Category Archives: Israel

Update VII: The ‘Gaza Flotilla’ – Terrorism Or Civil Disobedience? (IDF Releases Definitive Flotilla Footage)

Foreign Policy, Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Jihad, Terrorism, UN

After delivering a one-two punch to Israel—first the charm offensive in the form of an invite to hang with BHO at the White House, and then an injurious vote with the Third World-dominated UN to deprive Israel of its only military deterrent—Slimy Obama has actually issued a sensible statement in response to an unfortunate position into which Israeli naval commandos had been pushed by the usual “peaceful” poseurs, backers of the “M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed People Ever)”.

First to the statement: “United States deeply regrets” the loss of life and injuries and was working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy.”

THE FOLLOWING REPORT IS VIA AMBASSADOR (RET.) YORAM ETTINGER:

Israel’s Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center sheds light on the nature of Turkey’s IHH, the chief organizer of the flotilla to Gaza:

1. The radical Islamic, anti-Western IHH – the chief supporter of the flotilla to Gaza – poses as a humanitarian relief fund (Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation), while supporting Hamas and several Jihadist organizations in Bosnia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Algeria, Chechnya, etc..
2. The IHH initiated a number of “humanitarian aid” convoys to anti-US Islamic terrorists in Iraq’s Fallujah Triangle.
3. According to the Danish Institute for international Studies, IHH is connected to Al Qaeda and global Islamic terrorism. The Istanbul office of IHH was raided, and IHH activists were arrested, by the Turkish security services. Explosives, IED (Improvised Explosive Device) manuals, weapons and Afghanistan-oriented documents were confiscated during the raid.
4. According to a French intelligence report, Bulent Yildirim, the president of IHH, recruited “Jihad warriors” and transferred money, firearms and explosives to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists in various countries. Yildirim made telephone calls to European “shelter apartments,” which were used by Islamic terrorists, including Abu el-Ma’ali, known as “Junior Ben-Laden.” IHH produced documents, which facilitated air travel by Islamic terrorists, posing as relief workers. IHH was connected to Ahmed Ressam, an Islamic terrorist, who attempting to smuggle 1320 pounds of explosives and plant them at the Los Angeles International Airport.
5. Bulent Yildirim embraced the world view of the Muslim Brotherhood (the mentor of Hamas in Gaza) and has been a systematic supporter of – and collaborator with – Hamas. He has transferred significant amount of money to Hamas and its “charitable societies” and has promoted – during major Hamas events in Turkey – armed struggle against the Jewish State.

THE CONTEXT OF THE “GAZA FLOTILLA”:
1. Gaza is a bastion of Iran and Syria-supported Hamas terrorism, launching thousands of missiles at Israel, kidnapping Israel’s Gilad Shalit and smuggling into Gaza terrorists, more precise and longer range missiles, explosives and other lethal elements. Efforts have been made to minimize such smuggling via Sinai and from the Mediterranean.
2. Israel’s aim of cooperation was demonstrated by Jerusalem’s offer to allow the “Gaza Flotilla” to reach its destination (in spite of the daily flow to Gaza – via Israel – of food, oil, cement and multitude of products) following a thorough examination of its content.
3. The “Gaza Flotilla” aim of confrontation was demonstrated by its rejection of Jerusalem’s offer and by the handguns, knives, screwdrivers, iron pipes and a gun employed by terrorists on board. Confrontation has been the goal of the “Gaza Flotilla,” as evidenced by the campaign of anti-Israel incitement carried out by its personnel and sponsors.
4. The Israeli soldiers were prepared for a peaceful-takeover in face of (erroneously-assumed) civil disobedience. Therefore, they were equipped with paintball guns as the primary weapon and handguns as an emergency weapon, to be used only if facing death. They resorted to handguns in response to an attempted lynch by the scores of terrorists, who assaulted the soldiers with iron pipes, knives, screwdrivers and a gun. Handguns were snatched from soldiers, by the lynching mob, and were directed at the soldiers. Five boats were taken over peacefully and one (with 600 passengers) became an arena of confrontation between Israeli soldiers and terrorists. Israeli restraint minimized fatalities among terrorists.
5. The responsibility for the fatalities and casualties lies at the doorstep of the IHH, other supporters of the “Gaza Flotilla,” the UN and multitude of governments, which could – but would not – stop the Flotilla.
6. Would NATO allow a “humanitarian aid” convoy, organized by the radical Islamic anti-Western IHH, to travel unchecked to a Taliban stronghold?! Would Germany, Italy or France allow such a convoy to reach “Baader Meinhoff”, “Red Brigade” or “Action Direct” terrorist strongholds?
7. The “Gaza Flotilla” highlights the role of the Jewish State as the outpost of Western democracies in face of Islamic terrorist offensive. De-legitimizing and weakening Israel – the role model of counter terrorism – would be a tailwind for Islamic terrorists – the role model of international terrorism – facilitating their assault on the Free World. It’s not a clash over Gaza; it’s a clash of civilizations!

[SNIP]

It is a good thing that, this time, “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhayu is canceling the “much-anticipated meeting with President Barack Obama in Washington on Tuesday in a sign of just how gravely Israel viewed the uproar. In Canada, Netanyahu announced he was rushing home but said he had called the American president and agreed to meet again.”

Folks, this is what defending the homeland means. You don’t go on foreign expeditions searching for monsters to destroy; you destroy the monsters when they approach your homeland.

As usual, “Israel’s refusal to put down its guns and mobilize an army of stone throwers to throw stones back at the persecuted Arabs is equated with the crime of using excessive force.”

UPDATE I: IDF Via YouTube – Navy Warns Flotilla (May 31, 2010):

Flotilla Members Attacking Israeli Boarding Party – May 31, 2010

UPDATE II: Flotilla of flotsam and jetsam. “Oh Jews, The Army of Muhammad Will Return.”

Via Diana West, “Who Attacked Whom?”

UPDATE III (June 1): Finally Israel recognizes the need for a super intelligence, both presentable and well-spoken, to serve as ambassador to the US. Michael Oren is indeed all that. For decades, Israel’s PR was fronted by bumbling schlemiels.

Was this a set up? Did Israel get sucked in? Those are legitimate questions. However, I ask you, what would the US do if a flotilla of 6 ships of dubious origins, from the Middle East, was approaching one of its ports. Dirty bomb smuggling, any one?

UPDATE IV: David Frum’s “Stop the Hypocrisy about Israel” focuses on the double standards applied to Israel. I’d add that Turkey crying “bloody massacre” is beyond farcical.

Turks exterminated the Armenians during the First World War and attempted to do the same to the Kurds. These days Turkey prosecutes Turks who dare to “denigrate Turkishness,” like novelist Orhan Pamuk. “Denigrating Turkishness” is code for refusing to deny the Armenian genocide.

UPDATE V: Alan Dershowitz:

“… The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

Third, were those on board the flotilla innocent non-combatants or did they lose that status once they agreed to engage in the military act of breaking the blockade? Let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla. It was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather the break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:

“This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege on 1.5 million Palestinians.” (AFP, May 27, 2010.) …

[SNIP]

The White House has backed the UN Security Council’s call for an “impartial investigation” into the events.

UPDATE VI: IDF Releases Definitive Flotilla Footage. Observe how these animals swarm the Israeli soldiers. What if these were your Navy SEAL sons?

UPDATE VII (June 2): Israel has been “serbed,” says Serbian writer Nebojsa Malic. See his analysis in the Comments Section.

Update VII: The 'Gaza Flotilla' – Terrorism Or Civil Disobedience? (IDF Releases Definitive Flotilla Footage)

Foreign Policy, Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Jihad, Terrorism, UN

After delivering a one-two punch to Israel—first the charm offensive in the form of an invite to hang with BHO at the White House, and then an injurious vote with the Third World-dominated UN to deprive Israel of its only military deterrent—Slimy Obama has actually issued a sensible statement in response to an unfortunate position into which Israeli naval commandos had been pushed by the usual “peaceful” poseurs, backers of the “M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed People Ever)”.

First to the statement: “United States deeply regrets” the loss of life and injuries and was working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy.”

THE FOLLOWING REPORT IS VIA AMBASSADOR (RET.) YORAM ETTINGER:

Israel’s Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center sheds light on the nature of Turkey’s IHH, the chief organizer of the flotilla to Gaza:

1. The radical Islamic, anti-Western IHH – the chief supporter of the flotilla to Gaza – poses as a humanitarian relief fund (Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation), while supporting Hamas and several Jihadist organizations in Bosnia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Algeria, Chechnya, etc..
2. The IHH initiated a number of “humanitarian aid” convoys to anti-US Islamic terrorists in Iraq’s Fallujah Triangle.
3. According to the Danish Institute for international Studies, IHH is connected to Al Qaeda and global Islamic terrorism. The Istanbul office of IHH was raided, and IHH activists were arrested, by the Turkish security services. Explosives, IED (Improvised Explosive Device) manuals, weapons and Afghanistan-oriented documents were confiscated during the raid.
4. According to a French intelligence report, Bulent Yildirim, the president of IHH, recruited “Jihad warriors” and transferred money, firearms and explosives to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists in various countries. Yildirim made telephone calls to European “shelter apartments,” which were used by Islamic terrorists, including Abu el-Ma’ali, known as “Junior Ben-Laden.” IHH produced documents, which facilitated air travel by Islamic terrorists, posing as relief workers. IHH was connected to Ahmed Ressam, an Islamic terrorist, who attempting to smuggle 1320 pounds of explosives and plant them at the Los Angeles International Airport.
5. Bulent Yildirim embraced the world view of the Muslim Brotherhood (the mentor of Hamas in Gaza) and has been a systematic supporter of – and collaborator with – Hamas. He has transferred significant amount of money to Hamas and its “charitable societies” and has promoted – during major Hamas events in Turkey – armed struggle against the Jewish State.

THE CONTEXT OF THE “GAZA FLOTILLA”:
1. Gaza is a bastion of Iran and Syria-supported Hamas terrorism, launching thousands of missiles at Israel, kidnapping Israel’s Gilad Shalit and smuggling into Gaza terrorists, more precise and longer range missiles, explosives and other lethal elements. Efforts have been made to minimize such smuggling via Sinai and from the Mediterranean.
2. Israel’s aim of cooperation was demonstrated by Jerusalem’s offer to allow the “Gaza Flotilla” to reach its destination (in spite of the daily flow to Gaza – via Israel – of food, oil, cement and multitude of products) following a thorough examination of its content.
3. The “Gaza Flotilla” aim of confrontation was demonstrated by its rejection of Jerusalem’s offer and by the handguns, knives, screwdrivers, iron pipes and a gun employed by terrorists on board. Confrontation has been the goal of the “Gaza Flotilla,” as evidenced by the campaign of anti-Israel incitement carried out by its personnel and sponsors.
4. The Israeli soldiers were prepared for a peaceful-takeover in face of (erroneously-assumed) civil disobedience. Therefore, they were equipped with paintball guns as the primary weapon and handguns as an emergency weapon, to be used only if facing death. They resorted to handguns in response to an attempted lynch by the scores of terrorists, who assaulted the soldiers with iron pipes, knives, screwdrivers and a gun. Handguns were snatched from soldiers, by the lynching mob, and were directed at the soldiers. Five boats were taken over peacefully and one (with 600 passengers) became an arena of confrontation between Israeli soldiers and terrorists. Israeli restraint minimized fatalities among terrorists.
5. The responsibility for the fatalities and casualties lies at the doorstep of the IHH, other supporters of the “Gaza Flotilla,” the UN and multitude of governments, which could – but would not – stop the Flotilla.
6. Would NATO allow a “humanitarian aid” convoy, organized by the radical Islamic anti-Western IHH, to travel unchecked to a Taliban stronghold?! Would Germany, Italy or France allow such a convoy to reach “Baader Meinhoff”, “Red Brigade” or “Action Direct” terrorist strongholds?
7. The “Gaza Flotilla” highlights the role of the Jewish State as the outpost of Western democracies in face of Islamic terrorist offensive. De-legitimizing and weakening Israel – the role model of counter terrorism – would be a tailwind for Islamic terrorists – the role model of international terrorism – facilitating their assault on the Free World. It’s not a clash over Gaza; it’s a clash of civilizations!

[SNIP]

It is a good thing that, this time, “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhayu is canceling the “much-anticipated meeting with President Barack Obama in Washington on Tuesday in a sign of just how gravely Israel viewed the uproar. In Canada, Netanyahu announced he was rushing home but said he had called the American president and agreed to meet again.”

Folks, this is what defending the homeland means. You don’t go on foreign expeditions searching for monsters to destroy; you destroy the monsters when they approach your homeland.

As usual, “Israel’s refusal to put down its guns and mobilize an army of stone throwers to throw stones back at the persecuted Arabs is equated with the crime of using excessive force.”

UPDATE I: IDF Via YouTube – Navy Warns Flotilla (May 31, 2010):

Flotilla Members Attacking Israeli Boarding Party – May 31, 2010

UPDATE II: Flotilla of flotsam and jetsam. “Oh Jews, The Army of Muhammad Will Return.”

Via Diana West, “Who Attacked Whom?”

UPDATE III (June 1): Finally Israel recognizes the need for a super intelligence, both presentable and well-spoken, to serve as ambassador to the US. Michael Oren is indeed all that. For decades, Israel’s PR was fronted by bumbling schlemiels.

Was this a set up? Did Israel get sucked in? Those are legitimate questions. However, I ask you, what would the US do if a flotilla of 6 ships of dubious origins, from the Middle East, was approaching one of its ports. Dirty bomb smuggling, any one?

UPDATE IV: David Frum’s “Stop the Hypocrisy about Israel” focuses on the double standards applied to Israel. I’d add that Turkey crying “bloody massacre” is beyond farcical.

Turks exterminated the Armenians during the First World War and attempted to do the same to the Kurds. These days Turkey prosecutes Turks who dare to “denigrate Turkishness,” like novelist Orhan Pamuk. “Denigrating Turkishness” is code for refusing to deny the Armenian genocide.

UPDATE V: Alan Dershowitz:

“… The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

Third, were those on board the flotilla innocent non-combatants or did they lose that status once they agreed to engage in the military act of breaking the blockade? Let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla. It was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather the break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:

“This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege on 1.5 million Palestinians.” (AFP, May 27, 2010.) …

[SNIP]

The White House has backed the UN Security Council’s call for an “impartial investigation” into the events.

UPDATE VI: IDF Releases Definitive Flotilla Footage. Observe how these animals swarm the Israeli soldiers. What if these were your Navy SEAL sons?

UPDATE VII (June 2): Israel has been “serbed,” says Serbian writer Nebojsa Malic. See his analysis in the Comments Section.

Update II: Comity Confirmed Between Israel & (Old) South Africa

Britain, History, Israel, Military, South-Africa, Trade

The Israel-hating West will begrudge the plucky Jewish State its close relationship with the Old South Africa, but not Barely a Blog and friends. It is common knowledge that Israel worked closely to help South Africa develop a nuclear arsenal. A new book confirms as factual what was previously presumed.

My own book most certainly does not tell “a troubling story of Cold War paranoia, moral compromises, and Israel’s estrangement from the left” (OMIGOD), to quote from the Random-House blurb about one Sasha Polakow-Suransky’s new book “revealing the previously classified details of countless arms deals conducted behind the backs of Israel’s own diplomatic corps and in violation of a United Nations arms embargo. Based on extensive archival research and exclusive interviews with former generals and high-level government officials in both countries.”

The South African documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky and published in today’s Guardian, include “top secret” South African minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries as well as direct negotiations in Zurich between Peres and Botha.

The Guardian:

The South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong, who attended the meetings, drew up a memo laying out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Israeli missiles – but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
Polakow-Suransky said the minutes record that at the meeting in Zurich on 4 June 1975, Botha asked Peres about obtaining Jericho missiles, codenamed Chalet, with nuclear warheads.

“Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available,” the minutes said. The document then records that: “Minister Peres said that the correct payload was available in three sizes”.

The use of a euphemism, the “correct payload”, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue. Armstrong’s memorandum makes clear the South Africans were interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.
The use of euphemisms in a document that otherwise speaks openly about conventional weapons systems also points to the discussion of nuclear weapons.
In the end, South Africa did not buy nuclear warheads from Israel and eventually developed its own atom bomb.
The Israeli authorities tried to prevent South Africa’s post-apartheid government from declassifying the documents.

The documents declassified in The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa have galvanized the festering “international community” even more against Israel. Whereas to me these secret agreements actually demonstrate how responsible both countries were with their arsenal; perceptions differ among UN functionaries, most of whom are either entirely sympathetic to or of the undeveloped world.

Israel will be made to pay for being friend to the ostracized country, as it pretended to abide international boycotts on South Africa. In an attempt to distance the adored Yitzhak Rabin from the deals, the author even floats the theory that Shimon Peres, who brokered the deal, was his own agent, working alone. Darn, those Israelis!

Thanks to Myles Kantor for sending the story, as it appeared in YNetNews:

According to the Guardian report, the documents indicate that the two sides met on March 31, 1975. Polakow-Suransky [“the American academic who uncovered the documents while researching a book on the military and political relationship between the two countries”] wrote in his book, which was published in the United States this week, “Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal.”
Among those who participated in the meeting was the South African military Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong, who prepared a memorandum that lists the benefits of acquiring Jericho missiles, but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
The memo, which was classified as “top secret” and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israeli officials, was exposed in the past, but its context was unclear, as it was unknown that it served as a basis for the Israeli offer made on the same day.
In the memo, Armstrong wrote:” In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere.”

The documents published by the Guardian are of interest, although I find the greatest significance in this warm note Peres, who has always been a conservatively minded individual (most members of the Israeli Old Guard were tough and patriotic), pens to minister Eschel Mostert Rhoodie. In it Peres alludes to
the two countries’ shared determination to resist their enemies. He implies too that South Africa and Israel were both refusing to submit to the injustices against them.

This indeed is most revealing about the sympathy Israel harbored for South Africa. Having resided in both countries during those times, I can attest to the feelings of comity between the two countries.

Update I: Glisson is wrong (see Comments). The facts as they have emerged are significant—in as much as they cement what we know about a long-standing, close collaboration. Writes Jane Hunter, publisher of the monthly journal Israeli Foreign Affairs, in April of 1986:

“Essentially, the two nations pledged themselves to each other’s survival and freedom from foreign interference. Over the years this cooperation has taken on a symbiotic quality: from Israel South Africa gets advanced engineering, including military technology unobtainable elsewhere due to sanctions and embargoes; from South Africa Israel receives strategic raw materials and capital for a variety of purposes.”

Another “real event” ignored by our friend is the fact that, by the time this exchange occurred (1970s), Israel had already cobbled the weapons together. This is an infant country compared to the Afrikaner nation, which had settled the tip of the continent and forged an identity two hundred years prior.

Still, I must be one of the few Jews who’s proud of the fact that Israel, in the person of the tough, laconic Yitzhak Shamir (whom paleos are fond of calling a terrorist for fighting those wicked Britons—I bet a hate for the Brits was another Israeli and Afrikaner uniting factor), told the US it would take no part in its attempts to cripple South Africa:

Israel’s foreign minister, told a New York audience that Israel would not institute sanctions against South Africa. Instead, Shamir said, Israel would leave that task to the great powers and continue its “normal” relations with Pretoria.

Update II (May 26): Given Barbara’s prodigious knowledge and general fairness, I await a follow-up on what the Brits, not beloved by the Afrikaner and Israeli old guard, did to the Jews before they gained independence in Israel. Sink a ship with refugees from Nazi Europe? Quarantine them as the Americans did to the Japanese? Remove weapons intended for self-defense against Arab marauders? Have at it.

Update II: Comity Confirmed Between Israel & (Old) South Africa

Britain, History, Israel, Military, South-Africa, Trade

The Israel-hating West will begrudge the plucky Jewish State its close relationship with the Old South Africa, but not Barely a Blog and friends. It is common knowledge that Israel worked closely to help South Africa develop a nuclear arsenal. A new book confirms as factual what was previously presumed.

My own book most certainly does not tell “a troubling story of Cold War paranoia, moral compromises, and Israel’s estrangement from the left” (OMIGOD), to quote from the Random-House blurb about one Sasha Polakow-Suransky’s new book “revealing the previously classified details of countless arms deals conducted behind the backs of Israel’s own diplomatic corps and in violation of a United Nations arms embargo. Based on extensive archival research and exclusive interviews with former generals and high-level government officials in both countries.”

The South African documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky and published in today’s Guardian, include “top secret” South African minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries as well as direct negotiations in Zurich between Peres and Botha.

The Guardian:

The South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong, who attended the meetings, drew up a memo laying out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Israeli missiles – but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
Polakow-Suransky said the minutes record that at the meeting in Zurich on 4 June 1975, Botha asked Peres about obtaining Jericho missiles, codenamed Chalet, with nuclear warheads.

“Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available,” the minutes said. The document then records that: “Minister Peres said that the correct payload was available in three sizes”.

The use of a euphemism, the “correct payload”, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue. Armstrong’s memorandum makes clear the South Africans were interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.
The use of euphemisms in a document that otherwise speaks openly about conventional weapons systems also points to the discussion of nuclear weapons.
In the end, South Africa did not buy nuclear warheads from Israel and eventually developed its own atom bomb.
The Israeli authorities tried to prevent South Africa’s post-apartheid government from declassifying the documents.

The documents declassified in The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa have galvanized the festering “international community” even more against Israel. Whereas to me these secret agreements actually demonstrate how responsible both countries were with their arsenal; perceptions differ among UN functionaries, most of whom are either entirely sympathetic to or of the undeveloped world.

Israel will be made to pay for being friend to the ostracized country, as it pretended to abide international boycotts on South Africa. In an attempt to distance the adored Yitzhak Rabin from the deals, the author even floats the theory that Shimon Peres, who brokered the deal, was his own agent, working alone. Darn, those Israelis!

Thanks to Myles Kantor for sending the story, as it appeared in YNetNews:

According to the Guardian report, the documents indicate that the two sides met on March 31, 1975. Polakow-Suransky [“the American academic who uncovered the documents while researching a book on the military and political relationship between the two countries”] wrote in his book, which was published in the United States this week, “Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal.”
Among those who participated in the meeting was the South African military Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong, who prepared a memorandum that lists the benefits of acquiring Jericho missiles, but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
The memo, which was classified as “top secret” and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israeli officials, was exposed in the past, but its context was unclear, as it was unknown that it served as a basis for the Israeli offer made on the same day.
In the memo, Armstrong wrote:” In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere.”

The documents published by the Guardian are of interest, although I find the greatest significance in this warm note Peres, who has always been a conservatively minded individual (most members of the Israeli Old Guard were tough and patriotic), pens to minister Eschel Mostert Rhoodie. In it Peres alludes to
the two countries’ shared determination to resist their enemies. He implies too that South Africa and Israel were both refusing to submit to the injustices against them.

This indeed is most revealing about the sympathy Israel harbored for South Africa. Having resided in both countries during those times, I can attest to the feelings of comity between the two countries.

Update I: Glisson is wrong (see Comments). The facts as they have emerged are significant—in as much as they cement what we know about a long-standing, close collaboration. Writes Jane Hunter, publisher of the monthly journal Israeli Foreign Affairs, in April of 1986:

“Essentially, the two nations pledged themselves to each other’s survival and freedom from foreign interference. Over the years this cooperation has taken on a symbiotic quality: from Israel South Africa gets advanced engineering, including military technology unobtainable elsewhere due to sanctions and embargoes; from South Africa Israel receives strategic raw materials and capital for a variety of purposes.”

Another “real event” ignored by our friend is the fact that, by the time this exchange occurred (1970s), Israel had already cobbled the weapons together. This is an infant country compared to the Afrikaner nation, which had settled the tip of the continent and forged an identity two hundred years prior.

Still, I must be one of the few Jews who’s proud of the fact that Israel, in the person of the tough, laconic Yitzhak Shamir (whom paleos are fond of calling a terrorist for fighting those wicked Britons—I bet a hate for the Brits was another Israeli and Afrikaner uniting factor), told the US it would take no part in its attempts to cripple South Africa:

Israel’s foreign minister, told a New York audience that Israel would not institute sanctions against South Africa. Instead, Shamir said, Israel would leave that task to the great powers and continue its “normal” relations with Pretoria.

Update II (May 26): Given Barbara’s prodigious knowledge and general fairness, I await a follow-up on what the Brits, not beloved by the Afrikaner and Israeli old guard, did to the Jews before they gained independence in Israel. Sink a ship with refugees from Nazi Europe? Quarantine them as the Americans did to the Japanese? Remove weapons intended for self-defense against Arab marauders? Have at it.