I’ve just read the full Der Spiegel expose on Germany’s arms deal with Israel which will eventually bring nine nuke-armed submarines into its naval arsenal. The report is so rich that it’s worth delving into it for a second blog post.
In 2008, Angela Merkel, on her first visit to Israel made a remarkable and quite alarming statement:
Here of all places I want to explicitly stress that every German Government and every German Chancellor before me has shouldered Germany’s special historical responsibility for Israel’s security. This historical responsibility is reason of state for my country. For me as German Chancellor, therefore, Israel’s security will never be open to negotiation.
I have never heard of one country seeing as part of its very existence the responsibility for the security of another. Isn’t it hard enough to be responsible for one’s own nation’s security without also taking responsibility for another’s? I can certainly understand Germany having a sense of moral responsibility for Israel given the sins of the Holocaust. But to the extent of offering Israel weapons of mass destruction capable of incinerating the Middle East?
And does anyone really think that if Israel stands on the brink of annihilation that Germany will land troops and defend Jerusalem? No, more likely Germany will give Israel the means to annihilate even wider swaths of the region should Israel face such a threat. The Germans won’t put anything on the line other than their own weapons industry, which stands to benefit from the weapons trade. How do you think it will look to potential German customers to see pictures of those sleek, beautiful Dolphins sitting in the docks of Kiel and knowing they’ll be patrolling the waters of the Mediterranean protecting Israel from enemies real and imagined. If Israel wants it, many customers will reason, it must be damn good. Let’s get ourselves some.
Der Spiegel notes that Germany’s leaders have been so eager to offer Israel advanced weaponry that they not only violated the country’s arms export laws, in one case a defense minister actually drove up to the Israeli consulate and hand-delivered a new armor-piercing grenade wrapped in a trench coat with the words:
Here’s one for the boys in Tel Aviv!
You can’t get any more generous than that! Franz Josef Strauss, the minister mentioned above, even stole from German stockpiles and reported the munitions as stolen in order to protect himself. Among the items “lost” or “loaned” to Israel were:
…Sikorsky helicopters, Noratlas transport aircraft, rebuilt M-48 tanks, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and anti-tank guided missiles.
And who do you think was the Israeli who facilitated (some might say “greased”) this relationship? David Ben Gurion’s chief political fixer, Shimon Peres. It began with secret conversations at the German defense minister’s home in 1957 and by the following year arms exports to Israel began in earnest. By 1967, when such weapons played a critical role in enabling Israel to achieve military superiority over the Arab states, it would become clear how critical this relationship was to Israel’s victory. In 1973, when Israel faced the possibility of losing the October War, then Chancellor Willy Brandt violated German export law by sending emergency shipments of arms to Israel. He justified his actions by saying he was responding to an emergency that was “above the law.” Sound familiar?
As early as 1961, Strauss was holding secret meetings with Peres and Ben Gurion during which they discussed the “Samson Option,” Israel’s plan to get a nuclear weapon. The effort was masked by an Israeli request to design a nuclear reactor in order to desalinate water and “make the desert bloom.”
Israel faced an economic crisis in those years and funding was limited for such an expensive project. Ben Gurion likely saw the Germans as their Daddy Warbucks. Then German Chancellor Adenauer approved a nearly $1-billion loan which was never officially audited and which financed Israel’s bomb. Thanks to German generosity, Israel had a crude version of a nuclear weapon in place by 1967. It’s purpose was to stave off a possible catastrophic Israeli defeat in the unlikely event such a thing should happen as a result of the War.
Since then, Israel’s nuclear arsenal has become much more than a defensive umbrella. It has allowed Israel to pursue a reckless, belligerent approach toward its neighbors. It has allowed Israel to make the Middle East an even more dangerous, unstable place. All this would not have been possible without German funding. In an age when the world is trying to restrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons and prevent countries from getting nukes, Germany sponsored Israel for membership in the club of nuclear states.
As we rally forces to try to prevent Iran from securing a nuclear weapon, as we condemn any nation which contributed in any way toward Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Germany should be ashamed of the role it played in promoting Israeli nuclear proliferation. That is, unless we wish to say that Israel’s nukes are “good nukes,” while Iran’s (should it ever get them) are “bad nukes.” That would be quite an act of noblesse oblige to see things that way, but not above Israel’s sense of entitlement and cultural superiority to the “wild-eyed” Islamists running Iran.
As early as the 1980s, Israel began to contemplate use of submarines to provide “strategic depth,” a euphemism for second strike capability, or more accurately massive overkill. If any Israeli enemy had the temerity to attack, Israel wanted the certainty that its retaliatory capacity would be preserved, protected and massively lethal. That’s where German submarines came into play. As early as 1989, Germany approved the first of the Dolphins to Israel. Germany got over its squeamishness about offering Israel a potential weapon of mass destruction by agreeing to finance only the vessel itself, but not the weapons systems.
Who would finance the rest? In 1991, Israel faced weeks of intermittent bombardment by Iraqi Scud missiles. The Israelis discovered that a number of the electronic components were built by German companies. There was also talk that chemical weapons Iraq had used against Iran were also produced by Germany. Israeli diplomats played the Holocaust card masterfully and blackmailed Germany into almost fully financing the purchase of the first two Dolphins. The country signed an arms deal worth nearly $1.5-billion and financed two-thirds of it. Germany’s largesse and generosity continues to this day.
But the submarines and the wheeling and dealing that brought them to Israel remains shrouded behind a veil of secrecy. Israel wanted there to be no substantive debate in either country about them. Until now it has succeeded admirably. But perhaps due to the increasing intransigence of the Netanyahu government and Israel’s increasing belligerence toward its neighbors, this may be changing, if not among the political élite, then among intellectuals and activists like Gunter Grass, whose infamous poem decried the Dolphin deal.
In discussing the design of the submarines, Der Spiegel notes the special features Israel demanded. Among them, wider than conventional torpedo tubes which U.S. analysts surmise are intended for Israel’s version of a nuclear-armed cruise missile (called the Popeye). The hydraulic ejection system would be far better at launching nuclear weapons through water and into air than the conventional compressed water firing version.
Former German officials involved with negotiations about the vessels knew implicitly that Israel intended to arm them with nukes. But they politely side-stepped these issues by avoiding them altogether. Whenever they did approach the issue they said that Germany was not building boats that were intended for nuclear weapons. But of course, what the Israelis did with them after they received them would be Israel’s business.
If this reminds you of the “good Germans” who “didn’t know” what their Nazi leaders were doing to the Jews, well you could be excused for seeing a parallel.
In yesterday’s post, I discussed the likelihood that Israel would use nuclear weapons against an enemy. I noted that it had prepared weapons for potential use in the 1967 War. But I did not know that it did the same at the beginning of the 1973 War when Israel’s position seemed extremely grave. And during the 1991 Iraq War, U.S. intelligence detected that Israel had activated its nuclear force in case Saddam had armed his Scuds with chemical weapons. So you can see that the threshold for use of nuclear weapons may be entirely different for a western country and for Israel. And presuming that Israel would only use its nukes as an absolute last resort (the “Samson Option” mentioned earlier) may be entirely wrong.
If Israel does attack Iran and use the Dolphins to launch cruise missiles against Iranian targets, there will be mud on many faces in Germany and a whole lot of explaining to be done. I wouldn’t want to be in Merkel’s shoes then.
A former high-ranking German defense ministry official has some sound advice for her:
“True friendship,” he believes, “requires the German chancellor to stay Netanyahu’s arm and prevent him from resorting to an armed attack [on Iran]. Germany’s obligation to protect Israel includes protecting the country from embarking on suicidal adventures.”
At least there is one sensible German defense analyst who understands that the lethal weapons his country has supplied to Israel bring with it an accompanying moral responsibility regarding their use. Of course, Israel would use the weapons if it felt it needed to, without paying any regard to German sensitivities. That’s one thing the Germans may not realize about Israelis. If you give them something valuable, it becomes theirs and you lose any say in how it’s used. The U.S. found this out when Israel launched repeated rounds of cluster bombs at the end of the 2006 Lebanon War which could have no purpose other than to terrorize the civilian population that would suffer from their presence. Though this violated the terms of use the U.S. had negotiated with Israel, no investigation ever found Israel had done anything wrong. We essentially rendered ourselves powerless in monitoring use of our own weapons. Germany faces a similar conundrum.
When Angela Merkel negotiated for Israel’s sixth Dolphin she attached conditions of a sort to the deal. Israel would release tax money intended for the PA, it would halt settlement activity in the West Bank, and allow construction of a German-financed sewage treatment plant in Gaza to resume. Yet strangely, she didn’t incorporate these conditions in any formal agreement and though the sub deal has been signed Israel fulfilled only one of the three conditions releasing the tax money, which wasn’t legally Israel’s to begin with.
It’s a question of too little too late. Germany preferred to sell weapons to Israel and look the other way at any unfortunate results. This works well until Israel unleashes the Big One. Then the chickens will come home to roost. With any luck for her, she’ll be long out of office and her successors will have to deal with the mess she helped make.
As a nation who’s responsible for almost completely annihilating the Jewish people , Germany has an unquestionable responsibility to protect the Jewish people and the Jewish state from any similar threats.
This is not news, it is known for more than a decade that Germany sold to Israel nuclear Dolphin submarines – and good for them for doing so.
Last time i checked, Israel was still the only UN member that has another country threatening its existence. Any means necessary against this kind of threat should be acceptable – and by the looks of things, they’re indeed acceptable by the entire western (liberal, free, democratic) world.
No country threatens Israel’s existence. There has no such real threat for many decades and yet here it is again, striking fear into the hearts of Jews and Israelis for the purpose of manipulating budgets and politics. It is a trick to make deals and arm Israel for yet more aggression in the region. (Did I say “aggression”? How I misspoke! We all know it is all defensive, every bloody incursion into the civilian centers of neighboring countries is simply defense. It just looks like aggression, expansionist war, but underneath it is all defense against a myriad of enemies. I’ll be more careful in the future.)
With each day, each year, Israel becomes the unequaled overwhelming prime threat to peace on this planet, bar none.
[comment deleted–Not only off topic, but someone has already posted this link & mentioned it; please no repetitions]
The statement I was responding to was in the post above where the commenter wrote:
“No country threatens Israel’s existence”
I included the link to an Iranian source which indicated a senior Iranian official making statements threatening Israel’s existence in an attempt to refute the comment.
The tags that you included in your original post are “Iran” and “nuclear weapons”. The article itself mentions Iran repeatedly.
One would think that bellicose statements from Iran with respect to Israel would be on topic in light of all that (especially in response to the comment above).
I would also point out that there are comments on this thread about the JFK assassination, the Greek economy, a Wagner concert in Tel Aviv, and whether or not France is pro-Israel.
None have been deleted for being off-topic.
Thanks for clarifying. Next time, I suggest that you explain why you’ve referred to the Fars article since that wasn’t clear from your comment. You don’t need to link to it or quote it since it’s already been referred to by at least 2 other commenters here. But referring to it & explaining why you do would be fine.
You wrote: “the threshold for use of nuclear weapons may be entirely different for a western country and for Israel.”
Israel has never used nuclear weapons, in spite of being in a situation where, as you noted, their position seemed extremely grave.
Yet, a western country, The United States, has indeed used nuclear weapons against another country, killing over 150,000 people, mostly civilians.
not only that, unlike ANY OTHER nuclear country in the world, Israel officials haven’t even once in the past 58 year threatened to use it’s nuclear weapons, little on threaten admitting the country has one.
These threats were made several time by Pakistan (against India), North Korea (against the south), India (against Pakistan), Britain (against an overall attack over it’s territory), France (same as Britain), and of course – the US, Soviet Russia and later Russia and of course China during the cold war.
Thank god Israel isn’t irresponsible and more trigger happy about these kind of issues like the mentioned above countries ha ?
Israel can’t explicitly threaten to use its nukes, since its national policy is neither to confirm nor to deny that it has them.
But it certainly has often made threats that implicitly include the nukes for anyone aware of the open secret that Israel has them.
From the soapbox tone of your comments you love your propaganda. In 1973 Meir threatened a nuclear strike on either Damascus or Cairo IF the US didn’t immediately come to its aid. The sources for this abound, and it’s not as if you have to search very hard to find them.
If it wasn’t for the government of Portugal, Operation Nickel Grass would never have been possible, and Israel would have been finished. OR, they would have annihilated half the ME and survived.
Impossible to know, since the ‘threat’ of nuclear war saved them.
Except that in ’73 the Arabs were trying to retake only what was lost in ’67, not even counting the Palestinian territories as such, as Jordan was largely neutral. The Egyptians basically dug in after their initial success, and were not out to wipe out Israel, but to retake the Sinai. The ‘nuclear’ threats/panic were an overreaction which helped in getting more arms from the US.
If Israel developed nukes instead of the U.S. and was the first country to do so I fear the record might be reversed & Israel would be the one having used them, perhaps more than once. Israel has a habit of using maximum power when it thinks it can get away with it as the U.S. could in 1945.
Israel can do many things which would be politically impossible for the German armed forces at the present time.
If German industry builds a nuclear war machine for Israel, however, they can be well-prepared should it ever become politically possible or expedient for Germany to possess such a thing for herself. Which might happen if Germany convinces herself that other parts of Europe owe Germany the entire worth of their own countries, which isn’t a debt which can be easily collected without nuclear blackmail.
Eleutheria!
Well at least the Germans are consistent. They are what you might call Equal Opportunity Genocide merchants. And what it cannot do be military means, though not for lack of effort, it’ll try to do by economic means, just ask the Greeks.
The word “genocide” is indeed appropriate here in the sense that Israel’s ‘Iranophobia’ is based on the possibility that a nuclear-armed Iran might be able to thwart Israel’s plan to eliminate the Palestinians.
How very depressing that Germany, of all countries, does not honor a “special historical responsibility” to stay out of the arms trafficking business.
Merkels possible assistance – wether by supplying subs, or by sending troops – in an Israeli war against Iran is prohibited by german law and can be punished with a lifetime sentence or ten years at least!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angriffskrieg German Grundgesetz, Art. 26, 1
Exception is a war based on a resolution of the UN Security Council (Articles 42, 53)
Almabu, you probably know more about this: Isn’t it true that Germany originally tied all kinds of conditions to the sale (and partly donation) of the submarines: The building of a water purification plant in Gaza, the end of the siege and so on, and that the submarines were sold despite the fact that none of these conditions were met?
I see now that Richard mentioned these issues already. Sorry.
Merkel conditioned the contract of the recently signed purchase of boat number six during the negotiations on the three conditions named by Richard and DER SPIEGEL.
BUT this conditions were NOT PART of the contract. I see this as a kind of camouflage or cover-up for the german parlament. The tax belonging to the palestineans and stopped by Israel just before the u-boat-negotiations (propably only to give Merkel a point at no cost for Israel?)
were the only success of Merkels negotiation skills…
Wasn’t it France who helped Israel develop her own nuclear energy? Using the same kind of rhetoric, but now today, France is anti Israel.
Germany will go the same way. Merkel and others are not going to say no, to sales of their dolphins, nuclear armed or not.
It’s a question of too little too late. Germany preferred to sell weapons to Israel and look the other way at any unfortunate results. This works well until Israel unleashes the Big One.
If this ever happens it can only happen once, and every European city will most likely be the target too. Revenge for the Holocaust, European anti-semitism etc. etc.
Does anyone know if Merkel even thought about that and put some defence mechanism in? How far do these missiles reach?
Theoretically the cruise missiles launched from a submarine in the northern Adria (between Italy and Croatia) can cover the whole german territory. At the same time Germany would be unable to protect itself against such an attack! Really good deal, Merkel…
Germany could intercept some or all of a cruise missile strike. Cruise missiles fly well within the engagement envelope of both the current AAM types on the Bureaufighter Typhoon and even more so the Meteor AAM due to enter service on the Typhoon.
The existing German ground to air missiles may not be all that capable, but there’s a ground-based system based on the ASTER naval SAM missiles which the French are touting in Germany’s direction which could definitely do the job.
A Dolphin isn’t going to be able to launch more than six cruise missiles at a time, and German defences are definitely capable of reacting in time to stop such a strike, unless it’s launched from the Baltic. Indeed, German defences are evolving to deal with the large number of mobile missile launchers which Mr Putin has moved into Kalin (Russian enclave on the Baltic).
One Typhoon could intercept a flight of six cruise missiles.
Israel’s ballistic missiles might do the job, but it’s possible that the ASTER 45 can stop these.
Judging by the way the UK MoD confidently deploys the naval ASTER 30, the actual capable may exceed the published data by some distance.
I don’t think that Germany expects low flying cruise missiles incoming from the south, from friendly neighbors Switzerland or Austria. Cities like Stuttgart and Munich – at very short flying distance from the border – can difficultly be defended?
From the moment an incoming cruise missile, lets say a US- Tomahawk comparable thing, becomes detectable after crossing the mountain ridge of the Alps, there are maximum five to six minutes left to bring it down before it hits his target. And it will dive down for the last 80km what makes any defense even more problematic…
German air defences get data from Italian sensors.
These would see cruise missiles appear after launch and know what they were pretty well immediately. Germany also has airborne sensors which can see over the Alps.
Swiss airspace is not only monitored but vigorously defended.
Austria has a small number of Typhoons and an effective sensor net.
The best way to attack Germany might be the long way round, via Croatian and Hungarian airspace, where there’s nothing capable of intercepting them. But I think the Germans would still have track information long before the missiles reached Germany.
almabu, I don’t know about not being able to protect herself. No country would sell a weapon to another, without keeping the ‘upper hand’ ie. the ability to stop it’s use or at least it’s most lethal use. I don’t doubt Germany has put in some form of defence mechanism, either to neutralise the threat, or some form of trojan horse.
I heard that the US does the same. Mind you, it would be stupid of any country to give away anything without ensuring a weapon couldn’t be used against it. For Germany the defence threshold would also need to include her immediate neighbours.
That said, in the big picture it’s irrelevant. Whats to say that the recipient country may not be able to ‘outwit’ that defence mechanism, assuming that it isn’t outdated by the time they do so.
Germany has – as an ultimate trojan horse build in the subs – a software that played extremly loud Richard Wagner music over all loudspeakers on board, driving the whole crew crazy! As you may know, Wagners music has on many Israelis (and on some Germans like me to!) the same effect than garlic on vampires;-)
France is anti-Israel?
@ Elisabeth
Of course France is anti-Israel: when you’re pro-Israeli everybody is more or less anti-Israel, or let’s be honest, anti-semitic…..
French politics has become one of the most pro-Israel in Europe over the last years. French citizens and diplomats have been wounded by the IDF in Palestine, diplomats harassed at checkpoints, only little critique from Paris, the BDS mouvement is facing legal obstacles here existing in no other European countries, during the last presidential elections Hollande and Sarkozy were fighting to show who loved Israel most, they all attend the local AIPAC’s dinner parties, the Israelis are training the French police, joint miltary exercises. The Jewish Defense League, forbidden in the US and Israel, is legal and well-alive. France, a permanent member of the UNSC, did not approve of a Palestinian State in september, but it’s simply not enough. France still doesn’t recognize the annexation of East-Jerusalem and the Golan, that’s more than enough to be anti-Israel, in’t it ? And they don’t say Judea and Samaria in the offical papers.
“Hollande and Sarkozy were fighting to show who loved Israel most”.
That is exactly the impression I got, but us Europeans are all anti-Semites underneath of course.
Deir Yassin, you kow this of course, but just because i think you would enjoy it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AMj67Q7RQ0&feature=player_embedded#!
EST DANS NOTRE QUARTIER
UN COQ ORGUEILLEUX, ASSASSIN
QUI PLUME LES POULES DU QUARTIER
TOUS LES MATINS
IL LES AGRESSE PAR SON BEC,
LES POURSUIT
LES FRÉQUENTE
ET LES QUITTE
SANS SE RAPPELER DE LEURS NOMS
2
EST DANS NOTRE QUARTIER
UN COQ QUI CRÉE AU LEVER DE CHAQUE JOUR
COMME LA FLÛTE DU TYRAN
IL LAISSE POUSSER SA BARBE ROUGE
ET NOUS TYRANNISE DE JOUR COMME DE NUIT
EN NOUS, IL FAIT SES DISCOURS,
CHANTE,
FOURNIQUE,
IL EST DONC LE SEUL, L’ÉTERNEL,
IL EST AUSSI LE PUISSANT, LE TYRAN
EST DANS NOTRE QUARTIER
LÀ-BAS, UN COQ MÉCHANT, FASCISTE,
NAZISTE D’IDÉEE
QUI A PRIS LE POUVOIR PAR LA FORCE DES BLINDÉS
IL A ARRÊTÉ LA LIBERTÉ ET LES LIBRES
IL A EFFACÉ UN PAYS,
UN PEUPLE,
UNE LANGUE
LES ÉVENEMENTS DE L’HISTOIRE,
MAIS AUSSI L’ANNIVERSAIRE DES ENFANTS,
ET LES NOMS DES FLEURS
EST DANS NOTRE QUARTIER,
UN COQ QUI S’HABILLE DANS LES JOURS FERIÉS
EN TENUE DES GÉNÉRAUX
IL MANGE DU SEX,
BOIT DU SEX
SE PERD LA TÊTE PAR LE SEX,
IL PREND DES NAVIRES CORPORELS
GAGNE DES ARMÉES PAR DES OREILLES
5
EST DANS NOTRE QUARTIER
UN COQ D’ORIGINE ARABE,
IL A OUVERT L’UNIVERS PAR DES MILLIERS DE FEMMES
EST DANS NOTRE QUARTIER
LÀ-BAS, UN COQ ILLETTRÉ
QUI PRÉSIDE L’UNE DES MILICES
IL N’A APPRIS
QUE LES ATTAQUES ET LA DÉSTRUCTION
SINON, CULTIVER DU CHITE
ET FALSIFIER LES MONNAIES
JADIS, IL VENDAIT LES VÊTEMENTS DE SON PÈRE
ET LOUE SON ALLIANCE
ET PIQUE MÊME LES DENTS DES MORTS.
7
EST DANS NOTRE QUARTIER
UN COQ QUI NE CONNAIT
QUE FAIRE DES TIRS PAR SON PISTOLET
AU DESSUS DES MOTS
8
EST DANS NOTRE QUARTIER
UN COQ NERVEUX, VOIRE MÊME FOU
IL NOUS PARLE PARFOIS COMME AL HAJJAJ
ET MARCHE ORGUILLEUSEMENT COMME AL MAAMOUN
ET PARLE À HAUTE VOIX DE SON MINARET
GLOIRE À MOI, GLOIRE À MOI,
JE SUIS L’ÉTAT, JE SUIS LA LOI,
9
COMMENT VOULEZ-VOUS QUE LA PLUIE NOUS ARRIVE?
ET QUE LES GRAINES DE SABLES SE DÉVELOPPENT
ET COMMENT PEUT-ON ÊTRE SUBMERGÉ DU BIEN ?
CECI EST UN PAYS QUE DIEU NE GOUVERNE PAS
CEUX QUI LE GOUVERNENT SONT DES COQS
10
DANS NOTRE VILLAGE
UNE FOIS QU’UN COQ EST PARTI, UN AUTRE ARRIVE,
ET LA TYRANNIE EST LA MÊME
UNE LOI LÉNINIENNE TOMBE,
UNE LOI AMÉRICAINE ATTAQUE,
AINSI, LA POUDRE EST L’ÊTRE HUMAIN.
11
QUAND LE COQ PASSE PAR LE MARCHÉ DU VILLAGE,
BIEN HABILLÉ, AUX PLUMES GONFLÉES
SUR SES ÉPAULES ILLUMINENT LES EMBLÊMES DE LA LIBÉRATION;
TOUS LES COQS DU VILLAGE CRÉENT EN ADMIRATION:
MONSIEUR LE COQ,
SEIGNEUR LE COQ,
Ô! GÉNÉRAL DU SEX ET VIRIL DE LA PLACE
VOUS ÊTES L’IDÔLE DES MILLIONS DE FEMMES
AVEZ-VOUS BESOIN D’UNE SERVANTE?
AVEZ-VOUS BESOIN D’UNE DOMISTIQUE
AVEZ-VOUS BESOIN D’UN MASSAGE?
12
LORQUE LE GOUVERNEUR A ENTENDU L’HISTOIRE,
IL A DONNÉ L’ORDRE DE GUILLOTINER LE COQ
PAR UN TON NERVEUX DIT-IL :
COMMENT UN COQ PARMI LES ENFANTS DU QUARTIER
AVAIT LE COURAGE DE PRENDRE MON POUVOIR
CAR JE SUIS L’UNIQUE, SANS PARTAGE.
From:
http://abu-pessoptimist.blogspot.nl/
No way!
When Franz Joseph Strauss assisted the Israeli nuclear weapons program in the early 1960’s, U.S. national policy under JFK was to prevent Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Once JFK was eliminated, of course, that policy changed, and quickly. The reactor at Dimona went critical on Dec. 26, 1963. Interesting date.
lysias: Are you suggesting that the Jews had something to do with Kennedy’s assassination?
If I recall, it will be ..what? 50 years before we know for sure? Isn’t the declassification date 50 years later? Cuban missiile crisis..
lysias,
The US has the capability to nuke and bomb Israel to smithereens. I have never bought into this, ‘Israel is blackmailing the US, tale’. That’s all it is, a tale. For that reason, it may be a possiblity that Israel did away with Kennedy. We won’t know for sure till classified documents are de-classified, and even then they may be censored. When the USS Liberty papers were declassifed some years back, there was nothing extroadinary in them.
The USS Liberty was a cover-up traceable to the Sr. Admiral McCain. Of course released documents were redacted.
You don’t have security clearance. That’s an answer in and of itself.
Oh please! Stop the conspiracy trolling please.
Yes, all part of a world plan to eliminate baguettes for bagels.
Unrelated to the submarine sale, well at least directly, but the founder of the Israel Wagner society Jon Livny noted:
————-
Tel Aviv Wagner concert cancelled after wave of protest
University cancels booking, saying performance of works by Hitler’s favourite composer would offend Holocaust survivors
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/05/tel-aviv-wagner-concert-cancelled?
Livny’s father escaped Nazi Germany in 1938, carrying with him to Israel his Wagner records and passing on to his son a love of the music. The society, which according to Livny has many Holocaust survivors among its members, wanted to reclaim the composer. “The only remaining symbol of the Nazis is Wagner, and I want to take that away,” he said.
It was hypocritical of Israelis to boycott Wagner but ride on German-built trains and drive German-made cars, and for the state to buy German submarines, he said. “Wagner is the last taboo.”
Was it hypocritical of Israelis to accept German reparations? The fact is Israel has had to come to terms with its overall relationship with Germany and reach some kind of reconciliation. Jews in America, especially, haven’t had the necessity to make such hard compromises.
Hi Richard,
You wrote, ““Samson Option,” Israel’s plan to get a nuclear weapon.”
But shouldn’t this be more aptly described as Israel’s promise of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons?
In fact, this happens to be the key feature of Israel’s “deterrence” reasoning. Today’s Israeli government uses this doctrine as a sword instead of a shield, however. It is a form of extortion.
You also wrote, “As we rally forces to try to prevent Iran from securing a nuclear weapon, as we condemn any nation which contributed in any way toward Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Germany should be ashamed of the role it played in promoting Israeli nuclear proliferation.”
Iran is not trying to secure a nuclear weapon.
Indeed, they have suggested otherwise and been subject to the most comprehensive nuclear inspections regime ever for nearly ten years now without any evidence of such.
I’m agnostic on Iran’s nuclear program. I believe they want a Bomb. I believe they may be pursuing research towards one. But I don’t believe they will create one that is operable unless they too face the Samson Option. If Iran’s policy mirrors that of Japan which also is reputed to have the capability of making a bomb, but hasn’t done so–that’s something I can live with.
You seem to have better qualifications and policy grasp, given that statement, than nearly 99% of our ambassadors!
Emphasis on your second sentence, “I believe they want a Bomb.”
There is technically no evidence to support your theory other than speculation. But, if looking strictly at feasibility over probability, then you have a case. Meaning, this CAN be true. Is it likely? The IAEA (Iran, too) would love to see the evidence.
But, there is a more robust calculus ingrained in analyses like these. Because if we were to hold as true that Iran were developing nuclear weapons, its own people would not be supporting the nuclear drive. Instead, if faced with a government that was driving them towards or closer to a nuclear war, the Iranian people would be faced having to revolt or face the possibility of an irradiated, unlivable Iran.
But, you are also correct by stating that Iran “may be pursuing research towards [a bomb].” Rather than allow anyone to jump to conclusions based on this seemingly contradictory statement, however, please permit me to explain.
You are right that Iran has stated they will attain a breakout capacity. To achieve that capacity requires knowledge and the uranium pits. Iran not only has chosen this strategy, but from an objective viewpoint also, it is the best choice for their national strategy.
Logically, to achieve the knowledge required for breakout, one would need to research delivery systems to ensure penetration of the necessary target’s defenses.
Thus, in achieving their breakout capacity, Japan also researched nuclear weapons.
By the way, Prometheus, one of our writers, wrote an article on Israel’s Samson Option by juxtapositioning Gunter Grass’ poem with Itamar Yaoz-Kest’s: http://operationredpill.com/?p=869
His personal view is that the Samson Option is a form of nuclear extortion. This is obviously not your view. Interestingly enough, I asked Prometheus if he thought a Samson Option of the same kind possessed by Iran would be nuclear extortion as well. He replied that the Inuit with 300 nuclear weapons and a demand for action with a nuclear consequence for inaction is similar extortion or coercion.
However, no other faction in the world has threatened world annihilation should their security be harmed. Personally, I am worried because Israel also has no problem with causing more animus against it via its illegal occupation and settlement building. Meaning, Israel constantly puts its own security at risk while we are told, via the Samson Option, that we will bear the mortal consequences of the blowback.
There’s an undercurrent in German politics, to which British and American politicians appear totally oblivious.
However, those nearer at hand are clearly sensing something: all of a sudden, there are 400,000 mostly young French citizens living in London and “working in creative industries” which translates as “living off trust funds” because EU law actually allows them to be sent home if they don’t find some form of employment within three months. (There are approximately eight hundred “creative industry” vacancies in United Kingdom per year, and two or three thousand media studies students to fill them all.)
That’s an awful lot of French people living in a city and country which they mostly profess to loathe. They wouldn’t be in London if Grandpapa thought it was safe for them to be living off his money in Frankfurt or Berlin.
Something’s in the wind, and it’s causing the biggest flight of French people to Southern England since the Hugenots fled religious genocide. I assume that a certain number will have gone to Canada and the USA, too. This is a MUCH bigger francophone exodus than Hitler caused.
What are they afraid of?
What a strange comment. Do you know anything about France ? Such as the economical situation which is probably the worse since the end of WWII.
A belittling comment, still, I will respond.
Economic conditions in France have been worse than this many times, including since the end of WW2, without precipitating a wave of French emigration to England. Purely economic migration from France has tended to be to Germany, the United States, Canada.
If you read the comment, the circumstances preclude economic migration because they are basically creating non-jobs for themselves -at their own or their family’s expense- in order to stay in the UK. This means they have brought the money to support themselves with them. That is why I find it unusual and remarkable, especially when it involves about 1% of the French population moving to a single English city in the space of four years. It is not the poor and huddled masses of France who have moved here, either, but the well-off.
This has happened before, but the Hugenot migration was not economically motivated, though the subsequent economic impact on France was considerable as a major part of their skills base was now in Essex and Hertfordshire, was well as more distant enclaves in Virginia and Cape Province.
The European economic crisis has no real substance and could be remedied extremely quickly, simply by doing what the Germans say is unthinkable.
Bad economic conditions have never driven the French to England before, but bad economic conditions which are being prolonged on purpose for political effect, may be very frightening to those with an insight into what the ultimate political effect is supposed to be.
“When it involves about 1% of the French population moving to a single English city in the space of four years. It’s not the poor and huddled masses of France who have moved here, either, but the well-off.”
I happen to live in France – though not a French citizen – and I know quite a few people who went off to live in London. First of all, you ‘four years’ is taken out of your hat, and no, they are not “well-off” but comes from all social classes.
I know quite a few who left after higher education because the French labor market is difficult to enter as a primo employed (many – too many according to some- laws protecting the workers). I know many from ethnic minorities who went to London, many with nothing but the “Bac”(high school certificate) in their pocket, because again: Anglo-Saxon countries are more flexible.
You seem to imply in your first comment – though I don’t really understand what you’re trying to explain – that people are fleeing France because they are afraid of something.
You have some kind of conspiracy theory to sell us ? And I didn’t get the link to the German nukes. You think Israel will nuke France ? On behalf of Germany ?
“There’s an undercurrent in German politics, to which British and American politicians appear totally oblivious…
…Something’s in the wind, and it’s causing the biggest flight of French people to Southern England since the Hugenots fled religious genocide. ”
So what do you think may be the reason for such a supposed exodus of young french people to London and the UK?
I don’t have the exact numbers but there are also many thousands of British, French and even US-Citizens living in Berlin to, not to forget the Russians (over 100 thousands!).
Is this at the end a sign of normality or of “something in the wind”, what do you think?
The ones in Germany are earning money there.
The ones in London seem to putting family savings into creating non-jobs to secure their right to stay. The ones in London have all come fairly recently, too, and nearly all of them seem to intensely dislike everything about London, except for one thing:
It isn’t the Germans taking the decisions.
It’s possible that the decision-making process in the United States is equally frightening in its own way, too.
I have several American friends, and they all agree that they are being presented with a choice between two madmen.
This article appeared yesterday in the UK’s most pro-American right of centre paper:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155099/So-Nobel-Peace-Prize-How-anti-war-Obama-Lord-High-Executioner.html
It’s not even written by Robert Fisk!
Richard, thanks for this valuable reporting
A couple of things bear pointing out. The subs do not in themselves make much difference to Israel’s ability to launch nukes in a first strike, it could do that without them anyway, they really only additionally enable a second strike, which is only a factor in a situation where Israel itself has been hit hard enough to ‘justify’ it. So it’s primarily a defensive addition, theoretically. Given the Holocaust Germany can’t be greatly indicted for that, though there is the far-fetched risk of Israel provoking a massive retaliation with its own first strike in the knowledge it can still hit back, but that would in that event be suicide anyway against anyone able to retaliate enough to validate the scenario.
Also Israel is not entirely free of potential annihilation, via (again theoretically speaking) Russia, or chemical weapons, or Iranian nukes if they eventuated, etc. So there was in theory a case for it, which an element of ‘blackmail’ (real or perceived/potential) added to.
Lastly peripherally to the substance of this topic, the estimates for Holocaust deaths are 5-6 million, Raoul Hilberg for instance reckoned the lower figure, so to always speak only of 6 million is not quite correct according to the state of the scholarship. Of course it scarcely lessens the scale of the crime.