Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
41. Here's more from that '07 NYT article about Israel's nuclear blackmail of the US
Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:15 PM
Mar 2013

But perhaps the most interesting material in the 2007 release of materials from the Nixon library, accoording to the Times:

“There is circumstantial evidence that some fissionable material available for Israel’s weapons development was illegally obtained from the United States about 1965,” Mr. Kissinger noted in his long memorandum. He also said that one problem with trying to persuade Israel to freeze its nuclear program was that inspections would be useless, conceding that “we could never cover all conceivable Israeli hiding places.”

“This is one program on which the Israelis have persistently deceived us,” Mr. Kissinger said, “and may even have stolen from us.”

Although Israel has never publicly acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons, scientists and arms experts have no doubt that it has them, and the United States’ reluctance to pressure Israel to disarm has made America vulnerable to accusations that it has a double standard when it comes to stopping the spread of weapons in the Middle East. Mr. Kissinger’s memo, written barely two years after the 1967 Middle East war and while memories of the Holocaust were still vivid among the first Israelis, implicitly acknowledged Israel’s right to defend itself, as subsequent American administrations have done.

But Mr. Kissinger reflected at length on the quandary faced by the United States. “Israel will not take us seriously on the nuclear issue unless they believe we are prepared to withhold something they very much need,” he wrote, referring to a pending sale of Phantom fighter jets to Israel.

SNIP

But Avner Cohen, the author of “Israel and the Bomb,” (Columbia University Press, 1998) who is a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, said on Wednesday that there was enough historical evidence to indicate that the president and the prime minister had reached a secret understanding on at least one issue: Israel would keep its nuclear devices out of sight and not test them, and the United States would tolerate the situation and not press Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that has been embraced by scores of countries around the world. “That understanding remains to this day,” Mr. Cohen said.


If Mr. Cohen is correct, the reason that the US hasn't pressured Israel to sign the NPT is rooted in the same nuclear blackmail.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Damned if they do, damned if they don't Tempest Mar 2013 #1
What are the conditions placed on them? JDPriestly Mar 2013 #2
The U.S. has been moving the goal posts for years now on this issue. Tempest Mar 2013 #6
How about you explain what "conditions" that have been made that you cstanleytech Mar 2013 #10
But you mentioned "conditions." What are they? JDPriestly Mar 2013 #13
I often see the red herring used of "but Israel has nukes". cstanleytech Mar 2013 #15
well, there must be a reason why they have them reorg Mar 2013 #40
the conditions placed on Iran exceed their actual contractual obligations reorg Mar 2013 #38
Israel's nuclear program and weapons are irrelevant. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #4
From your perspective, not Iran's. n/t Tempest Mar 2013 #7
They can use that red herring all they want, doesn't relieve them of their duties. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #8
When the US applies sanctions on Israel to end its nuclear program, this will be the right thing leveymg Mar 2013 #14
Red herring, not a double standard. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #18
Israel's nuclear bombs are outside the NPT, and the initial batch were made of plutonium stolen from leveymg Mar 2013 #20
Well you got one thing correct, FINALLY. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #21
I'm surprised you didn't know about the Israeli theft of plutonium from a US Navy nuclear plant, leveymg Mar 2013 #22
Oh...that explains it. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #23
And pretty obviously untrue. If it is US plutonium, I am sure we gave it to them. stevenleser Mar 2013 #24
Yup, especially given the nature of those sites. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #25
If you prefer the term, diversion of U.S. nuclear materials to Israel, that's still illegal under leveymg Mar 2013 #26
How can Israel be in violation leftynyc Mar 2013 #27
The US is in violation of the NPT for diversion; Israel in violation of US law for receipt leveymg Mar 2013 #28
You just asserted it was a theft. Now because it suits your purposes, you are saying it was transfer stevenleser Mar 2013 #29
If the transfer was authorized, it was diversion. If unauthorized, theft. Take your pick. leveymg Mar 2013 #32
Again, that analogy doesnt work. Israel never signed the NPT. If you want to assert hypocrisy your stevenleser Mar 2013 #34
Yawn leftynyc Mar 2013 #31
No, not up in arms. I don't expect that Israel will be prosecuted, but I don't think sanctions on leveymg Mar 2013 #35
Sorry, leftynyc Mar 2013 #36
A past President stated this. Also, read Hersh's, The Samson Option leveymg Mar 2013 #39
Here's more from that '07 NYT article about Israel's nuclear blackmail of the US leveymg Mar 2013 #41
Kissinger? That's who you want to hang leftynyc Mar 2013 #42
None of that makes Kissinger's statements about the diversion untrue, nor does it change the fact leveymg Mar 2013 #43
You are accusing Israel of leftynyc Mar 2013 #44
No, Israel cannot be in violation of a treaty it never signed and to which it is not a party. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #30
Steven, read more carefully. I said if not a theft, the transfer would be an NPT violation leveymg Mar 2013 #37
What do many think nineteen50 Mar 2013 #3
Of course they aren't. Cough cough. Myrina Mar 2013 #5
Oh, no, that's code for "We will liberate them soon" Blandocyte Mar 2013 #9
Odd, If that was the code then we should have invaded N. Korea by now. nt cstanleytech Mar 2013 #11
Well, if Iraq had actually possessed WMDs... I wouldn't have been against the war... Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #12
You never seem to be a big fan of that freedom and democracy stuff cpwm17 Mar 2013 #16
"Nukes" are a pretext ronnie624 Mar 2013 #33
Are we sure this is LBNs? ripcord Mar 2013 #17
Video here Ash_F Mar 2013 #19
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Nuclear watchdog agency s...»Reply #41