SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Israel’s Right To Dimona And To The Weapons That Emerge...

THE SPINE MAY 13, 2010

Israel’s Right To Dimona And To The Weapons That Emerge From It

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Having failed (and failed abysmally) to curb Iran’s nuclear vault, what’s called the “international community”—a very silly phrase, isn’t it?—is attempting to focus an accusatory spotlight on Israel’s long-held (but ritualistically shrugged off) capacity to make atomic war. The truth is that an Israel without nukes is an axiomatic target for wave combat in which hordes of soldiers, terrorists, and civilians would be deployed almost haphazardly literally to overwhelm the Jewish state.

It is ironic that this fixation on Israel comes at the tail-end of President Obama’s phlegmatic and ultimately failed effort to bring Dr. Ahmadinejad’s Tehran into line. There is meaning to the connivance of both Russia and China in this adventure of the mullahs. But hardly anyone seems to want to make the point.

In any case, as to Israel’s atomic capacity as a guarantee of its survival, Ari Shavit—perhaps the country’s most sage columnist, who publishes weekly in Ha’aretz—has written a very persuasive justification.

And, here, a one-time plea: To the three or four frothers who prevent a sensible discussion of the matters I raise, why don’t you just leave this one alone? Go to The Nation and Matthew Yglesias. You’ll have a very good time.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 47 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

47 comments

"...unlike China, India and Pakistan, it never demonstratively tested a nuclear weapon....Israel did not boast or behave ostentatiously, or in any way misuse the capability that was attributed to it. " Except, of course, for assisting the government of South Africa in developing its own nuclear weapons programme during the apartheid period, probably culminating in a test in the South Atlantic in 1979. Responsible, that... The idea that The Spine exists to encourage sensible discussion is one of the funniest things I've heard today.

- SMacEachern2

May 13, 2010 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Martin Peretz writes: -- And, here, a one-time plea: To the three or four frothers who prevent a sensible discussion of the matters I raise, why don’t you just leave this one alone? Go to The Nation and Matthew Yglesias. You’ll have a very good time. Matthew Yglesias has had a career that the few journalists left at The New Republic would be happy with. Martin Peretz, however, has no personal achievement other than spending his wife's money. Any fool with access to millions of dollars can buy the trappings and appearance of success.

- ndmackenzie

May 13, 2010 at 10:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If The Spine doesn't encourage sensible discussion, why bother posting? You're not going to change anybody else's mind.

- NR114746

May 13, 2010 at 10:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Two irrelevant comments from the Muckkks. From Muckkk number one: "Except, of course, for assisting the government of South Africa in developing its own nuclear weapons programme during the apartheid period, probably culminating in a test in the South Atlantic in 1979. Responsible, that..." As if the South Africans were incapable of producing their own nuclear weapons. Muckkkk number two: "Matthew Yglesias has had a career that the few journalists left at The New Republic would be happy with. Martin Peretz, however, has no personal achievement other than spending his wife's money. Any fool with access to millions of dollars can buy the trappings and appearance of success." Yglesias is a blogger and that's all he is. For someone who went to an expensive prep school and then to Harvard he didn't very well, did he. Yglesias is a pretentious bore who grew up with a sense of entitlement.

- jdyer

May 13, 2010 at 10:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The truth is that an Israel without nukes is an axiomatic target for wave combat in which hordes of soldiers, terrorists, and civilians would be deployed almost haphazardly literally to overwhelm the Jewish state." The truth is that nobody who knows anything about nuclear weapons claims that they are meant to deter suicide bombers. They can deter the use of WMD and probably a mass conventional attack. The latter is what Israel designed its nuclear deterrent to accomplish. The fact that Peretz makes this claim, despite the years of evidence that Israel's nuclear deterrent has failed to deter individual terrorists or their organizations--across the Palestinian and Shia spectrum--says much about the poverty of his military knowledge.

- tmitch57

May 13, 2010 at 11:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In order to understand why we are where we are, it helps to start with the October 27, 2009 Atlantic Council chairman [former] Senator Chuck Hagel speech at J Street's First National Conference, "Driving Change, Securing Peace." "...The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central, not peripheral, to U.S. vital security interests in combating terrorism, preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon, stability in the Middle East and U.S. and global energy security. ..." So many bits and pieces of that very clear statement have come from President Obama, but never quite as clearly as Hagel, who maintains his close relationship with Obama and their mutual vision on nuclear non-proliferation. From National Security Advisor James L. Jones at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on April 21 (bad Taliban joke intro got all the attention): "...one of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran uses the conflict to keep others in the region on the defensive and to try to limit its own isolation. Ending this conflict, achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians and establishing a sovereign Palestinian state would therefore take such an evocative issue away from Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas. It would allow our partners in the region to focus on building their states and institutions. And peace between Israel and Syria, if it is possible, could have a transformative effect on the region. ..." Followed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Remarks At the American Jewish Committee Annual Gala DinnerApril 29, 2010: "...When I traveled the world as a First Lady, in a time of hope for the peace process, it was rare to hear people in places far from the region even mention the issue. But now, I have to tell you, wherever I go, it invariably is the first, second, or third concern on every agenda. And in every country, my answer is the same: Become part of the solution. Support the peacemakers and condemn the rejectionists. Invest with those who seek to build credible institutions and find common ground. Close your doors to those who traffic in violence and hate. All of us who care about the future have a responsibility to help shape it. ..." Anyway, no one should be surprised that putting the Israel/Palestinian conflict at the center of U.S. foreign policy is leading to Dimona. My opinion is that Obama has it inside-out, and is putting the burden on Israel for U.S. failures in Iraq (the next government) and Afghanistan (announcing the withdrawal in advance), both neighbors with Iran. The path he is leading the world is better stated by Michael Young on Thursday, May 13, 2010 in Lebanon's Daily Star: "The end for America in the Middle East?" http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=114786#axzz0nl3W3wtL But, one has to be willing to read everything to the right of Haaretz to start to see what is happening. And acknowledge that the game of Great Powers is maybe in the seventh inning stretch, with no surprise relief pitcher warming up. I use the baseball analogy because I am reading "George, Nicholas, and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I" by Miranda Carter, and am classifying the clash of empires and scramble for colonies between 1870-1913 as Innings 1&2 (lots of foul and walks, a couple of manufactured runs); WWI is Inning 3; WW2 is Inning 4; Cold War is Inning 5; post-Soviet era as Inning 6; and post 9/11 as Inning 7. All scrambles of the Great Powers in varying permutations.

- K2K

May 13, 2010 at 11:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arrrgggghhhhh. Apparently people are unable to read. The article specifically does NOT focus on suicide bombers, but rather the possibility of mass attacks including soldiers, along with civilians and terrorists. So can we discuss this intelligently? Personally I hate the idea of any kind of war and especially nukes. But given the threats against Israel does anybody seriously doubt that a nuclear deterrent isn't effective particularly against organized warfare? By the same token, if comprehensive peace could be achieved (real peace) there would be no need for nukes or even large standing armies. Let me know when that happens ok? Meanwhile I don't see the US, Russia, China, NATO, India or Pakistan giving up their arsenals and none of these entities is dealing with the kind of threat confronting Israel.

- Sophia

May 13, 2010 at 11:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK now I'm getting stupid. I meant, nukes are an effective deterrent, not against suicide bombers obviously but against organized and especially state-sponsored attacks.

- Sophia

May 13, 2010 at 11:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tmitch57 “The truth is that nobody who knows anything about nuclear weapons claims that they are meant to deter suicide bombers” The truth is that you don’t know what you are talking about tmitch. If Israel’s enemies saw that the country was vulnerable and couldn’t defend itself with the ultimate weapon they would be more aggressive in their provocations than they are now. It’s said that the fact that both the US and the Soviets had nuclear arsenals actually prevented wars between the countries. From 1945 till the fall of the Soviet Union there was no war in Europe. As far as Europe goes this was unprecedented. There had never been half century in Europe without some war between States there. A similar logic is at play in the Arab Israeli conflict. Having nuclear weapons may actually have been a deterrent to further wars between Arab States and Israel.

- jdyer

May 13, 2010 at 11:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

well stated jackson, about the deterrence effect. I still question the 'centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon'. The flurry of Russian deals for nuclear power plants in Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and now Syria is quite startling. Why not Japan or France who have demonstrated superiority in nuclear power generation technology? oh, to be a fly on the wall in Moscow and Ankara these days. At least the Chinese are more predictable about their objectives in securing resource inputs.

- K2K

May 14, 2010 at 12:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think assuming a posture of paranoia about the Obama administration is not a good way to go. The extreme position as extrapolated by K2K makes it look as if Obama and his people are maliciously drawing a connection between the I/P conflict and the battles the U.S. is involved in against islamicist fundamentalism whether in Iranian or Al Qaeda shape. Sorry but I don't see the malice. Perhaps you could show me. However, what's worse is that the logical alternative seems to be, let's commit American forces throughout the world at great cost to our soldiers, their families, and our treasury to defeat an enemy who wants to heat up all possible conflicts between Muslims and others, while ignoring the potential for resolving a major conflict in the Middle East whose very lack of resolution helps our enemies do that heating-up. This seems of a piece with Marty's "it'll never work so let's not try it" theory of American foreign policy.

- ironyroad

May 14, 2010 at 12:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...while ignoring the potential for resolving a major conflict in the Middle East " You see a potential for resolving the I/P conflict? If there was a potential to weaken Palestinian intransigence and rejectionism towards that end, Obama ruined it with his manufactured Jerusalem kerfuffle. Maybe not malicious but certainly knee-capping the peace process.

- noga1

May 14, 2010 at 6:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Marty vastly understates the purpose and significance of Israel's probable nuclear arsenal. "Waves of soldiers" thrown at Israel's borders? From where? Jordan? Laughable. Egypt? At least theoretically possible, but the Egyptian threat is easily deterrable and indeed preventable with conventional means. Lebanon? The terrain there does not permit the kind of "wave" Marty fears. So the threat Marty describes just doesn't exist - and if it did exist, nuclear weapons would not be a deterrent, since they could not stop the actual infantry and artillery attack. They could only decapitate the enemy regime well behind the lines. Rather, Israel's probable nuclear arsenal serves a far more real and acute strategic purpose: deterring conventional strategic and WMD attack by state actors. Note that Syria, when attacked by Israel, does not send its air force to bomb Tel Aviv. That's the deterrence Israel's nukes offer. Without the nuclear deterrent, conventional aerial attack would be a constant and existential threat to Israel. In this regard, Israel's purported five nuclear-missile submarines are among the most valuable peace-promoting instruments in the Middle East.

- rhubarbs

May 14, 2010 at 9:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, the "malice" you see in my extrapolation is in your imagination. I do not see what Hagel said as malicious, but the most clear explanation of the Obama administration's determination to make settling the I/P conflict CENTRAL to their foreign policy, which, so far, seems to be failing in terms of 1) stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions, 2) 'winning' Afghanistan, 3) peeling Syria away from Iran, 4) keeping Hezbollah from re-arming in South Lebanon, and 5) reassuring Sunni 'allies' like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States of the durability of an alliance with America. I am trying to understand how Dimona is now an issue, the topic of Marty's post. Instead of Pakistan's increasing instability, which most people think is a far greater nuclear proliferation concern, and where America is already making military action the priority instead of a crash program to rebuild Pakistan's education system. America has also focussed on the Palestinian police with NO apparent concern to their media and education system. Malice aforethought is not my way of looking at anything. I do believe the U.S. is making a big mistake in trying to impose a worthy vision of world peace on a world that still seems to prefer power plays. Hagel's speech should be read in it's entirety. You might want to consider that Hagel is a very likely replacement for Gates or Clinton in Obama's cabinet, they are very close. At least Hagel acknowledges the realities of Palestinian division: "... A path to acceptable Palestinian reconciliation must be found and more support by the Arab world should be given to Egypt’s efforts. No peace will be possible nor sustainable as long as the Palestinians remain a house divided. And this vacuum of failure further limits Israeli leaders’ capacity to take calculated and difficult risks for peace for their people. ..." [ Egypt's efforts to broker a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah have failed since Hagel made his speech. Egypt is making the fuss over Dimona. Perhaps this is all because the U.S. is dreaming that Al Baradei can actually beat Mubarak's son in the upcoming election. BUT, Hagel also gave an advance warning of the "manufactured Jerusalem kerfuffle" when he stated "...It is always difficult for leaders to step forward but no one – either in Ramallah, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, or Cairo – should let this opportunity be wasted. ..." http://www.acus.org/highlight/chuck-hagel-delivers-speech-j-street-first-national-conference

- K2K

May 14, 2010 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"the tail-end of President Obama’s phlegmatic and ultimately failed effort to bring Dr. Ahmadinejad’s Tehran into line." "tail-end"? Did the US just concede to a triumphant Iran and I missed it? Or was there, rather, a general strike in Iran's Kurdistan province yesterday, with threats of mass protests ramping up for June 12, and Iran's Office of the Inspector General releasing documents establishing billions in lost and stolen oil revenue, the first step in impeaching A'jad? A tad overblown ... "Reaonably discuss" is one of those irregular verbs: I reasonably discuss, you baselessly argue, anyone who disgrees is a moron.

- icarusr

May 14, 2010 at 9:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The chief frother around here is none other than Peretz himself. But since, on this occasion, he makes a responsible point, here's a responsible response, a quote from the very article to which Peretz links: "Thanks to Dimona, there hasn't been a catastrophe. Very many Arabs and Jews owe their lives to Dimona. And the same goes for the vital interests of the West and moderate Arabs. Israel was also right. At the same time as it adopted a foolish policy on the Palestinians, its policy regarding Dimona was responsible. Unlike the United States, it never used nuclear weapons; unlike Britain and France, it never based its defense policies on the nuclear weapons that it was supposed to possess; and unlike China, India and Pakistan, it never demonstratively tested a nuclear weapon." Shavit doesn't explain what the "foolish policy" is. But it is worth noting that Israel's justified possession of a nuclear deterrent (more than likely H-Bombs, not A-bombs, mounted on missile submarines) does not justify foolishness otherwise. It is not sufficient that Israel not be destroyed. That is an absolute minimum objective, not what should be sought and hoped for. Peretz often loses sight of this in is anti-Moslem animus.

- roidubouloi

May 14, 2010 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr, thanks for the news. I am still waiting to see the impact of Turkey and Brazil efforts on Iran's nuclear ambitions, while I do believe Turkey's recent moves with Syria and Iran are in part about their common Kurd 'problem' as Iraq's Kurdistan emerges as genuine expression of Kurdish self-determination. Do you see similar instability to Teheran coming from Iran's Azeri and Baluchi populations? I read that Iran supports Armenia in her (currently) frozen conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. Here is a view of Hezbollah's linkage with Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, which makes me wonder why the U.S. does not see Hezbollah in Lebanon as "central, not peripheral, to U.S. vital security interests in combating terrorism, preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon, stability in the Middle East and U.S. and global energy security. ..." http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66413/mara-e-karlin/lebanons-scud-row?page=show

- K2K

May 14, 2010 at 10:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In any case, as to Israel’s atomic capacity as a guarantee of its survival" but the question is, I doubt very much that it is. I could very easily see a nuclear armed Iran giving some devices to Hezbollah, Hezbollah will blow a few up anywhere along the border. What does Israel do? Nuke all of Iran? Parts of it? Nuke Lebanon (which would have just nuked itself). Don't get me wrong, I absolutely support Israel having nukes, at best (or worst) they can take revenge, but I simply don't know if it will work as a deterrence against non rational state actors like Ahmedinanut. This then leads us to the central dilemma of our time, Israel can not allow Iran to develop the capacity for Nuclear weapons, but the US has no stomach for more preventive war.

- blackton

May 14, 2010 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's close to shabbat so I don't have much time. Israel's ostensible nukes (and I suspect that they are of the A-bomb rather than the H- variety; given that the trigger for an H-bomb is an A bomb, and Israel doesn't have appeared to have tested an A-bomb, it is difficult to believe that the effort would have gone into developing a fusion weapon absent the possibility to test fission weapons / triggers) deter mostly, if not exclusively WMD & massive conventional coordinated attacks. Supposedly Egypt did not push as far as it could have (given its surprise advantage) during the Yom Kippur war because of Israel's nuclear deterrence. It was also a factor in Sadat's decision to strike a deal with Israel. As of now, I don't see nukes as a deterrence against terrorism, especially when the source is your immediate neighbor. But where Iran goes with its nukes (at least one Israeli lefty ex-MK & nuclear chemist thinks Iran already has nukes) could change the whole equation. It's a big unknown. For a good analysis of the history of "linkage" and why it is nonsense see Lee Smith's recent piece in Tablet here. And no, Smith is not an "Abe Foxman". Far from it. Shabbat Shalom, Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

May 14, 2010 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Touchy, Marty, touchy! Instead of telling the "frothers" to go away and not bother you with your "sensible discussion", why don't you attempt to engage them and refute their unreasonable insinuations? Or are you subcontracting your blog to jacksondyer and his profane epithets against everyone that he disagrees with?

- wildboy

May 14, 2010 at 11:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton, I think the real dilemma is not quite as you state. It's not that the United States lacks the stomach for another preventive war - though it does - it's that the United States lacks the ability to prevent an Iranian nuke by force. It doesn't matter how much stomach we have if we haven't the tools to do the job. The only way to guarantee nuclear prevention is invasion and occupation, or so said the Joint Chiefs of Staff circa 2006. Any military intervention short of invasion will leave Iran with the ability to reconstitute its nuclear program relatively quickly; we're talking about a setback of maybe two years. In the abstract, a two-year delay is better than nothing. But showing the Iranian regime the limits of our power is almost certainly worse than nothing. The worst-case scenario here is not Iran getting the bomb; it's Iran getting the bomb after surviving an American "preventive" bombing campaign.

- rhubarbs

May 14, 2010 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The least costly way, in terms of blood and treasure, to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear menace is regime change, whether through sanctions (preferred) or more forceful measures. If any outside power gave covert assistance to the protest movement, we don't know about it. However, if one of Ahmedinejad's flights to New York were "accidentally" shot down, I would think it would be a cause for rejoicing.

- NR114746

May 14, 2010 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The truth is that an Israel without nukes is an axiomatic target for wave combat in which hordes of soldiers, terrorists, and civilians would be deployed almost haphazardly literally to overwhelm the Jewish state." That sound you just heard were the tears of the writers and staff of the Onion and Daily Show as satire died. Will the last person out please turn off the lights? Oh my. This latest spittle from Martin Perez reminds me of a friend's story about an acquaintance of his. Your man was the proud owner of a .40 caliber automatic pistol, which he bought after carefully studying the literature on which handgun would give him the best tradeoff between # of rounds in his clip & hitting power. Having purchased this deadly weapon, he went out an purchased boxes and boxes- thousands of rounds- of armor piercing bullets marketed as 97% lethal as delivered to the villain's torso. This chap was not anticipating an intruder, but a regiment of Bolivian cavalry or two plus perhaps za Germanz. Then what should happen but some ammo manufacturer goes and makes a soft-point they can claim as 98% lethal. Oh snap! So your man offers this friend of mine to go to the range with him to shoot off the, whatever, hundreds of dollars worth of newly obsolete stuff and goes out get a few thousand rounds of the 98 percenters. Aside from unwitting comic genius this person shares with Marty, is the utter lack of appreciation for the difference between realistically plausible circumstances and the types of visions that mark one as pathologically paranoid. But Marty wins though because I don't think this guy ever mustered the chutzpa to accuse someone else of being a 'frother'. By all means though, please don't let this distract from your 'sensible discussion of these matters'. That would be a tragedy.

- I Majorajam

May 14, 2010 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I dunno Rhub. about the occupation part, taking out Ahmed and Khameni and targeting the other elites instead of the weapons labs would do far more damage to Iran than you think. We would just have to make sure we get enough of them on the first strike. I am not saying we should do it right now, but I tend to think that is the least bad option of the bunch. Hopefully the regime won't last long enough and there will be an internal overthrow before then but I ain't holding my breath on that score.

- blackton

May 14, 2010 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Majorajam is straining to come up with something funny. So far all she has been able to do is vomit in her vodka. What a silly bitch she is.

- jdyer

May 14, 2010 at 1:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Marty's claim about the "axiomatic target" is meaningless because politics doesn't deal in axioms, except perhaps the one about a week being a long time and the one about power and corruption. If it were an axiom, then one would have to ask why Israel was not thus "axiomatically" attacked AND overrun between 1948 and the mid-sixties (presumably when Israel first had a nuclear capability). It was involved in two shooting wars in that time, and twice defended itself. But that aside, I wasn't that I was accusing you of malice aforethought, K2K, but it did seem to me that some people are being rather disingenuous when they ask why oh why would the U.S. make a resolution of the I/P conflict a strategically central goal. The reason is that it's a large drain on American assets of various kinds and creates morbid diplomatic and strategic energies that our enemies can exploit. Resolving it won't kill Al Qaeda, of course, but it would provide a massive breathing space (and not just for America, but for Israel and Palestine). Resolving it would be a game-changer in respect of Hizbolla, Syria, and Iran, who would be more isolated, especially if other Arab countries get on board with an agreement. Other than that, I agree with rhubarbs that one of the worst tactical moves we could ever make would be to launch an air attack on Iran that might indeed take out some key plant in their nuclear program (but might not), bring us a world of trouble, and essentially do no more than delay their program for two years BUT at the cost of massively weakening the opposition movement (who wants to be a traitor?) enabling the regime to rally most Iranians around them on a wave of nationalist fury.

- ironyroad

May 14, 2010 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jdyer wrote: "As if the South Africans were incapable of producing their own nuclear weapons." Whether the Apartheid South African government was capable of producing their own nuclear weapons or not, is largely irrelevant. That fact remains that the Israelis helped them acquire it.

- wkwami

May 14, 2010 at 3:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And France helped Israel acquire Nuclear capability, successfully, unlike Israel's venture which had been aborted. I don't see anyone getting too exercised over the French for having done that. Nor do I see any undue concern over Russia's aiding and abetting Iran's nuclear ambitions. Who helped India in her nuclear quest? Pakistan? Yet wkwami is all a-froth with indignation over a brief episode in which Israel collaborated with SA in one way or another, and which was widely opposed by Israel's public opinion and which was as a consequence interrupted and stopped. And I daresay he pretends to himself that his only motivation is peace and justice for all.

- noga1

May 14, 2010 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Intermission: Dimona was one of the development towns that were created in the 1950s. Dimona itself was conceived in 1953, and settled in 1955, mostly by new immigrants from Northern Africa. When the Israeli nuclear program started later that decade, a location not far from the city was chosen due to its relative isolation in the desert and availability of housing. Today's Dimona owes most of its modest fame to this (alleged) nuclear site, which was made even more famous through the insider revelations of that soft-minded Israeli "whistle blower", Mordechai Vanunu. (wiki) Bur before all this came to pass, Dimona was famous for another one of its inhabitants: Simona, a lovely dusky beauty, immortalized in the song "Simona mi-Dimona" (Simona of Dimona) sung here by the original performer, Itzhak Itzhaki. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAQ2V9DBxSE&feature=related My heart is burning with love For her dark beauty ...

- noga1

May 14, 2010 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: I just read Lee Smith's essay on at tabletmag on Linkage, that Ginzy referred to at 11:17 am. You might consider reading it (link reposted at end). BTW, my question is NOT why "resolution of the I/P conflict is A [as if it is one of several] strategically central goal", but THE [only] central strategy. OTOH, if public diplomacy IS theatre, then perhaps coercing Israel and Abbas into these proximity talks is a way to actually focus on Iran, and Syria-Hezbollah while 'progress is being made on I/P'. Netanyahu was trying to force de-linking into March, and he lost. There is some current evidence that the Obami are still trying to force coalition change in Israel, an offensive meddling. The U.S. has more to lose with the coalition now forming in Iraq than the one in Israel, or Germany, or the UK. Are we headed back to the 1950's, when we actually instigated coups in order to install more pliable governments for the U.S.? Screaming about Dimona is part of the theatre. Now that I have read the details of Russia's new nuclear power deal with Turkey (Russia will own the power plants), it strikes me that Russia will get far more out of that deal than anything they can get out of their deal with Iran, possibly making the still-promised UN SC sanctions a reality. Maybe Russia is also going to re-establish their embrace of Syria in order to peel Assad away from Iran. Most helpful to be re-studying the Great Power colonial machinations of the 1890's to try to get a peak behind the curtain today. Substitute U.S. for Britain, and Turkey for Germany. Russia still opaque. China no longer the target (I just finished the childish scramble in 1897 over China's ports by Germany (Kiachow), Russia (Port Arthur), and Britain (Weihaiwei)). At least Kiachow learned how to make really good beer. http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/32785/linked-in/ I do not mean to be flippant about any of this.

- K2K

May 14, 2010 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1: There are two significant reasons for bringing up Israeli assistance in South African nuclear development. The first is that it was self-evidently not prudent (contra the claim in the article that Peretz links to): this was a government that over the relevant period was engaged in a series of open-ended wars, semi-covert wars and covert operations against a whole range of neighbouring states. The Nats in the 1970s were not a stable government in any sense of the world. The second is that it is indicative of the close South African-Israeli military cooperation of the period, which (as I noted earlier on to ironyroad) rather vitiates claims that any comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa is a priori anti-semitic. What makes you think that Israeli public opinion had anything to do with the ending of these relationships? What ended them was the end of aparthe

- SMacEachern2

May 14, 2010 at 9:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR114746: "If The Spine doesn't encourage sensible discussion, why bother posting?" (Shrug) For the same reason that one posts on sites that support other forms of bigotry... such bigotry needs to be commented upon. Offhand, I don't know of any comparable case of hatred being directed against particular populations from a publication as mainstream as TNR: The Spine is from that point of view quite special... albeit not in a good way.

- SMacEachern2

May 14, 2010 at 9:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why would you care so much about it, if Nelson Mandela himself "forgave" Israel? "Former ANC leader Nelson Mandela first visited Israel in 1999. Mandela said: "To the many people who have questioned why I came, I say: Israel worked very closely with the apartheid regime. I say: I've made peace with many men who slaughtered our people like animals. Israel cooperated with the apartheid regime, but it did not participate in any atrocities"." It is never a good posture to be more devout that the Pope. It smacks of hypocrisy. "What makes you think that Israeli public opinion had anything to do with the ending of these relationships?" I happened to be in South Africa three or four years before the end of Apartheid. White South Africans I met were pretty pissed with Israel for ending its cooperation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_South_Africa_relations#Israeli_relations_with_apartheid_South_Africa

- noga1

May 14, 2010 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga1 wrote: "And France helped Israel acquire Nuclear capability, successfully, unlike Israel's venture which had been aborted. I don't see anyone getting too exercised over the French for having done that. Yet wkwami is all a-froth with indignation over a brief episode in which Israel collaborated with SA in one way or another, and which was widely opposed by Israel's public opinion and which was as a consequence interrupted and stopped." Rewriting history must be your favorite pastime. The Israeli collaboration with the Apartheid South African government was not brief. If it appeared to be "brief" that was only because the Apartheid govenrment crumbled under its own evil weight. It had nothing to do with Israeli public opinion. And I should point out that I am not indignant over that collaboration, I am merely pointing out a contradiction to one of the central themes of Mr. Peretz article, that... "Israel did not boast or behave ostentatiously, or in any way misuse the capability that was attributed to it." Facts don't change because you happen not to like them. Let's pu this into some hsitorical perspective, shall we? I actually understand the Israeli-Apartheid South African collaboration on developing nuclear weapons. At the time, pretty much all of Africa had cut ties with Israel due to the Afro-Arab influence (Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan) influence in the OAU which resluted in an increasingly negative African policy towards Israel. Thsu, it would be understanble for Israel to collaborate with the SA government, as it served two obvious purposes, 1) it gave Israel at least one official ally on the African continent, and 2) it helped Israel build its intelligence assets on the continent to mitigate the Afro-Arab influence in Africa, an occurence that held the real possibility of affecting the very existence of Israel. Afro-Arabs pushed for the formation of an OAU military force never mateialized in the form they had hoped. The reasoning was to use such a force to liberate Africa, but they also ha ultirior motives - they ha hoped such a force could be marshalled against Israel in a future Arab-Israeli war. In such an atmosphere, it wol make sense for Israel to engage with the Apartheid South African government at that time. I' o the same thing, survival comes first. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and that decision looks ill-infomed in retrospect. "And I daresay he pretends to himself that his only motivation is peace and justice for all." Ha ha, there you go again letting your emotions clou your reason. Of course I could also speculate on your only motivation. After all, you could be a war monger, or a child molester, or just a misrable paranoid old coot who sees enemies in anything and anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say. But I won't go there with you :)

- wkwami

May 14, 2010 at 10:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga said: "Why would you care so much about it, if Nelson Mandela himself "forgave" Israel?" Mandela's forgiveness does not negate the facts. And the fact is Israel did collaborate with the Apartheid South African goverment on nuclear development. It was a decision which may have made sense at the time, but not so much in retrospect. That should not be held against Israel today, but at the same time we cannot pretend it didn't happen. "I happened to be in South Africa three or four years before the end of Apartheid. White South Africans I met were pretty pissed with Israel for ending its cooperation." Must be a very select group of whie South Africans. But again, regardless of public opinion, what happened happened. You can't go back and change it.

- wkwami

May 14, 2010 at 10:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Once again lying in defence of odious behavior by Israel noga1 writes: -- Yet wkwami is all a-froth with indignation over a brief episode in which Israel collaborated with SA in one way or another, and which was widely opposed by Israel's public opinion and which was as a consequence interrupted and stopped. Over at the Foreign Policy blog Sasha Polakow-Suransky, author of a new book titled "The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa," writes: -- When President Reagan vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act on September 26, 1986, the Israelis felt vindicated. But Congress immediately overrode Reagan's veto with overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act became law a week later--including the amendment threatening to cut off military aid to Israel. It was a rude awakening for Shamir, who left the foreign ministry to take over as Prime Minister on October 20. He was forced to apologize to the AIPAC lobbyists, telling them "Your president told me I didn't have to listen to you." But now, with the anti-apartheid law on the books, he did. -- Embarrassed by his miscalculation, Prime Minister Shamir had no choice but to impose sanctions of his own. As two leading Israeli journalists argued in the Washington Post, "Without U.S. military aid, valued at $1.3 billion this year, Israel could soon be defenseless, destitute or both." Shamir's government now saw the threat clearly and passed a sanctions resolution on March 18, 1987, vowing to sign no new defense contracts with South Africa. Two weeks later came the dreaded U.S. report on South Africa's arms suppliers. It named several European countries as occasional violators of the arms embargo, but the focus was on Israel's arms sales. Damningly, the report's authors concluded, "We believe that the Israeli government was fully aware of most or all of the trade." (my emphasis) http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/29/when_aipac_said_no_to_israel It looks like the Israeli-South Africa connection would have been far from brief had the United States not threatened Israel with sanctions. The Boers and the Israelis really are blood brothers when it comes to matters of racial superiority.

- ndmackenzie

May 15, 2010 at 12:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wkwami: "Ha ha, there you go again letting your emotions clou your reason. Of course I could also speculate on your only motivation. After all, you could be a war monger, or a child molester, or just a misrable paranoid old coot who sees enemies in anything and anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say. But I won't go there with you :)" Are you feeling better now? _______________ Mackwnzie: "The Boers and the Israelis really are blood brothers when it comes to matters of racial superiority." It was not only the Boers who were complicit in Apartheid. The English Whites were no less involved. But once their privileged conditions were gone, they left in droves, to whiter climates, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. I wonder why mackenzie insists on the "Boers", though.

- noga1

May 15, 2010 at 12:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, Thanks for the link to Simona of Dimona. It's refreshing to see the Jews taking a break from their nefarious schemes to dominate the world and impose racist dominion over native peoples everywhere. Who would have ever thought that they could spare the time to relax and enjoy a retired Catskills entertainer?

- willjames77

May 15, 2010 at 6:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "And I daresay he (wkwami) pretends to himself that his only motivation is peace and justice for all." wkwami: "Ha ha, there you go again letting your emotions clou your reason... I could also speculate on your only motivation... you could be a war monger, or a child molester, or just a misrable paranoid old coot ..." As we can see, wkwami is the very model of cool and pure intellectual engagement. If we discern a certain discontinuity in his general pattern of discussing, then be sure to blame it on insufferable provocation.

- noga1

May 15, 2010 at 9:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It's refreshing to see the Jews taking a break from their nefarious schemes to dominate the world and impose racist dominion over native peoples everywhere." "blood libel public accusations against Jews/Israel return to Brussels, the capital of Europe... I love blood. Have a glass of wine. I love blood. Have a glass of wine." http://philosemitismeblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/brussels-demonstration-against-israeli.html

- noga1

May 15, 2010 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Who would have ever thought that they could spare the time to relax and enjoy a retired Catskills entertainer?" AND in a TV studio clearly designed to echo the homely cheer of a 1970s family reunion. Hey, maybe it was . . .

- ironyroad

May 15, 2010 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Hey, maybe it was . . ." The singer was hugely popular when my parents were young people and before I was born would go dancing to his songs every Friday evening. Maybe after I was born, too. My parents were elegant and enthusiastic dancers. So the "1970s family reunion" guess is probably right on. The years after Independence yielded an unusual mixture of popular song culture. There was the patriotic trend, exemplified in this song (a paean to the tanned Israeli beauty of the desert) and then there was some preoccupation with seafaring songs and sailors. This for example is a song about a wooden-legged captain sitting in a small pub, "where the wine is red and luminous", dreaming about sailing on a ship on the next day, something that is not likely to materialize: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a622_FsRngE&feature=related

- noga1

May 15, 2010 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Muslim cleric calls for 'Greater Iran' " By ASSOCIATED PRESS "Shi'ite Islamic union would stretch from Afghanistan to Israel" http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=175619

- jdyer

May 15, 2010 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson, when I read that article earlier, I bookmarked it, turned off my computer, and ran errands for a few hours, contemplating the prospect that perhaps the Mahdi IS Iraq's Moqtada Al Sadr. I guess the good news is that the Iran-Hamas and Iran-Al Qaeda links would be severed if that cleric succeeds Ahmadinejad. Holy war! You know, you would think enough time has passed since the Battle of Karbala for the Sunnis and Shi'a to have figured out that battle re-enactments are a lot more fun, and much better for tourism, than killing each other for real.

- K2K

May 15, 2010 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

fwiw, JPost today reports on a WH meeting between 15 [American] rabbis and Rahm Emmanual, Dennis Ross (Iran policy), "...Dan Shapiro, the deputy national security adviser who supervises policy for Israel and its neighbors; Susan Sher, the chief White House liaison to the Jewish community; and Danielle Borin, associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and special assistant to Vice President Joe Biden. ... ...Dennis Ross, who runs the administration’s Iran policy, tried to allay fears during the meeting that by calling for a nuclear-free Middle East, US policy regarding Israel’s alleged nuclear capabilities was changing. Since 1995, Ross explained, the administration’s policy, supported by Israel, was to push for a nuclear-free Middle East in conjunction with comprehensive peace. Emanuel, according to a participant in the meeting, said, “We understand Israel’s full layer of deterrence.” ... Emanuel said that the administration’s priorities in the Middle East center around three issues: isolating Iran, “removing America’s footprint in Iraq,” which is perceived as an intrusion into Arab and Muslim lands, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which he said is key to Israel’s security and also helps both Israel and the US. ..." http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=175654 Is it reassuring to know that Rahm Emmanuel has restated U.S. MidEast policy, including an opaque reassurance on Dimona, to 15 rabbis in a WH meeting totally overlooked by any media outside of Israel? Current new.google results have the story now picked up at two blogs: The Hill, and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. In theory, Rahm's re-statement that of priorities that de-links the centrality of I/P peace to official U.S. policy SHOULD get some media echo. cheers!

- K2K

May 16, 2010 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isreal and atomic weapons is a deeper subject and more interesting that Mr. Peretz's caterwauling. Discussion in the same context as Iran's pursuit is offensive. Looking at the Nuclear Club and comparing this against nominal religions highlights that nuclear capablility is distributed relatively evenly amongst the religions of the world. America, Britain and France upholding the western christian side, USSR & China and their aethiestic/irreligous beliefs, and now India with the Hindus and Pakistan with the Muslims probably represent 90% of the populations of world religions with just 7 countries. Through in North Korea to cover the crazies and you have just about all organized and unorganized religions covered. However the Jews were over represented in the development of these weapons. From Einstien and Bohr (1/2 Jew) to Oppenhiemer and Slzilard, Jews from many countries helped develop the science and production of nuclear power and weapons. To imagine nuclear weapons without the Jews is almost impossible. No one talks about India or Pakistan giving up their weapons to coax Iran into negoitiations. And those two countries are old enemies of Iran and sertainly more likely adversaries. It is Iran's dreams of Caliphate that drags Israel into these affairs. The point is the Persians are at the threshold and the International Community has no idea how to respond.

- CRS9TNR

May 16, 2010 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

good points CRS9TNR, except the current Russian Federation seems to have re-embraced their Eastern Orthodox church, which technically leaves Roman Catholics under-represented (about 1.166 billion at the end of 2008). not to mention the Buddhists, and animists. not that we should be mixing religion with nuclear weapons...

- K2K

May 17, 2010 at 12:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close