Charlie Rose Does Flynt & Hillary

-

Iran-US-flags-thumb-400x238.jpgTonight, Charlie Rose spends an hour discussing all things Iran with my colleague Flynt Leverett — a former senior staff member of the National Security Council, State Department, and CIA and now a member of our team at the NAF American Strategy Program — and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, also a former senior State Department and National Security Council official.
The Leveretts are Washington’s leading advocates for a serious negotiations track and diplomacy with Iran. They also publish the blog, Race for Iran.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

75 comments on “Charlie Rose Does Flynt & Hillary

  1. PissedOffAmerican says:

    http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2010/03/open-letter-berkeley-students-their-historic-israeli-divestment-bill
    Open Letter to Berkeley Students on their Historic Israeli Divestment Bill
    By Naomi Klein – March 31st, 2010
    On March 18, continuing a long tradition of pioneering human rights campaigns, the Senate of the Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley (ASUC) passed “A Bill In Support of UC DIVESTMENT FROM WAR CRIMES.” The historic bill resolves to divest ASUC’s assets from two American companies, General Electric and United Technologies, that are “materially and militarily supporting the Israeli government’s occupation of the Palestinian territories”

    Reply

  2. Carroll says:

    The Arab world doesn’t see Israel as powerful, they see it’s US protector as powerful.
    The Israelis they regard as the hopped up steriod addicted nephew of Uncle Sam.
    The wider the gap between Israel and the US the weaker Israel appears and becomes.
    That is what the current fuss by the US zionist is all about, trying to keep the US as it’s protector a reality and trying to project the illusion that it will always be the reality.
    That is and always has been Israel’s only strength and ace in the hole. Their nukes?..only useful for suicide.

    Reply

  3. Pahlavan says:

    “Animals are honest. Human beings are not, and should not be. “Any big city, any town, even tiny villages would immediately collapse if we all started to honestly show our true character.”
    You are leaving room for interpretation for a value system to take form on a micro level. That will not allow a society to ever establish a consistent core, one that will be capable of protecting a community from imploding.
    We don’t put emphasis on the importance of a marriage between honesty and civility, or more importantly demonstrate that as the real fabric of our value system. The status quo leads to series of events that become baggage over time and eventually come to fruition in the form of an Ahmadinejad, as one example.
    Flynt and Hillary showed us the commendable and wise quality throughout their interview with Charlie Rose, nor is it ever difficult to find and feel it within messages posted by POA.

    Reply

  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Of course, one could list the myriad of offenses Israel has committed against journalists. From refusing journalists access to Gaza, access into Israel, to arrests, to outright targeting and murder. A cursory internet search will provide an ample amount of examples to rub in the bigot Nadine’s skull face.
    But what is the point? We all KNOW, already, the hypocricy, dishonesty, propaganda, and bigotry that seeps and oozes from every stroke on her keyboard.

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Boy, the moral preening is getting thick around here”
    Go screw yourself, Nadine.
    http://www.btselem.org/english/firearms/20100328_army_to_investigate_killing_of_youths_in_iraq_burin.asp
    28 March 2010: Soldiers shoot to death two youths; in a rare step, army opens investigation
    On 20 March 2010, soldiers killed two youths in the village of

    Reply

  6. nadine says:

    Boy, the moral preening is getting thick around here.
    Carroll, yawn. There are about six main incidents of Jewish terrorism/guerilla war from 1948, cited over and over and over…because that’s all there were. You forgot Deir Yassin. I’m surprised.
    Now if you want to count major Arab incidents of terror targeting civilians, you run into thousands, because for the Arabs, terror against civilians has always been a first choice in their “military” endeavors…that’s why Fatah just named a square after Dalal Mughrabi, whose Coastal Road “operation” targeted and blew up a bus, killing 38 civilians. There were no military targets. Abu Mazen defended the naming as honoring a “military hero”.
    In today’s news ” Palestinian reporters urged to ‘repent’
    By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
    31/03/2010 01:50
    Journalists who met Israeli colleagues face expulsion from Fatah-run syndicate. … on charges of promoting normalization with Israel.”
    http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=172106
    Israeli papers hire Palestinians, like Khaled Abu Toameh, and have correspondents stationed in Ramallah, like Haaretz’ Amira Hass. But Palestinian papers not only don’t have journalists stationed in Tel Aviv, they regard going to a meeting in Tel Aviv, which is what these journalists did, as a crime deserving expulsion from the journalist syndicate.
    Think about that one for a minute if you can. Is it really beyond the pale to suggest that the two sides think about things very differently? Israelis may complain bitterly about Amira Hass’ left-wing views. But nobody charges her with the crime of “promoting normalization with Palestine” which isn’t a crime in Israeli circles. Nobody threatens to expel her from any journalist syndicate, or even to get her fired from Haaretz.
    Yet Paul cites as some kind of absurdity a ynet article that refers to the different way strength and weakness is perceived in Europe vs. the Mideast. It is Paul who is being absurd to suggest there isn’t a difference in thinking. Since he’s not an idiot, I can only assume he considers it a moral duty to assume that everybody in the Middle East thinks just like Norwegians, except evil Israelis who talk about morality but don’t come up to Norwegian standards.

    Reply

  7. Paul Norheim says:

    Well, in any case, POA, I think some of us (but not all…)
    appreciate that you are the honest guy in town. It could have
    been worse.

    Reply

  8. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “When that is said, I have to add: Long live “pretense and carefully assumed civility”. If we all should go around being honest and display our true character 24/7, there would be hell on earth in a matter of days — much of it, even much more than today, emanating from Washington DC”
    I couldn’t disagree more, Paul. Subterfuge is the tool through which monsters attain power. It is why we have such a huge crop of scumbags prowling the halls of Congress.
    Ever notice these pieces of shit get caught with their hands in the till, on their knees in a public restroom, or dipping their wick in someone else’s wife AFTER they’ve conned their constituency into voting for them?

    Reply

  9. Paul Norheim says:

    Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Mar 30 2010, 8:37PM – Link
    ———————————-
    I sympathize, POA.
    And I adressed WigWag’s occasional, nasty reference to
    relatives, friends and partners above.
    When that is said, I have to add: Long live “pretense and
    carefully assumed civility”. If we all should go around being
    honest and display our true character 24/7, there would be hell
    on earth in a matter of days — much of it, even much more
    than today, emanating from Washington DC.
    Animals are honest. Human beings are not, and should not be.
    Any big city, any town, even tiny villages would immediately
    collapse if we all started to honestly show our true character.
    I think this is one of the main reasons why the Washington
    insider Steve Clemons appreciates civility in political
    discussions, accepting hypocrisy as a regrettable, but
    nonetheless entertaining side effect of la Com

    Reply

  10. PissedOffAmerican says:

    IOF assaults on Land Day demos: 4 youths shot at close range
    March 30, 2010
    Four non-violent demonstrators were shot at close range with live ammunition by Israeli soldiers during six simultaneous protests throughout the Gaza Strip commemorating

    Reply

  11. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Wig-wag has exposed, on this blog, an unbelievably ugly mindset and personality, that she has managed to conceal some 95% of the time. Her expedition into vulgar insult, exhibited in her infamous “penis chronicles”, as well as her attacks on my partner, whom she doesn’t know from Adam, exposed her for WHAT SHE IS.
    It is comical seeing her “politeness” being paraded in the comment section as if it is an attribute or redeeming factor.
    Me? I’d rather know who, and what, I’m dealing with. Pretense and carefully assumed civility are far from being admirable traits. As I’ve often commented to Nadine, if a premise must be defended with lies, the premise is not worth defending. The same can be said for character. If one must assume a personality and civil demeanor through pretense, than, well…..
    The closest I ever came to being bit by a rattlesnake was as a lad clearing brush at my Dad’s hunting lodge in Idaho. Despite the probable five or six times I nearly stepped on the snake as he lay coiled in a pathway, he never rattled. Alert, and dangerous, this particular timber rattler saw no need to broadcast his intentions. Thick boots and canvas gators teamed up to save the day when he finally struck.
    But it is NOT personality or a pretense of “civility” that I abhor from Wig-wag and Nadine. It is their cruel inhumanity that I find despicable. You can always discern someone’s meddle by how they describe, empathize, and sympathize with the young children of their adversaries.
    Enough said.

    Reply

  12. Paul Norheim says:

    And Questions, here is a randomly picked article that
    nonetheless illustrates my point perfectly:
    “Guy Bechor:
    Paradox of power and weakness
    What is perceived as empowering in Mideast weakens Israel’s
    image in West
    Published: 10.16.06, 17:32 / Israel Opinion
    Did the horrific scenes of Lebanese casualties shown daily on
    TV screens worldwide during the recent war in Lebanon weaken
    or strengthen Israel? And what effect did the forceful evacuation
    of settlements in the Gaza Strip have?
    For years the Israeli public and its leadership have been arguing
    over the misleading nature of power and weakness. A quasi
    mathematical tool can be proposed here to quantify the extent
    of Israel’s future power and weakness, and in so doing provide
    our decision makers with the appropriate tools.
    It is a paradox: What is perceived as empowering in the Middle
    East weakens Israel’s image in the West, particularly in Europe;
    and what is perceived in the Middle East as weakness, is
    perceived as empowering in world opinion.
    The strong are admired in the Middle East, whether it is
    Ahmadinejad, Saddam, or on the other end of the scale, Ariel
    Sharon who was perceived as belligerent. The weak are
    abhorred in the Middle East, yet in the West weakness is
    considered an advantage.
    The more Israel clambers for regional power, the more its image
    suffers in the global arena, and vise versa. Both moves are
    dynamic and therefore reversible. A movement in both can
    occur in two directions.
    Holding on to the Territories is perceived in Israel as strength,
    but is detrimental globally. Demonstrating power in Gaza is
    perceived in the region as a powerful deterrent, but is widely
    criticized worldwide. The images of Lebanese casualties were
    perceived as powerful and deterrent acts in the Middle East, but
    sparked harsh criticism globally.
    The disengagement from Gaza weakened Israel’s deterrent
    power but was embraced warmly by the rest of the world. The
    missiles fired at Israel by Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War
    sparked a wave of global sympathy, but encouraged the
    Palestinians and the Lebanese to launch rocket fire towards
    Israel as well.
    This rule also applies to the Palestinians: as long as they were
    perceived as weak, world opinion was in their favor; as soon as
    Hamas was depicted as having its own army and power, world
    opinion forgot them.
    Any Israeli move must from now on carefully weigh the paradox
    of four options:
    The worst is of course a situation whereby Israel would be
    perceived as weak both regionally and internationally, as was
    the case at end of the second Lebanon war. Hizbullah
    celebrated its victory in parallel to the harsh criticism world
    opinion leveled at Israel.
    Regional power more important
    Of the next two options the preferred one is the one that
    provides regional power rather than favorable world opinion.
    Experience shows that demonstration of power is more durable
    in the Middle East’s collective consciousness. Damages to world
    opinion can be rectified more quickly.
    Naturally, the best option is regional belligerence, while at the
    same time maintaining world sympathy towards Israel as in the
    Six Day War. This is somewhat difficult to achieve today but we
    can strive for such a situation.
    Israeli leadership must embark on military belligerent action by
    reason of an existential threat to its survival, a condition that
    existed during the initial phases of the second Lebanon war. To
    achieve this, Israel must utilize international institutions which it
    usually holds in contempt, and it would do well to establish a
    well-oiled public relations network that could be activated on
    short notice.
    A decisive victory against what is perceived as an existential
    threat would be embraced internationally and serve as a
    regional deterrent force. It’s time for some Israeli achievements
    that have been lacking for the last 20 years.”
    http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-
    3315457,00.html
    Not much Hobbes here…

    Reply

  13. Paul Norheim says:

    Questions,
    Since you insist that this is about states in general, in a
    Hobbesian sense, my reply is that every commenter referring to
    this issue that I have read, also specifically refer to the mentality
    in the region, not to a universal Hobbesian law. Nadine does so
    too.

    Reply

  14. questions says:

    Paul writes:
    “Partisan Zionist commenters like Nadine (and BTW also many
    other ME experts and pundits) believe that the Israelis must
    never show any signs of being soft, or worse: weak, confronted
    with their Arab neighbors, because the Arabs – due to their
    culture and mindset – regard softness as weakness and will
    exploit any sign of weakness.”
    No, not with the racist spin. The international scene is a Hobbesian state of nature and weakness means that one gets killed. There’s no racial view needed on this one. Israel is surrounded by hostile STATES, not by hostile PEOPLES. While the hostility may require some amount of racial difference, the real cause is state behavior, not racial behavior.

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    Posted by …, Mar 30 2010, 4:53PM – Link
    exactly dons… being polite is all fine and good except when it is used as a cover for something very ugly underneath, or unspoken but obvious for anyone who can read between the lines…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Ah, our resident defenders of Israel. Since I knew them in their former lives on this blog back in 2006 and 07, when sweetness was MP and wiggie was winnipegger and Marcus was Marky I can give you a quick summation.
    nadine is just a brainwashed activist…pretty typical. sweetness, reasonable on Israel, but a professional victim and anti semite crusader always looking for anti semites if too many points are made about jewish suffering actually not giving Israel the right to behave the way it’s does. wiggie on the other hand drips thinly veiled venom towards everything that challenges Israel. She wants war, the bigger the better, jews against gentiles, jews against Arabs, country against country, she wants to see people devastated like the Jews were…and even if it means some Jews have to die to bring about her dreams of ‘The Final Revenge’ or ‘Final Triumph” of the formerly powerless of over the fomerly powerful. If you’ve seen one like this crew you’ve seen them all, they are a dime a dozen on the internet.
    wiggie will spend 500 words on one post just to get in one little sting at whatever she see as a threat to Israel, Hillary, feminist and etc….reading her post is like being the frog giving the scorpion a ride across the river…you know the poison is coming out somewhere on the trip…. I don’t bother to read them…. heard it all before.

    Reply

  16. Paul Norheim says:

    “But when politeness is courted in the service of really vile
    policy views (IMO of course) it becomes a ruse. Not a rhetorical
    convention, but a cover for manipulation.” (DonS referring to
    WigWag)
    I disagree. We all manipulate, often even without knowing it.
    The rhetorical devices at our disposal, as well as our minds, are
    both constructed in a certain manner that invites to
    manipulation and bias, even rhetorical violence on several
    levels. My point is that WigWag’s general discourse invites to
    counter arguments and facts, countering her arguments or
    facts; thus enabling those of us who disagree with her to
    challenge her and address the manipulation, just like she can
    address our manipulation and our distortions.
    She basically accepts the rules of the game. Within these
    frames, we are also free to address her “really vile policy views”.
    Nadine is a different case, since she has self-programmed
    herself not to listen, because listening could be perceived as
    weakness by her enemies, who want to exterminate her. And
    that’s the big difference here. It’s not pleasant to talk to a robot,
    and it doesn’t make much sense.
    If people are capable of, and wiling to discuss, and they accept
    the basic rules of arguments and discussion and the expressed
    or unwritten rules of the host, we should accept their presence
    on a blog even when their opinions are extreme or vile. I can
    think of several posters here who have bigger difficulties
    passing that test than WigWag, regardless of their views.

    Reply

  17. ... says:

    exactly dons… being polite is all fine and good except when it is used as a cover for something very ugly underneath, or unspoken but obvious for anyone who can read between the lines…

    Reply

  18. DonS says:

    (corrected first sentence of 4:40) ” . . . said something about shouldn’t I be more polite”

    Reply

  19. DonS says:

    Paul, I basically agree with your view that Wigwag seems polite. In fact probably the first comment she ever responded to me said something
    But when politeness is courted in the service of really vile policy views (IMO of course) it becomes a ruse. Not a rhetorical convention, but a cover for manipulation. I can’t be very polite about dehumanizing behavior, anywhere; and I certainly can’t pretend not to notice a pattern; engaging in longish term discussions, “politely”, is fine as far as it goes. But at some point it legitimizes what is vile.
    When I called Wigwag, at least once, on her manipulative pattern, she replied that she calls them as she sees them, and expects I do the same. Beneath all of Wigwag’s politeness, when it comes to Israel she has become down right mean spirited.

    Reply

  20. ... says:

    good post paul and i agree with most of what you state… my only additional comment as i see it is the corrosive nature of their lack of regard to honesty and objectivity remains an ongoing issue whereby one must always note what they’ve left out, instead of what they’ve specifically stated.. it is in the absence of a full report that one gets a very clear picture of their objectives and priorities and they have nothing to do with the well being of the usa, but everything to do with israel… most folks would view this type of behaviour as traitorous…
    regarding the general idea of never showing weakness, it has always been my view that those unwilling to show any weakness suffer from a much greater degree of it… in other words, it is a sign of real weakness to never show any weakness…

    Reply

  21. Paul Norheim says:

    I would like to offer another reflexion related to Don’s 11.53AM
    comment.
    Partisan Zionist commenters like Nadine (and BTW also many
    other ME experts and pundits) believe that the Israelis must
    never show any signs of being soft, or worse: weak, confronted
    with their Arab neighbors, because the Arabs – due to their
    culture and mindset – regard softness as weakness and will
    exploit any sign of weakness.
    Regardless of the veracity of this analysis of Israel surrounded
    by hostile Arab neighbors, many Zionists and pro Israeli
    Americans export this Middle East analysis as a metaphor for
    America’s relationship to it’s neighbors – i.e. the whole world.
    They automatically apply the situation in the Middle East to
    America-versus-the-world as if the situation of the United
    States is comparable with the war-like status of Israel within the
    Middle East, and as if “Abroad” is basically a hostile
    environment obsessed with thoughts and plans to exterminate
    Americans and destroy their beloved state. In this attempt to
    “israelize” America’s relationship with the wider world, they also
    believe that the American leadership must never show any signs
    of softness. That America must not only BE strong, but also
    BRAG about being strong, permanently SHOW that they are
    strong, and never accept any claims by it’s adversaries,
    legitimate or not, because this will be interpreted as a sign of
    weakness.
    I believe that this mentality is also a heritage of the cold war
    attitude, that still poisons American foreign policy discussions.
    Logically, when these partisan Zionists and cold war warriors in
    America get a US President that doesn’t seem to agree with this
    analysis, and who once in a while shows generosity, and even
    admits that America has its faults, these people see him as a
    traitor, as someone who secretly or involuntary will destroy
    America. He is anti-American, just like those who criticize Israel
    are anti-Semites.
    What these people don’t get, is that America is so strong, due to
    it’s military, its economy, its geography etc. etc. that it does not
    need to act the way a small young nation in the Middle East acts
    surrounded by hostile neighbors. Further, they don’t get that it
    is wiser for a nation as strong as America not to demonstrate
    it’s strength or brag about it 24/7, but to show it’s benevolent
    side most of the time, and it’s strength when it sees itself
    threatened. They also fail to see that if America got involved in
    all kinds of hostile actions around the world, this would be a
    recipe for it’s demise.
    And finally, they also fail to realize that America’s strength is
    also built on a free and open debate on political choices, values,
    and tactics – in contrast to the autocracies in the Middle East.
    America is part of a long and great tradition where not only free
    and often heated debates, but also an open mindset, and
    tolerance of the opinions of those you disagree with is
    welcomed, where even self criticism is sometimes a good thing.
    This goes detriment to the mindset described above. People like
    Nadine transfer the war-like circumstances in the Middle East
    into an American blog, and almost destroys it. “Never show any
    softness, or weakness. Never give up. Always talk as if you are
    100 % right. Never admit anything.”
    And when you add to that mindset the uncompromising
    mindset of domestic US GOP and teaparty people, you get a
    toxic combination.
    —————————————-
    I see WigWag in a different light. I very often disagree with her.
    In my view, some of here suggestions, views and opinions
    related to the Middle East are horrible – I have no other way to
    put it. But at the same time, if you show basic politeness, my
    experience is that she usually continues the more relaxed, free,
    if heated, debate culture that I described above, and that is a
    part of a great American culture of discussion.
    Now, her constant attempt to undermine people like Stephen
    Walt and the Leveretts with insinuations and quotes of often
    dubious sources is an entirely different story. So is her nasty
    tendency to bring in relatives or friends of the ones she
    disagree with on rare occasions here at TWN; and also her
    display of glee during Israeli bombardments of the Palestinians
    on the Gaza strip.
    But in my countless, often heated debates with WigWag, I have
    no personal complains regarding her behavior. Quite the
    opposite. If someone has been too rude in those debates, it’s
    me, not her. And some of the discussions between WigWag and
    Dan Kervick last year and the year before that, are among the
    most interesting I’ve seen at The Washington Note.
    As for Nadine, I don’t talk to her, because she doesn’t talk to
    me. She distorts my opinions, invents, imagines, and create a
    strawman that she calls “Paul’s opinions”, and then she starts
    arguing against her own creation, with the passion and bias of
    an Israeli settler in a hostile environment. You just don’t argue
    with such people if you can avoid it.

    Reply

  22. ... says:

    DonS, Mar 30 2010, 11:53AM
    i agree with you dons and think you articulate my own perception quite well… i will go one step further in saying i think nadine and wigwag are terrorists…. to me for them to hold the position they do means they care not for any degree of objectivity when their sacred israel is being questioned or worse…. the basis for terrorism is the denial of objectivity when your venerated object (in this case the state of israel) is under threat….they are no different then any other terrorist, although so far as i know they only operate verbally… they do however subscribe to america’s support for state sponsored terrorism against these same real or perceived threats that we are constantly reminded of….

    Reply

  23. samuelburke says:

    this whole episode between the u.s and israel seems to be a
    product of the u.s having seen itself knee deep in shit and reaching
    for the steering wheel of the ship of state.
    so now that the pentagons has spoken must policy follow?

    Reply

  24. Paul Norheim says:

    And here some excerpts from another interesting and topic-
    relevant article from today’s CounterPunch:
    “Israel Threatens Lebanon … Again
    A New Middle East War?
    By CONN HALLINAN
    When Israeli Minister without Portfolio Yossi Peled said recently
    that a war with Lebanon

    Reply

  25. Paul Norheim says:

    Uri Avnery in an article yesterday at CounterPunch:
    “SO NETANYAHU went to Canossa. He entered the gate of the
    White House. Obama listened to his proposals and told him that
    they were not sufficient. Netanyahu huddled with his advisors in
    a side room in the building and went back to Obama. Again
    Obama told him that his proposals were insufficient. That

    Reply

  26. DonS says:

    re the hasbarist presentations of Nadine and Wigwag: both simply assume an authoritative, de facto tone, that psychologically seeks to create a baseline that they hope readers will easily swallow. Corollary to this is a demoniazation and coldness towards any perceived adversary of Israel, also for the purpose of reinforcing a baseline of fear, hate and mistrust in readers.
    The old anti-Semite canard remains in the background but has, in my observation, lost much of it’s bite, largely through casual overuse. In some ways it has achieved the dubious double edged epithet of ‘nigger lover’, which when hurled really undercuts the stature of the speaker.
    So, speaking with bravado and confidence, substance laced with constant lies and hasbarist-Zionist propaganda, these two, and their ilk, fight a rear guard action, ultimately to the detriment of Israel. And, in a way they don’t seem to care about, their actions are to the detriment of decent Jews everywhere since they insist on linking, for obvious reasons, the actions of Israel as being the actions of every Jew.

    Reply

  27. Arun says:

    Any comment on this news-item
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=121994&sectionid=351020101
    Iran rescues a kidnapped diplomat in Pakistan without cooperation from Pakistan.

    Reply

  28. samuelburke says:

    Let me express a lament that many here who castigate Israel may
    also share.
    It is a shame what is happening to Israel.
    much more has been expected of her by virtue of what it
    represented in the minds of the christian nations that endorsed it’s
    birth, and have supported her against all hope.
    It would be a bigger shame to just allow Israel to not see itself in
    the eyes of the nations.
    war is no place to shine your glory.
    shalom!

    Reply

  29. Carroll says:

    how about this piece of your history nadine?
    your ‘founders’ who were actually tranplanted jewish terrorist gangs from UK first kill the UN rep after the UN kindly ‘gave’ Israel it’s land then they killed the British who asked the UN to give their land. Tell me about Israeli history. Dressing up as Arabs to bomb a hotel.
    http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/Kingdavid.htm
    The Bombing of the King David Hotel
    On the morning of the 22nd of July 1946 a party of between 15 and 20 Jews, dressed as an Arabs entered the King David Hotel. The hotel housed the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. The terrorists were able to enter the building without arousing too much attention because part of the building was still being used as a hotel and other people frequented it. The Jews pretended to be an Arab working party. Having unloading from their lorry several milk churns filled with 225 kilogram’s of explosive, they placed them in the basement of the wing of the hotel occupied by the Secretariat.
    A British officer standing nearby, one Major Mackintosh, became suspicious of this group of Arabs and began to ask questions, but was suddenly gunned down by a member of the Jewish gang and subsequently died. A policeman stationed at the tradesman’s entrance suffered a similar fate when he challenged the Jewish terrorists. Both victims were unarmed. A gun battle soon began between the terrorist and guards during which time the Jews ignited the fuse and bolted from the building as the alarm was given. As they ran several were shot and wounded by guards, but most managed to make good their escape. There was no time to evacuate the building and the charge exploded with devastating effect. Many were killed instantly as the whole wing of the building collapsed about them, others were trapped and many more injured.
    Rescue work started straight way as soldiers and police began to pull away the rubble in the hope of finding survivors. Members of the Royal Engineers were hurried to the scene with heavy lifting equipment, but they had difficulty reaching the King David Hotel because of Jewish road blocks. The Royal Engineers were stoned and booed as they tried to make their way to the scene of the bombing.
    By 1600 hours the sappers were hard at work in the rubble. The task was a race against time, and not until all hope of saving further lives had been abandoned days later, did they relax their efforts. Day and night the rescue operations went on with sappers working like men possessed, for deep in the wreckage could occasionally be heard sounds which urged them on with fresh hope.
    At 22:00 hours of that night the sappers were formed into three shifts, and for the next 3 days each shift worked 16 hours on and eight hours off. Even so, some men refused to rest until completely exhausted. It is recorded that one sapper drove his bulldozer for 30 hours with out leaving the wheel until he eventually collapsed exhausted. From the wreckage and rubble the rescuers managed to extract six survivors, The last to be found was D. C. Thompson, 24 hours after the building had collapsed. He appeared to be more or less unhurt. But died the next day due to shock.
    Owing to the danger of falling masonry and further subsidence the use of mechanical equipment had to be very limited, until it was considered that no one remained alive beneath the debris. Soon all hope of finding anyone alive faded and the operation to recover the bodies began. 91 bodies were recovered in the following week and 2000 lorry loads of rubble had been removed. The stench which accompanied the work which was carried out in the sweltering heat of midsummer was most unpleasant.
    The Irgun claimed that the British had been warned about the attack by telephone, but the warning was ignored.

    Reply

  30. Carroll says:

    what about this bit of israeli history nadine? familiar with this?..face it, Israel has been a gangster nation since it’s inception.
    Jewish Terrorists Assassinate U.N. Peacekeeper Count Folke Bernadotte
    By Donald Neff
    It was Sept. 17, 1948, when Jewish terrorists assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden as he sought to bring peace to the Middle East. His three-car convoy had been stopped at a small improvised roadblock in Jewish-controlled West Jerusalem when two gunmen began shooting out the tires of the cars and a third gunman thrust a Schmeisser automatic pistol through the open back window of Bernadotte’s Chrysler. The 54-year-old diplomat, sitting on the right in the back, was hit by six bullets and died instantly. A French officer sitting next to Bernadotte was killed accidentally.
    The assassins were members of Lehi (Lohamei Herut Israel

    Reply

  31. Carroll says:

    really nadine, really? you know your history?…then how could you have missed this?
    BBC….
    Graveside party celebrates Hebron massacre
    Militant Jews have gathered at the grave of Baruch Goldstein to celebrate the sixth anniversary of his massacre of Muslim worshippers in Hebron.
    The celebrants dressed up as the gunman, wearing army uniforms, doctor’s coats and fake beards.
    Israeli settlers read prays at the grave
    Goldstein, an immigrant from New York City, had been a physician in the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba.
    Waving semi-automatic weapons in the air, the celebrants danced, sang and read prayers around his grave.
    “We decided to make a big party on the day he was murdered by Arabs,” said Baruch Marzel, one of about 40 celebrants.
    The tribute was a macabre twist on the Jewish festival of Purim, when it is a custom to dress in costume and celebrate.
    Massacre in mosque
    In 1994 on Purim, Goldstein stormed a mosque and fired on praying Muslims in the West Bank city’s Tomb of the Patriarchs – a shrine sacred to both Muslims and Jews.
    Twenty-nine people died in the attack, 150 were wounded and the angry crowd lynched Goldstein in retaliation.
    Israelis continue to pay homage at his grave in the nearby Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba, where a marble plaque reads: “To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel.”
    About 10,000 people had visited the grave since the massacre, Mr Marzel said.

    Reply

  32. nadine says:

    Carroll, that’s funny. I have forgotten much more history of the Levant than you ever knew.

    Reply

  33. nadine says:

    Khalid, speaking of double standards, how do you feel about Abu Mazen naming a main square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi?

    Reply

  34. ... says:

    paul, thanks for outlining what you have with wigwag.. i think the double standard won’t continue, in spite of those who wish it does…. i don’t think wigwag really cares whether the whole world breaks out in war with millions are killed, so long as wigwags israel remains intact… most people would view wigwag as sick… i define sickness here as being isolated in ones narrow world view while expressing contentment and arrogance at the same time… hubris…

    Reply

  35. Carroll says:

    Posted by nadine, Mar 30 2010, 12:55AM – Link
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    nadine, all I can say is you are deep into denial about the true motivations behind Israeli actions in and towards Palestine…and toward everyone else for that matter.
    You have been completely and throughly brainwashed on Israel and when it turns out that Israel is brought to heel by outside presure you are going to have a very hard time dealing with it mentally and emotionaly.
    And seriously, and with no malice intended, you need to start detoxing yourself now. Start reading some real history and not just what you are fed by the zionist groups to get some balance.

    Reply

  36. Carroll says:

    So what next?…is the ZOA gonna declare war on America? We been insulted!..we ‘demand!’…LOL
    And the JDL’s Foxman is once again calling President Carter an anti semite for something he said this week about Obama holding Israel to the no settlement demand.
    Zionist Organization of America: ‘Obama’s Israel stance ‘an insult’ to all Jews.’
    By Haaretz Service Tags: Israel news, Barack Obama
    The Zionist Organization of America has called U.S. President Barack Obama’s stance on Israel “an insult” to all Jews, in a statement released on Friday.
    “We consider Obama’s actions an affront and an insult to all Jews in America and throughout all the world,” the statement said.
    The ZOA also suggested that Obama’s behavior is biased against Israel.
    The ZOA has also demanded of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to apologize to New York constituents for falsely claiming, as a Senator, to support an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

    Reply

  37. Carroll says:

    LOL..at least the tourist get over it after a few weeks.
    CNN) — Leave it to “The Simpsons” to kick off Holy Week with a zinger.
    Christians observe this as a sacred time marking Jesus’ journey in Jerusalem from Palm Sunday to Easter, and many treat it with reverence by attending services, singing hymns and offering prayers. None likely would picture the one they deem their savior in the form of Homer Simpson.
    In “The Greatest Story Ever D’ohed,” the latest episode of the long-running Fox sitcom, which aired Sunday, The Simpsons set off to Israel on a church mission. They go at the urging of neighbor and devout Christian Ned Flanders, who thought a dose of the Holy Land would bring Homer much-needed salvation.
    No surprise, this plan didn’t go well.
    Among the family’s foibles and offenses, Homer became delusional and believed he was the “chosen one,” destined to bring Muslims, Jews and Christians together. Diagnosed with “Jerusalem syndrome,” he called himself the “Messiah” and proposed the new faith of “Chrismujews,” a religion that would praise both peace and chicken.
    This storyline, while certainly creative and twisted in the classic Simpsons way, is rooted in something real.
    At Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center in Jerusalem, doctors have long studied patients with a psychiatric disorder they call Jerusalem syndrome, a very rare condition in which tourists — on average one or two a month — become so overwhelmed with the power of the place that they dissociate from reality and believe themselves to be biblical figures.
    “I fully understand the people who are skeptical about it,” said psychiatrist Gregory Katz, who directs the emergency unit at Kfar Shaul. “If I hadn’t seen it myself, I also would be very skeptical. But you can’t deny what you really see.”
    While psychiatrists outside of the center debate the syndrome’s existence, Katz estimated that during the past 25 years, he and his colleagues have admitted more than 450 cases.
    Katz told the story of a man from the Midwest who was found in the Old City of Jerusalem wearing a white robe and claiming to be the Apostle Paul. He was arrested by police and brought to Kfar Shaul after he tried to force observant Jews and Muslims to follow his ways and beliefs — an effort that “really caused some disturbances,” Katz said.
    Then there was the naked German found wandering in the Judean Desert. He believed he was John the Baptist and attempted to baptize strangers. The biggest challenge with him, Katz said, was that he had no identifying documents when Palestinian police got hold of him and called Kfar Shaul for help.
    The unusual syndrome can be divided into two categories. The first, which Katz called “pure” Jerusalem syndrome, is what afflicted the tourists he mentioned. In these cases, patients found in robes, wrapped in hotel bedsheets or wearing nothing at all have no history of mental illness.
    The intense break from reality includes agitation, the desire to separate from one’s tour group or family, an obsession with cleanliness, wearing white and the need to preach, share hymns and march to holy places, according to a paper Katz co-authored with colleagues in 2000 for the British Journal of Psychiatry.
    Such bouts of pure Jerusalem syndrome last less than a week, and the patients by all counts emerge mortified.
    Though no one can say with certainty why a tourist suddenly turns into a would-be Messiah, prophet or Virgin Mary (the most popular character for women), Katz offered a theory.
    In general, the patients are highly religious Christian pilgrims — Protestant, not Catholic, he said. Most come from rural communities, are not well-traveled and tend to be in their 40s. They arrive in Israel, often their first trip abroad, with an idealized view of Jerusalem formed through years of devout Bible study. And while it is a holy city, the reality includes traffic jams, omnipresent cell phones, political tensions and security guards outside cafes. Unable to reconcile their long-held idyllic vision with the tough reality, they have a temporary psychotic break.
    These “pure” syndrome cases account for about 10 to 15 percent of all incidents, Katz said. The rest, which he described as cases of “superimposed” Jerusalem syndrome, involve patients who’ve had a history of psychotic illness and often arrive in Israel with a specific mission and delusions about their power and influence.
    In these cases, when the patients are tourists, the doctors at Kfar Shaul stabilize them so they can go home and be treated in their own countries

    Reply

  38. nadine says:

    Carroll, the Gazan smugglers keep Gaza well supplied. The markets are full and bustling. Go cry for 500 dead Christians hacked to death by Muslims last week in Nigeria, if you want to cry over suffering.
    Nobody is indifferent to deaths, Muslim and non-Muslim, like the Muslim world. Nobody.
    Hey, Saddam Hussein put 400,000 of his own people into mass graves and he was the Hero of the Arab World.
    But we have lost our “moral credibility” compared to these people, according to Paul. According to Paul, the even caring about morality convicts you of crimes if you actually have to fight. But, that will never be the Norwegians so their purity will remain inviolate. Convenient, that.

    Reply

  39. Carroll says:

    mondoweiss…..
    Gaza

    Reply

  40. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Wig-wag and Nadine are simply abominations.
    Their world view and horrific indifference to Muslim deaths, suffering, and oppression is racist to the extreme. It is truly ironic seeing two epic bigots presenting Israel’s case on a blog with the notoriety that TWN has. As I’ve said many times previously, one would think there would be a contingent of Jews that read this blog willing to challenge these two despicable hasbarists, and demonstrate that these two do not represent the mainstream Jewish community here in the states. In all honesty, that such has not occurred degrades the credibility and the moral standing of those Jewish readers that follow the comment section at TWN.
    There is much disdain cast at the premise that “anti-semitism” is a self inflicted wound, earned by the Jews through their own actions. Reading the despicable musings, opinions, propaganda, and one sided rhetoric that oozes and seeps out of the diseased minds of Nadine and Wig-wag, one can’t help but give the premise second thought. Thank God for my partner, who dispels such poisonous thoughts, as her jewish faith has never manifested itself in the morally corrupt and despicably evil manner that Nadine’s and Wig-wag’s has. And thank God for the Jewish groups in Israel working to rescue the Palestinians from the fate that these two monsters would like to see the Palestinians suffer.

    Reply

  41. Paul Norheim says:

    Last update – 22:55 29/03/2010
    Swedish pension fund bans investment in Israeli company on
    ethical grounds
    The biggest Swedish pension fund has barred Israeli defense
    electronics company Elbit Systems from its investment
    portfolios on ethical grounds, Israel Radio reported Monday.
    Following the lead of Norway’s state oil fund, the F

    Reply

  42. Paul Norheim says:

    Screw you and your distortion of my views, Nadine.

    Reply

  43. nadine says:

    Paul, if the regard of the Muslim regions is not important, then why the hell do you care about Israel/Palestine? It’s the nutters of the Left who insist that the the whole Mideast turns on whether the poor Palestinians can be made happy, and that Israel must pay until they are.
    If it’s not important, why don’t we all just leave the parties alone to work out their own deal when they’re good and ready? Stop the kabuki theatre of the phony peace process.

    Reply

  44. Carroll says:

    Posted by Don Bacon, Mar 29 2010, 9:40PM – Link
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Guess what? The gas station that I always stop at has a Dunkin Doughnuts attached to it, (whose coffee I like better than Starbucks)..and it’s owned by an Israeli Arab couple! They moved here about 5 years ago and took over this business that was part of a chain of Muslim businesses headquartered in Charlotte who pool their money and buy small businesses. Very nice couple. I met the wife’s mother who still lives in Jerusalem but was here for several weeks this past summer.
    Very interesting conversations with them.

    Reply

  45. nadine says:

    OMG, Wigwag, Paul thinks we have to prove our moral superiority to Muslim region – the same region that is perfectly happy to countenance the 200,000 dead in Algeria and the 500,000 dead in Darfur without a peep, whose TV stations scream “Kill the Jews” every day. The Muslim region practices a perfect hypocrisy: whatever our side does is pure, whatever hurts us is evil. This is the region Paul wants to heed in forming Western policy.
    Regarding Israel, of course. The minute they interfere with Norwegian oil revenue I suspect Paul will be singing a different tune. But he’ll throw Israel to the wolves any day for the sake of moral purity — he even says that it’s the Israelis’ fault because they care about morality. Hey, if the Israelis begin to imitate the Palestinians and celebrate killing Arab kids the same way Palestinians celebrate killing Jewish kids, you think Paul will cut them the same slack he does the blameless Palestinians? To ask the question is to answer it.

    Reply

  46. Paul Norheim says:

    1) Especially Muslim countries from Morocco to Indonesia.
    2) Yes, I can imagine much that is less consequential, although I
    don’t regard the reaction as a dangerous threat to Western
    civilization, the way Nadine and Kotz and others see it.

    Reply

  47. WigWag says:

    “Thus an obvious display of double standards provokes quite unpleasant reactions in many regions that you don’t see towards the Chinese leadership.” (Paul Norheim)
    Two questions, Paul
    1) What regions would those be?
    2) Who cares what they think? Can you imagine anything less consequential?

    Reply

  48. Don Bacon says:

    Carroll,
    My favorite coffee shop is run by Iranians. They’re adjacent to a Starbuck’s and beat their pants off (business-wise). I don’t feel threatened at all by them, but I bet Starbuck’s does.
    A lot of Americans do (irrationally) feel threatened by Iran. It’s a mark of the success of the MSM (as in my post above) in promoting fear and war. Norman Solomon wrote a book about it: “War Made Easy — how presidents and pundits keep spinning us to death.”
    The unfortunate fact is that war publicists AKA journalists lose their jobs if they don’t toe the line and promote war. So they do, and people like nadine and WigWag, as two examples, suck up the lies and spin them back to us.
    Steve gives us an opportunity to set them straight– and for that I’m grateful.

    Reply

  49. Paul Norheim says:

    The only problem, WigWag, is that the Chinese and plenty of
    other nations have not been bragging about the moral
    superiority of their values to the extent the West has been
    bragging about it, these values that supposedly justify the
    interference in other countries’ business. Especially the only
    indispensable nation on our planet has a lot to answer for here.
    Thus an obvious display of double standards provokes quite
    unpleasant reactions in many regions that you don’t see towards
    the Chinese leadership. Even Nadine and you frequently remind
    us at TWN of how morally superior the Israelis are, compared to
    their neighbors. But when the Israelis in fact act like the huge
    assholes they actually happen to be, just like their neighbors,
    their bragging naturally provokes extraordinary reactions and
    there is a price to pay.
    And no one on the planet currently brag as loudly about their
    moral superiority and their values as the Americans and the
    Israelis.

    Reply

  50. Carroll says:

    ‘Don Bacon, let me translate: the President of the United States is a weakling who will do nothing to protect us’..(says nadine)
    Er….who is “us”? As an American I don’t feel the least bit threatened by Iran or need protection.

    Reply

  51. Don Bacon says:

    WigWag: “the mere possibility that Iran might contemplate the development of a rudimentary nuclear weapon is enough to inspire the world to coercive action.”
    Baloney. You need to get out more. Most of the world supports Iran, it is only the US and its western lackeys that, w/o basis, are anti-Iran.
    Supporters of Iran:
    * The 125-nation Non-Aligned Movement
    * Russia
    * China
    * Japan
    * Brazil
    * The Arab League
    * other neighbors: Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Turkmenistan
    * other trading partners: Malaysia, India
    * other UN security council members: Mexico, etc.
    The US talks about “the world” as being against Iran, and you believe it. Do you believe everything the government says?
    It’s basically US, Canada, France & UK — “the world.” Sure.

    Reply

  52. WigWag says:

    “I simply don’t understand your confidence. But then, I also remember that you seemed very cheerful during the bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Perhaps it’s just that conflicts and invasions in remote places are among those things in life that cheer you up?”
    I guess I’m just a cheerful person, Paul.
    You say,
    “I think you’re right: Their arsenal will remain intact for the foreseeable future. But once people start talking about it, this will, and rightly so, raise the issue of double standards, and further weaken the moral credibility of America and the West.”
    I wouldn’t worry too much about the “moral credibility” of the West if I were you. Who is it that the West should worry about when it comes to “moral credibility”?
    The Arab regimes who are all corrupt and brutally oppress their minority groups (even their Islamic minority groups)?
    The Turks; should we worry about our “moral credibility” with a nation that won’t admit that their Ottoman forebears committed genocide against 1.5 million Armenians? Turkey has killed 30 thousand Kurds and disenfranchised them from its legislature; it won’t allow the Alevis to freely practice their religion and it steals the property of the Orthodox Christians in Istanbul. Do you want us to worry about our “moral credibility with them?
    Or maybe you

    Reply

  53. nadine says:

    “But once people start talking about it, this
    will, and rightly so, raise the issue of double standards” (Paul Norheim)
    Only among people who cannot tell the difference between geopolitics and running a kindergarten. Like the Obama administration.

    Reply

  54. nadine says:

    “The head of the Arab League urged the 22-nation bloc on Saturday to engage Iran directly over concerns about its growing influence in the region and its disputed nuclear program.”
    Don Bacon, let me translate: the President of the United States is a weakling who will do nothing to protect us, so we have to cut the best deal with can with our new Iranian masters.
    Amazing that the people who think it’s a permanent outrage that the US has any influence at all outside its border have no problem with Iran bullying or taking over countries from Afghanistan to Egypt.
    But they are “other”. Not white or western. Guess that makes it all okay.

    Reply

  55. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    you answered a question I didn’t address: whether open
    discussions about Israel’s nuclear arsenal will help remove
    them.
    I think you’re right: Their arsenal will remain intact for the
    foreseeable future. But once people start talking about it, this
    will, and rightly so, raise the issue of double standards, and
    further weaken the moral credibility of America and the West.
    You seem so damned confident and happy about all these
    issues, WigWag, from nuclear weapons and Iran to the
    Israel/Palestine conflict – both short and longterm. This strikes
    me as a bit weird, and it somehow reminds me of the
    overconfident mood among the neocons inside and outside the
    White House before the attack on Iraq, or, if you will, among the
    Israeli leaders before Netanyahu’s last visit to the White House.
    You are not naive, and I assume that you know that there is a
    possibility that both the Israeli-Palestine conflict and a
    confrontation with Iran may have a tragic or catastrophic
    outcome – regardless of position or perspective.
    I simply don’t understand your confidence. But then, I also
    remember that you seemed very cheerful during the
    bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Perhaps it’s just that conflicts
    and invasions in remote places are among those things in life
    that cheer you up?

    Reply

  56. samuelburke says:

    Lew Rockwell has this short paragraph over …
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/54665.html
    “We are hearing much about the bombings in the Moscow
    subways, where suicide bombers murdered dozens of people.
    These are called

    Reply

  57. WigWag says:

    “Do you think Israel and America are still able to determine what shall remain a taboo, and what the world is allowed to discuss, while putting more and more pressure on Iran? I doubt it.” (Paul Norheim)
    I don’t know about taboos, Paul but I do think that Israel’s nuclear arsenal will remain intact indefinitely while Iran’s nuclear aspirations will inspire sanctions and eventually a military attack.
    Germany is providing submarines to Israel capable of launching nuclear weapons; India and Israel have jointly tested missiles in the Indian Ocean capable of being fitted with the nuclear weapons that both India and Israel possess.
    At the same time, the mere possibility that Iran might contemplate the development of a rudimentary nuclear weapon is enough to inspire the world to coercive action.
    According to Flynt Leverett (see the Race for Iran blog) the United Kingdom is pressing Obama to work more assiduously on Iran sanctions and to facilitate regime change in Iran. There’s every indication that Sarkozy and Berlusconi are doing the same thing (Merkel has been reported to be somewhat more moderate on the subject).
    And whatever qualms the Sunni Arab nations have about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, those qualms haven’t motivated the near hysteria we see in those nations at the prospect of an Iranian bomb.
    So the simple response to your comment is that Israel’s arsenal will be in place for a very long time, while at the very least, Iran’s ambition for an arsenal will motivate sanctions that almost certainly won’t deter their ambitions but will likely hurt ordinary Iranians. It is also entirely conceivable that Iranian nuclear ambitions will inspire a military attack by the United States (if not by this President than by the next one).
    If the sanctions don’t prevent Iran from getting a bomb and if the United States doesn’t launch a military attack (Israel is probably incapable of launching an effective attack; at least now) then a crippling program of deterrence will be put in place against Iran. Flynt Leverett has argued in the

    Reply

  58. Don Bacon says:

    nadine hearts stuff from the IAEA so this one’s for you.
    from Ha’aretz (09/11/2004):
    ElBaradei: Israel’s nuclear arms blocking Mideast peace
    SYDNEY – Israel’s nuclear weapons are an obstacle to peace in the Middle East, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said in an interview published Tuesday. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohammed ElBaradei said the nuclear arsenal should go as part of a settlement with the Palestinians.
    “This is not really sustainable that you have Israel sitting with nuclear weapons capability there while everyone else is part of the non-proliferation regime,” ElBaradei told The Sydney Morning Herald.
    ElBaradei said Muslims in the surrounding region resented Israel’s nuclear arsenal and wanted it to be part of the non-proliferation program. “It is a very emotional issue in the Middle East,” ElBaradei said.
    http://tinyurl.com/yjo7b63

    Reply

  59. Carroll says:

    Tick tock, tick tock…
    http://warincontext.org/
    The world is sick of Israel
    by Paul Woodward on March 29, 2010
    A commentary in Haaretz by Akiva Eldar opts for a Biblical theme with the headline:

    Reply

  60. Carroll says:

    Detailed account of the Isreaeli nuclear weapons programme and arsenal. From the Federation of American Scientists.
    http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
    History
    Israel began actively investigating the nuclear option from its earliest days. In 1949, HEMED GIMMEL a special unit of the IDF’s Science Corps, began a two-year geological survey of the Negev desert with an eye toward the discovery of uranium reserves. Although no significant sources of uranium were found, recoverable amounts were located in phosphate deposits.
    The program took another step forward with the creation of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) in 1952. Its chairman, Ernst David Bergmann, had long advocated an Israeli bomb as the best way to ensure “that we shall never again be led as lambs to the slaughter.” Bergmann was also head of the Ministry of Defense’s Research and Infrastructure Division (known by its Hebrew acronym, EMET), which had taken over the HEMED research centers (HEMED GIMMEL among them, now renamed Machon 4) as part of a reorganization. Under Bergmann, the line between the IAEC and EMET blurred to the point that Machon 4 functioned essentially as the chief laboratory for the IAEC. By 1953, Machon 4 had not only perfected a process for extracting the uranium found in the Negev, but had also developed a new method of producing heavy water, providing Israel with an indigenous capability to produce some of the most important nuclear materials.
    For reactor design and construction, Israel sought the assistance of France. Nuclear cooperation between the two nations dates back as far as early 1950’s, when construction began on France’s 40MWt heavy water reactor and a chemical reprocessing plant at Marcoule. France was a natural partner for Israel and both governments saw an independent nuclear option as a means by which they could maintain a degree of autonomy in the bipolar environment of the cold war.
    In the fall of 1956, France agreed to provide Israel with an 18 MWt research reactor. However, the onset of the Suez Crisis a few weeks later changed the situation dramatically. Following Egypt’s closure of the Suez Canal in July, France and Britain had agreed with Israel that the latter should provoke a war with Egypt to provide the European nations with the pretext to send in their troops as peacekeepers to occupy and reopen the canal zone. In the wake of the Suez Crisis, the Soviet Union made a thinly veiled threat against the three nations. This episode not only enhanced the Israeli view that an independent nuclear capability was needed to prevent reliance on potentially unreliable allies, but also led to a sense of debt among French leaders that they had failed to fulfill commitments made to a partner. French premier Guy Mollet is even quoted as saying privately that France “owed” the bomb to Israel.
    On 3 October 1957, France and Israel signed a revised agreement calling for France to build a 24 MWt reactor (although the cooling systems and waste facilities were designed to handle three times that power) and, in protocols that were not committed to paper, a chemical reprocessing plant. This complex was constructed in secret, and outside the IAEA inspection regime, by French and Israeli technicians at Dimona, in the Negev desert under the leadership of Col. Manes Pratt of the IDF Ordinance Corps.
    Both the scale of the project and the secrecy involved made the construction of Dimona a massive undertaking. A new intelligence agency, the Office of Science Liasons,(LEKEM) was created to provide security and intelligence for the project. At the height construction, some 1,500 Israelis some French workers were employed building Dimona. To maintain secrecy, French customs officials were told that the largest of the reactor components, such as the reactor tank, were part of a desalinization plant bound for Latin America. In addition, after buying heavy water from Norway on the condition that it not be transferred to a third country, the French Air Force secretly flew as much as four tons of the substance to Israel.
    Trouble arose in May 1960, when France began to pressure Israel to make the project public and to submit to international inspections of the site, threatening to withhold the reactor fuel unless they did. President de Gaulle was concerned that the inevitable scandal following any revelations about French assistance with the project, especially the chemical reprocessing plant, would have negative repercussions for France’s international position, already on shaky ground because of its war in Algeria.
    At a subsequent meeting with Ben-Gurion, de Gaulle offered to sell Israel fighter aircraft in exchange for stopping work on the reprocessing plant, and came away from the meeting convinced that the matter was closed. It was not. Over the next few months, Israel worked out a compromise. France would supply the uranium and components already placed on order and would not insist on international inspections. In return, Israel would assure France that they had no intention of making atomic weapons, would not reprocess any plutonium, and would reveal the existence of the reactor, which would be completed without French assistance. In reality, not much changed – French contractors finished work on the reactor and reprocessing plant, uranium fuel was delivered and the reactor went critical in 1964.
    DIA Estimate For Israeli Nuclear Weapons
    Excerpt from 160-page secret DIA report, first disclosed and reproduced in Rowan Scarborough, Rumsfeld’s War (Regnery, 2004), pp. 194-223.
    The United States first became aware of Dimona’s existence after U-2 overflights in 1958 captured the facility’s construction, but it was not identified as a nuclear site until two years later. The complex was variously explained as a textile plant, an agricultural station, and a metallurgical research facility, until David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1960 that Dimona complex was a nuclear research center built for “peaceful purposes.”
    There followed two decades in which the United States, through a combination of benign neglect, erroneous analysis, and successful Israeli deception, failed to discern first the details of Israel’s nuclear program. As early as 8 December 1960, the CIA issued a report outlining Dimona’s implications for nuclear proliferation, and the CIA station in Tel Aviv had determined by the mid-1960s that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was an established and irreversible fact.
    United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor – circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program – but found no evidence of “weapons related activities” such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant.
    Although the United States government did not encourage or approve of the Israeli nuclear program, it also did nothing to stop it. Walworth Barbour, US ambassador to Israel from 1961-73, the bomb program’s crucial years, primarily saw his job as being to insulate the President from facts which might compel him to act on the nuclear issue, alledgedly saying at one point that “The President did not send me there to give him problems. He does not want to be told any bad news.” After the 1967 war, Barbour even put a stop to military attach

    Reply

  61. Don Bacon says:

    Will the US and their Europe+Canada lap-dogs let the Arabs who actually live in the area horn in on conflict avoidance? Not likely.
    Mar 27 (AP):
    The head of the Arab League urged the 22-nation bloc on Saturday to engage Iran directly over concerns about its growing influence in the region and its disputed nuclear program.
    Amr Moussa also warned in his opening statement at a two-day Arab League summit in Sirte, Libya, that Israeli construction on land claimed by Palestinians could scuttle the Mideast peace process for good.
    Moussa outlined his plan for closer ties with Iran, saying it would involve a forum for regional cooperation and conflict resolution that would include Iran and Turkey

    Reply

  62. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag, it’s right under the surface. Pretending that it’s a non-
    existant non-issue, and that it’s completely unrelated to Iranian
    ambitions, will become more and more difficult, just like
    pretending that the I/P conflict does not fuel anti-American
    sentiments in the Islamic world is proving more and more
    difficult.
    Israel wants the world to pretend that their nukes don’t exist. And
    the US may still want the same. But even a former American
    President has already mentioned them. And others, like the PM of
    Turkey, do mention them. Do you think Israel and America are
    still able to determine what shall remain a taboo, and what the
    world is allowed to discuss, while putting more and more
    pressure on Iran? I doubt it.

    Reply

  63. nadine says:

    Don Bacon, you’ll have to remind me: what “foreign land” does the West Bank belong to? Seems to me the last internationally recognized owner was the British, who vacated in 1948.
    Only Israel can “occupy” “foreign lands” that don’t belong to any other country.

    Reply

  64. WigWag says:

    “So we’re supposed to talk about Iran and Turkey, and pretend that Israeli nukes is a non-existant non-issue. That won’t work much longer.” (Paul Norheim)
    Really? You don’t think it will work much longer; I see very little credible evidence for that.

    Reply

  65. Kathleen says:

    Don Bacon. Why is it we never hear anyone talking about Israel signing the Non Proliferation Treaty. You know the treaty that they demand their neighbors abide by.
    Why is it that we never hear about Israel signing a no first strike agreement the way I believe Iran has.

    Reply

  66. kathleen says:

    thanks for the heads up.
    During the Leverett Ledeen debate that you posted at this site. Flynt blew Ledeen out of the water with facts. Ledeen kept repeating fear mongering statements ‘they want to kill us, they hate us”
    Leverett:

    Reply

  67. Don Bacon says:

    It isn’t like Israel, which unlike Iran has a couple hundred nukes, regularly invades other lands, or has occupied foreign lands for forty-two years in violation of a UN Security Council resolution, or anything. Well okay, they have done all of the above. But that doesn’t mean that Israel is like Nazi Germany. It means that . . .Iran is! That’s it!

    Reply

  68. Paul Norheim says:

    So we’re supposed to talk about Iran and Turkey, and pretend that
    Israeli nukes is a non-existant non-issue. That won’t work much
    longer.

    Reply

  69. nadine says:

    Turkey has allied itself with Iran and Syria, no matter how much you try not to notice the obvious. Islamist Turkish PM Erdgoan is an ally of Islamist Iran, and thus of Iran’s proxies Syria and Hamas. That is why he broke the long-standing Turkish alliance with Israel.
    BTW, Iran signed the NPT treaty, while Israel never did. I know the quaint idea that nations should be bound by their agreements has been amended to: “Everybody can forget agreements as soon as they are signed, except in the case of Israel, where they remained bound by their agreements, even if they never agreed to them.”

    Reply

  70. WigWag says:

    I guess Erdogan is talking about Turkey; he may be against nuclear weapons in the region but he’s never asked for the 90 thermonuclear warheads stored at the Incirlik nuclear air base to be removed.

    Reply

  71. Paul Norheim says:

    Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan mentions the elephant in the room:
    “We are against nuclear weapons in our region. But is there
    another country in our region that has nuclear weapons? Yes,
    there is. And have they been subjected to sanctions? No,” Erdogan
    said.”
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159931.html

    Reply

  72. chumanist says:

    Apparently, the over usage of American solipcism in the foreign affairs seems to have been the driving cause of creating some diplomatic fiasco, particularly with reference to Iran the policy of moderation would be more prudent and pragmatic.

    Reply

  73. fyi says:

    It won’t matter.
    US decision makers have no tools except military to achieve their stated and un-stated aims – in Iran or anywhere else.
    Both the population at large and the so-called politician equate compromise with appeasement.
    US will and ust go through a number of such disasters like Iraq and soon Iran to be disabused of her cherished notions that might will achieve her aims across the globe.
    For the Israeli-Firster crowd: war against Iran will be disaster for Israel regardless of who initiates it – US or Israel.
    Look towards strategic US retreat from the Persian Gulf – if not Levant as well followed by the collapse of internal and external US financial positions.

    Reply

  74. nadine says:

    Neville Chamberlain was also a voice of sense and moderation. He was just dead wrong about who he was dealing with. Like Flynt Leverett is.

    Reply

  75. Don Bacon says:

    Thankfully a voice of sense and moderation will be heard on the MSM. It comes at a critical time as the principal print media are beating the war drums with crazy anti-Iran propaganda.
    Here are just two examples of pure horsepucky that was published this past weekend:
    “Six months after the revelation of a secret nuclear enrichment site in Iran, international inspectors and Western intelligence agencies say they suspect that Tehran is preparing to build more sites in defiance of United Nations demands.”– NYTimes, Mar 27
    “What [Clinton at AIPAC] did not say is that we would try to help the opposition change who ‘Iran’s leaders’ are. So: Nothing about regime change. Nothing about the possible use of force. Just broadly supported ‘sanctions that will bite,’ but not too much.” — WaPo, Mar 28

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *