Tag Archives: NPT

Persians, Pharisees and Phony US “Anti-Proliferation

This is a reply to Iran Slams US as ‘World’s Only Atomic Criminal’

ISRAEL: A SAFE HAVEN FOR JEWS? FORGET IT


“Israel never confirms or denies claims that it has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The country positions itself outside international treaties, which would make it subject to inspection. They say the costs of such secrecy to Israeli democracy are too great. Uzi Even, was a young scientist working, in the 60s, at Dimona – Israel’s nuclear reactor….Today, Mr Even says it should be shut down.

Forty-year-old reactors tend to have accidents and he believes that Dimona, which is beyond the reach of the Israeli parliament, needs to be brought into a system of accountability and public scrutiny. Mr Even explained: “You should have an outside watchdog. “The secrecy more or less created an extra- territorial area in Israel where standard procedures of safety monitoring are not implemented. “So worker safety, environmental questions and industrial safety procedures, are not covered, and there are thousands of people working there.”

ENFORCED SILENCE


Nothing illustrates this better than the sensitive issue of Dimona’s cancer victims. In an Israeli documentary in 2002, Dimona workers said accidents had been routine. They spoke of explosions, fires and liquid and toxic gas leaks that they had to clean, often without protection.

The authorities denied they had worked with radioactive materials. They have refused to compensate them or their families for their years of loyal service. Because of the strict secrecy rules they were even unable to fight for their rights. When Correspondent approached one of the workers, who was dying of cancer, he refused to be interviewed – but with some regret.

Unaware he was being filmed, he said: “I wanted to talk to you but I have been silenced.

“They came from intelligence and told me not to talk. “They said I would be like Vanunu.” Vanunu has another year in jail. When his sentence is finished he hopes to emigrate to America. But Mr Horev has clearly let it be known he never intends to let Vanunu leave Israel.”

Source: BBC

Watch the shocking and still relevant documentary:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=178254070504611595#

.. the Israel people were exposed only to the Israeli media, the Israel media brainwash, the Israel media bias against me. Not they, they were not open to see all the story and all the danger of nuclear weapons in secret in such small state, Israel.

And also that these people was not exposed to the idea that these Israel people were sending a lot of propaganda, what they call holocaust industry, to know and to understand that nuclear weapons are the real holocaust and the Jewish people have no right and no justification to use the atomic bomb.”

Excerpt from an interview with Mordechai Vanunu by David Frost

From the BBC documentary:

“Despite claims that Dimona was for peaceful purposes only, Israel’s leader Ben Gurion was summoned to Washington.  President Kennedy feared an arms race in the Middle East and demanded inspections.But when inspectors finally entered the plant in May 1961 they were tricked. They were shown a fake control room on the ground floor. They were unaware of the six floors below where the plutonium was made.

Well this was something of great pride and almost a legendary story in Dimona, according to Vanunu.  When the Americans came they were completely hoodwinked. All the entrances including the lift shafts were bricked up and plastered over so it was impossible for anyone to find their way down to the lower floors.”

AFTER KENNEDY’S ASSASSINATION THE PRESSURE ON ISRAEL WAS OFF …


His successor Lyndon Johnson turned a blind eye. Then In 1969 Israel’s Golda Meir and President Richard Nixon struck a deal, renewed by every President to this day. Israel’s nuclear programme could continue as long as it was never made public. It’s called nuclear ambiguity.”

(The reporter interviews the former Israeli Prime Minister (now President) on the subject)

BBC: The term nuclear ambiguity, in some ways it sounds very grand.  But isn’t just a euphemism for deception?

PERES: If somebody wants to kill you, and you use a deception to save your life it is not immoral.  If we wouldn’t have enemies we wouldn’t need deceptions.  We wouldn’t need deterrent.

Remember this argument next time  Obama accuses Iran of  deception, although it has not violated any  (NPT) treaty obligations so far and the IAEA inspectors  have found no evidence for weapons-grade uranium enrichment let alone the production of plutonium …

BBC: Was this the justification for concealing the floors of the plutonium reprocessing areas from the Americans, the inspectors, when they came?

PERES: You are having a dialogue with yourself, not with me.

BBC: But that’s been documented in a number of books

PERES: Ask the question to yourself, not to me.I don’t have to answer your questions even.  I don’t see any reason why.”

Imagine, Ahmadinejad talking like that …  all hell would break loose…

As some arrogant asshole from a conservative think-tank said on the eve of the Iraq war to a peace activist who was accusing USrael of unbearable hypocrisy on the topic of WMD:

“It’s not the weapons, it’s WHO has them.

The same unacceptable and self-delusional “argument” was used by Benjamin Netanyahu recently, trying to justify Israel’s  immoral, hypocriticial and dangerous refusal to sign the NPT, to say nothing of the enforced media silence on the subject of demanding accountability for Israel’s nuclear arsenal,, while harping on about the manufactured “threat” from Iran.

We are the good  (morally and racially superior) guys, our diabolical weapons and even our cruelty are necessary for a “just” cause, so we are entitled to destroy and kill indiscriminately (Arabs, of course) – that line of argument goes back  directly to the Nuremberg trials …

Even US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged, that Iran’s alleged “secret” attempts to acquire nuclear weapons are to be viewed in the context of deterrence, not military aggression, but he was quickly admonished for his candour and “brought back” in line with the official Zionist PR-story by Senator Graham …

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Do you believe the Iranians are trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability?

GATES: Yes, sir, I do.

GRAHAM: The president of Iran has publicly disavowed the existence of the Holocaust, he has publicly stated that he would like to wipe Israel off the map [NO, he has NOT!]. Do you think he’s kidding?

GATES: No, I don’t think he’s kidding. And—but I think that there are, in fact, higher powers in Iran than he, than the president. And I think that while they are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for a nuclear capability, I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent. They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons—Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west, and us in the Persian Gulf—

GRAHAM: Do you believe the president of Iran is lying when he says he’s not?

GATES: Yes, sir.

GRAHAM: Do you believe the Iranians would consider using that nuclear weapons capability against the nation of Israel?

GATES: I don’t know that they would do that, Senator. I think that the risks for them obviously are enormously high. I think that they see value—

GRAHAM: If I may?

GATES: Yes, sir.

GRAHAM: Can you assure the Israelis that they will not attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, if they acquire one?

GATES: No, sir, I don’t think that anybody can provide that assurance.

How effective  propaganda (now called “strategic communication”) and global “churnalism” created the global “wiped-off-the-map” hoax, was also analyzed earlier by Jonathan Steele in The Guardian:

“Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel “wiped off the map”.

Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran’s first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” just as the Shah’s regime in Iran had vanished.

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The “page of time” phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.”

If you want to understand what “churnalism” is all about (the media acting as as a flock of sheep or an echo-chamber …) try this video:

Back to the BBC documentary:

“The programme listed more than a hundred Dimona workers
who’d developed cancer and whose claims were being ignored
. A doctor and two lawyers backed their story. It was the first time Dimona workers had spoken out.

BBC: “I want to talk to Ariel Spieler.  He’s suffering from cancer and in the last few years he’s seen a number of his friends and colleagues who worked there with him die of the disease. He’s been fighting for compensation for their families, for their widows, and I know he’d really like to talk to us about this. He’s told me he wishes he could, but he’s also told me he’s been warned off.  He’s been told not to talk.  I’m going to go and see him and see if he’ll change his mind.”

Spieler: “The Secret Service silenced me.They’ve silenced me completely. They told me not to say one word. What can I do?  What can I do? They told me: “You’ll end up like Vanunu”.How long has he been in prison? 15 years? Do you want me to go to jail?

BBC: “I really wanted to talk. I asked the others but they refused.Nobody wants to talk… the doctors, the relatives, the lawyers. Nobody is prepared to talk about it. I just don’t get it.

If this was Iraq or North Korea I’d understand why people are so scared to talk. But this is Israel.

This is supposed to be a democracy.”

(Perception is everything…)







Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Iran – Yellow Cake, Green Salt and Red Herrings

IAEA secret report: Iran worked on nuclear warhead”

one_ring

It is a sad day when even The Guardian is spreading cheap PR (propaganda) to influence public opinion: (Cui bono? Israel, the state of eternal impunity…)

“The urgency of dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat was underscored today when a leaked report revealed that the UN inspection agency believes the Islamic republic has “sufficient information” to make a nuclear weapon and has “probably tested” a key component.

The incendiary and misleading rhetoric in the introduction of this paragraph clearly demonstrates the bias behind it because it uses unproven premises to suggest  that they are proven facts:

Premise 1: Iran seeks nuclear weapons

Premise 2: Iran has a secret programme for developing nuclear warheads

Premise 3: (built on the other two): This represents a “threat” to world peace.

The deduction is made from accepted opinions not from first and true sentences in other words a foregone conclusion: there is an “urgency” to deal with a threat whose existence is only imputed, not proven.

For comparison: Here is an excerpt from a REUTERS article which does not violate the principle of  “balanced” reporting:

“The West suspects Iran wants to develop a nuclear weapons capability under the guise of a declared civilian atomic energy program. Tehran rejects the charge, saying its uranium enrichment program is a peaceful way to generate electricity.”

Source: Iran nuclear “threat” hyped: IAEA’s ElBaradei

“Managing Perceptions” Not Reporting Facts

“A secret annexe” has been found – give me a break, after the “Yellow Cake” scam and the “Green Salt” scare what it is now – the “Red Herring” (distract attention from the devastating Goldstone report on war crimes in Gaza which has just been released) – or just lie and distort till you are blue in the face?

As I mentioned in my previous post about the Goldstone report, the JTA laments the “bad timing” of the report just as Israel is trying “to convey the impression in Washington that Israel is more open to negotiations than the Palestinians and that the principal threat to the region is Iran” so it is about time we focus media attention on “evil” Iran….. and the guardian obliges with this shabby piece of journalism?

Western diplomats confirmed that the annexe was authentic”.

“Its absolutely accurate,” one official said. “It shows the agency’s thinking, which is that Iran is a lot further along on this than most people think. It suggests the Iranians have done a lot of work.”

The annexe said Iranian scientists had engaged in “probable testing” of explosives arranged in a hemisphere, which is how an implosion-type nuclear warhead is triggered.

There was also evidence, the report says, that Iran had worked on developing a chamber to carry a warhead on top of one of its missiles “that is quite likely to be nuclear”.

Why are the “”Western diplomats” and  the “official” not identified? How did (could) they verify the authenticity of the document? What kind of  journalism is this? Has Julian Borger actually seen the “secret annexe” or is he just “reporting” hearsay? Does it not occur to journalists these days that they might be used for “psyops”- presented to the world as “ independent media reports”? If there is evidence, then show it to the world and publish the document.

Believes”, “Probable “, “quite likely”- what is this – an insinuation exercise? An illustration of Aristotelian and Schopenhauer’s lessons on rhetoric and dialectic?

Why was the IAEA not given a chance to respond to the allegations in the article?  For comparison the AFP reported recently:

IAEA denies report it is sure Iran is seeking bomb

El baradeiVIENNA The UN atomic watchdog said Thursday it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency rejected a US media report which claimed its experts believed Tehran had the ability to make a nuclear bomb and was on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead.

“With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran,” a statement said.

According to the media report, the proof was contained in a so-called “secret annex” to the IAEA’s latest report on Iran, but was deliberately being withheld by the agency’s director general Mohamed ElBaradei.

“At the board of governors meeting on September 9, Director General ElBaradei warned that continuing allegations that the IAEA was withholding information on Iran are politically motivated and totally baseless,” it said.

Back to the Guardian:

“Attention will now focus on the United Nations in New York next week, where Obama takes the rare step of chairing a security council session in order to generate momentum towards nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and consensus over Iran.”

The US “generating momentum towards nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation” – are you kidding?

Kofi Annan (from a speech at Princeton, November 28, 2006):

“All of the NPT nuclear-weapon states are modernizing their nuclear arsenals or their delivery systems. They should not imagine that this will be accepted as compatible with the npt.

Everyone will see it for what it is: a euphemism for nuclear rearmament . . . By clinging to and modernizing their own arsenals, even when there is no obvious threat to their national security that nuclear weapons could deter, nuclear-weapon States encourage others—particularly those that do face real threats in their own region—to regard nuclear weapons as essential, both to their security and to their status. It would be much easier to confront proliferators, if the very existence of nuclear weapons were universally acknowledged as dangerous and ultimately illegitimate.”

After the invasion of Iraq, the world must have reached the conclusion that striving for nuclear weapons is the only safeguard against US aggression, that it is  far more protective for states (with valuable resources or “strategic” importance) to have nuclear weapons than to renounce them.

The Iraq War has demonstrated that a state without weapons of mass destruction is vulnerable to invasion and occupation. It would be perfectly logical to conclude that Iraq was attacked not because it had weapons of mass destruction but because it had none. This pathological logic will be further confirmed if the United States continues to pursue diplomacy with North Korea but demonizes Iran  and threatens it with sanctions for which there is no legal base.

The estimated number of casualties from the Iraq-Iran war is  one million Iranians. Many were victims of Saddam’s use of chemical weapons (both civilian and military targets). The Iranian nuclear-weapon programme began in the 1980s, perhaps as a response to Iraq’s use of these weapons.

Neither uranium enrichment nor plutonium reprocessing is prohibited under NPT rules, as long as they are under IAEA safeguards. According to a legal adviser[1] to the Foreign Office ‘safeguards are designed to detect diversion of materials for military or unknown purposes. Nothing in the NPT or safeguards agreements legally prevents a state party to them from acquiring nuclear-weapon capability, for example by enriching uranium to high grades, reprocessing spent fuel and so on’.

Iran was a signatory to the NPT from its inception (1-July 1968) but Israel never signed the NPT, nor even admitted that it has nuclear weapons  let  alone let anyone from the IAEA inspect its nuclear facilities. However, as we all must understand:  it’s not the weapons, it’s who has them..

The Bush administration has tried to smear El Baradei and get rid of him but did not succeed (remember the Yellow Cake scam) . Perhaps he was too decent for the job and even had the audacity to point out the double standards of the “international community”?

“We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security—and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.”

Mohamed ElBaradei, NYT, 12 February, 2004

The smear campaign against institutions that do not comply with Israels policies and plans is pretty obvious (see also my last post regarding UNHRC) and the IAEA has been targeted because it did not produce the desired “proof” that Iran is a “threat”( Why do I have a feeling of Dèja Vu? Just remember the accusations against the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq who did not oblige with finding non-existent WMDs…)

Here is an interesting article by Gareth Porter about the latest development in “The laptop of Mass Destruction”-case….

More Sources:

US Iran report branded dishonest (BBC)

Letter from IAEA refuting false allegations in Congressional report

Iran in the Crosshairs (FPIF)

IAEA – Focus Iran – Latest Reports

IAEA Report September 2008


Last words …

As soon as certain topics are raised. the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.”

George Orwell


[1] D. M. Edwards, ‘International Legal Aspects of Safeguards and the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1, 1984.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized