Revealed: how Israel [allegedly] offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons


Tom Usher wrote or added | This is nasty on the part of the racist Zionists, but it still contains that also nasty "plausible deniability" factor, as it doesn't say it was an offer to sell nuclear weapons. Of course, somewhere in the archives, something does make clear that it was an offer to sell nuclear weapons. The connection would be code referring to code. [See my update in the comment section below.] It's there if the South Africans will do an exhaustive search before the Zionists "buy" the priceless documents that if the South Africans will expose, they will be closer to being saviors.

An equally important thing here is to focus upon the racist aspect.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • I should qualify this post with that it could be classified documents referring to the coded language and not necessarily code referring to code. It could also be in private papers, memoirs, diaries, or the like, that have not yet seen the light of day or where the references have not been connected. It's unlikely that the documents were destroyed.

      The Israelis had nuclear weapons at the time, and South Africa was only a few years away from getting their own. The Russians and US both have said they saw an Israeli missile lift off from South Africa a couple of years after Israel said it was no longer working with South Africa on weapons.

      Of course, as with Israel's false denials about having used white phosphorus on the Gazans, everyone knows that Zionists lie. Even the way they lie is telling. They go right up to the edge on what's plausible in denial. They don't care if the whole world thinks they are lying just so long as the hard evidence isn't there to catch them in the lie. The videos of the white phosphorus was too much for most Zionists, but some still have continued lying about it even in the face of the videos and all the other evidence. It's amazing how far pathological liars will go.

      That said, I'm going on feelings from the Holy Spirit concerning this nuclear weapons issue here.

    • "Report: Israel Offered Nukes to Apartheid South Africa

      "The Guardian newspaper has published secret South African documents revealing that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the South Africa apartheid regime. In 1975, South Africa's defense minister, P.W. Botha, asked Israel's then-Defense Minister Shimon Peres for nuclear warheads. Peres, who is now Israel's president, responded by offering warheads "in three sizes." The South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the nuclear missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighboring African states. South Africa did not go ahead with the nuclear deal in part because of the cost. The documents were first uncovered by Sasha Polakow-Suransky, author of the new book The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa. The documents provide new evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of 'ambiguity' in neither confirming nor denying their existence."

      Now, that's an example of making a claim without any qualifying language. There is just not enough use of the term "alleged" in professional journalism. In hindsight, I haven't used it enough; and I'm not a professional journalist or news reporter. I'm not saying that such journalist and reporters can't offer their views. I'm simply saying that they need to separate via clear writing what's proven versus something they suspect.

    • Now, this http://(" target="_blank">( is good in the sense that more of the type of thinking I've suggested previously actually went into the book (Sasha Polakow-Suransky's "The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa") referred to in the linked article. You see that there were other documents that begin to build the case that South Africa and Israel both knew that nuclear tipped Jericho missiles were being discussed.

      I still maintain that it is all but certain that there are other documents in South Africa that would substantiate this line of reasoning beyond a reasonable doubt.