Israel offered nukes to SA

[Marmite_Lover]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Of course it’s on Fox. Israeli president denies newspaper report he offered South Africa nuclear warheads in 1975 | Fox News

A quick click on Google News shows it’s also on ABC and Bloomberg and Reuters and, naturally, AP – not to mention that Google News of course links to Ha’aretz and the Jerusalem Post (which are also covering the story) and to Aljazeera.net and Hamsayeh.net (likewise).

I am talking about the Saudi King story on Fox

[Marley23]

@Marmite_Lover

I am talking about the Saudi King story on Fox

What Saudi King story? I think maybe you meant to post this in this thread.

[Boyo_Jim]

What SA might do with the bombs IMO is a red herring. Like pretty much every other country, they wanted them “just in case”. Of whatever.

The issue is (or was) Israel, and what it was willing to do, including selling its nukes. It’s a painful irony that Israel, consideing its origins as one consequence of the Holocaust, was trying to broker a nuclear deal with SA, which had an eerily similar outlook to Nazi Germany.

I think the OPs intent is to suggest that the US and the world need to stop looking at Israel as the perpetual victim and eternally innocent player, that it never really was.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Alessan

Just to put things in context, though - and not as an excuse - these were the 1970s. What country didn’t have a repulsive ally or two back in the 70’s? It was an ugly, ugly decade.

Both countries were a little desperate for friends in the 1970s.

[FinnAgain]

@Captain_Amazing

Both countries were a little desperate for friends in the 1970s.

If anything, that evinces the failure of the strategy espoused by the OP, and others. After defending itself from three genocidal wars launched against it and dealing with the Arab boycott as well as substantial international pressure, Israel sought out any allies it could. Of course allying with SA was morally reprehensible but in context it was a realpolitik decision based on the requirements of survival that were imposed on Israel.

@Boyo_Jim

The issue is (or was) Israel, and what it was willing to do, including selling its nukes.

You do realize that the cite provided by the OP specifically and explicitly says that Israel would most likely not have sold its nukes to SA and that even their claim that an Israeli envoy broached the possibility of such a thing is based on a tortured mis-reading of the memos from the time? Memos that specifically say that jericho missiles would be procured and then fit with nuclear warheads that might be manufactured in SA or obtained from other sources? And that their claim of the impossibility of SA being the one to create the warheads was based on a factual errors whereby they stated that SA was “years” away from being able to build a nuke when, in fact, it was ready to test one almost exactly two years to the date after which the memo was written?

[Sage_Rat]

@yendis

I would say that secret police, death squads, strict censorship, nationalism, misogyny, religious fundamentilism and historical revisionism counts as tyranny, wouldn’t you?

The South African government was totalitarian in nature with the white afrikaaner male as the pinnacle of god’s creation. Have no doubt that if there was a chance that the National Party would lose an election they would react like any of the corrupt governments in Africa and respond with violence and intimidation to maintain power.

All that sounds pretty par for the course for most nations of the world.

[ivan_astikov]

@Quartz

I think firing rockets into Israel indiscriminately, suicide bombs, and more counts as terrorism.

Compared with what - attacking civilian areas in tanks, helicopter gunships and the best weaponry money can buy? Who is inflicting the most terror?

Is a Palestinian’s terror worth x amount less than an Israeli’s?

[Mr.Excellent]

@Quartz

That would be why they’re supplying the Palestinians with guns, rockets and other ordnance, then.

I’m no fan of Hamas, or the Iranian government - but I do think Der Trihs has a point here. There’s a difference between relatively cheap weapons that inflict limited damage and massively expensive weapons that destroy cities, and would draw down the opprobrium of the whole world if used. Plenty of states give their proxies small arms - not saying it’s right, just that it’s not uncommon.

But nukes? No. I do believe that, for all the evil and venality of the Iranian regime, it would use its nukes the same way we do, and the same was that - for example - the Soviet Union did: for deterrence, and deterrence alone. That’s not a great situation - I’d like us to be able to use force against Iran if necessary - but it isn’t a world we don’t know how to live in. We managed with the Soviets, after all.

[Mr.Excellent]

@Alessan

Speaking as an Israeli… my country’s relationship with South Africa was nothing to be proud of. It was realpolitik at its worse: they had something we wanted, we had something to offer in return, and the hell with the implications. It’s a bit of history we’d like to forget, if forgetting history were the kind of thing we did.

Just to put things in context, though - and not as an excuse - these were the 1970s. What country didn’t have a repulsive ally or two back in the 70’s? It was an ugly, ugly decade.

Also, it produced disco. I hold all of you who were alive at that time personally responsible for that one - you stood by and let it happen. Shame!

[Der_Trihs]

@ivan_astikov

Compared with what - attacking civilian areas in tanks, helicopter gunships and the best weaponry money can buy? Who is inflicting the most terror?

Is a Palestinian’s terror worth x amount less than an Israeli’s?

“Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army”. You don’t get the terrorist label if you spread your terror using guys in uniforms, even if your behavior is basically indistinguishable.

[John_Mace]

@Alessan

Just to put things in context, though - and not as an excuse - these were the 1970s. What country didn’t have a repulsive ally or two back in the 70’s? It was an ugly, ugly decade.

Yeah… the clothes, the hair, and the music. Ugly!!

[Alessan]

@Der_Trihs

“Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army”. You don’t get the terrorist label if you spread your terror using guys in uniforms, even if your behavior is basically indistinguishable.

No, when the guys in the uniforms do it, it’s atrocities and war crimes, which are just as bad as terrorism. Terrorism is a description of a tactic, nothing more, and its not the worse thing in the world; for instance, the Nazis were decidedly *not *terrorists - they were about as far away from terrorists as armed men can possibly be.

I admit that I have less *respect *for terrorists than for regular soldiers committing atrocities, if only because they care little for protecting their sides’ civilians. They’re not any more evil, though.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Quartz

That would be why they’re supplying the Palestinians with guns, rockets and other ordnance, then.

Wow, could you clarify for me, are you saying that guns/rockets/unnamed small-arms ordinance is the same as a nuke? So the modern super insurgent/terrorist is a guy with an AK-47, RPG, and an Iranian-supplied nuke? Do you really believe what you are saying?

[Quartz]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

Wow, could you clarify for me, are you saying that guns/rockets/unnamed small-arms ordinance is the same as a nuke?

Holy non sequitur logical fallacy alert, Batman!

[ivan_astikov]

Well, why don’y you say what you mean exactly, then there can be no room for misinterpretation?

[wmfellows]

@Alessan

Speaking as an Israeli… my country’s relationship with South Africa was nothing to be proud of. It was realpolitik at its worse: they had something we wanted, we had something to offer in return, and the hell with the implications. It’s a bit of history we’d like to forget, if forgetting history were the kind of thing we did.

Just to put things in context, though - and not as an excuse - these were the 1970s. What country didn’t have a repulsive ally or two back in the 70’s? It was an ugly, ugly decade.

I’d just like to note that Alessan’s post is a great relfexion of why we (West, whatnot) should have faith in Israel. Bloody hard to get the same thing from the neighbours. At the same time, lots of issues to deal with. I wish we had more Alessans on both sides. I really do.

[ivan_astikov]

Seriously? You think Alessan’s thoughts are a fair reflection of the Israeli upper heirarchy’s general attitude?

[Happy_Poster]

I’m utterly confused why this is being a thread now. Everyone in the entire world knew this.

[Dante_Fevah]

@Marmite_Lover

Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons | Israel | The Guardian

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

The “top secret” minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa’s defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel’s defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them “in three sizes”. The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that “the very existence of this agreement” was to remain secret…The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa’s post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky’s request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week’s nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East…They will also undermine Israel’s attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a “responsible” power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted…

Anyone surprised by this?:rolleyes:
is it on Fox?

I’m puzzled. There were talks and offers? Did Israel give warheads to SA? If so why this:

In the late 1970s, South Africa began a programme of nuclear weapons development. In the following decade, it produced six deliverable nuclear weapons.[27][28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa

If Israel gave warheads to SA in the mid 70s, what’s up with the news SA had a program to build them years later? Something is odd here.

---

Oh I see:

From the 1960s to the 1980s, South Africa pursued research into weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Six nuclear weapons were assembled[1]. With the anticipated changeover to a majority-elected government in the 1990s, the South African government dismantled all of its nuclear weapons, the first nation in the world which voluntarily gave up nuclear arms it had developed itself.

The country has been a signatory of the Biological Weapons Convention since 1975, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty since 1991, and the Chemical Weapons Convention since 1995. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Quartz

Holy non sequitur logical fallacy alert, Batman!

I making a guess again because you are so coy, but your scary radiological device hypothesis isn’t anymore reasonable. WMDs have not been supplied to terrorist organizations and there has been plenty of opportunity.