WikiLeaks Revelation: Israel Bombed Syrian Nuclear Facility in 2007

Israel / SyriaThe Jerusalem Post reports:

Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria, apparently built with North Korea’s help, former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said to State Department officials in April 2008, according to Yediot Aharonot quoting a cable recently released by Wikileaks.

The cable is the first official confirmation of the incident, and details the intelligence gathered before the attack, the collaboration between the US and Israel, the government’s move to bomb the Syrian reactor and concern that Syrian President Bashar Assad would retaliate with war, Yediot Aharonot reported, quoting the cable.

“We have avoided sharing this information with you until now for fear of and in an attempt to avoid a conflict,” Rice says in the cable.

“I would like to inform you that the Israeli attack was aimed at destroying the secret reactor built by Syria in a desert area in the east of the country called al-Kibar,” the cable quotes her as saying.

“The Israeli mission was successful — the reactor was destroyed without an option of rehabilitation. Syria completed the site’s evacuation, got rid of the evidence of what existed in the area and set up a new building on the site.” The former secretary of state added, “We believe, based on solid evidence, that North Korea helped Syria build the reactor — and we have decided that it’s time to share more information on this matter with you.” on this matter with you.”

Read More in the Jerusalem Post

19 Comments on "WikiLeaks Revelation: Israel Bombed Syrian Nuclear Facility in 2007"

  1. Quad-Zilla | Dec 26, 2010 at 10:47 pm |

    not to be contentious but wasn’t this story on cable news for about a day back when it actually took place? les of a leak and more of a reminder…

  2. Quad-Zilla | Dec 26, 2010 at 6:47 pm |

    not to be contentious but wasn’t this story on cable news for about a day back when it actually took place? les of a leak and more of a reminder…

  3. This is not a big secret. Now we just have to hit Iran’s.

  4. This is not a big secret. Now we just have to hit Iran’s.

    • Nano_Thermite_911 | Dec 27, 2010 at 1:57 am |

      I think that is why it is “news” at all. So people will make that crafted assumption and say “well shit let’s just go bomb Iran too”. Give me a break. Wikileaks is part of the media/military industrial complex.

      http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389

      • Tuna Ghost | Dec 27, 2010 at 8:46 pm |

        The article linked there does not make that case. I’m confused why you think that, because coporate media outlets take information from Wikileaks and adjusts it to fit their plans, this means Wikileaks is somehow complicit in the mainstream media’s “disinformation program”. Not only does the information provided by the article prove nothing, much of the article’s information relies on unconfirmed emails and speculation.

  5. All sounds a bit like bollocks to me,

  6. All sounds a bit like bollocks to me,

  7. All news outlets, cable or otherwise, reported this because of WikiLeaks…

  8. All news outlets, cable or otherwise, reported this because of WikiLeaks…

  9. Nano_Thermite_911 | Dec 27, 2010 at 5:57 am |

    I think that is why it is “news” at all. So people will make that crafted assumption and say “well shit let’s just go bomb Iran too”. Give me a break. Wikileaks is part of the media/military industrial complex.

    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389

  10. Contextually, its important to remember that the cables don’t represent genuine raw data…but the quietly held opinions and statements of diplomats…much of which is already extremely colored by their beliefs and ideologies. Just because a series of cables seems to be ‘in line’ with the current and past US policy stance…that doesn’t make Wikileaks a corporate/Israeli/CIA tool…it just means that what they’re showing us is a window into the narrow world of pre-existing strategies and biases.

    If a cable emerges where a diplomat discusses third hand information…that doesn’t make the information any more or less true or false…it just means that you can view the third hand info that the diplomat in question felt was important. It tells you a lot about the specific focuses of diplomatic personnel…not necessarily about what is or isn’t factual.

  11. Contextually, its important to remember that the cables don’t represent genuine raw data…but the quietly held opinions and statements of diplomats…much of which is already extremely colored by their beliefs and ideologies. Just because a series of cables seems to be ‘in line’ with the current and past US policy stance…that doesn’t make Wikileaks a corporate/Israeli/CIA tool…it just means that what they’re showing us is a window into the narrow world of pre-existing strategies and biases.

    If a cable emerges where a diplomat discusses third hand information…that doesn’t make the information any more or less true or false…it just means that you can view the third hand info that the diplomat in question felt was important. It tells you a lot about the specific focuses of diplomatic personnel…not necessarily about what is or isn’t factual.

  12. Ironaddict06 | Dec 27, 2010 at 8:07 pm |

    Yep. This is not new news.

  13. Tuna Ghost | Dec 28, 2010 at 12:46 am |

    The article linked there does not make that case. I’m confused why you think that, because coporate media outlets take information from Wikileaks and adjusts it to fit their plans, this means Wikileaks is somehow complicit in the mainstream media’s “disinformation program”. Not only does the information provided by the article prove nothing, much of the article’s information relies on unconfirmed emails and speculation.

Comments are closed.