratic Convention, Jewish leaders were told that Senator Harry Truman needed $25,000 for publicity so that he might replace FDR's then-VP Henry Wallace. "I told Boyle that I didn't know Senator Truman,' [Zionist and manufacturer Dewey] Stone later recalled, 'but... if he wanted me to take a gamble I would make the $25,000 available'... When President Roosevelt died in 1945 Harry S. Truman succeeded him and Dewey Stone was among the few to whom he owed a political debt."

-- In '48, Truman feared losing, and Stone raised crucial funds, along with his friend Abe Feinberg, another leading Zionist; and they "thereafter had fairly free access to Truman in times of crisis."

-- Also in '48, when Truman complained of pressure from Zionists, Jewish leaders arranged for the visit to the White House by Truman's former haberdashery partner Eddie Jacobson in order that Jacobson might become "a lever of influence in the central international predicament of the age."

-- The "need for Israel's friends to have a permanent link with the White House arose again" in the case of JFK. Stone and other friends of Israel did not trust JFK because of his father's equivocal views of Nazi Germany. In Aug. 1960, Kennedy came to Feinberg's apartment at the Hotel Pierre and met with "a group of influential Jewish leaders [who] interrogated Kennedy stringently on matters affecting Jews and Israel." As a result, Stone had a "close, personal relationship" with Kennedy till he died.

-- Indeed, "without the support of American Jewry" Israel would not have been able to emerge from "vulnerability and weakness into sovereignty." This "extraordinary solidarity and kinship... enlarged Israel's power beyond the limited dimensions of its space and size."

 

[Keit]

And here what I found on Ynet site. Apparently Zionists are aware that lot of the World Jews don't like the way Israel present itself. They don't want to help or don't want to come here.
Looks like there are preparations to "single out" Israel. But to what end? It's obvious that Israel won't go down "easily".
Not long ago I heard on the radio how military experts predict that Hisballa will strike again next summer. So they prepare themselves for another "campaign". How interesting that after "fiasco" and apparent lack of intelligence, they somehow know that it will happen specifically during summer time.

Here the article:
Notice the the author is a "settler".

http://www(dot)ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3337632,00.html

World's Jews are horrified

Israel's image in eyes of Jews abroad dreadful; how can we change it?

Shaul Goldstein Published: 12.08.06, 17:48

When the Olmert-led government was sworn in, I spoke with friends who are among the leaders of the US Jewish community, and all they said was: "This isn't serious." The appointment of "friends" or "coalition considerations" to senior government posts in a country facing strategic and tactical threats is an irresponsible, immature act.

This isn't the only point where Israel's image as reflected in the world does not attest to stability. This image is also starting to frighten our friends, who are becoming concerned.

Last week I returned from the GA conference in Los Angeles. Once a year, the heads of North America's Jewish federations convene for important discussions on matters of Judaism, pluralism, education, and Israel. This year they devoted much attention to the war and its results. The Iranian threat and its implications were also there. Yet the slogan behind the speakers was the one that drew my attention - the same slogan also used by the Jewish Agency - Peoplehood.

About three years ago I participated in a convention of the "Kol Dor" organization. The group is made up of young Jews from across the world. Those are good, idealistic people in their thirties who seek to develop the connection to Judaism at "eye level."

Because of my familiarity of the state of Jewish communities in the world, I thought that was a wonderful opportunity. Until I realized their objective: Israel is no longer the center, but rather, just another community - at eye level...there are communities in Paris, Sydney, New York, and also in Israel. And now, one of the heads of the Jewish federations told me this week: Israel is not a unique community.

Soros bypassing AIPAC

The term "peoplehood" says in fact that the Jewish people is at the center, rather than the nationalism that was expressed through the establishment of the State of Israel. This attitude is reminiscent of the ultra-Orthodox community's alienation to the State and its institutes. The motive is different, yet the result is similar.

What happened to make part of world Jewry no longer see Israel as the center of Jewish aspirations? We can say, as I was told by Israeli officials, that they are "looking for an excuse to remain in the Diaspora."

Yet we have to understand: Most Jews who live across the ocean do not think they are in the Diaspora. Those of them who are interested have access to Jewish education, synagogues are flourishing in all branches, the communities and community institutions are brimming with activity, and the economic situation is excellent (mostly in developed countries.). From there, they examine the alternative.

The Jews who live abroad view Israel through the international media's prism, and are horrified. They see existential threats on the outside and government and moral chaos on the inside. If that's the country, and if that's its leaders' morality, the British press may indeed be right to hold discussions on Israel's survivability.

This analysis also has practical implications: More and more communities are investing their resources internally - more Jewish education, more local welfare, more community development. Investment in Israel is declining.

It goes up when we have an emergency call-up, and even then an analysis of the donors shows almost all the money comes from the large, traditional donors. Almost no money comes from the communities themselves. An emergency convention of a federation that raised USD 2.8 million drew hundreds of members. The venue was filled to capacity. Zero dollars were raised...

I believe the State of Israel isn't doing enough to boost the connection between us and our brothers overseas. I think there's great willingness there, and by adopting the current approach we're missing out on it. Yet we should be listening to the new voices: Billionaire George Soros is establishing an organization that would compete with the Jewish lobby, AIPAC. Its objective is to tell the Administration in Washington that not every Israeli requests is commensurate with American interests; Not every AIPAC request should be accepted.

Soros, who is known for his blatantly leftist views, could greatly weaken the strategic alliance. He's also undermining the mutual trust between the nations.

Stop apologizing

Where is all this leading and what should we be doing? Our true security does not start in the Defense Ministry; It starts at the Education Ministry, passes through welfare, continues through our connection to communities overseas (that is, the way we present ourselves to the outside), and is expressed during times of security crisis.

Had Israel possessed genuine deterrence, we would not need to use military power. This repair must be undertaken on two fronts: The "What" and the "How." We must revive the belief in Zionism's righteousness in the past and present, with the presentation of a vision for the future - this is the "What".

(!!!)
We must stop apologizing: We came to establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, and our right to it is not subjected to a demographic test. The recognition of civil rights for a minority is a must, but personal human rights should not be leading to national rights. The fear of saying clear words does not allow us to present a clear position, and undermines our education and our ability to present ourselves to the outside world.

At the same time, as noted, we should be addressing the "How." The best people stopped going to the public service or to join politics. Regrettably, even some of the best IDF officers quit at early stages. The success of the high-tech industry comes thanks to those who are fed up with politics or the army.

We must present a vision for change in education in relation to the weak and different; boost law enforcement; fight for public integrity - a significant cultural change is required of us. The media, too, would have to change - to encourage and not only to seek controversy.

And the leadership, what about it? In his book, Altneuland, Herzl commented that the politicians would be those who do not desire the post. We have some people like this amongst us, yet today they are hiding and do not wish to enter the mire.

We have a wonderful people that looks like a herd without a shepherd. Only those who are shying away now can bring the change by joining the effort - a dramatic change in our situation in Israel and in the manner in which we are seen by communities abroad. But who has the courage to begin?

The writer heads the Gush Etzion regional council

And here the reply of one of the article readers....

Gush Etzion is the problem

One of the reasons is that Jews abroad look at the shenanigans of the settlers, some of which are not exactly amusing (beating up their Arab neighbors, uprooting their trees, etc.) and the nonchalance of IDF behavior at checkpoints, and wonder just where the Jewish values the rest of us hold have gone in the mother country.

We love Israel - but maybe we don't love everything that's going on there. Like the government and its corruption, the settler movement and its arrogance, and the IDF and its current decadence. Or the opening of mass immigration of non-Jews just to "keep the demographic balance."

Give us something to dream about again and you'll see how fast we return.

Give us something to dream about again

Karen R , USA (12.08.06)

It reminds me what Reed wrote in Controversy of Zion about "real" Israelis and Bnei Yehuda/Levites (future Zionists).

 

[a.saccus]

And here the reply of one of the article readers....

[...] Jews abroad look at the shenanigans of the settlers, some of which are not exactly amusing (beating up their Arab neighbors, uprooting their trees, etc.) and the nonchalance of IDF behavior at checkpoints, and wonder just where the Jewish values the rest of us hold have gone in the mother country.

my emphasis

I just found these pictures from an exhibition entitled "Endless Checkpoints" by an organization known as "MachsomWatch" here:

http://www.ziv-p.com/MW/

Pictures are invaluable for those of us not on the spot, but there is always the possibility of distortion or framing -- intentional or otherwise -- by the photographer. As a witness on the spot familiar with the situation, how do they strike you? Are they an accurate representation?