Trending Topics:

At liberal forum in D.C., Israeli pols obfuscate their country’s nukes

Israel/Palestine
on 52 Comments

Should Israelis be allowed to get away with deceiving the world about their nuclear program when they’re demanding transparency from Iran?

Above is a video of a panel on Sunday at J Street, the Israel lobby group, at the Washington Convention Center. There were five Members of the Israeli Knesset on stage, and the moderator was a sixth Israeli, Udi Segal, diplomatic correspondent of Channel 2 News.

You can watch Segal and two Members of Knesset engage in bantering obfuscation about Israel’s nuclear program, in front of a couple of thousand Americans.

Go to minute 26:30.  Tzachi Hanegbi, a Likud parliamentarian, the affable balding fellow with the purple tie, talks about Iran’s nuclear program, and Segal, on the left, and Merav Michaeli, the woman in black next to him, who represents Labor, chime in.

Hanegbi: The prime minister  of Israel says, and the president of the United States is also saying, that it’s not enough [for Iran] to smile, and it’s not enough to be pragmatic and moderate in rhetoric..…[Quoting Obama] The conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. This is what we stand for, and we know exactly what has to be done….

Segal: A few minutes ago, there was an interview with foreign minister Zarif of Iran on ABC. And… he refers to what Netanyahu is saying for the last 23 years. From 1991 Benjamin Netanyahu is saying Iran’s going to have nuclear weapons in 6 months and we still don’t have– we don’t want nuclear weapons. Israel is the one to have 2 warheads, nuclear warheads.

Hanegbi: 200

Segal: 200

Hanegbi: That’s what he said.

Segal: That’s what he said.

Michaeli: That’s a little different.

Segal: To be clear on that. That’s what he said. 200

Michaeli: According to a foreign publisher, yes.

Segal: I’m asking, What do you say to Foreign Minister Zarif of Iran.

Hagnebi. I saw his declaration and I feel sorry for him because he‘s contradicting the spirit of Rouhani’s Iranian approach. Iran problem is not is not Netanyahu’s so-called lies. It’s the decisions of the IAEA….

As they had this banter about Israel supposedly having nuclear weapons, people in the audience laughed. Today in the Washington Post, Walter Pincus says in the name of transparency, Israel should admit it has nuclear weapons.

It’s time for Israel to stop making military threats and to propose an imaginative diplomatic move — risky as it may seem — to help ease nuclear tensions in the Middle East.

It can start by acknowledging its own nuclear weapons program.

He’s right. And I wonder why a liberal American group is enabling Israeli officials to get away with this kind of deception, even as they’re demanding accountability from Iran.

H/t commenter Lysias.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

52 Responses

  1. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    October 3, 2013, 12:18 pm

    “I wonder why a liberal American group is enabling Israeli officials to get away with this kind of deception, even as they’re demanding accountability from Iran.”

    Because, on the israel question, J Street isn’t liberal. It’s zionist.

  2. BillM
    BillM
    October 3, 2013, 12:25 pm

    The Haaretz website apparently didn’t get the memo. It’s doing a remarkably poor job of obfuscating today.

  3. seafoid
    seafoid
    October 3, 2013, 12:50 pm

    Israel as Sparta 2.0 can only work with the nuke advantage over everyone else.
    When the neighborhood bully meets someone bigger than him, the bullying usually goes down several notches.

  4. seafoid
    seafoid
    October 3, 2013, 1:02 pm

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.550371#

    “In 1973, Dayan suggested Israel prepare nukes for action, but Golda Meir refused
    The PM vetoed the defense ministers’ suggestion of preparing nuclear weapons for possible action during the Yom Kippur War, according to a U.S. research institute. “

  5. James Canning
    James Canning
    October 3, 2013, 1:41 pm

    Bravo, Walter Pincus. And yes, time for Israel to admit it has nukes. And time for Israel to sign NPT and get rid of those nukes.

  6. Ira Glunts
    Ira Glunts
    October 3, 2013, 1:52 pm

    Hanegbi has an interesting past.

    In 1982 Tzachi Hanegbi led a group of radical settler youths in an illegal attempt to block the IDF evacuation of Yamit, a Jewish settlement in the Sinai. The evacuation was part of the fulfillment of the terms of the Israel/Egypt peace threaty.

    Even though Hanegbi has morphed into an establishment Likudnik, I am not sure he is a good front man for the two state solution, unless you are talking about the type of “two state solution” which would really be a continuation of the occupation.

    Here is a New York Times story about Hanegbi illegally obstructing the IDF evacuation of the Sinai in 1982. He and his mother MK Geula Cohen, who was also present at the Yamit action, were very very militant settlers. Cohen, as the Times story states, was one of the most right wing MKs at that time, a real firebrand.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/20/world/militants-wait-for-authorities-to-move.html

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      October 3, 2013, 1:54 pm

      Thanks Ira, didn’t know that. He was balanced at J Street by many anti-Zionist Jews — not.

  7. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    October 3, 2013, 2:51 pm

    Why are nukes any different?

    Why should Israel do anything it (its government) doesn’t want to do? Why should Israel refrain from doing anything it (its government) wants to do?

    When has Israel ever refrained? 1948? UNGA 194? UNSC 465? ICJ July 2004? Many, many UNSC resolutions — all w/o teeth — to do or stop doing. etc. All, all, ignored, the offenses multiplied, increased! To demonstrate impunity and immunity from community standards.

    Why are nukes any different?

    Israel’s M/O is to get away with stuff. Israel’s secondary M/O is to TEST its ability to continue to get away with stuff, and it tests its powers by — yes, you guessed it already — DOING STUFF and getting away with it. And escalating, increasing. and never a punishment, never so much as a slap on the wrist.

    Israel is waiting for that FIRST slap on the wrist, to help assess whether to continue escalating. The EU’s little pip-squeak min-sanctions (over settlements) — this mere pimple — is an invitation to Israel to INCREASE the death tolls, the land seizures, the home demolitions — to TEST EU’s resolve. Only an INCREASE in EU sanctions can turn Israel around. Maybe.

    After USA and others said the settlements were illegal, Israel continued with them. Then USA said that NEW settlements were a bad idea, so Israel continued and sped up manufacture of new settlements.

    Anyone could go on and on.

    Why are nukes any different?

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      October 3, 2013, 3:01 pm

      Israeli nukes are a national security menace for many countries, including the US. As Putin noted, the only reason Syria had CW was because Israel had nukes – – which Israel obviously did not need to have.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        October 3, 2013, 4:08 pm

        @ James Canning
        The US government has never received your message.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 3, 2013, 7:48 pm

        Perhaps Putin mentioned this to Obama, in St. Petersburg.

  8. October 3, 2013, 3:35 pm

    Area of Israel is roughly 21.000 sd. Km. Even together with the WB it is 27.000.
    Jordan in 90.000.
    Syria is 170.000.,
    Iraq is 437.000,
    Egypt is 1.000.000 (1 mln).
    Iran is 1.650.000.
    Israel cannot occupy or destroy any of these countries. Israel is just too small. It cannot even force them to capitulate. They on the other hand can easily destroy, overrun Israel. In fact this almost happened in 1973 when Syrians could overrun North of Israel but for some not so clear reasons stopped their offensive. Or if Jordan would have joined – there were only few small units along the long border with Jordan.

    Doesn’t this explain why Israel must have a nuclear deterrent? And why all sensible countries agree with this. Also why all non sensible countries and the majority on this blog do not. They and you want to destroy Israel. That is why Israel will never follow what you want.

    Stop appealing to International Law. Unlike individuals countries do not commit suicide. Even if the International Law demands this.

    • Light
      Light
      October 3, 2013, 5:27 pm

      Thanks for the geography lesson. Still doesn’t justify having nuclear weapons. Following your logic every small country should be a nuclear power.

      • October 3, 2013, 6:40 pm

        Not every small country. Small country surrounded by many large countries which were, some still are and some can become extremely hostile towards it aiming at its total destruction. Just think – Israel won 3 major wars (48, 67 and 73) and several smaller ones. That did nothing to the loosing countries. Can you imagine if Israel had lost only one of these wars. There would have been no Israel today. Israel can not afford even one loss. The neighbors can continue trying until they succeed. I don’t think you can find one country in such a situation

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 5, 2013, 6:31 pm

        You overlook the offer of peace Israel received from all Arab countries in 2002.

      • lysias
        lysias
        October 7, 2013, 10:44 am

        Israel did lose its 2006 war against Hezbollah.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 7, 2013, 3:14 pm

        Something of a draw, but at huge cost to Lebanon.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      October 3, 2013, 5:42 pm

      Stop appealing to International Law.

      You’re really jumped the shark on this one fnlevit. When it comes to Israeli fanatics, everything is national suicide for Israel.

      Never has Israel needed nukes and they don’t need them now. They already have the most powerful army in the region. If that isn’t enough, stop demanding military aid from the US and just build more and more nukes.

      Ask Israrl to come clean on nukes is asking them to commit suicide.
      Demanding they withdraw from the OT us suicide
      Demanding they live to what they promised under UNGA194 is suicide
      Demanding they stop ethnic cleansing and home demolitions is suicide

      Doesn’t this explain why Israel must have a nuclear deterrent? And why all sensible countries agree with this.

      No it explains why Israel had to put an end to it ‘to criminality and violations of international law. It explains why Israel should accept the Arab peace proposal that most of those countries you listed have signed.

      Israel just keeps picking more fights and putting more and more people off, then using the resulting animosity to justify why it needs nukes and more arms.

      It’s insanity.

      And please, would you care to name who the sensible countries are that agree with Israel? As Donald pointed out yesterday, not only does power corrupt, it makes you crazy .

    • lysias
      lysias
      October 3, 2013, 5:46 pm

      Israel cannot occupy or destroy any of these countries.

      With 200 nukes (the inventory when Vanunu made his revelations, who knows how many more they have now?), Israel can destroy any of those countries. In fact, it can destroy all of them.

      If Israel only had those nukes for the purpose of deterrence (as you suggest), why would she be so upset by the possibility of Iran getting nukes, nukes that the rational Iranian government would never use against another state that has nukes? Mutual assured destruction would make all the states in the region safer. It’s perfectly apparent that Israel wants a regional monopoly on nukes, so that she can use her possession of nukes to throw her weight around in the region.

      • October 3, 2013, 7:02 pm

        Historically Israel needed nuclear deterrence against conventional weapons since the disparity in numbers and resources was so incredibly great. I still remember the days when 1 to 3 in number of tanks was the best Israel could hope to. Arab countries had many more tanks than NATO. These times seem to be gone but now the missiles are the threat.

        Fears of nuclear Iran are that the deterrence against conventional weapons will disappear. Hezbollah begins a massive launch of 70.000 missiles, Israel must retaliate on a major scale to stop this and gets explicit warning that if it tries it will get nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv. And many similar scenarios.

        The major fear is that MAD will not work against Iran. They are not what you call rational government. And then it can leak to or they can arm Hezbollah or Hamas or simply threaten to. It is a total game changer.

        In general they are great threat to all Sunni Arab countries. Saudis and other Gulf countries are afraid of that to no lesser extent. They are just using quiet means to protest.

      • Eva Smagacz
        Eva Smagacz
        October 4, 2013, 5:00 am

        fnlevit,

        The major fear is that MAD will not work against Iran. They are not what you call rational government.

        Apart from relentless hasbara meme reverberating around the western media from pro-Israel pundits, do you have anything else, like…… facts to support that claim?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 4, 2013, 5:28 am

        Historically Israel needed nuclear deterrence against conventional weapons since the disparity in numbers and resources was so incredibly great.

        That’s false. Israel enjoyed numerical superiority in 1948 and near parity in other wars, none of which required nukes to even the score.

        I still remember the days when 1 to 3 in number of tanks was the best Israel could hope to.

        Irrelevant given that Israel’s tanks were far superior.

        Hezbollah begins a massive launch of 70.000 missiles, Israel must retaliate on a major scale to stop this and gets explicit warning that if it tries it will get nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv. And many similar scenarios.

        Hezbollah would not begin a launch of missiles, unless Israel attack Lebanon or Iran, so the easiest way to avoid this is not to attack either one. Israel simply wants the freedom to attack whoever it wants without repercussion, and it has no right to.

        The major fear is that MAD will not work against Iran. They are not what you call rational government

        Again that has been comprehensively refuted by both US and Israeli intelligence, who have instated that Iran is a rational actor.

        In general they are great threat to all Sunni Arab countries.

        No they are not, which is why the majority of the populations in those countries support Iran having nukes.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 4, 2013, 6:29 am

        Eva,

        Facts?

        The only facts Zionists use are facts on the ground.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 4, 2013, 8:24 am

        >> The major fear is that MAD will not work against Iran. They are not what you call rational government.

        An irrational government is one which think the best path to peace involves terrorism, ethnic cleansing, the establishment of a supremacist state, and a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction, torture and murder.

        (Hint: It’s not the Iranian government.)

        >> Israel is not signatory to the NPT so its obligations are different than Iran’s

        Iran should be permitted to withdraw from the NPT so that it can have the same, soothing obligations as Israel. If they’re good enough for Israel, they’re good enough for Iran, yes?

      • October 4, 2013, 12:01 pm

        About “rationality” of the Iran’s leadership. I realize that many of the calls by Ahmadinejad and the like are music to the ears of many commenters on this blog but fortunately you don’t (yet) have nuclear capabilities. Here are the quotes

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
        Ahmadinejad stated that Israel “has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese.” Later, he said: “The Zionist regime is dying,” and “The criminals imagine that by holding celebrations (…) they can save the Zionist regime from death.” Ahmadinejad also stated that “They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy (it)”.[14]

        In his address to the 2008 United Nations General Assembly, Ahmadinejad said that “today the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse.”[15]

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.548984
        …. a few days before he left for the UN meeting in New York, Rohani participated in a military parade in Tehran. Trucks carrying long-range missiles passed in front of him, alongside signs calling for the destruction of Israel. A picture of the event, published on an Iranian website and by the French AFP news agency, show trucks bearing Shihab 3 missiles, which have the range to strike Israel. A sign in Persian hanging on one truck reads, “Israel must stop existing.”

        After the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2005 elections and the defeat of pragmatists/reformists (under the leadership of Mohammad Khatami), Iran returned to the idea of exporting the Islamic Revolution.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Principlism_in_Iran#Ansar_e_Hezbollah
        Since the Iranian Revolution, the new Islamic Republic of Iran has pursued an Islamic ideological foreign policy that has included creation of Hezbollah, subsidies to Hamas,[76] opposition to Israel and Zionist leaders, and aid to Iraq’s Shiite political parties.[77][78] Hamas leaders verified in 2008 that since Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip in 2005 they have sent their fighters to Iran to train in field tactics and weapons technology.[79] In an interview in 2007, Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Naim Kassem told the Iranian Arabic-language TV station al-Qawthar that all military actions in Lebanon must be approved by the authorities in Tehran; in 2008 Iran issued a stamp commemorating a recently killed Hezbollah leader.[80][81]

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        October 4, 2013, 12:11 pm

        “The major fear is that MAD will not work against Iran. They are not what you call rational government.”

        In some ways, they’ve acted more rationally than israel.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 4, 2013, 2:44 pm

        Israel indeed has no need for nukes. Iran has no need for them either. Notion Israel would use its nukes is well wide of the mark, in my view.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 4, 2013, 5:49 pm

        Here are the quotes

        Yes, he insulted Israel and hurt your feelings. I guess that’s reason to go to war.

        He also said nukes were for idiots and those who resort to war are operating from a point of weakness.

    • tree
      tree
      October 3, 2013, 7:08 pm

      Israel cannot occupy or destroy any of these countries. Israel is just too small. It cannot even force them to capitulate.

      A totally ahistorical comment. Israel HAS occupied and/or destroyed parts of Egypt(Gaza and the Sinai), Jordan (West Bank), Syria(Golan Heights) and Lebanon, and they didn’t need nuclear weapons to do any of it.

      And if you think that Israel can not force Iran to capitulate then why is the Israeli government threatening to attack Iran if Iran doesn’t capitulate? Perhaps you should be counseling your government to stop acting so irrationally, since an Israeli attack on Iran might be the very thing that leads Iran to ” destroy, overrun” Israel? Israel seems ever ready to commit suicide, and it is doing so by ignoring International Law, not by obeying it.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      October 3, 2013, 7:21 pm

      No Arab state or combination of states can challenge Israel militarily. ZERO need for nukes. As Putin has observed.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      October 3, 2013, 9:21 pm

      “Doesn’t this explain why Israel must have a nuclear deterrent?”

      Nope. But the fact that a band of psychopaths like the israelis have such nukes explain why Iran might wish to have a nuclear deterrent.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      October 3, 2013, 10:23 pm

      “Unlike individuals countries do not commit suicide.”

      No-one is asking for mass suicide. I ask Israel to change, to reject Jewish supremacy, to become a state for all its citizens, wherein all have equal rights, and to promote justice for all.

      Is that so bad?

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      October 4, 2013, 6:33 am

      fnlevit says: “In fact this almost happened in 1973 when Syrians could overrun North of Israel but for some not so clear reasons stopped their offensive.”

      Israel threatened Syria with (the possibility of ) a nuclear strike, according to Creveld.

      “Or if Jordan would have joined – there were only few small units along the long border with Jordan.”

      Jordan participated from 12. October on small scale to not loose its face in the Arab world. But like in 1948 it had an understanding with Israel, that both sides wouldn’t attack each other.

      “Stop appealing to International Law. Unlike individuals countries do not commit suicide. Even if the International Law demands this.”

      It’s sucidial in the long run not to adhere to international and human rights law. The 1973 war happened, because Israel wanted to hold occupied territories. And it’s still occupying the Golan Heights and the State of Palestine for illegal reasons.

  9. Ludwig
    Ludwig
    October 3, 2013, 4:23 pm

    Israel is not signatory to the NPT so its obligations are different than Iran’s

    • Light
      Light
      October 3, 2013, 5:26 pm

      Israel is not signatory to the NPT…

      Even more reason Israel should not have any nuclear weapons nor receive anymore US military aid.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      October 3, 2013, 5:31 pm

      Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, therefore it has no right to make demands of Iran.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      October 3, 2013, 5:49 pm

      Israel is not signatory to the NPT so its obligations are different than Iran’s

      Iran is a signatory to the NPT so its rights under the NPT, like enrichment, cannot be disputed or denied, especially by a non signatory like Israel.

      • Ludwig
        Ludwig
        October 3, 2013, 6:26 pm

        Yes but Iran is developing nuclear weapons. That goes beyond enrichment.

      • Eva Smagacz
        Eva Smagacz
        October 4, 2013, 5:05 am

        Ludvig,

        Yes but Iran is developing nuclear weapons. That goes beyond enrichment.

        Apart from relentless hasbara meme reverberating around the western media from pro-Israel pundits, do you have anything else, like…… facts to support that claim?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 4, 2013, 5:23 am

        Yes but Iran is developing nuclear weapons. That goes beyond enrichment.

        Stop lying.

        Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2013.

        They stated that :

        “Iran is developing nuclear capabilities to enhance its security, prestige, and regional influence and give it the ability to develop nuclear weapons, should a decision be made to do so. We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

        Can you get that though your skull Ludwig? The US intelligence community has stated that Iran has not even made the decisions as to whether they will make nukes, so they are NOT developing.

        If you repeat this lie, I will report you and request you be banned for trolling.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      October 3, 2013, 10:36 pm

      “its obligations are different than Iran’s”

      You mean “its obligations are different from Iran’s”.

      “Than” is for comparison in respect of a single characteristic possessed by both the items being compared. We know which characteristic is being referred to.

      E.g. Canadians are more boring than Swedes*. (Both are boring.)

      However, when we say “Canadians are different from Chileans”, the sentence does not specify which characteristics are possessed or not possessed by the items involved. We only know that one diverges fromthe other. Thus, the conjunction for comparison is inappropriate.

      (*Though some people make the contrary claim.)

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 4, 2013, 8:17 am

        >> E.g. Canadians are more boring than Swedes*. (Both are boring.)

        Well, we certainly can’t all be as “exciting” as Australians! ;-)

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      October 4, 2013, 6:38 am

      Ludwig says: “Israel is not signatory to the NPT so its obligations are different than Iran’s.”

      Israel’s obligation since Security Council Resolution 487 (19 June 1981) after attacking Iraq’s nuclear reactor:
      “1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;
      2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;
      3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty;
      4. Fully recognizes the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;
      5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;
      6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel;”

      Still waiting, Ludwig.

    • amigo
      amigo
      October 4, 2013, 7:18 am

      “Israel is not signatory to the NPT so its obligations are different than Iran’s”ludvig.

      Ok ludvig, humour me (some more) and lay out those obligations for all to see.

      Don,t make them up or copy and paste from your Hasbarah manual.

      Give us obligations based on International law.

  10. Keith
    Keith
    October 3, 2013, 7:22 pm

    The reason that Israeli and American lawmakers dance around the reality of Israeli nukes is that currently all US military assistance to Israel is illegal if Israel is acknowledged to possess nukes and no waiver signed. Acknowledging Israeli nukes would involve acknowledging past and ongoing willful violation of US laws.

    “The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended by the Symington Amendment of 1976 and the Glenn Amendment of 1977 prohibit US military assistance to countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology outside of international nonproliferation regimes. Israel, unlike Iran, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Congress wishes to provide US taxpayer funded foreign aid to Israel in compliance with US law, it may do so only under a special waiver from the office of the President as in the case for Pakistan.”
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/israeli-nuclear-arsenal-prohibits-us-foreign-aid-under-symington-amendment-61997392.html

  11. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    October 3, 2013, 9:32 pm

    RE: “There were five Members of the Israeli Knesset on stage, and the moderator was a sixth Israeli, Udi Segal, diplomatic correspondent of Channel 2 News. You can watch Segal and two Members of Knesset engage in bantering obfuscation about Israel’s nuclear program . . .” ~ Weiss

    URI AVNERY ON THE SORRY STATE OF THE ISRAELI MEDIA/PRESS AND THE “BRAINWASHING” OF THE ISRAELIS:
    “Israel’s Weird Elections”, by Uri Avnery, Counterpunch, 1/04/13:

    [EXCERPTS] . . . The Israeli media are already to a large extent neutralized, a creeping process not unsimilar to what the Germans used to call Gleichschaltung. [SEE: Gleichschaltung @ Wikipedia – J.L.D. ]
    All three TV channels are more or less bankrupt and dependent on government handouts. Their editors are practically government appointees. The printed press is also teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, except the largest “news” paper, which belongs to Sheldon Adelson and is a Netanyahu propaganda sheet, distributed gratis.
    [Naftali] Bennett repeats the ridiculous assertion that almost all journalists are left-wingers (meaning traitors.) He promises to put an end to this intolerable situation. . .
    . . . In the coming four years, the official annexation of the West Bank to Israel may become a fact. . .
    . . . If the government continues on its present course, this will lead to certain disaster – the entire country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River will become one unit under Israeli rule. This Greater Israel will contain an Arab majority and a shrinking Jewish minority, turning it inevitably into an apartheid state, plagued by a permanent civil war and shunned by the world.
    If pressure from without and within eventually compels the government to grant civil rights to the Arab majority, the country will turn into an Arab state. 134 years of Zionist endeavor will come to naught, a repetition of the Crusaders’ kingdom.
    This is so obvious, so inevitable, that one needs an iron will not to think about it. It seems that all major parties in these elections have this will. Speaking about peace, they believe, is poison. Giving back the West Bank and East Jerusalem for peace? God forbid even thinking about it.
    The weird fact is that this week two respected polls – independent of each other – came to the same conclusion: the great majority of Israeli voters favors the “two-state solution”
    , the creation of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders and the partition of Jerusalem. This majority includes the majority of Likud voters, and even about half of Bennett’s adherents.
    How come? The explanation lies in the next question: How many voters believe that this solution is possible? The answer: almost nobody. Over dozens of years, Israelis have been brainwashed into believing that “the Arabs” don’t want peace. If they say they do, they are lying.
    If peace is impossible, why think about it? Why even mention it in the election campaign? Why not go back 44 years to Golda Meir’s days and pretend that the Palestinians don’t exist? (“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people…It is not as though there was a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away. They did not exist.” – Golda Meir, June 13, 1969) . . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/04/israels-weird-elections/

  12. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    October 3, 2013, 9:42 pm

    RE: The conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. This is what we stand for, and we know exactly what has to be done…. ~ Israeli MK Hanegbi

    IN OTHER WORDS, ISRAEL SEZ: Do what we say, not what we do*! ! !

    * FOR EXAMPLE, CONSIDER ISRAEL’S DUPLICITY REGARDING ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM:
    “How Israel Out-Foxed US Presidents”, By Morgan Strong (A Special Report), ConsortiumNews.com, 5/31/10

    [EXCERPT]
    ● Secret Nukes and JFK
    . . . Even as it backed down in the Sinai [following its invasion in 1956], Israel was involved in another monumental deception, a plan for building its own nuclear arsenal.
    In 1956, Israel had concluded an agreement with France to build a nuclear reactor in the Negev desert. Israel also signed a secret agreement with France to build an adjacent plutonium reprocessing plant.

    Israel began constructing its nuclear plant in 1958. However, French President Charles de Gaulle was worried about nuclear weapons destabilizing the Middle East and insisted that Israel not develop a nuclear bomb from the plutonium processing plant. Prime Minister Ben-Gurion assured de Gaulle that the processing plant was for peaceful purposes only.
    After John F. Kennedy became President, he also wrote to Ben-Gurion explicitly calling on Israel not to join the nuclear-weapons club, drawing another pledge from Ben-Gurion that Israel had no such intention.
    Nevertheless, Kennedy continued to press, forcing the Israelis to let U.S. scientists inspect the nuclear reactor at Dimona. But the Israelis first built a fake control room while bricking up and otherwise disguising parts of the building that housed the plutonium processing plant.
    In return for allowing inspectors into Dimona, Ben-Gurion also demanded that the United States sell Hawk surface-to-air missiles to the Israeli military. Kennedy agreed to the sale as a show of good faith.
    Subsequently, however, the CIA got wind of the Dimona deception and leaked to the press that Israel was secretly building a nuclear bomb.
    After Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon Johnson also grew concerned over Israel’s acquiring nuclear weapons. He asked then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    Eshkol assured Johnson that Israel was studying the matter and would sign the treaty in due course. However, Israel has never signed the treaty
    and never has admitted that it developed nuclear weapons. [For details, See “Israel and The Bomb” by Avner Cohen.] . . .

    ENTIRE REPORT – http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/053110.html

  13. flyod
    flyod
    October 3, 2013, 11:01 pm

    interesting timing..
    avner cohen op- ed in ny times. well i guess israel does have nukes after all but don’t worry it’s leaders drink responsibly
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/when-israel-stepped-back-from-the-brink.html?hp

    no surprise that this ends up in the times by way of the zionist managed wilson center..

  14. Egbert
    Egbert
    October 4, 2013, 4:56 am

    Olmert admitted Israel has nuclear weapons in 2006.

    He [Olmert] told Germany’s Sat.1 channel on Monday evening: “Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?”

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/13/israel

    Opposition leaders accused him of “irresponsible” bungling and said he should resign.

    “This causes great harm to Israel. We are in the midst of a huge [diplomatic] onslaught against Iran’s attempts to make a nuclear bomb,” former foreign minister Silvan Shalom, a member of the rightwing Likud party, said on Army Radio. He added: “We always face the same question which our enemies ask: ‘Why is Israel allowed to [have a bomb] and not Iran?'”

    Israel’s policy of opacity is “we will not be the first country that introduces nuclear weapons to the Middle East”. So they have them, but they haven’t ‘introduced’ them to the Middle East. What does that mean? That they haven’t reached this stage – “Beloved Israeli nuke, meet the Middle East. Please go boom for the nasty Ayrabs”? Maybe they are all on the Dolphins sailing who knows where? Maybe the Israelis are lying?

  15. Denis
    Denis
    October 5, 2013, 3:43 pm

    Speaking of Hanegbi, here he is deciphering Bibi’s threats at the UN:

    “Therefore,” Hanegbi went on, “the prime minister essentially is telling the Iranians: ‘Do not delude yourselves. Even if the Americans will be prevented from acting against you, we will know how to defend ourselves, with our own forces.’”

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-was-so-sure-it-was-striking-syria-it-made-warning-calls-to-israels-leaders/

    More slithering disinformation from Likund. Bibi’s “we’ll go it alone” warning wasn’t about self-defense. It was about a preemptive attack should IRI reach a break-out position. There has never been any question that USG would come to GoI’s defense if GoI is attacked first.

    If you followed Bibi’s address you saw how he upped the ante from last year, or at least obfuscated it. This year the righteous goal of GoI is to prevent IRI from reaching break-out. Bibi even mentioned his stupid red line Acme bomb diagram, indicating that break-out is the new red line. Everything GoI does falls under the rubric of self-defense.

    BTW Hanegbi’s comment was in the context of the Syrian crisis and how Obama came so close to pulling the trigger on that one that he actually called GoI and gave them the heads up an attack on Assad was coming. His reversal was absolutely stunning. Makes you wonder if rumors that 5 US generals had warned Obama that they would resign if Obama attacked Syria w/out Congressional approval might be true.

    More and more I have the sense that if control of the USG is to be wrested from the Israelis, it will be by the top military guys. They are about the only public institution left that is not controlled by pro-GoI money.

Leave a Reply