An unsung hero

[armageddonman]

http://www.nonviolence.org/vanunu/

http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/

"In September 1986 Mordechai Vanunu disclosed to the world that Israel had secretly produced 100-200 nuclear warheads. Before the publication of this information in the Sunday Times, he was kidnapped by the Israeli secret service. At a trial held in camera in Israel he was convicted of treason and espionage, and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment, of this the first 11 1/2 years were spent in solitary confinement."


Unbelievable, isn't it? If that had happened in Iran, this man would be considered a hero by the "free" world.

[Cleopatra]

Thank you for bringing this issue on the surface!!!

Vanunu case is a typical example of Israel's absurdity when it comes to vital things for a society like Freedom of Speech and Human Rights

:mad:

Do we live in Middle Ages or what???

If an Arab dictator did that, the USA government wouldn't hesitate to drop some bombs... what do they do now???

[Samus]

A little known fact is that Israel has also attacked U.S. ships that were outside their jurisdiction (international waters, I guess those would be called?) After sinking one, they claimed it was a mistake and Lyndon Johnson went along to keep relations good.

Of course, it was a spy ship, and we were spying on their actions against Egypt, but that's another thread...

We turn a blind eye to a lot of what Israel does. I guess when you need to pick one ally in a part of the world where everyone fights all the time, you have to deal with things like that.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dwb
A little known fact is that Israel has also attacked U.S. ships that were outside their jurisdiction (international waters, I guess those would be called?) After sinking one, they claimed it was a mistake and Lyndon Johnson went along to keep relations good.

Of course, it was a spy ship, and we were spying on their actions against Egypt, but that's another thread...

We turn a blind eye to a lot of what Israel does. I guess when you need to pick one ally in a part of the world where everyone fights all the time, you have to deal with things like that.

It's a whole lot of other threads. Unfortunately the search feature here sucks, which makes them hard to find. ('Liberty' is a very common word, and 'USS' is only 3 characters long.)

Just to be clear, besides the Liberty, which other ships do you claim that Israel has attacked? And also, just so you know, the Liberty was not sunk.

Although I'm sure now that the Liberty has been brought up again there will be much discussion about it.

MattJ

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Thank you for bringing this issue on the surface!!!

Vanunu case is a typical example of Israel's absurdity when it comes to vital things for a society like Freedom of Speech and Human Rights

:mad:

Do we live in Middle Ages or what???

If an Arab dictator did that, the USA government wouldn't hesitate to drop some bombs... what do they do now???

:confused:

Has the US been bombing Egypt and Syria for their violation of human rights?

[JamesM]

If I was to reveal nuclear secrets of, say, the UK to the press, and then I got caught, what sort of punishment could I expect? Is the Israeli treatment of Vanunu a lot harsher than would be handed out elsewhere?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by JamesM
If I was to reveal nuclear secrets of, say, the UK to the press, and then I got caught, what sort of punishment could I expect? Is the Israeli treatment of Vanunu a lot harsher than would be handed out elsewhere?


If by elsewere you mean, say, Europe then the answer is definately yes.
Read the links and judge for yourself.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by armageddonman

If by elsewere you mean, say, Europe then the answer is definately yes.


Yeah, Europe is what I'm thinking of. Or the US.


Read the links and judge for yourself.

I have read the links, I'm just not sure whether the charge for revealing nuclear secrets would be treason here, and if it is, how long I would be sent to prison for. From the Galloway affair, I see that Treachery gets you two years, but I've been unsuccessful in finding out more.

It appears the maximum sentence for treason in France is 15 years, which isn't that far off from the 20 Vanunu got. However, I found that figure in this article on the trial of Pierre-Henri Bunel (the French army intelligence officer accused of passing information to the Serbs in the Kosovo conflict) in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,617207,00.html), so the real number could be anywhere between 1.5 and 150 years.

minor edit for formatting

[Samus]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
It's a whole lot of other threads. Unfortunately the search feature here sucks, which makes them hard to find. ('Liberty' is a very common word, and 'USS' is only 3 characters long.)

Just to be clear, besides the Liberty, which other ships do you claim that Israel has attacked? And also, just so you know, the Liberty was not sunk.

Although I'm sure now that the Liberty has been brought up again there will be much discussion about it. hmmm, I guess my memory didn't serve me very well (happens quite often, I'm afraid). If you say the Liberty did not sink, I'll take your word for it until I can get home to check out my sources. For sure, it was attacked by Israel when we were evesdropping on their pummeling of Egypt's air forces.

I do agree with you on one thing, the search feature stinks. :)

[Samus]

hmmm, who needs books, a quick Google search gave me everything I need.

Indeed, I stand corrected, the USS Liberty did not sink, but was attacked and the intentional nature of the attack was covered up. And it was poor wording on my part to imply other ships were attacked. I did learn something new though, I was not aware that U.S. fighter jets were not allowed to defend the Liberty.

I stand by my earlier comment that we let Israel get away with too much (killing of our sailors notwithstanding) in the name of friendship.

[Cleopatra]

USA and Europe have condemned Iran, Iraq and Syria for developing WMD with far less evidence than Vanunu provided for Israel's nuclear program.

Israel has supplanted Britain as the World's 5th largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal...

With a PM that declares, "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches." one should expect that the International Community would be extremely worried for those developments.

Of course, Israel is a Democracy and in Democracies the procedures of using WMD are completely different than those in dictatorships but we must not have our eyes shut to the double standards regarding nuclear weapons.

We must be either for or against a Nuclear Free Middle East. We cannot accuse Syria and leave Israel to develop its nuclear program, uncontrolled, because by doing so, the International Community lacks credibility.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

We must be either for or against a Nuclear Free Middle East. We cannot accuse Syria and leave Israel to develop its nuclear program, uncontrolled, because by doing so, the International Community lacks credibility.

The standard response (which I take from an American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise website (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf23.html#g)) is:

Israel's assumed nuclear deterrent is an option of last resort, needed to offset the large imbalance in conventional arms, chemical weapons and ballistic missiles possessed by the Arab states.

Does this have much validity? Has it, in any poster's opinion, deterred Israel's neighbours, or is it the protection of America that has a larger deterrent effect?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
USA and Europe have condemned Iran, Iraq and Syria for developing WMD with far less evidence than Vanunu provided for Israel's nuclear program.

Israel has supplanted Britain as the World's 5th largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal...

With a PM that declares, "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches." one should expect that the International Community would be extremely worried for those developments.

Of course, Israel is a Democracy and in Democracies the procedures of using WMD are completely different than those in dictatorships but we must not have our eyes shut to the double standards regarding nuclear weapons.

We must be either for or against a Nuclear Free Middle East. We cannot accuse Syria and leave Israel to develop its nuclear program, uncontrolled, because by doing so, the International Community lacks credibility.

Unlike your other three examples, Israel never signed (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm) the NPT treaty. Neither did France, for example, until 1992, well after it independently developed nuclear weapons. Because of this, those nations had to develop nuclear weapons on their own, and they did.

Your other three examples, however, did sign and ratify (in '69, '69, and '70) the NPT treaty. Then when they purchase technology from the West with the proviso that they will not use that technology to make weapons, they had d#mn well better not. There is no double standard here that I can see.

There are not, as far as I'm aware, different procedures for democracies and non democracies.

Your last paragraph is wrong on its face, in my opinion. I am neither for nor against a nuclear free Middle East. There are procedures Iran could take to remove itself from the NPT, (it would be very difficult to do, but if they truly wanted to, it could be done) and if they did, I would respect that, and learn to live with their goal of independently attempting to become a nuclear power.

Others might not accept such an action from Iran, but in that case, it would be those people who have a double standard re: international law. Their stance would appear to be that some treaties that have exit clause (http://fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm) cannot be exited. That is not my stance, nor is it (nor should it be) my government's stance.

MattJ

[Skeptic]

(sigh)

How many times do we need to go through this?

The "Liberty" was intentionally attacked--because it was believed to have been an Egyptian ship. It shouldn't have been attacked; israel could have known it was an American ship; it could have known that, in retrospect, given the intelligence information it had; but it didn't, due to fog of war and other military SNAFUS.

The definitive investigation of the incident is found in the history periodical "Azure" (unfortunately, only in hebrew). Essentially, it proves that, yes, israeli intelligence DID know it was an American ship... but due to a combinations of foul-ups, simple inattention, and inevitable "time gap" in communications up from intelligence to the high command and back down again to the air force, THIS INFORMATION NEVER REACHED THE AIR FORCE PLANNING DIVISION IN TIME.

Simply put, while intelligence ALREADY knew it was an American ship, the air force STILL didn't know that fact when it sent out the planes to attack what (to them) was an Egyptian ship. That's all there is to it--a tragic delay in relaying information, hardly the first in the history of warfare, I might add. No conspiracy, "coverup", or nefarious world-spanning, high-level pressure was at play.

This sort of thing happens in EVERY war, ALL the time. American soldiers were mistakenly shot at and killed by allied troops--and vice versa--in just about every war the US was involved with. Only recently, the US in Yugoslavia bombed the Chinese embassy and a red cross train--two targets which they should have known very well were there and were noncombatants. In the second gulf war, only a couple of months ago, one allied plane bombed a column of allied soldiers by mistake. These thing happen.

The "it was a deliberate coverup" story is simply an anti-israeli (tras.: antisemitic) conspiracy theory. First, it makes no sense at all: we are supposed to believe that israel, engaged in a three-front war against an enemy outnumbering it 50 to 1, suddenly decided to deliberately attack and kill a ship by its only ally in the world.

Second, the "they didn't want the US to discover what they are doing" story also doesn't hold water: can you think of anything that would make the US MORE interested in what the USS Liberty had discovered than deliberately bombing it? It's like trying to make A ignore B by blowing up B in A's presence. Not a good idea.

Finally, the "they pressured Johnson to cover it up" conspiracy theory (as usual) is self-contradictory. It assumes that israel (or, more accurately, the jews) is both all-powerful and totally powerless.

On the one hand, it assumes that israel was so controlled by the US, that it just HAD to bomb the USS Liberty so that American pressure against israel's "nefarious plans" will not start--the assumption being that the moment the US wants something, israel must do it.

On the other hand, it assumes that israel controls the US so strongly, that it forced a sitting president to ignore and hide proof of its deliverate attack on US seamen--the assumption now being that the moment israel wants something, the US must do it.

Make up your mind! It can hardly be both...

Like all good conspiracy theories, however, it is impossible to show the "true believer" that it makes no sense. It has its "good guys" (the Arabs and the brave souls who discovered "the truth" about the attack on the USS Liberty), its "innocent sheep mislead by propaganda" (most Americans), and its villains (israel, and more generally, the "zionists"--that is, the jews). You cannot argue logically with such an emotionally satisfying picture of the world.

Certainly, I can't; I'm one of THEM, dear true believer, so I am obviously just part of the conspiracy to cover up "the truth"(TM), of course. What can you expect from a jew, after all. But to those of you not already wedded to the "israel is Satan" idea, I hope these facts explain something.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Skeptic
How many times do we need to go through this? Don't know, as many times as it takes I guess.

Originally posted by Skeptic
The "Liberty" was intentionally attacked--because it was believed to have been an Egyptian ship. It shouldn't have been attacked; Israel could have known it was an American ship; it could have known that, in retrospect, given the intelligence information it had; but it didn't, due to fog of war and other military SNAFUS. Israeli aircraft had flown over the Liberty several times before actually attacking it. Are you telling me you don't believe they could see the American flag it was flying, or the big words "USS Liberty" on the side?

Originally posted by Skeptic
This sort of thing happens in EVERY war, ALL the time. American soldiers were mistakenly shot at and killed by allied troops--and vice versa--in just about every war the US was involved with. I agree. Except that we were not involved with this war (not direct troop mobilization, anyway).

Originally posted by Skeptic
The "it was a deliberate coverup" story is simply an anti-israeli (tras.: antisemitic) conspiracy theory. Wrong. There's nothing anti-Semitic about admitting that State of Israel doesn't always have U.S. interests in mind when in acts. If you think that's being anti-Semitic, then you need to grab a dictionary and check out what it really means.

Originally posted by Skeptic
First, it makes no sense at all: we are supposed to believe that israel, engaged in a three-front war against an enemy outnumbering it 50 to 1, suddenly decided to deliberately attack and kill a ship by its only ally in the world. Our intelligence reported that Israel knew exactly what they were doing, and made a calculated attack on Egyptian air forces to disable them. It was a smart war move, indeed. However, they were reporting to the rest of the world that Egypt threw the first punch. We had intel to prove otherwise. No conspiracy there.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Second, the "they didn't want the US to discover what they are doing" story also doesn't hold water: can you think of anything that would make the US MORE interested in what the USS Liberty had discovered than deliberately bombing it? It's like trying to make A ignore B by blowing up B in A's presence. Not a good idea. Sometimes, governments do things that just don't make any sense.

Originally posted by Skeptic
On the one hand, it assumes that israel was so controlled by the US, that it just HAD to bomb the USS Liberty so that American pressure against israel's "nefarious plans" will not start--the assumption being that the moment the US wants something, israel must do it.

On the other hand, it assumes that israel controls the US so strongly, that it forced a sitting president to ignore and hide proof of its deliverate attack on US seamen--the assumption now being that the moment israel wants something, the US must do it. Your first graf is okay, the second one makes little sense. Having Israel as an ally is very important to the U.S., has been for a long time. Pile that on top of the fact that this was President Johnson, who history proved to be one of our less esteemed presidents when it comes to telling the truth to his people, and you've got something.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Like all good conspiracy theories, however, it is impossible to show the "true believer" that it makes no sense...What can you expect from a jew, after all. But to those of you not already wedded to the "israel is Satan" idea, I hope these facts explain something. Got a cite for your facts, by any chance? Take a gander at Body of Secrets (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2VGD6CFP4V&isbn=0385499078&itm=1) when you get a chance. When people who have much better access to "the big picture" than you or I say it was more than an accident, I take the time to understand their side of the story, before writing it off as a conspiracy theory.

Furthermore, this has so little to do with being Jewish or anti-Semitic, and I'm disappointed you would even choose to make that an issue.

[JamesM]

I don't suppose you guys fancy taking this to the USS Liberty thread I bumped this afternoon (that is, if you feel you have anything more to add)? Nowicki's testimony in 'Body of Secrets' is certainly interesting, if slightly problematic.

[Samus]

Whoops, sorry about the hijack. I'll take a gander at the old thread.

No hard feelings, hooah?

[BillyTK]

Hi Skeptic, I've replied to you in the USS Liberty thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869980409#post1869980409) in an attempt to re-rail this thread.
Cheers!

[Skeptic]

Sometimes, governments do things that just don't make any sense.

(sigh)

Once you take THAT route, the discussion is over--because you can "explain" ANY hole in your theory by simply claiming that it was an "irrational" action. There is no essentially irrationality or simple absurdity in any conspiracy theory than cannot be simply blamed on "irrationality" of the alleged "conspirators":

Why WOULD the pentagon hide the UFOs? It was acting irrationally. Why WOULD the men in black follow me? They are crazy. Why WOULD the government spread AIDS on purpose? They went insane. Why WOULD israel attack its only ally in the world on purpose? They are nuts.

etc., etc., etc...

Besides, once more, the whole thing falls apart because you are assuming both something and its opposite: on the one hand, the USS "Liberty" attack was made by people rational enough to make long-range, devious, secret plans spanning the oceans and involving high-level politics... and at the same time, didn't realize what a five-year old would understand, namely, that it might NOT be such a great idea to attack your only ally during a war of survival.

Finally, and what is THE critical point, is that the whole point of the conspiracy theory here is NOT that the "Liberty" was not attacked (which it was) but that it was an INTENTIONAL ATTACK ON AN ALLY. THIS is what needs to proven. Without intent, it is simply a tragic mistake (which it was).

So, what evidence is there?

1). On the one hand, ample positive evidence, based on historical research, that the attack was NOT deliberate, but the result of military SNAFUs, coupled with the fact that there isn't the slightest motive FOR such a deliberate attack that stands a bit of criticism.

2). On the other hand, what evidence is there for an intentional attack? none at all! All the alleged "benefits" israel would get from "hiding" the USS Liberty's information are besides the point, since--quite apart from the fact that there isn't the least reliable evidence that these "benefits" existed--it is blatantly obvious that attacking the ship would be just about the WORST way to hide its data, let alone the potential disasterous reprucussions by the US. So what is left? "Proof" by assertion: "yes, I admit that if THOSE are the reasons for an intentional attack, such an attack would be the height of irrationality; but I guess they just acted irrationallty".

But this isn't "evidence". It's merely blaming the alleged conspirators for the biggest gaping logical hole in your theory--the fact that there isn't a concievable reason for a deliberate attack.

[CapelDodger]

Skeptic, you are very naive.

Vanunu is indeed a hero. His continued punishment is pure vindictiveness. The case is also a good example of the many ways in which the "free democratic" Israeli system actually operates. The whole judicial system, frankly, sucks, and the power and independence of the security system is awesome. Of course, in Israel anypolitical case is de facto a security issue. Vanunu is not the only victim. We should also remember the unsung heroes who refuse to serve in the occupied territories.

[Dancing David]

On three hands here:
a. state secrets are state secrets, even if they are common knowledge.
b. Israel probably could have executed Mr.V, so maybe this is a light sentence.
c. If this was Iran , we would be hosting a party for him.

The questions is, what did Mr. V. give away that wasn't common knowledge in the community, or is this just spinning to make people think that there are that many weapons.

Just demosnstrates my point that our government overlooks things it shouldn't

[Cleopatra]

Vanunu is released today. In fact he must have been released 15 minutes earlier.

He is released under conditions that should make the civilized western world be ashamed. For one more time the Israeli officials disgrace the memory of our ancestors who have suffered in hands of people that valued human life very little by imposing humiliating conditions to citizens who dare to exercise their democratic right to act according their morals.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3643907.stm

[Roadtoad]

The full story is here. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=1&u=/nm/20040421/wl_nm/israel_vanunu_dc)

[Drooper]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
We should also remember the unsung heroes who refuse to serve in the occupied territories.

You mean the disputed territories.

[IllegalArgument]

[QUOTE]
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic
The "Liberty" was intentionally attacked--because it was believed to have been an Egyptian ship. It shouldn't have been attacked; Israel could have known it was an American ship; it could have known that, in retrospect, given the intelligence information it had; but it didn't, due to fog of war and other military SNAFUS.

Israeli aircraft had flown over the Liberty several times before actually attacking it. Are you telling me you don't believe they could see the American flag it was flying, or the big words "USS Liberty" on the side?
[QUOTE]

Sounds like the Chinese Embassy screwup, these things happen. I would presume a spy ship would not have obvious national markings.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Drooper


You mean the disputed territories.

According to Israel, anyway.

[richardm]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument

Sounds like the Chinese Embassy screwup, these things happen. I would presume a spy ship would not have obvious national markings.

Wasn't the Chinese Embassy acting as a relay station for Yugoslavian military radio signals? So it wasn't so much bombed as a screwup, but as an accidentally-done-on-purpose affair.

(Edited to fix formatting)

[Virgil]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


It's a whole lot of other threads. Unfortunately the search feature here sucks, which makes them hard to find. ('Liberty' is a very common word, and 'USS' is only 3 characters long.)

Just to be clear, besides the Liberty, which other ships do you claim that Israel has attacked? And also, just so you know, the Liberty was not sunk.

Although I'm sure now that the Liberty has been brought up again there will be much discussion about it.

MattJ


there was a recent book by a USA intel guy on this topic.

also, john pollard, the spy

for the record, to critcize israel the state for its political actions is much different than critcizing the the jewish people.



Virgil

[c0rbin]

...citizens who dare to exercise their democratic right to act according their morals.


I am not one to entangle myself in the Jew-Arab love-fest that these threads inevitable become, however this statment struck me.

It could be an English-as-a-second-language-thing, so forgive me if it is.

In a society, any society, an individual's morals become less suhbjective. They should rightly bend toward the good of the society--within reason.

If a person breaks the law, there is recourse, and action should be taken.

Sounds like thats what happened here. You may uphold a criminal as a hero, just as NAMBLA might uphold a criminal as a hero, but personal morals are not always upheld by "democratic rights."

[Skeptic]

If I was to reveal nuclear secrets of, say, the UK to the press, and then I got caught, what sort of punishment could I expect? Is the Israeli treatment of Vanunu a lot harsher than would be handed out elsewhere?

If anything, it's a lot easier. By the way, Vanunu isn't--as claimed--an "anti-nuclear activist", any more than Quisling was an "anti-war activist". For starters, he opposes the nuclear disarmament of any nation EXCEPT israel; he is on record opposing the bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, for example.

[Skeptic]

Found the link about the "Liberty":

USS "Liberty": Case Closed (http://www.azure.org.il/9-Oren.htm)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by JamesM
If I was to reveal nuclear secrets of, say, the UK to the press, and then I got caught, what sort of punishment could I expect? Is the Israeli treatment of Vanunu a lot harsher than would be handed out elsewhere?

If Vanunu is a hero, I guess Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg were even bigger "heros"??

Had Vanunu given up the military secrets of Iran, his head would be decorating a spike somewhere.

-z

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Thank you for bringing this issue on the surface!!!

Vanunu case is a typical example of Israel's absurdity when it comes to vital things for a society like Freedom of Speech and Human Rights

In what country does the freedom of speech extend to the public disclosure of state secrets?

I think you can argue that what Vanunu did was correct in a moral sense, but I can't see that his actions can be defended in a legal sense. Note: I am not saying I would agree with the moral argument, only that such an argument could be made.

Nations have national secrets and laws to protect those secrets. Citizens that violate those laws face punishment. Individual citizens who may have access to those secrets are not permitted to pick and choose which ones they will keep based upon their personal political beliefs, they are required to keep them all confidential.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Do we live in Middle Ages or what???

If an Arab dictator did that, the USA government wouldn't hesitate to drop some bombs... what do they do now???

I disagree. If an Arab dictator arrested and convicted a spy against his own government, the US would not bomb them for it.

[Skeptic]

If Vanunu is a hero, I guess Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg were even bigger "heros"??

Well, yes. Say what you will about them, but they believed in their cause. Vanunu, on the other hand, was kidnapped after he agreed--of course breaking every security regulation--to sell israeli nuclear secrets to Britian's Sunday Times for lots of money. The great "hero" simply did it for the money, like (for instance) Aldrich Ames. At least the Rosenbergs were idealistic.

By the way, did you notice that those celebrating Vanunu as a hero are the same people who condemn Pollard as a monster and "proof" of how evil israel is? Pollard is a traitor to the US, indeed, but from what is known his crime is to give israel material he believed it should get anyway and would not harm the US, without any monetary reward.

That belief might have been wrong; and in any case it doesn't excuse treason. But morally, it DOES matter: Pollard gave israel material he believed would benefit israel and not harm the US for idealistic reasons. Vanunu gave the Sunday Times material he knew very well would harm israel for money. Both are traitors, but Vanunu obviously the worse one.

Yet these people celebrate Vanunu awful fate, while they hate Pollard and wish him to continue to be in jail. Go figure.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Skeptic



Pollard is a traitor to the US, indeed, but from what is known his crime is to give israel material he believed it should get anyway and would not harm the US, without any monetary reward.

That belief might have been wrong; and in any case it doesn't excuse treason. But morally, it DOES matter: Pollard gave israel material he believed would benefit israel and not harm the US for idealistic reasons.
Yet these people celebrate Vanunu awful fate, while they hate Pollard and wish him to continue to be in jail. Go figure.


might have been wrong????

Pollard was a traitor and he broke his oath. He should've been killed. The only reason he wasn't is because the country was isreal. he was even up for pardon under Clinton (but rejected)

as for Vanunu, that is isreals problem and they should punish him under their law and I could care less.

Virgil

[zenith-nadir]

Mordechai Vanunu gave evidence that Israel was developing nuclear weapons to a British newspaper. That is treason against his own country, Israel. What the heck did he think would happen, the Israelis would pat him on the back and make him a hero?

Jonathan Pollard was an Israeli spy who got caught passing CIA WMD info on Israel's neighbors. Wonder how accurate that info was after all... ;) ... his crime is spying, not treason.

The USS Liberty was a friendly fire incident nearly 40 years ago, and even with our modern 21st century technology it still happens all the time (http://www.google.ca/search?q=friendly+fire+incident&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=).

[Skeptic]

Pollard was a traitor and he broke his oath.

Who said he wasn't? But if Pollard is a traitor--and he is--so is Vanunu. It is hypocritical to condemn one as a traitor and claim the other is a "hero".

[Skeptic]

Jonathan Pollard was an Israeli spy who got caught passing CIA WMD info on Israel's neighbors.

Er, I don't think Pollard actually ever had israeli citizenship. But in any case, what matters is that he IS an American, and as such (regardless of other citizenships he might hold) it is treason to spy for another country. If Pollard not an American citizen, then indeed he would be only a spy, and not a traitor. But since he's American, he is a traitor.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Skeptic

But if Pollard is a traitor--and he is--so is Vanunu. It is hypocritical to condemn one as a traitor and claim the other is a "hero".

But morally, it DOES matter....no it doesn't, he can justify it in his mind anyway he wants. under the law it is treason.

if you read my post, no where do I claim that this Vanunu person is a hero. for reference I will repost that here

"as for Vanunu, that is isreals problem and they should punish him under their law and I could care less."

and to make it clear if this Vanunu did not commint any crimes against the USA I don't care what isreal does to him. (I do hope he got a fair trial under their law)




Virgil

[Skeptic]

Incidentally, in the recent "documentary" about Vanunu recently shown in Autralia, not only is he shown as a hero (of course), but his family is shown as a bunch of ultra-orthodox European jews, complete with their funny clothes, weird accent, and Yiddish phrases.

Apparently the producer wanted to make Vanunu a sympathetic traitor--I mean, who wouldn't want to get away from people like that? The fact that Vanunu's family is actually Moroccan, and wouldn't wear such clothes or speak Yiddish, was not important.