• Published 01:05 24.05.10
  • Latest update 12:38 24.05.10

Israel denies offering nuclear weapons to Apartheid South Africa

British daily The Guardian publishes documents it says prove that then-defense minister Shimon Peres tried to sell nuclear weapons to P.W. Botha in the 1970s.

By Haaretz Service and Reuters Tags: Israel news Israel nuclear South Africa Shimon Peres

 

Israel on Monday vehemently rejected claims in a British newspaper that it offered to sell nuclear warheads to Apartheid-era South Africa in 1975.

"There exists no basis in reality for the claims published this morning by The Guardian that in 1975 Israel negotiated with South Africa the exchange of nuclear weapons," the president's office said in a statement.

"Unfortunately, The Guardian elected to write its piece based on the selective interpretation of South African documents and not on concrete facts," said the statement. "Israel has never negotiated the exchange of nuclear weapons with South Africa. "There exists no Israeli document or Israeli signature on a document that such negotiations took place."

The Guardian newspaper said Sunday that documents uncovered by a U.S. academic during research for a book on Israel's ties with South Africa provided the first hard proof that Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel maintains an official policy of "nuclear ambiguity" over whether it is an atomic power.

The Guardian said documents declassified by South Africa's post-apartheid government at the request of author Sasha Polakow-Suransky included top-secret minutes of meetings between senior officials of the two countries in 1975.

Those papers, the newspaper said, showed that South Africa's defense minister at the time, P.W. Botha, asked warheads and his counterpart Shimon Peres, now Israel's president, offered them in "three sizes". The Guardian claimed that this referred to conventional, chemical and atomic weapons.

Asked about the report, Peres spokeswoman Ayelet Frisch said: "There is no truth to the Guardian report."

"We regret that the newspaper did not seek a comment from the president's office. If it had done so, it would have discovered that the story is wrong and baseless," she added.

According to the Guardian report, the alleged nuclear deal did not go ahead, partly because of the cost.

Speculation about Israeli-South African nuclear cooperation was raised in 1990 when a U.S. satellite detected a mysterious flash over the Indian Ocean. The U.S. television network CBS reported it was a nuclear test carried out by the two countries.

Dimona nuclear power plant

The nuclear power plant in Dimona.

Photo by: Archive
  • Print Page
  • Send to a friend
  • Share
  • Text Size +|-
 
 
TalkBacks

Why Facebook Connect?

Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.

Add a comment

Add your reply

  • 107. 7 0
    Problem solved!
    • Noah
    • 24.05.10
    • 22:25

    Despite nigh-indisputable facts, Israel says they don't have nukes and never offered them to South Africa. Whew! Hey, what a coincidence--Iran says they don't even WANT them! Guess they don't have nukes either. They said so and everything. Problem solved everyone, time to relax! OJ is innocent! Clinton did not have sexual affairs with that woman!

  • 106. 0 0
    Well..Well...
    • Eli Freedman
    • 24.05.10
    • 21:45

    Does anyone realize where this "Author", who discovered this so-callled "Secret Document" writes for??!! ..Surprise, surprise.. The Huffington Post, a Left-Wing blog, thats has a long history of Anti-Israel smear tactics....No wonder the Guardian and this Rag, Haaretz ran with this story....So Friggin Typical....Run with the LIE and you can always backtrack later..

  • 105. 0 4
    there is no smoking bomb
    • Cipora Julianna Kohn
    • 24.05.10
    • 21:40

    israel never sold nuclear weapons to south africa. israel never helped south africa build nuclear weapons. had israel done so, south africa would have had an arsenal of weapons which it did not have.

  • 104. 0 0
    lies
    • In the name of All Humans
    • 24.05.10
    • 21:31

    I don't believe this denial for a moment

  • 103. 0 0
    Not enough to vehemently reject claims.SUE them!
    • Like it is
    • 24.05.10
    • 21:20

    Force them to back up document with proofs otherwise those fabricated lies a la Pallywood will never stop.

  • 102. 0 3
    The "Usual Suspects" ....
    • Eli Freedman
    • 24.05.10
    • 21:19

    The Anti -Israel , Anti-Semetic cretins are already foaming at the mouth, like the rabid dogs that they are. Typical attempt (And asinine comments!!) by fabrication to smear israel. The fact that the Guardian and this Rag, Haaretz would do or post anything to taint Israel is nothing new. Do you Morons actually READ the news??!! Heres a quote for you: " Waldo Stumpf, the former head of South Africa's Nuclear Energy Corporation, who led the project to dismantle the country's nuclear weapons program, said he doubted Israel or South Africa would have contemplated a deal seriously"...

    • 0 5
      And By The Way...
      • Eli Freedman
      • 24.05.10
      • 22:08

      Why would ANYONE, except the usual Anti-Israel, Anti-Semetic cretins give any credibility to the "Guardian"..and heres a news flash... Does anyone realize where this "Author", who discovered this so-callled "Secret Document" writes for??!! ..Surprise, surprise.. The Huffington Post, a Left-Wing blog, thats has a long history of Anti-Israel smear tactics....No wonder the Guardian and Haaretz ran with this story....So Friggin Typical....Run with the LIE and you can always backtrack later..

  • 101. 0 0
    Cold War in the 70-s
    • Oleg
    • 24.05.10
    • 21:07

    I would imagine that Israel might have helped RSA in its quest for a deterrent. Other African countries had tried to develop it, e.g. Nigeria and also the borders around it weren't safe for the country as the neighbors have provided safe heaven for the ANC and SA Communist Party to launch a war against the government. It was a Cold War and US also had aided SA in its war in Angola. CIA had provided intelligence and US government had given them weapons. I know that for sure, as I personally know some former officers of the SA Army at the time. US had supported unsavory regimes like Marcos in the Philippines, Mobutu in Zaire, Pinochet in Chile and most of military regimes in Latin America from Somoza to Stressner to the Duvaliers. All in the name of the cold war. New Zealand and UK for years had sports contacts like in rugby or cricket. On the other hand Israel needed uranium and place to test its weapons. It needed a deterrent against its many enemies. And SA wanted something in return. It has nothing to do with Israeli government or its people support of apartheid regime. I personally saw the demonstrations of Israelis against SA governments policies new SA Embassy at Kaplan Street in Tel Aviv. It's just a case of Realpolitik.

  • 100. 0 0
    Israel and South Africa.........
    • Zion
    • 24.05.10
    • 20:41

    None so blind as those who will not see..... the writing on the wall

  • 99. 0 0
    Smear damage already done
    • Allan
    • 24.05.10
    • 20:39

    even if the author is finally forced to admit that "sizes" does not necessarily imply nuclear warheads, there are enough leftist moral equivalence idiots to make this into another reason why Iran "has the right" to go nuclear. Where Israel is concerned, people believe what they want to hear.

  • 98. 0 0
    S. African official doubts nuclear arms sale offer
    • a wandering Jew
    • 24.05.10
    • 20:33

    Waldo Stumpf, the S. African leader of the project denies the report. Try reading a bit more.

  • 97. 0 0
    These are of course good news for Israel bashers (as we can see in the talkbacks).
    • Lucy Somera
    • 24.05.10
    • 20:22

    But for rational thinking people it would be more interesting if the headline read: "Revealed: Secret documents of the deal between Iran, Brasil and Turkey".

  • 96. 0 0
    Onlyin the British press is slander a virtue.
    • a wandering Jew
    • 24.05.10
    • 20:17

    If Israel has nuclear weapons, it is with "security" understandings with the US. SA does not play a part in that relationship. Now that the British elections are over, the British papers have gone back to being their boring selfs as they have nothing else interesting enough to sell papers.

  • 95. 0 0
    Typical childish, moronic, Peres response!
    • David
    • 24.05.10
    • 20:03

    Given the silly Israeli policy of ambiguity on the subject, he complains the Guardian didn’t contact his office for confirmation before publishing the story…lol… Are you kidding us Mr. Peres??? This is the type of Israeli arrogance that is causing Israel much more damage than any Iranian nukes would do. To the merit, It is now becoming quite apparent that Israel in addition to possessing nukes are also proliferating it. The international community led by the US must request Israel to open its facilities to IAEA inspections and sign the NPT. If it does not do it on its own it must be enforced to do so!.

  • 94. 0 0
    So
    • jake
    • 24.05.10
    • 19:40

    And exactly when did it not deny anything it has been accused of? Programmed response that goes by the boards faster than it's uttered.

  • 93. 0 0
    i wish the guardian would publish, too, secret documents of business between gb and apartheid sa,
    • scallywag, f., germany
    • 24.05.10
    • 19:29

    of business between my country and apartheid sa, and of businesses between so many other countries and apartheid sa - all countries who spoke out against apartheid but needed the ressources of sa to build up their own economy and therefore maintained secret business ties with sa. i dont understand why again israel is singled out and condemned and why nobody talks about all the other countries.

  • 92. 6 0
    Israel Has Lied So Often That.....
    • Yaakov Sullivan
    • 24.05.10
    • 19:28

    It defensive response is hardly plausible. Remember the denial in abusing the passports of foreign nationals? Remember the lies about Operation Cast Lead? And on and on. It has gotten to the point where an Israeli denial is an admission of guilt.

  • 91. 0 0
    let iran have them!
    • Tony Silver - Kopenhagen
    • 24.05.10
    • 19:10

    If Iran wants nuclear weapons then they should get them....I wish that North Korea or China would just give them the “bomb" .....and get it over with....no more bla bla bla over this bs.... then the US and israel can go back to bully all the other third world nations

  • 90. 6 0
    nuclear weapons
    • Eric
    • 24.05.10
    • 19:01

    There is no longer any "ambiguity" about Israel's nuclear weapons. They have them, and indeed have so many they are looking to sell some of them off! Israel is a nuclear power. They do not need a constant influx of American tax dollars and weapons to defend themselves, and indeed every single military adventure by Israel has been offensive in nature! The US Government can no longer continue to pretend it does not know Israel has nuclear weapons. And that means that every single penny of American taxpayer money sent to Israel since 1976 is a theft from the American people because under both the 1976 Symington Amendment to the 1961 Foreign Appropriations act and the Glenn Act, the US Government may not send foreign aide to any nations that possess and traffic in nuclear weapons that have not signed the NNPT and submit to IAEA inspections. At the very least, the US Congress must immediately halt all funding to Israel until Israel is in compliance with the NNPT and IAEA or answer just whose interests they serve sitting in those US Taxpayer funded offices!

  • 89. 0 0
    Nuclear proliferation
    • Michel Maheu
    • 24.05.10
    • 18:56

    It is time for Israel to come up front, admitting their nuclear arsenal and their actions considering nuclear proliferation. This news make Israel loose credibility once more. Humility and Wisdom is a must now on the part of Israel. With naive hope Truly, Michel

  • 88. 0 3
    I was wrong
    • Jane (real) Czech Republic
    • 24.05.10
    • 18:50

    I shot off my big mouth before getting the proof. It seems tehre is no evidence that any offer took place and for thqat I apologize... I am a dufus

  • 87. 3 0
    This could be fun
    • Chris Linthwaite
    • 24.05.10
    • 18:34

    Wonder what other skeletons are in the South Africa/Israel apartheid cupboard. Either way it is confirmation if any were needed that Israel is a nuclear power in the Middle East.

  • 86. 0 0
    Old News,we know Israel is lying!
    • Edward
    • 24.05.10
    • 18:26

    Everyone knew Israel and Apartheid South Africa cooperated.Like always when Israel denies wrongdoing,yet loves to accuse others even without evidence!These hypocrites always are exposed,ofcourse in time Israel is found lying.Remember white phosphorous?Israel should know that truth comes out!

  • 85. 0 0
    what does apartheid have to do with any of this
    • zionist forever
    • 24.05.10
    • 17:35

    This story is about the fact 1 man claims that Israel offered South Africa nuclear warheads and its very unlikely Israel would go that far so lets see the mans sources. South Africa was at one time one of Israels closest allies and trading partners the fact that South Africa was an apartheid regime doesn't matter. Israel can still have an alliance with SA but not support their domestic politics. You look for friends where you can find them you don't play the high & mighty. The rich western countries could avoid to pick and choose trading partners & allies Israel doesn't have that luxury so it puts politics first morality second. Lets also not forget that for decades the west ( countries many of you people here currently live in ) looked at Saddam Hussain persecuting his people and did nothing. The west might have been refusing to do business with SA because of apartheid but where were they when Saddam was gassing the Kurds? Oh yeh I forgot Iraq was a major trading partner up until the Gulf War in 1990/91 but we wouldn't want to do anything to spoil that relationship over abit of genocide would we?

  • 84. 3 0
    weapons to South Africa
    • Waldo
    • 24.05.10
    • 17:34

    Weather Israel offered South Africa nuclear or conventional weapons it shows that Israel was willing to support a country practicing arparthied (sp?) and bucking the world community. Was that because Israel was engaged in the same behavior or because money is money no matter where it comes from?

  • 83. 0 0
    Reliability Factor
    • Christopher
    • 24.05.10
    • 17:00

    How often has the Brit media, coupled with Reuters, been exposed for fabricating headlines attaking Israel? The purposely photo-shopped pictures, the BBC paying massive funds trying to hide its own internal investigations that proved the government funded media is Antisemitic and Reuters well known and admitted hatred of the Jewish State which is only exceeded by al Jazeera and Haaretz

  • 82. 0 0
    nobel peace prize winner
    • TenTen
    • 24.05.10
    • 16:02

    And this guy once received the nobel peace prize? This explains it all.

  • 81. 0 0
    Israel = Deception
    • Cool B
    • 24.05.10
    • 15:58

    "There exists no Israeli document or Israeli signature on a document that such negotiations took place." What a foolish argument. Being the chronic liar that Israel is, no one expect them to admit these incidents actually took place. Israel continues to do more harm to itself than it's worst enemy.

  • 80. 0 0
    Peres a wolf in sheeps clothing
    • Socialist
    • 24.05.10
    • 15:56

    Nothing would surprise me about Shimon Peres. Peres has always presented himself as a man of peace, a gentleman. But the opposite is the truth. Peres bought Jews from the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu with gold. This gold was then used by Ceausescu to build himself a palace while his people starved. One day the truth about Peres will come out, and it will be just another shameful episode in Israel's history.

  • 79. 0 0
    Oops, there goes another large chunk of Israel's credibility
    • Michael UK
    • 24.05.10
    • 15:41

    The things is whether Israel offered nukes to S. Africa may be controversial, but nobody doubts that Israel supplied huge quantities of conventional weapons to the apartheid regime, at a time when the rest of the world had imposed sanctions against it. The nuke claim should be enough to get most major newspapers around the world to cover it, unless they're completely pro-israel, so that's another generation of readers who will be waking up to the fact that the light unto nations propped up one of the modern world's most abhorrent racist regimes. Great hasbara. Not.

  • 78. 0 0
    Prehaps the President's office
    • Chris Linthwaite
    • 24.05.10
    • 15:17

    would like to explain why, if Israel didn't offer to sell a complete nuclear strike capability to South Africa. The President's Office spent several months trying to prevent the current South African Government from declassifying these particular documents.

  • 77. 4 0
    Most dammingly, the article reports that ...
    • Bob Marley
    • 24.05.10
    • 15:16

    "The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request." "[These revelations will] undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted." A NUCLEAR PROLIFERATOR ... FOR MONEY!!!!!

  • 76. 0 0
    The Guardian reports Jews drink Christian blood
    • Darnell Potts
    • 24.05.10
    • 14:53

    The Guardian has investigated this report even more thoroughly than the "report" that Israel offered the bomb to SA. So you know when the Guardian says it about Israel, who could doubt? Why should the Guardian even consider showing the "evidence"?

  • 75. 0 0
    If Iran was involved........
    • Mike From Michigan, USA
    • 24.05.10
    • 14:50

    in anything remotely similar to this, it would've been the "smoking gun" and warranted a nuke strike. But look at the bright side, Isreali nukes are under a microscope today and even more tomorrow! FREE THE WORLD OF THESE DANGEROUS WEAPONS! No matter who you are!

  • 74. 0 0
    not sure who is right or wrong here
    • teeboy
    • 24.05.10
    • 14:48

    but am sure there's a self hating jew and/or a anti-semite behind all this somewhere...surely no right minded person would claim that Israel sells weapons to nasty states...no never.

  • 73. 0 0
    Nuclear weapons to Apartheid South Africa
    • jake
    • 24.05.10
    • 14:47

    Is this yellow journalism or not. Next thing you know Jews will be accused of inventing the atomic bomb.

  • 72. 4 0
    What's that sound?
    • Neil
    • 24.05.10
    • 14:39

    Oh Yeah. . . Birds coming home to roost. There is a recconning (sp?) coming. . . More entertainment from the most moral Army in the world. War Crimes. (Goldstone on Gaza) Ethnic cleansing. (Read Benny Morris) Genocide. (Deir Yassin) and now Nuclear proliferation. . . I hear the wings. Just a matter of time before they settle on Israels shoulders.

  • 71. 0 3
    ANytime an arab loses an argument they make stuff up
    • Farley
    • 24.05.10
    • 14:37

    The American arab academic just made this up because he had no argument against Goldstone, so he accused Israel of a south african connection

  • 70. 0 0
    If this is true, Israel must apologize
    • Allegra
    • 24.05.10
    • 14:36

    If this is true, the Israeli government must issue a public apology for having sought to help one of the most reprehensible regimes on earth. And all the Israeli politicians who attacked Goldstone shall have to resign.

  • 69. 0 0
    1990 Flash in Indian/Atlantic Ocean.
    • Stephen (Geneve) Switzerland.
    • 24.05.10
    • 14:16

    As stated at the time, it was a Russian Submarine that suffered a nuclear meltdown. Naturally its a contentious and somewhat lame excuse by the South African Government. South Africa, did have a number of nuclear weapons, however to some, most were handed over to the USA sometime in 1994. South Africa was also advanced in Chemical and Biological weaponry. South Africa still possess quite a large amount of weapons grade nuclear material. Attempts have been made in the past to steal said material, at least one known case was made public in 2009. Israel and South Africa were more involved in turnkey projects in the aviation field and command and control upgrading. The rest is pure fantasy, simply because South Africa had the resources and manpower for its own indigenous nuclear program. No doubt countries such as France and Germany were contributors. Good day.

  • 68. 0 0
    South Africa didnt need Israeli nukes
    • zioniost forever
    • 24.05.10
    • 14:06

    Israel did work with South Africa at times because the countries were close allies and worked together especially on missile technology Its also believed that Israel a nuke launched from a Jericho missile over the Indian Ocean. Two nuclear powers cooperating is not the same as selling nuclear warheads. Lets see some cold hard proof here academic claims published an a traditional very anti Israel newspaper means nothing. I also fail to see what the fact that it was apartheid era South Africa when this took place the countries were allies and being a friend isn't a criminal ofence so why has is the fact that this was apartheid era made such a big deal out of in this article?

  • 67. 0 0
    The South African Weapons Program
    • Mark Lincoln
    • 24.05.10
    • 13:54

    The bombs produced by the South African program were large, crude and heavy. They were an entirely indigenous design. Anything Israel could have offered would have been smaller, lighter, and better adopted to either tactical or strategic needs. The Israeli denial is far more credible than the allegation that it offered to sell nukes to South Africa.

  • 66. 0 0
  • 65. 0 4
    to number 4 - the REAL apartheid axis
    • Moshe
    • 24.05.10
    • 13:50

    is the ENTIRE arab world which makes it illegal to sell land to Jews, oppreses non-Muslims how many Jewish communities are there in Syria? Jordan? Number 4 - give me a freakin' BREAK

  • 64. 7 0
    In that case
    • Chris Linthwaite
    • 24.05.10
    • 13:36

    why did Israel lobby so hard for the documents that this story is based on not to be declassified. And strangely absolutely no comment on Israel's offer to arm the Shah of Iran with nuclear weapons at the same time. Which is also mentioned in the story. Wonder who else Israel offered these weapons to India looks like an increasing probability. Censored by the military censor.

  • 63. 0 0
    Pathetic
    • 24.05.10
    • 13:13

    What a childish little game to play. Lets all scream there is no proof of nuclear weapons while concurrently refusing to deny owning any. The usual petulant foot stamping of a precocious child not getting its way all the time.

  • 62. 0 0
    south africa and israel.
    • elsie.
    • 24.05.10
    • 13:08

    its not just in the guardian, its in all the newspapers, so don"t just blame the guardian.

  • 61. 0 0
    The Presidents office has said that Israel didn't sell a nuclear device to South Africa
    • Chris Linthwaite
    • 24.05.10
    • 12:39

    The Presidents Office has not denied that Israel has not helped the then white minority government to attain nuclear parity with Israel.

  • 60. 0 4
    The Guardian has been spreading lies about Israel for years...
    • Jehudah Ben-Israel, Qatzrin, Israel
    • 24.05.10
    • 12:37

    ...with the full intention of harming the Jewish state instead of reporting the news and interpreting it. Why should we trust this Guardian story, especially in light of the fact that it has not checked the information with Mr. Peres or any of his representatives...??

  • 59. 0 0
    guardian's usual nonsense.
    • jochai
    • 24.05.10
    • 12:12

    Israel is not an apartheid state. The so called apartheid wall is only in place where terrorists infiltrated into Israel.

  • 58. 4 0
    IRONIC
    • Ram
    • 24.05.10
    • 12:11

    The same person and Government who are advocating against Iran offered Nuclear heads to an Apartheid regime to use against their own people. I guess two apartheid states can tango together.

  • 57. 5 0
    israel denies it? No shit, hey.....
    • Johnboy
    • 24.05.10
    • 11:51

    Mind you, Syria denies supplying Scuds to Hezbollah, and none of you believe that denial. Which is odd, because The Guardian is in possession of a document with Peres' signature on it, while all that the Scud-doomsayers have is fear-mongering and..... err... no, actually.... just fear-mongering.

  • 56. 3 0
    Nuclear deal with South Africa
    • Travis Baskerfield
    • 24.05.10
    • 11:22

    O Isreal You commit horrible act after horrible act First you deny it. Then when that fails, call it a´mistake. No one is ever held accountable. Do you realise O Israel, your credibility is less than zero?

  • 55. 3 0
    1975 the pro Nazi Vorster was the prime minister of south Africa
    • Yossi the normal Israeli
    • 24.05.10
    • 10:59

    In Vorster's younger years, he attracted notoriety by opposing South Africa's intervention on the side of the Allies in World War II, and speaking favourably of the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, whose dictatorial government he regarded as a better model. 1976 he visited Israel and was a special guest of Shimon Peres....

  • 54. 0 0
    The Guardian
    • Erik
    • 24.05.10
    • 09:45

    Here we go again.... The Guardian out for it's regular session of bashing Israel. Rules for reading The Guardian: 1) Is it true: Probably not, there is no proof presented whatsoever. 2) If the reported incident is true anyway: did it actually result in anything: No, and no-one has claimed that it did. 3) Is this another Guardian attempt to demonize Israel: Yes. This subject, of selling nuclear weapons to South Africa, is an old one, and Britain and the USA were certainly involved. It was even the theme of a novel by Graham Greene !!

  • 53. 0 0
    Old News
    • 24.05.10
    • 09:35

    Israel's support for Apartheid South Africa is not just undeniable but also old news, this is just a little more evidence on a large mountain of documented facts. When black South Africans were shot in the streets by the police and army it was with R1's, that's the South African name for the Israeli Galil you guys kindly sold us. Your's was also one of the only countries that would let our president officially visit when no one else would, thanks Yitzhak Rabin!

  • 52. 0 0
    Everything based upon "assumptions",books,claims...
    • Hastaroth
    • 24.05.10
    • 09:30

    ...and the usual Israel-Jew bashers (some with Jewish names,such as "Rebecca" ,post No.12) take it for reality.....

  • 51. 3 0
    @13
    • rk
    • 24.05.10
    • 09:28

    They obviously have documentation to support their claims. Hell the proof is pictured right on the front page of the Guardian, notice Pres's signature. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

  • 50. 6 0
    Surprise; boomerang for Israel
    • Esther
    • 24.05.10
    • 09:27

    I have to say; its quite nice to see such reports that undermine Israel's credibility. Great work! Contunie to unveil the lies of this expansionist regime in Jerusalem. I guess the US cannot walk around this fact and has to act, otherwise the international community will, without the US. US is also losing face here. Israel is going to have some hard time to sell to the Arabs and Iran that they should not have nuclear programs, while Bibi has got enough warheads to bomb the world back into the stone age. Pressure to give up those nukes is going to increase. And if Israel will not give them up, then all ME states are entitled to have one so that the strategic military imbalance can be corrected.

  • 49. 0 0
    Here we go!
    • Daniel
    • 24.05.10
    • 09:12

    All those who hold Israel in contempt will jump on the bandwagon. Those who defend Israel will say there's nothing wrong with such a deal. The realist will say: Show me which country hasn't participated in debatable actions for the sake of national security. On November 10, 1975, the UN voted Zionism = Racism. This resolution was correctly revoked in 1991. In any case, US and UK sold weapons of mass destruction to Iraq, so did France, and Russia....who are now supplying Iran and Syria, who are in turn supplying Hezbollah. China is supplying all the African nations with weapons so that they can kill each other, but yet, everyone will still only point the finger at Israel. Now that's hypocrisy! Peace.

  • 48. 0 0
    Anybody Claiming To Know What Apartheid Is And Equating Israel To It Does Not Know What Apartheid Really Is
    • Lavi - Seattle
    • 24.05.10
    • 08:44

    But they do know what malicious exaggeration is! The S. African regime had no previous connection to the land and they brutally subjugated the native peoples of the area so they could prosper from and protect their rule, so don't malign Israel and the Jewish people who do have a long history there and which have to contend with constant militant threats forged from historical revisionism by an exclusive religious movement that has deluded itself into believing it is the final solution for all mankind, and which is willing to propagate itself as when it first spread through the middle east and beyond, not by gentle persuasion and reasoning together, but by the threat of an overhanging, sharp sword. These Muslim countries couldn't bring themselves to recognize any Jewish connection to this ancient land and would even pressure African countries that had received agricultural and technological help from their ties with Israel to end them, leaving the Jewish State with very few friends in the area, unfortunately S. Africa being one of them. It was also earlier reported in a Mossad spy account that Israel tested a nuclear device off S. Africa and with Iran cozying up to the current S. African government there is some speculation that the regime might try and do the same for their needs.

  • 47. 0 0
    Good work, Guardian!
    • Jane, Czech Republic
    • 24.05.10
    • 08:30

    It is about two weeks ago, somebody accused me here of disinformation, when I claimed that Israel used to massively support southafrican apartheid regime. But I had truth, no they... Because, offering of nuclear weapons, selling much of sorts of other weapons and training of armed forces IS support to criminal apartheid regime. Shame on you, Israel!

    • 0 0
      You should be silent with the history of human rights violations in Czech
      • Chaim Ben Kahan
      • 24.05.10
      • 19:56

      Don't think we forgot the invasion of 1968 and the many dictatorships that Czechoslovakia backed, the repression of the Jewish people will not be forgotten neither as many of our relatives were arrested, tortured and imprisoned for practicing their faith in the former Stalinist regime. Now you cast blame with out absolving your nation's oppressive, violent past.

  • 46. 0 0
    I am glad they tested it
    • Chaim Ben Kahan
    • 24.05.10
    • 08:25

    It would be silly to own a nuclear bomb and not know if it worked properly. Does this mean South Africa has the bomb?

  • 45. 0 0
    Made up news from 35 years ago
    • Ehud
    • 24.05.10
    • 08:07

    "Secret meeting" only known to Sasha; "3 sizes" must be a code word or "conventional, atomic,chemical", what else does "size" mean in English? Dear hatemailers: 1. I doubt very much that the SA apartheid regime thought it had to go nuclear to deter such eminent military powers as Botswana (with all due respect to Botswana). 2. Israel would never have done anything near what is claimed without approval by the USA. 3. If it would have done so, SA would have gone nuclear between '75 and the collapse of the regime. 4. How far into made upnews from the past would the Guardian go to "justify" leaving the messianic tyranny in Iran with nukes in their hands?

    • 4 0
      Actually you may have inadvertently
      • Chris Linthwaite
      • 24.05.10
      • 19:52

      hit the nail on the head. The fact is South Africa was fighting a war in both Botswana and Angola where they were facing an army made up of Cubans. Who were backed by the Russians. What I can't figure is that Pere's office has tried to stop the declassification of these papers. If no Nukes were offered for payment then I suppose Israel should declassify their side of the story.

  • 44. 0 0
    #13 Avi - Te-he THIS...
    • PADDY
    • 24.05.10
    • 08:04

    As reported by Haaretz: "Olmert, who began an official visit to Germany Monday, told the German television news channel N24 in an interview that "we have never threatened any nation with annihilation. Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?" Do you understand the above?- NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AS America, France, ISRAEL, Russia.

  • 43. 0 0
    Where is a prove if any?
    • Anna
    • 24.05.10
    • 07:55

    When was the last time The Guardian reported something positive about Israel but lies?

  • 42. 3 0
    Israel is imploding--and it is an inside job.
    • labhras
    • 24.05.10
    • 07:53

    Lets see. 1, 75 year old Palestinian farmer murdered. 2, 16 year old Palestinian child murdered by illegal settler. 3, Noam Chomsky refused entry. 4, Israel looks as if it is a Nuclear arms proliferator. 6, Israel creating laws to treat prisoners more harshly. In just one week. And I am sure I overlooked one or two.

  • 41. 4 0
    Peres and the J Post
    • Martin Sovik
    • 24.05.10
    • 07:53

    First, I think the international reputation of Peres may not be redeemable after this news. Second, do you know that in the last hour the Jerusalem Post has taken the story off their website almost completely? You have to search to find it. Put your head in the sand, I guess.

  • 40. 3 0
    blood is thicker than water.
    • labhras
    • 24.05.10
    • 07:46

    vanunnu goes back to prison while Peres the leader of the Apartheid dealer in nukes spouts off about Iran who is only trying to manufacture nuclear power for civillian purposes.

    • 0 3
      Nuclear power for civilian purposes
      • H
      • 24.05.10
      • 20:25

      and when they get the Bomb, you'll no doubt be first to exclaim, "Double standards, why should Israel have the bomb and not Iran". However, let's see who implodes first. My guess is Iran,but then again the Regime has a way of doing away with its protesters. Don't they???

  • 39. 0 6
    the timing of the guardian article is very suspect
    • Cipora Julianna Kohn
    • 24.05.10
    • 07:32

    it just so happens that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is undergoing a month long review. it is well known that obama is desparate to force israel to sign the treaty. regardless of the enormous pressures put on israel, she will not sign. obama's declarations of support for israel's security are just empty words. all of his actions are anti-israel, including in matters of security.

    • 0 0
      My dear Ms. Kohn
      • Bob Marley
      • 24.05.10
      • 18:51

      IF the article (and the underlying research for the forthcoming book) is true ... do the revelations bother you to any degree?

    • 3 0
      correction for cjk
      • potobac
      • 24.05.10
      • 20:03

      His actions are not anti-Israel; they are pro-US. If Israel chooses to put itself in a position contrary to our national interests, what else do you expect him to do?

    • 0 5
      the article is not true
      • Cipora Julianna Kohn
      • 24.05.10
      • 21:49

      although there was military cooperation between south africa and israel, israel did not help with south africa's nuclear program. had israel done so, south africa would have had a developed nuclear arsenal. at the time the military cooperation took place, for a span of a douzen years, israel had no choice given the boycott placed on her by huge numbers of the international community. this should serve a lesson to those who want to boycott israel. it is not a good idea to push a desparate country against the wall. in any case, other countries in the west have done much, much worse.

  • 38. 0 0
    And it is Iran we are supposed to fear.
    • Brent
    • 24.05.10
    • 07:06

    Israel is supposed to be the reasonable power in the region. Except it was going to sell nukes the the worst racist regime on the planet Oh yeah, Israel has it's own apartheid going on. Dosn't it?

    • 0 0
      brent show us your proof.
      • Sabra
      • 24.05.10
      • 18:54

      So far just unproven allegations of maybe perhaps a cponversation that may have taken place. No evidence and shoddy yellow journalism to boot. where is your evidence brent.

    • 0 0
      Israel is the only reasonable power in the reason
      • Chaim Ben Kahan
      • 24.05.10
      • 20:00

      South Africa's policies were horrible but the nation itself was a stable one and unlike Iran did not threaten it's neighbors and global security. In fact South Africa was the West's ally against fascist Arab nations, communist, terrorist (PLO, ANC) and other dictators.

  • 37. 0 0
    Nothing more logic
    • dani.a
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:49

    Than Peres who signed in 1975 the treat with South Africa (of course secret because Israel then and today is a "vibrant democracy") the man who began the settlement in West Bank,who stole Mirage plans from France,to be rewarded with Nobel prize for peace.He is the chairman ,again nothing more logic-of the Peace center Shimon Peres which in his activity didn't make even one proposal for peace but it contented to reject the Saudi plan,or Geneva plan .Peres has other major contributions like the killing of 100 women and childrenat Qana,the kidnapping of the brave Vanunu from Rome.

  • 36. 0 0
    Israel and Apartheid South Africa
    • America
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:47

    Israel and Apartheid South Africa are natural allies. It is not surprising that Israel was one of the biggest supporters of the racist South African regime. I am sure Israel was thoroughly disappointed when the apartheid nation fell due to international sanctions and boycotts.

  • 35. 0 0
    whats the difference ...
    • ravi
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:46

    ... whats the difference between israel and n korea?.. nothing. n korea helped pakistan and iran ... israel helped s africa.... whats worse

  • 34. 0 0
    Ignore this old news! We must not allow Iran to get nukes...
    • AB
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:38

    They might get into the hands of undesirable types. Sigh.

    • 0 0
      AB Iran have the right to have them!
      • Tony Silver - Kopenhagen
      • 24.05.10
      • 19:01

      Yes, Iran will obtain nuclear weapons, even if the mullahs are overthrown. Having spent about a quarter of the nations GDP on obtaining credible nuclear weapons capability, do you really think any Iranian regime would simply throw it all in the trash?

  • 33. 0 0
    Interesting timing, isn't it?
    • Johnboy
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:37

    I wonder if this is the South African pay-back for Israel's hysteria over Goldstone? Hypocrisy is never a good look, and maybe someone in the current SA govt decided to underline to Israel's apologists that they shouldn't be so quick to throw stones....

  • 32. 0 0
    Cannot be possible
    • Sayfu
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:27

    Everyone knows that Israel is the only island of democracy in th M.E., it cannot have such bad acquaintance.

  • 31. 0 0
    The Guardian is not a reliable source.
    • MichaelF
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:24

    What passes today for British "journalism" is a joke. The Guardian is the worst of the worst. They have been caught in lies so often, no knowledgable person takes them seriously anymore. Quoting a book as their source is something you would not even find with a high school newspaper. Anyone can write a book and claim whatever they want. If this is the extent of The Guardian's research, why does anyone bother with what they claim?

    • 3 0
      Then simply ignore it
      • Chris linthwaite
      • 24.05.10
      • 18:39

      and explain why the President's office tried so hard to keep these documents classified. Afterall if it didn't happen, why do the documents exist, and if the meeting didn't happen why did Peres try to prevent the publication of the minutes of a meeting that didn't happen? seems to me israel is no different than North korea or pakistan.

  • 30. 6 0
    We are not talking possession of nukes any longer its proliferation now
    • David
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:22

    It is becoming quite apparent Israel is one hell of a danger to world peace. The have the nukes and wouldn't hesitate to sell it to anybody to anybody if they think its serves their interest. The international community let by the US must strip Israel from those capabilities.

  • 29. 7 0
    The important question is
    • Mark Lincoln
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:21

    The important question is whether the thrill of the kill was worth the consequences. Clearly Israel - as is shown by it's refusal to restore relations with the nation it offended by whacking a foreign national on it's turf. Israel, the modern Israel, unlike the past Israel of it's origins, has no use for peace and nothing but contempt for anyone who represents it.

    • 5 0
      Good to See You Back, Mark
      • Binyamin in Orangeburg
      • 24.05.10
      • 19:02

      The Wikipedia entry on the South African bomb has a well-documented discussion of other aspects of Israeli-Arartheid nuclear cooperation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_ref-jpost1_14-0

    • 0 0
      Confused
      • MichHell
      • 24.05.10
      • 20:32

      You are confusing two different entities; Dubai where this Hamas official was whacked and Qatar which offered renewed diplomatic contacts against permission to finance re-building Gaza...

  • 28. 0 0
    Israeli voters should demand the option to reject Apartheid
    • Syd Walker
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:12

    Zionist Israel is a State premised on 'separate development', exactly parallel with Apartheid South Africa although differing in detail. This very useful new report illustrates the extent to which Israel's leadership - over more than a generation - have been comfortable with apartheid. Now hold on for a rocky ride as civilised people on earth demonstrate - once again - that Apartheid is not acceptable and cannot survive. Many Israelis must know this already. If you are one of them, this is the time to bring an end to the separatist nightmare and demand real democratic choice in your country. The most crucial change that's needed is to revoke the prohibition on anti-Zionist parties from competing in Israeli elections. No real democracy legitimises a substantial, well-informed body of opinion whose political platform is based on universalistic human principles. Why can't the Israeli public have a choice that includes calling an end to separate development and instead implementing the same one-person, one-vote democratic norm that pertains in the civilised world? What's so scary about choice?

    • 0 0
      Why is it so scary...
      • Allan
      • 24.05.10
      • 20:45

      it's scary because the two people-Jews and Muslim Arabs are so very different have have so many religious and historical antagonisms. Demographic trends will soon make the Arabs the majority in the Israel/West Bank area. A unified Israel would quickly become another Lebanon. The homogenous democracies in Europe and N.America do not have the same problem.

  • 27. 0 0
    Birds of a feather?
    • jake
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:11

    Defenders of the Jew State step up to the plate. This cannot go unchallenged!!!

  • 26. 7 0
    Proliferation of Nuclear Weaponry, and Israeli Hypocrisy.
    • Sceptic
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:01

    That's nice. Israel complains about the proliferation of nuclear weaponry to rogue states, but is willing to do a deal if the price is right. As others on here have already alluded, that's hypocrisy on a grand scale, and puts Israel's criticism of Iran in its correct perspective.

    • 0 4
      Even if this British blood libel was true ....
      • Binyamin Dissen
      • 24.05.10
      • 16:49

      Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, did not benefit from assistance due to signing the NPT and is not obligated to the NPT. The true hypocrites are the Moslem apologists that excuse Arabs for violating their signature yet criticize Jews for violating a treaty that they never signed.

  • 25. 0 0
    The Hopelessness of "PR"
    • UsedToPostHere
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:00

    We have to keep in mind, whom we are trying to win over and why. In "their" Narrative the list of Villains includes Serbs, South Africans of European Decent, Israelis and America. They will always see everyone on this list as evil and deserving to die and the only way they will ever be won over, is by all of our deaths. They hate South Africa for a list of "Crimes" that most of them have themselves committed a thousand times over. They hate Serbia for resisting and they hate America for resisting. In an Age of Hordes, Democracy is indeed a pack of wolves and sheep voting on what to eat.

    • 0 0
      eh?
      • O
      • 24.05.10
      • 16:56

      I feel I have to ask: who the heck are you talking about? If you are attributing the opinions in your post to the international community, which is whom Israel's "PR" is usually tries to win over, I must say you have some very strange ideas. Perhaps it is time for a reality check?

    • 0 0
      America resisted??
      • Sam
      • 24.05.10
      • 17:01

      I don't know what history books you've been reading but America has never been in a position of resistance. Maybe you could enlighten me? Thanks

  • 24. 5 0
    Israel support of apartheid SA. Goldstone PR Disaster.
    • DP
    • 24.05.10
    • 06:00

    Israel badmouthing Goldstone has deservedly backfired and exposed Israel for the immoral state that it is!! Way to go Israel!!!

  • 23. 0 0
    ummmm
    • rob
    • 24.05.10
    • 05:49

    this is non-news. everyone knows the cards that are in play today. this my have been important 30 years ago. think about what the world was like 30 years ago....

  • 22. 0 0
    Fabrication
    • ricardo lion
    • 24.05.10
    • 05:10

    Do to the timing, 30 years later, I can only assume this story is a fabrication.

  • 21. 0 0
    the guardian
    • Shmuelshachor
    • 24.05.10
    • 05:09

    The guardian was always the british version of the pravda...Whatever they write,one has to take with big ladle of salt,not only a pintch...but if there is at least a wift of truth in this story, WHY NOT???MANY OTHER COUNTRIES SOLD STUFF TO SOUTH AFRICA,BOYCOTS OR NOT...

  • 20. 0 0
    Holy Crap!!!
    • Cool B
    • 24.05.10
    • 04:51

    I always believe you cannot hide the truth forever. There is no doubt in my mind that the US also knew about this or why would we continue to pretend that Israel's nuclear arsenal does not exist. It's becoming quite clear now who the axis of evil really is.

  • 19. 4 0
    Israel has complete freedom of action with no responsibility
    • Natallie Durson
    • 24.05.10
    • 04:49

    It is common knowledge that Israel sold weapons and nuclear technology to South Africa when world wide sanctions were in place against South Africa. It is new information that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads, but it comes as no surprise. This is just another example of the double standard under which Israel operates as a matter of routine. Rules must be followed by others. Israel, on the other hand, has complete freedom of action with no responsibility.

  • 18. 0 0
    Report: Israel offered to sell nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa
    • Abbas
    • 24.05.10
    • 04:35

    I have an idea,: Israel to sell Nuclear weapons to Iran. This will assist Iran in saving funds for the infrastructure they need to build their own nuclear device, avoid the bothersome sanctions and Israel will make money too. It is no big deal for Israel, as they have export experience relating to nuclear technology and prolifiration.

  • 17. 4 0
    "Force the west to intervene on their behalf," eh?
    • David
    • 24.05.10
    • 04:22

    Suddenly I think I know how the radical Israeli right gets Obama to obey. As a Jew I couldn't be more humiliated.

  • 16. 0 0
    A marriage of convenience
    • Morris Valentine
    • 24.05.10
    • 04:12

    Politics certainly does make for strange bedfellows - in this case, a democratic Israel and an apartheid RSA. Both countries were politically isolated in the world, but for very different reasons. Israel was recently under attack by Arab states and terrorists - at the time of the 1975 'agreement' reported by the Guardian, the Munich Olympics massacre and the Yom Kippur War were but a few years in the past. Given the circumstances, it's not surprising that the world effectively drove Israel into the RSA's arms. When your back's against the wall, you can't be too picky about your friends. I wonder how many of my fellow Britons (including the lefties at the Guardian) will conveniently forget the military aid we and the US gave Soviet Russia - a nation far more hideous in its suppression of the human spirit than the RSA ever was - when all three nations were all fighting the Nazi menance. Methinks I smell a whiff of hypocrisy drifting in from the left. MV

  • 15. 0 0
    It is that true?
    • Peter
    • 24.05.10
    • 03:59

    Warheads in three sizes, could be anything. Why everybody assume nuclear warheads?

    • 8 0
      How about the fact that
      • Chris Linthwaite
      • 24.05.10
      • 18:54

      Peres has tried to prevent the declassification of the minutes of a meeting he has stated never took place? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

  • 14. 0 0
    Distinguish between foreign and domestic policy
    • Californian
    • 24.05.10
    • 03:57

    The article states very clearly that, at least in the minds of the parties involved, the nuclear weapons were to be used to deter other countries from attacking South Africa. Yes, South Africa's policy of apartheid was abhorrent. But every country's government has the right--and the obligation--to defend its citizens from foreign attacks. And there's no better way to protect your citizens from foreign attacks than to prevent them in the first place. Also, this was back in 1975, before South Africa's apartheid figured prominently in the public's conscience. South Africa back then had serious aspirations for joining the clique of Western powers--it wasn't yet a marginally better version of Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

  • 13. 8 0
    Old News
    • NYC Guy
    • 24.05.10
    • 03:28

    We already knew that Israel supported and aided the apartheid regime and gave them the bomb. Birds of a feather flock together.

  • 12. 0 0
    Who are the real terrorists now
    • Willay
    • 24.05.10
    • 03:24

    African countries should review their relatonship with Israel.A country that was trying to help destroy them.Now the world should be asking why is it okay for aparthied states like Israel and South Africa were allowed nukes and Arab countries don't need them.This proves Israelis are capable of doing anything,they continued to whine

  • 11. 0 0
    Hey guys, did you hear!
    • Avi
    • 24.05.10
    • 02:58

    Israel was selling nuclear weapons to South Africa! Oh golly Timmy, of course I'm sure, I read it in a book! It's based on this guy who read it in some papers, it has a nice cover and everything! To top it all up South Africa was an Apartheid state so it's even more logical Israel would support it! Just like the in "Lex Luthor and the Legion of Doom", Te-he!

  • 10. 5 0
    Oops
    • Occupynomo
    • 24.05.10
    • 02:46

    Another embarrassment for Israel. One PR disaster after another. I think Israel's behavior over the past 40 years is catching up with it...thanks to the Internet.

  • 9. 0 0
    This should be interesting
    • Mark Lincoln
    • 24.05.10
    • 02:43

    That there was close colaberation between South Africa and Israel is undeniable. Still, the South African weapons program was home-grown and it's weapon design owed nothing to Israel's program. I will believe the report only after I have had a chance to read the book and check it's footnotes and sources and found them credible. Until such happens, I can only view this report with intense skepticism.

    • 0 0
      Reliable sources are an imperative part of drawing conclusions, Mark
      • WeCan2
      • 24.05.10
      • 06:59

      However, the only really 'new' implication in this article is that Israel provided SA with tritium.

    • 0 0
      MarkL, for once, we agree
      • Cipora Julianna Kohn
      • 24.05.10
      • 07:24

      there is no proof that the small south african nuclear program owed anything to israel. the south africans sent their scientists to study in europe and they were apparently very capable.

    • 0 0
      Go to The Guardian's web site, Mark
      • Johnboy
      • 24.05.10
      • 08:50

      They have posted images of the documents on their web site. BTW, you misrepresent the case, because The Guardian is claiming only that when Botha showed interest in purchasing Jerico missiles Peres offered to sell them the complete system INCLUDING nuke warheads. But they pointed out that no sale went ahead because Botha baulked at the asking price.

    • 0 0
      good idea to check sources, start here:
      • Hannah
      • 24.05.10
      • 11:47

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents The Guardian provides some links to documentary evidence. Place to start while waiting for the book?

    • 0 0
      SA bombs
      • AB
      • 24.05.10
      • 12:35

      SA succeeded in building rather crude gunbarrel bombs. Heavy and inefficient and needed U235. Israel had compact implosion bombs. Much better. If SA wanted DELIVERABLE bombs they would have needed the superior Israeli design.

    • 0 0
      Unfounded scepticism
      • RichardL
      • 24.05.10
      • 17:18

      I have not read the book either, just the article this morning. All the same I cannot understand your 'intense scepticism'. We know that Israel had nuclear weapons at the time because they were contemplating using them in 1973. We know that Israel was happy to trade with what was then the world's number one pariah state. We know that Peres was in contact with Botha because the two signatures are there in the Guardian photograph. We know that Soviet spy Gerhardt reported that the deal was discussed. Just why are you so reluctant to believe that Israel would be above such immoral behaviour? You'll be telling us next that the IDF is the most moral army in the world.

  • 8. 0 0
    ummm..
    • american
    • 24.05.10
    • 02:42

    how is israel an apartheid state exactly? Israel is a majority-rule democracy with equal rights for all citizens including Arab citizens of Israel who vote freely. the palestinians are governed by the PA / Hamas apartheid in the Republic of South Africa was an official policy of discrimination against blacks enforced through police violence, based on minority control over a majority population who could not vote. Israel contends with prejudices within its society as many other countries do

    • 0 0
      Well then American, you seem to be well indoctrinated
      • Giggles
      • 24.05.10
      • 06:53

      to the cozy little picture Israel paints of itself. Perhaps if you paid attention to sources that report what REALLY is, you'd have a better idea of how it can be perceived as an apartheid state.

    • 0 0
      you're kidding me right?
      • Nader
      • 24.05.10
      • 08:03

      No disrespect american.......but you really don't understand the situation in Israel / Palestine. Thus, your comment doesn't surprise me (blind ignorance to this situation is far too commonplace). Israel's apartheid is based on a) it's complete military occupation of the west bank (over 400 military checkpoints, illegal settlements and the annexing more land continuously, the control of air, sea, land) b) it's combined corrupt control of the gaza borders with Egypt, and full control of gaza land and sea space) c) it's less than equal treatment of it's own arab citizens (less services to arab neighbourhoods, special id/licence plates, and limitations that correspond). Some of the leading scholars on south african apartheid have been very outspoken in Israel being many times worse in its policies than South African Apartheid ever was. Please don't just take the news for what it is....learn a little, do a bit of research. If American's did a better job of thinking for themselves everyone in the world would be better off.

    • 0 0
      And the West Bank and Gaza
      • Wespe
      • 24.05.10
      • 08:16

      South Africa also occupied their neighbors (Namibia) and fueled wars. Israel and its Jewish citizens want all of the West Bank too. Yet they don't want their neighbors because democracy would make the state just like present-day South Africa.

    • 0 0
      But who RULES in the occupied territories, american?
      • Johnboy
      • 24.05.10
      • 08:43

      You can argue that the Palestinians are "governed" by the Palestinian Authority but, then again, much of occupied Europe was "governed" by quislings during WW2. The question is "who RULES", and there is no question at all that in the occupied territorities the answer is "the IDF", and that has been true for over 40 years i.e. half of all the people that Israel rules over have no say - no say whatsoever - in how they are being ruled. That's not "democracy", american.

    • 4 0
      "..equal rights for all citizens " Really?
      • CJ
      • 24.05.10
      • 09:02

      Can an Arab Israeli marry a Palestinian and live in with them in Israel...?

    • 0 0
      Israel not Apartheid? In Greater Israel in 2010, Palestinians comprise 51%.
      • David Ben Aryeh
      • 24.05.10
      • 09:50

      This 51% includes Arab Christians (in Israel and the terretories), Arab Muslims (in Israel and the Territories), and Druze (in Israel, minus those in the Golan territory which are Syrians) 47% are Israeli Jews of different races, ethnic backgrounds and Jewish denominations (affiliated, secular, orthodox, reform, etc). The other 2% are "other" Muslim non-Arabs (eg. Ciracassian) and "other" Christian non-Arabs (eg. Armenians), and non-Arabs of other religions. This means, that the Jewish minority is ruling over a non-Jewish majority. That makes it a minority ruled region. What makes it an apartheid is the fact that the laws of the region are applied differently to different groups of people based either on Religion or ethnic affiliation, or both.

    • 3 0
      How? I will tell you how
      • Israeli who know
      • 24.05.10
      • 10:41

      All setelments in the West bank are for Jews only, major new roads in the West Bank for Jews only, Arabs in Israel cannot buy government land it is for Jews only ( the government of Israel control 94% of the land). This is just few example.

    • 0 0
      Apartheid
      • Froy
      • 24.05.10
      • 12:05

      Tell that to the 3m Arabs in the West Bank Bantustan, ot to the 1.5m in the Gaza concentration camp.

    • 0 0
      your own words...
      • Murray from Milan
      • 24.05.10
      • 13:04

      "official policy of discrimination against blacks enforced through police violence, based on minority control over a majority population who could not vote" - looks pretty convincingly like what happens in the Occupied Territories, no?

    • 3 0
      Get in the real world
      • Tzivi
      • 24.05.10
      • 15:47

      I see it with my own eyes day in day out. Maybe if you stopped watching fox news and read something knowledgeable than you would understand. I wont hold my breathe.

  • 7. 0 0
    And... the world was very Cold at the time
    • Mike
    • 24.05.10
    • 02:31

    It was the Cold War. Soviets were arming Syrians, Saddam, Libya and the rest of the nice boys of the ME. French were building Saddam a nuke reactor, US just got out of Vietnam, and Castro just decided to help Angola. The world was different back then and Israel was but a small and an insignificant part of it.

    • 0 0
      And don't forget, Mike - it had nukes to sell to it's sister state
      • Unsavory Echo
      • 24.05.10
      • 06:43

      And it had by then fallen under the protective umbrella of the U.S.

    • 0 0
      The French built Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona
      • Chris Linthwaite
      • 24.05.10
      • 13:40

      What is your point exactly. If it had been in the Americans, the British or the French's interest to have a nuclear armed South Africa then surely they would have done so. This is probably more to do with the procurement of Uranium for military purposes by Israel from South Africa. Although I supposed Australia could have done admittedly, but would it have been a relieable source? Censored by the Military Censor

    • 0 0
      What a flawless argument
      • Montreal Historian
      • 24.05.10
      • 15:10

      We must see the situation as it was back then: 1- Soviets were arming "Totalitarians" 2- US were financing little puppet generals to safeguard private property. 3- Israel was seeking support where it could. There was no better solution than seeking support among those that looked just like the Israeli regime: South Africa and Taiwan

    • 5 0
      Got to love this
      • Andrew
      • 24.05.10
      • 15:46

      Mike your a very brave man but also a very stupid one. You israelis have sunk to a new low trying to defend selling nuclear weapons to another apartheid state.

    • 0 0
      Israel was already in the Western Camp for 30 years
      • Mike
      • 24.05.10
      • 19:22

      By your logic France was on Saddam's side and the British were in Saudi Camp, and the Soviets in the Syrian camp. It was a different world back then and I wouldn't be surprised. Just because you want to see sinister reasons behind this there aren't any... in 1975 the Cold War was in full swing and Israel, at the time a country of some 3,000,000, was really a tiny player on the world stage.

  • 6. 4 0
    PR Desaster
    • George
    • 24.05.10
    • 02:02

    Even though the offer lapsed more than 30 years ago, its very existence is nightmare for Israel's image in the world.. trying to sell nuclear warheads to Apartheid-South-Africa – what was Peres thinking??

    • 3 0
      Well, that's pretty easy to imagine...
      • Johnboy
      • 24.05.10
      • 04:13

      "trying to sell nuclear warheads to Apartheid-South-Africa – what was Peres thinking?" I would imagine he was thinking somewhat along the lines of "brothers in arms" or, perhaps, "birds of a feather".

    • 5 0
      what image?
      • ravi
      • 24.05.10
      • 06:56

      its mud in any case. maybe israel is out of control because it knows its image cant get worse.

    • 5 0
      He was thinking
      • Hector Bonifacius
      • 24.05.10
      • 14:01

      .....2 heads are better than 1. Having 2 Legal Apertheid states better than being the only ones, so that there is always someone to back the other. Too thats not the case today, Israel is the only Apertheid state on the face of the earth.

  • 5. 7 0
    So. . .
    • Neil
    • 24.05.10
    • 01:49

    An Apartheid state offers to sell Nuclear weapons to another Arpartheid state. What has the US, Eu and the UN to say about that given all the saber rattling they have done on Iran. . .

    • 16 0
      What is not so well know is Israels part in Iran's WMD tech.
      • lydia
      • 24.05.10
      • 04:20

      Chris McGreal 2pg article 'Brothers in Arms, the Guardian Feb.7.1976 offered a more in depth examination of the two apartheid regimes and the special relationship that SA Voster the ex Nazi sympathizer and commander of Ossewabrandwag enjoyed with Israel. "We created the South African arms industry," says Israel foreign minister Liel.

    • 0 0
      Too bad
      • Meyer
      • 24.05.10
      • 04:47

      Too bad Israel isn't apartheid. The definition is only applicable to states that have minority populations segregating the majority of the citizens. Palestinians aren't Israeli citizens, nor is the West Bank and Gaza a part of Israel. Therefore you're doing nothing but pushing false equivalencies like some kind of a drug dealer for anti-Semites in need of their "hate Israel" fix.

    • 0 0
      do you interact with arabs or palestinians
      • colleen Burke
      • 24.05.10
      • 19:52

      Israeli Arabs aren't treated well either, im always amazed that people can be so connected to the land yet so disconnected to the people living right next to them.

  • 4. 0 0
    The Apartheid Axis
    • BDS
    • 24.05.10
    • 01:49

    That would be the same P. W. Botha who said, admiringly, that Israel was following Apartheid policies.

    • 0 4
      Apartheid was invented by Christians and was not implemented in Israel
      • ricardo lion
      • 24.05.10
      • 05:09

      How is that? Apartheid is a Christian British / Dutch invention, nothing to do with Israel, where 20% of the population is Arab with full rights, rights they don't have in the Arab world. Arabs from Judea and Samaria are not Israelis. That territory, on the west bank of the river Jordan, was captured from Jordan (and no "Palestine") in a defensive war. Also "racist" Israel is the only country that imported black people from Africa not to enslave, but to free them. The Jews with dark skin in Israel have the same rights (and duties) as the Jews with lighter skins. No racism in Judaism, a big sin (read Exodus, the story of Moses sister, Zipora).

    • 0 0
      note
      • potobac
      • 24.05.10
      • 18:22

      Racism may be a no-no, but genocide and extermination of enemies aren't.

    • 0 0
      its still racism
      • Colleen Burke
      • 24.05.10
      • 19:49

      Just because Jews are every color doesn't mean they're not racist. Skin color was replaced by religion, Palestinians aren't the right religion.

  • 3. 4 0
    Breathtaking hypocrisy
    • Bee
    • 24.05.10
    • 01:39

    Breathtaking hypocrisy for Alan Dershowitz and his allies to accuse Judge Goldstone of being an "opportunist" and abettor of the S. A. Apartheid regime, when Israel sold many many arms to S.A. and now these allegations about nuclear bombs. Unbelievable hypocrisy.

  • 2. 0 0
    Spreading nuclear weapons and technology
    • Harold
    • 24.05.10
    • 01:36

    Who is spreading WMD Iraq, Iran or Israel. Let us see what the US comments will be on Monday.

  • 1. 3 0
    Twins
    • Froy
    • 24.05.10
    • 01:13

    It is only logical that the two apartheid regimes helped each other. The surprising fact is that the world only recognized one of them as an abhorrent racist regime, while overlooking the other one, and even extolling it as a great democracy.