← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 19619 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2005-08-13
2005-08-13 09:43 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.antiwar.com/orig/baroud.php?articleid=6927]Antiwar.com[/URL]
August 13, 2005
Israelââ¬â¢s Nuclear Puzzle Resolved: But To What End?
by Ramzy Baroud
The [URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4743987.stm]BBCââ¬â¢s striking revelations [/URL] regarding the secretive and disconcerting British role in making an Israeli nuclear bomb possible, deserves more than a quick pause and a few dozen news reports. It obliges a thorough investigation coupled with a complete reversal in the double standard that views Israelââ¬â¢s fully-fledged nuclear capabilities as a trivial concern.
The BBC program, [URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4743493.stm]Newsnight[/URL], broadcast on August 3, confirmed that Britain was in fact the original source of heavy water, the crucial ingredient that allowed Israel to transform its generic nuclear reactor in Dimona in the Negev Desert ââ¬â initially developed with French help ââ¬â into a proficient nuclear manufacturing plant.
It was always assumed, following the dramatic disclosures made by former Dimona technician, Mordechai Vanunu to the British Sunday Times in 1986, that the 20 tons of heavy water originated from Norway. Norway chose complete silence regarding the nature of the deal.
But according to the BBC broadcast, the well-guarded deal made with Israel was concealed as a resale to Norway of a heavy water consignment that was of no use to Britain. In turn, the shipment was dispatched to Israel, who, within three years has apparently exhausted much of the 20 tons of heavy water. In 1961, according to the report, Israel asked for more, but the uncovering of Israelââ¬â¢s nuclear ambitions by the Daily Express newspaper seem to have made any additional sales a complicated matter.
Many years later, thanks to the audacity of Vanunu, the world had a chance to grasp the extent of Israelââ¬â¢s perilous experimentations with deadly agents: hundreds of nuclear warheads, by modest counts, which, according to Western experts, place Israel as one of the worldââ¬â¢s leading nuclear powers; number six to be exact.
Israel continues to adopt the attitude of not confirming and not denying the increasingly well-documented charges of its nuclear program. Thus, Israeli Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres ââ¬â who was the director general of Israelââ¬â¢s defense ministry from 1953-58 and is credited for being the leading architect of the countryââ¬â¢s nuclear program ââ¬â refused to comment on the BBC report, according to the [URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164742,00.html]Associated Press [/URL] a day later.
The acknowledged involvement of France and Norway, and Britainââ¬â¢s recently exposed role in making Israelââ¬â¢s nuclear aspirations possible, clearly delineate a European intent on ensuring Israelââ¬â¢s "unique military superiority" over its Arab neighbors, which incidentally is a key phrase reiterated by top American officials whenever describing the US commitment to Israel.
While at the time, the US administrations of Eisenhower and Kennedy "strived to stop Israel from going on to build nuclear weapons" ââ¬â as reported in the Guardian ââ¬â the current right-wing US administration is totally ignoring the Israeli nuclear buildup while considering "all options", including a military intervention, to crackdown on Iran for allegedly endeavoring to develop a nuclear bomb.
Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, insists that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful and has worked on several diplomatic fronts to resolve its problems with the UNââ¬â¢s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Meanwhile, Israel is yet to join the NPT community and is under no pressure to do so. Israelââ¬â¢s superior stance continues despite the call made by the IAEAââ¬â¢s chief, Mohamed ElBaradei to surrender its nuclear weapons and to sign the non-proliferation treaty.
Israelââ¬â¢s unruffled attitude is reinforced by unconditional military and political support pouring from Washington, which views Israelââ¬â¢s sins with completely different spectacles than those used to magnify the sins of other Middle Eastern countries.
The mockery becomes almost unbearable when US officials tie their Middle East crusade to Israelââ¬â¢s security. In a [URL=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6847999/]January 2005 interview with MSNBCââ¬â¢s Imus in the Morning[/URL], Vice President Dick Cheney warned that Iran has a "fairly robust nuclear program," charging that the Islamic republicââ¬â¢s prime "objective is the destruction of Israel." He then appeared to be giving a green light to Israel (with an estimated 200 nuclear heads) to take on Iran, whose nuclear ambitions, according to the IAEA itself, are yet to raise serious suspicions. "If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant capabilities, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,"[URL=http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4644] Cheney exclaimed[/URL], in response to Imusââ¬â¢s thoughtless inquiry: "Why donââ¬â¢t we make Israel do it?"
Only a naïve would argue that perhaps Cheney was not aware of the magnitude of Israelââ¬â¢s destructive nuclear capabilities when he made such insolent remarks.
Yet, despite the near complete forgery and endless pretexts used to invade Iraq, victimizing millions of people while further destabilizing an already unstable region, the US government carries on unhindered with the same logic. Now the menacing wolf is Iran and the harmless sheep, unsurprisingly, is the state of Israel.
However, the last piece of the puzzle has been recovered now that the international community knows where Israelââ¬â¢s heavy water, used for enriching nuclear fuel, originated from and ââ¬â thanks to the courageous Vanunu ââ¬â what has become of it. Even the often weak-willed[URL=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=376390&displayTypeCd=1&sideCd=1&contrassID=2] ElBaradei had the nerve to tell Haââ¬â¢aretz [/URL] that his agency is operating under the assumption that Israel in fact possesses nuclear weapons.
The concern, and indeed the fear, is that neither the BBCââ¬â¢s report nor the outcry of many states in the Middle East and beyond will jeopardize, or for a second, halt the grinding wheel of death and destruction nurtured in Israel, with European help and under American blessings and protection.
Itââ¬â¢s in fact this duplicity and double standard under which the West continues to operate that makes peace in the Middle East a mere illusion as the furnace of weapons of mass destruction continues to wickedly burn in the doomed Negev Desert.
2005-08-13 10:05 | User Profile
Good essay.
The importance of eliminating the Zionist bias from the US government has never been greater. It simply HAS to be done, one way or the other.
If there's a nonviolent way to do it, then I think it just might be an extreme form of campaign finance reform in which ALL private donations of money, airtime, etc., to major political candidates would be outlawed. Instead, each candidate would receive a fixed amount of public funding. The problem is that the big, wealthy lobbies would obviously be adamantly opposed to such a system -- and they currently own the politicians! It would take a lot of public pressure to make it work.
Maybe someone has a better idea. But in any event, I don't see it as an option to let the present state of affairs continue. Our country is under foreign control, for God's sake! If that can't be changed by working through the system, then someone's going to have to go underground and raise some hell.
2005-08-13 15:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]If there's a nonviolent way to do it, then I think it just might be an extreme form of campaign finance reform in which ALL private donations of money, airtime, etc., to major political candidates would be outlawed. Instead, each candidate would receive a fixed amount of public funding. The problem is that the big, wealthy lobbies would obviously be adamantly opposed to such a system -- and they currently own the politicians! It would take a lot of public pressure to make it work..[/QUOTE]
The big problem with campaign finance is with corporate donations.
No corporation - or any juridical person - should be allowed to donate to poliltical campaigns, pay lobbyists and so forth.
Only individuals - i.e. real human beings - should be allowed to participate in the political process. Allowing corporate managers to fund political causes with the vast amounts of other people's money they manage gives the corporate managerial class way too much power.
The lion's share of our problems stem from this separation of huge amounts of money from its rightful owners and its management by corporate insiders who are liable to none but themselves.
Removing corporate funding would be a big step in the right direction.
2005-08-13 19:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Only individuals - i.e. real human beings - should be allowed to participate in the political process. Allowing corporate managers to fund political causes with the vast amounts of other people's money they manage gives the corporate managerial class way too much power.[/QUOTE]
Then only rich millionaires can run for office.
That strikes me as the existing problem and not the solution.
2005-08-13 20:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Then only rich millionaires can run for office.
That strikes me as the existing problem and not the solution.[/QUOTE] That's pretty much the way it is now, Tex.
If you don't tow the corporate line---you don't get the contributions. Plus, we live in the days of the million dollar big city council race: incredible!
Even out here in the rural mid-west flyover, you are looking at the $100 dollar a person, $150 a couple, rubber chicken fundraisers, for County Commisioner candidates.
The corporations are buying...
2005-08-14 05:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]That's pretty much the way it is now, Tex.
If you don't tow the corporate line---you don't get the contributions. Plus, we live in the days of the million dollar big city council race: incredible!
Even out here in the rural mid-west flyover, you are looking at the $100 dollar a person, $150 a couple, rubber chicken fundraisers, for County Commisioner candidates.
The corporations are buying...[/QUOTE]
You'll always have disparity of wealth and conconitant political influence.
But we limit the damage by forcing people to use ONLY THEIR MONEY to buy political influence.
The corporate managerial elite can use your money to buy political influence, and the money of millions of other individuals who have absolutely no say in whether that money is spent or what it's spent on.
Removing corporate money from the political sphere wouldn't solve the problem (the problem is unsolvable) but it would improve the situation greatly.
2005-08-14 16:02 | User Profile
Some people likes to make fun of the "banana" republics, like Cuba, because they are always having revolutions in order to change the government.
Well, at least we have the freedom and are smart enough to start a revolucion when we don't like what is going on.
"When the government is not for the benefit of the people it is then the right of the people to take over the government for the people are the government" .....Ponce
2005-08-14 17:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You'll always have disparity of wealth and conconitant political influence.
But we limit the damage by forcing people to use ONLY THEIR MONEY to buy political influence.
The corporate managerial elite can use your money to buy political influence, and the money of millions of other individuals who have absolutely no say in whether that money is spent or what it's spent on.
Removing corporate money from the political sphere wouldn't solve the problem (the problem is unsolvable) but it would improve the situation greatly.[/QUOTE] **Excellent Analysis, Walter. **
2005-08-14 19:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The corporate managerial elite can use your money to buy political influence, and the money of millions of other individuals who have absolutely no say in whether that money is spent or what it's spent on.
Don't those corporations have officers elected by shareholders?
Removing corporate money from the political sphere wouldn't solve the problem (the problem is unsolvable) but it would improve the situation greatly.[/QUOTE]
I think full public disclosure is the better route to take here. The millions of individuals do have a say in that they can avoid buying xyz corporation's product or even introduce a boycott, if they disagree with how that corp.'s money is being spent politically.
2005-08-14 22:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Don't those corporations have officers elected by shareholders?
I think full public disclosure is the better route to take here. The millions of individuals do have a say in that they can avoid buying xyz corporation's product or even introduce a boycott, if they disagree with how that corp.'s money is being spent politically.[/QUOTE] Stockholder actions go no where---unless you have a huge block of stock and are willing to spend a ton of money. Then maybe you might get the privilege of being bought off...
Boycotts, even those launched by the most well financed and politically astute/media savy have little chance of working. These corporate campaigns as they are called in the business, generate a lot of smoke sometimes, but, very, very little fire.
The best strategy is to find corporate violations of any federal laws, and then launch a million dollar campaign trying to shame the government into prosectuting the violator. This works once and awhile. :argue:
The stakes are high...
2005-08-14 23:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE]In one of the documents Foreign Office official Donald Cape concluded: "On the whole I would prefer not to mention this to the Americans."[/QUOTE]
The only name associated with the transaction is [I]Cape[/I]? Sounds like a member of that special nation-within-a-nation.
2005-08-15 00:43 | User Profile
Yeah, potentially about any system may work representing the people. In practice, anything with an effect so delayed and depending on a group of like-minded people acting organized and seeing the bigger picture instead of being locked into an indecisive bad. vs. worse pattern of behavior, utterly fails. And only lobbies going directly for the "throat" (influencing the government directly instead of through voting) do have a chance.
That's why all the talk about democracy is pretty much talk. Switzerland may be the closest real thing with its power of referendums. Anyone doubt how long the problem of illegal immigration would last if citizens could simply enact legislation through a referendum, rather than being presented with a choice between a bad politician and even worse one?
2005-08-15 08:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Texas Dissident]Don't those corporations have officers elected by shareholders?[/QUOTE]
Yes, they have, at least in theory. But stockholder control in the public company context is in practice nonexistent.
But in big publicly traded corporations the stockholdings are very fractionalized and the votes associated with them are abstracted many times over. This means that the actual stockholders have little interest in managing the corporation. In fact, the big problem in corporate governance is that the actual owners - i.e. the stockholders - have positive economic disincentives to oversee management.
For example, most of the stock folks like us own is usually held through a 401(k) plan that is managed by a large fund. At any point in time I have now idea what stock my 401(k) plan holds, because my stock is bought and sold in big blocks by pension fund managers I don't know. But to make matters worse, the pension funds themselves are invested over the entire spectrum of American stocks, and they're so big and so diversified that they can't "beat the market" because in a real sense they are the market. Big funds know this, and so they don't spend much time, as a general rule, getting involved in corporate oversight.
So we have faceless bureaucrats in enormous funds like, say, CALPERS, acting as a buffer between the corporatinon and its millions of fractionalized stockholders who don't even know they own the company's stock.
Where's the oversight?
When was the last time anybody here took an interest in what stock his or her 401(k) plan held, and what causes those corporations support? It's insanely altruistic to spend any of your precious time on it, because you probably only own a few shares out of millions and millions and in any event you've entrusted those decisions to money managers who themselves face a similar dilimma of economic disincentives for spending any time resources on corporate governance.
Corporate governance, at least in the publicly traded context, is a sham.
Allowing corporate managers to support their favourite causes with vast amounts of other people's money can only corrode the system further.
[QUOTE]I think full public disclosure is the better route to take here. The millions of individuals do have a say in that they can avoid buying xyz corporation's product or even introduce a boycott, if they disagree with how that corp.'s money is being spent politically.[/QUOTE]
Well, one doesn't exclude the other. I'm all for it.
The problem is that corporations concentrate the effective control of unimaginable wealth into the hands of a few thousand people - people who mostly know each other and who share very similar interests. Concerted action by such a small and similarly-motivated clique, even for routine matters, is vastly easier than it is for a broad group of atomized individuals rallying around even the most extraordinary corporate wrongdoing.
Our problem is one of far too much wealth - other people's wealth - concentrated in far too few hands. This allows a group of corporate insiders to basically assert monopoly control over our political process. If we really want to attack the problem effectively, we'll have to go to the roots of that problem: i.e. remove corporations for political discourse.
2005-08-16 15:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce] Well, at least we have the freedom and are smart enough to start a revolucion when we don't like what is going on Right. Please enlighten me. When was the last revolution Castro had to face? 1962?
Cubans certainly do have the freedom to GTFO if they don't like it, if they are courageous and clever enough to build the boat and slip across to Florida.
[QUOTE=Ponce] Well, at least we have the freedom and are smart enough to start a revolucion when we don't like what is going on.
"When the government is not for the benefit of the people it is then the right of the people to take over the government for the people are the government" .....Ponce[/QUOTE]
2005-08-16 16:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] No corporation - or any juridical person - should be allowed to donate to poliltical campaigns, pay lobbyists and so forth.[/QUOTE] Walt, I think this is an excellent compromise between the 'political contributions are free speech' argument and the 'but our political system is bought and paid for' argument. It also has the benefit of being possible -- extremely difficult and improbable, yes, but possible. If the national mood were anti-corporate enough, say, after a few more Enron-type scandals, it might actually be possible to get reform along these lines passed.