Israel's WMD, the world's best known secret, vanunu, Israel's longest pol. prisoner

[takeo]

The US rejected the Syrian proposal to make the Middle East an area free of WMD, in a reaction to the us accusation that Syria would possess WMD. Apparently, WMD is not the main concern of the US, because the US-government is well aware of Israel's illegal possession of WMD, a taboo in the American and Israeli press. Israeli scientists who did talk to the press had to pay a very high price... yep, this is the only democracy in the Middle East according to to some!
in the meanwhile no wMD have been found in Iraq, the official reason to start this war witch killed many 1000's of people and destabilised the world.
cynism in a new dimension...




Mordechai Vanunu, Israel's nuclear whistleblower, was jailed in 1986 for publishing photographs of Israel's nuclear bomb factory at Dimona. Olenka Frenkiel reveals the extent of Israel's nuclear gagging.


Revelations hit the press in October 1986
Vanunu has spent 17 years in jail, 11 of which were in a minute solitary confinement cell - and he has just had his appeal for parole denied.

He will stay in jail until 2004, when his term is expected to end.

Sunday Times journalist Peter Hounam heard rumours in 1986 that an Israeli whistleblower was offering proof of what the world had long suspected.

Vanunu was that whistleblower.

His revelations confirmed that Israel was building advanced nuclear weapons.

After the Sunday Times published this scoop, Vanunu was lured to Italy and kidnapped by Mossad agents and illegally smuggled back to Israel.

He was tried in secret and convicted of treason and spying.

Security chief exposed

In court, at his parole hearing, Avigdor Feldman, Vanunu's lawyer, argued that his client had no more secrets and should be freed.

But the prosecutor had a new argument: the imminent war with Iraq.

After the hearing Mr Feldman told Correspondent: "The prosecutor said that if Vanunu were released, the Americans would probably leave Iraq and go after Israel and Israel's nuclear weapons - which I found extremely ridiculous."

The real force blocking Vanunu's release is a man who was known only as "Y".

In 2001, "Y" was exposed as Yehiyel Horev and it is said that the only thing he fears is publicity.

Mr Horev is the head of Israel's most powerful intelligence service, dealing with nuclear and military secrets.


Yehiyel Horev unmasked, here, for the first time
His accountability has only been to the many prime ministers he has watched come and go in the 16 years he has built his power base.

He has been likened to the head of the FBI, J Edgar Hoover - an autocrat out of control.

Ronen Bergman, security correspondent for one of Israel's leading newspapers - Yediot Ahronoth - says: "Horev is a grave danger to Israeli democracy.

"He operates with no law, no real scrutiny and no monitoring by the Israeli parliament.

"Horev was afraid that veterans of the Israeli intelligence and the Israeli nuclear effort would try to maintain their footprint in the history of Israel and tell their story.

"He wanted to frighten them."

Acting with impunity

Israel never confirms or denies claims that it has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The country positions itself outside international treaties, which would make it subject to inspection.


Uzi Even - Dimona should be shut down
For 40 years, most Israelis have been content with this policy - known as "nuclear ambiguity".

But there are some in Israel who argue this policy has had its day.

They say the costs of such secrecy to Israeli democracy are too great.

Uzi Even, was a young scientist working, in the 60s, at Dimona - Israel's nuclear reactor - as did Vanunu.

Today, Mr Even says it should be shut down.

Forty-year-old reactors tend to have accidents and he believes that Dimona, which is beyond the reach of the Israeli parliament, needs to be brought into a system of accountability and public scrutiny.

Mr Even explained: "You should have an outside watchdog.

"The secrecy more or less created an extra- territorial area in Israel where standard procedures of safety monitoring are not implemented.

"So worker safety, environmental questions and industrial safety procedures, are not covered, and there are thousands of people working there."

Enforced silence

Nothing illustrates this better than the sensitive issue of Dimona's cancer victims.

In an Israeli documentary in 2002, Dimona workers said accidents had been routine.

They spoke of explosions, fires and liquid and toxic gas leaks that they had to clean, often without protection.


Accidents were 'routine' at Dimona
The authorities denied they had worked with radioactive materials.

They have refused to compensate them or their families for their years of loyal service.

Because of the strict secrecy rules they were even unable to fight for their rights.

When Correspondent approached one of the workers, who was dying of cancer, he refused to be interviewed - but with some regret.

Unaware he was being filmed, he said: "I wanted to talk to you but I have been silenced.

"They came from intelligence and told me not to talk.

"They said I would be like Vanunu."

Vanunu has another year in jail.

When his sentence is finished he hopes to emigrate to America.

But Mr Horev has clearly let it be known he never intends to let Vanunu leave Israel.

http://212.58.226.18/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/2841377.stm

[Mediocrates]

Well if he comes to America he can apply to visit Jonathan Pollard. He's about an hour from here in Butner.


BTW do you think other countries protect their nuclear secrets ferociously? French perhaps, enough to blow up a Greenpeace ship and kill some people?

[Mediocrates]

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1990/mar90/mar90danielsson.html


The Legacy of French Nuclear Testing. A poisoned Pacific.

[tandem]

takeo:

>>>'Israel's illegal possession of WMD,'<<<

just out of curiosity, why it is "illegal" to possess these weapons? france has biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, as well as america, russia, china...

>>>'Israeli scientists who did talk to the press had to pay a very high price... yep, this is the only democracy in the Middle East according to to some!'<<<

pure rubbish.. how many governments in the world have strict rules for scientists working on highly sensitive projects not to talk to anyone about it? literally every country in the world, takeo. what does this have to do with democracy?? absolutely nothing

i read that in the united states, some workers who were at area 51 later developed all kinds of weird diseases, possibly from exposure to radiation or chemical toxins that were being disposed of regularly at the base. so they sued the government to get compensation. the problem is when they started working at this base, they signed a special form that dismisses the government from any liability. when people work on projects like that, in top secret facilities, they essentially lose their civil rights, and i'm pretty sure the united states is not the only place where this is happening, regardless if the country is a democracy or not

i wouldn't wanna comment on iraq's WMD for now, although i will admit america's evidence from the very beginning was rather weak

[takeo]

BTW do you think other countries protect their nuclear secrets ferociously? French perhaps, enough to blow up a Greenpeace ship and kill some people?

Well in france people and the press are able to write about french nuclear projects, altough some ugly things happened in the past organised by the secret service, but those were illegal.
In Israel there's a whole secret service only committed to blackmail and threaten people not to reveile anything of israel's nuclear project.

just out of curiosity, why it is "illegal" to possess these weapons? france has biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, as well as america, russia, china...

because according to the treaty, certified by the UN, only france, china, russia, the US and GB are permitted to devellop nukes. Israel is not on this list, neither is Iraq... do you remember that India and Pakistan got punished for their nuclear tests? And what about Iraq, huh????????????? (let's just suppose that Iraq had WMD, which was a lie of course, but even if they had, why attack Iraq for possession of wMD and not Israel???)


pure rubbish.. how many governments in the world have strict rules for scientists working on highly sensitive projects not to talk to anyone about it? literally every country in the world, takeo. what does this have to do with democracy?? absolutely nothing

But i don't know of any other case in a democracy where people got deprived of their liberty and got sentenced to more than 10 years in solitude for talking to the press...
it happened in Russia, the soviet-union and china, and each time HR-organisations AND the uS made a great fuss about it...

[Mediocrates]

because according to the treaty, certified by the UN, only france, china, russia, the US and GB are permitted to devellop nukes. Israel is not on this list, neither is Iraq... do you remember that India and Pakistan got punished for their nuclear tests? And what about Iraq, huh????????????? (let's just suppose that Iraq had WMD, which was a lie of course, but even if they had, why attack Iraq for possession of wMD and not Israel???)




A common misconception. The NNPT is about the proliferation of technology not the possession. Since Israel was (apparently) not a non nuclear country at the time Article II does not apply. Whereas Article I does.

Here is the text:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

India and Pakistan were warned (not punished at least not under any legal jurisdiction) under the CBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) although it is possible to construe that testing is a theoretical break of Article VI.


Your last sentence is pureagitprop. Yes it is.

[Mediocrates]

BTW it's nice to see that Israel Haters are reading the Israeli press. Since this story was published, this is fourth website and you are the 6th or 7th hater to scream and jump up and down and foam about zionaziwarmongeringunjustsecret yadda yadda. You'd me amazed at the philosophical company you keep: Nazis, skinheads, America Firsters, the John Birch Society, race hate groups and the like.

[Mediocrates]

Also you didn't answer my question. Who does not ferociously protect their nuclear secrets? Wouldn't YOU, dear heart, be first in line screaming for Israeli regime change if they ever accidently let slip their own secrets? Of course you would.

Remember, there is no room for reality with ideologues.

[takeo]

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.



article II and III, read it...

agitprop according to you, it's actually just a question, a very logical and simple one by the way, that requires an answer, why can Israel possess wMD while Iraq nor North-Korea can not? Both are not recognised by the world as nuclear powers...

I searched for websites but there are very few, altough it's a sensational story. The rest of your ranting (something about john birch society, etc.) is as usual not comprehensible and not related to the subject..., what are you talking about?

I'm not an Israel hater, but I hate the political establishment in Israel, that's correct.

"Also you didn't answer my question. Who does not ferociously protect their nuclear secrets? Wouldn't YOU, dear heart, be first in line screaming for Israeli regime change if they ever accidently let slip their own secrets? Of course you would.

Remember, there is no room for reality with ideologues."

calm down please. Seems like you prefere to hide the truth if it can be used against the israeli government... exactly the same you reproach the regime of Saddam or Syria...

your last sentence is true for both sides. The Bush-government idielogues are also very distanced from reality...

[Mediocrates]

Do you know what the word part NON means, in English? You can't have it both ways you flaming ziphead.

You can't say they ARE a nuclear power and then apply the part of a treaty applies to NON nuclear countries while at the same time ignoring the part that applies to nuclear countries.

Reading is Fundamental.

[Israelite-Tribe]

Takeo, a simple dumb but true answer to why Israel is allowed to carry these WMD?

SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS CREATED BY A JEW AND JEW = ISRAEL AS ALL OF YOU SAY BECAUSE WE OF COURSE PRACTICE APARTHEID? RIGHT??? RIGHT?? ... SO WE ARE ALLOWED SO shut it plz ABOUT ISRAEL NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE WMD I HATE THESE PEOPLE ... A JEW CREATED IT SO thats it!

[takeo]

did you take your medicines? Jewish or non-Jewish is not the issue here, Israel is a state as any other, and I STILL don't know why Iraq can't have WMD and Israel can.

You can't say they ARE a nuclear power and then apply the part of a treaty applies to NON nuclear countries while at the same time ignoring the part that applies to nuclear countries.

actually Israel is not RECOGNISED as a nuclear power by the threaty so it is considered a non-nuclear power, not permitted to possess, acquire, produce, proliferate or test nuclear weapons...

[Mediocrates]

So proceed from that basis - you still can't have it both ways, sorry. You atr living in a dream world if you think you can.

Your argument is rhetorical you want us to make your points for you.

[danholo]

It's not about who can have 'em. It's about who is a threat with those weapons. I really don't understand takeo equating Saddam with Israel.

I'd actually prefer that no one had nukes, mind you, but I'd rather see Israel with nukes than a crazy guy like Saddam or Kim Jong Il.
But Israel having nukes doesn't serve them any advantage, so if it has some, it should get rid of them. I've seen Dimona. I remember it being some kind of dome. And like any military facility, it's guarded and pictures are not allowed.

[richcrassus]

What it all comes down too is that most sane people in society and politics know israel has WMD for defence, and arabs have WMD to attack israel one day.
Thats why Syria the cunning arab state wants to mid east to be free from WMD because that it will have a better chance or beating and destroying israel in another war one day. Syria dosent care about the environment and stuff like that, all it wants is for israel to have no WMD so it can destroy it, also even if syria signed a declatation like that, it would secretely keep some of its own WMD as well anyway.

I have a good idea, how about banning WMD from the mid east, including israel, that have USA inspectors comming in 1/yr to see if all sides ar complying, and if syria has them than the US is allowed to do with syria as they wish, a number of choises are
1.)attack syria and impose deadly food sanctions on them
2.) Give syria to israel and let it be called israel(its ours anyway, syria is betwen the red sea and the euphrates, thats what god promised us, all that land between the red sea and euphrates.)
, oh and the same goes for other arab countries as well, if egypt were to sign a treaty like that and it was found to still have WMD a few yrs down the track it shoulo give back the sinai to israel, and if jordan violates the treaty it sould take all the PALS no questions asked, and also it should give up more land along the dead sea, jordan side to israel, i think thats fair.

[takeo]

What it all comes down too is that most sane people in society and politics know israel has WMD for defence, and arabs have WMD to attack israel one day.
Thats why Syria the cunning arab state wants to mid east to be free from WMD because that it will have a better chance or beating and destroying israel in another war one day. Syria dosent care about the environment and stuff like that, all it wants is for israel to have no WMD so it can destroy it, also even if syria signed a declatation like that, it would secretely keep some of its own WMD as well anyway.

I have a good idea, how about banning WMD from the mid east, including israel, that have USA inspectors comming in 1/yr to see if all sides ar complying, and if syria has them than the US is allowed to do with syria as they wish, a number of choises are
1.)attack syria and impose deadly food sanctions on them
2.) Give syria to israel and let it be called israel(its ours anyway, syria is betwen the red sea and the euphrates, thats what god promised us, all that land between the red sea and euphrates.)
, oh and the same goes for other arab countries as well, if egypt were to sign a treaty like that and it was found to still have WMD a few yrs down the track it shoulo give back the sinai to israel, and if jordan violates the treaty it sould take all the PALS no questions asked, and also it should give up more land along the dead sea, jordan side to israel, i think thats fair.

this purely your own interpretation. iraq's nukes would be for defense as well. saddam had the possibility to send rockets loaded with biological and chemical weapons to Israel during the first Gulfwar. He didn't do so, nor did he use WMD against the Americans or coalition troops. But IF saddam had nukes, noone would dare to invade Iraq and the whole war wouldn't have happened. So basically Iraq uses WMD for the same reason as Israel.
this is even more true for North korea, why do you think the US doesn't have any plans to invade North Korea? it isn't because they like Kim Yong Il so much... North Korea devellopped WMD to protect itself against a possible US-aggression, so according to your logic north-Korea should be allowed to have WMD for self-defense purposes... by the way North Korea proposed a non-agression treaty with the us in exchange for total destruction of all nuclear programs (which would eliminate the reason for having wMD) the us refused...

But your last proposal is quite interesting, but to be truly balanced and evenhanded the same requirements and conditions should be put on the arab countries and Israel, ok?
So indeed all this would happen to the Arab countries if they violated the treaty, but THE SAME would happen to israel if it violated the treaty, all right?

[richcrassus]

Umm, Nth Korea invented nukes to blackmail the USA into giving it concessions like food and imunity from american attack. By the way israel dosent starve its own people to death and it dosent have camps where politcal prisinors are sent to rot to death. do they?

Unlike Nth Korea, israel has never threatened to destroy another arab country, nor has it stated it would attack another country if the USA dodnt give it more money or something like that, nth korea has done all those things.

[takeo]

Umm, Nth Korea invented nukes to blackmail the USA into giving it concessions like food and imunity from american attack. By the way israel dosent starve its own people to death and it dosent have camps where politcal prisinors are sent to rot to death. do they?

Unlike Nth Korea, israel has never threatened to destroy another arab country, nor has it stated it would attack another country if the USA dodnt give it more money or something like that, nth korea has done all those things.

actually, North korea never blackmailed and threatened the us that it would use nukes if they didn't offer them food, it DID however indeed threaten to use nukes if it would be attacked by the us. Didn't israel threaten arab countries as well by WMD if Israel's existance would be threatened???? isn't this exactly the same?
Threatening to use nukes if you get attacked isn't blackmail, it's self-defense.

the other issues are not relevant for this matter, we are talking about WMD, not about what kind of regime is in place in which country. Even the Israeli occupation of the westbank and Gaza isn't relevant in this matter.
I doubt if israel doesn't have camps. according to AI many palestinian prisoners have never been heard of since they were arrested...

North-Korea never threatened to use nukes either, unless for self-defense purposes, as israel.
North-korea offered to destroy its nukes in exchange for aid, an offer israel did never make (to destroy its nukes)

[Mediocrates]

You object to the existence of Israel and perhaps the US as well as the possible possession of nuclear weapons of the same countries on purely philosophical grounds. That is, what you are saying has only the barest connection to reality and is meant only to force someone else to make your points for you. So it's not meaningful to engage in your 'debate'.

[takeo]

That is, what you are saying has only the barest connection to reality and is meant only to force someone else to make your points for you. So it's not meaningful to engage in your 'debate'.

the barest connection to reality? Everything in this thread is very real. I'm not asking someone else to make points for me. i just made a comparison to show how biased your own policy and point of view is, the facts are just there in the open, you just need to compare.

[Mediocrates]

yes they are and there continues to be no reason to entertain your philosophy.

[eyl]

Takeo, several points:

First of all, the legal viewpoint - in the NTP, each article refers to the "Parties of the Treaty". The NTP is not binding on Israel, as it is not a signatory to the Treaty; therefore, any discussion on the restrictions the NTP imposes is irrelevent. The Arab countries, OTOH, are signatories to the Treaty, and are therefore bound by its provisions.

Secondly, though it may not be PC to say so, there is a difference in the possession of nuclear weapons by democracies and dictatorships. The difference lies in the control of the weapons. In any democracy, nuclear weapons are controlled by a system of checks; in a dictatorship, their use or non-use is subject to the whims of a single man, who may or may not be acting rationally. Furthermore, specifically regarding Israel, I don't recall anyone suggesting Israel would sell nukes to other countries or to terrorists (which I understand North Korea has threatened to do), or that its controls are such that theft (with or without government connivance) of its weapons is at all likely (as opposed to the situation with Pakistan, which is also not a signatory of the NTP).

Which brings us to North Korea. North Korea is a member of the NTP. It threatened to withdraw from the Treaty in 1993, but did not do so, and then later in 1994 signed an agreement (with the US to freeze and dismantle its nuclear weapons). Apparently, however, develpment of nuclear weapons continued in North Koera, which means they violated two agreements on the subject. Given that, I don't see why they should be trusted in this latest offer. Can you explain that to me?

Originally posted by takeo
In Israel there's a whole secret service only committed to blackmail and threaten people not to reveile anything of israel's nuclear project.


Oh? Which one is that? AFAIK Israel does not have a secret service devoted to threatening people against revealing nuclear secrets.

Regarding Vanunu - he knowingly set out to break the law (one whose applicability on himself he explicitly acknowledged when he signed the agreement which is part of a security clearance) on an issue which Israel considers vital for his security.

Didn't israel threaten arab countries as well by WMD if Israel's existance would be threatened???? isn't this exactly the same?

How could Israel do that when it doesn't acknowledge having WMD's?

[takeo]

Takeo, several points:

First of all, the legal viewpoint - in the NTP, each article refers to the "Parties of the Treaty". The NTP is not binding on Israel, as it is not a signatory to the Treaty; therefore, any discussion on the restrictions the NTP imposes is irrelevent. The Arab countries, OTOH, are signatories to the Treaty, and are therefore bound by its provisions.

OK, so if North Korea pulls out of the Treaty as it theatened to do so, it would be OK for them to devellop WMD??? Was iraq a signatory as well before the Gulf-war? I doubt so.

Secondly, though it may not be PC to say so, there is a difference in the possession of nuclear weapons by democracies and dictatorships. The difference lies in the control of the weapons. In any democracy, nuclear weapons are controlled by a system of checks; in a dictatorship, their use or non-use is subject to the whims of a single man, who may or may not be acting rationally. Furthermore, specifically regarding Israel, I don't recall anyone suggesting Israel would sell nukes to other countries or to terrorists (which I understand North Korea has threatened to do), or that its controls are such that theft (with or without government connivance) of its weapons is at all likely (as opposed to the situation with Pakistan, which is also not a signatory of the NTP).

actually even in a democracy one man can decide to employ the weapons, in the US it's the president, in israel the prime minister. And in the case of the US i'm not completely at ease with this fact......
Even dictatorships have a system of checks, as for example was very clear in the Soviet Union. On this matter dicatorships do not really differ from democracies. By the way the nuclear programm of Israel has never been voted in the parliament, so there's no popular involvement.
Israel could sell wMD just as any thirth world country. Did you know that the El-Al accident in Amsterdam made clear that Israel IS importing and exporting WMD????



Which brings us to North Korea. North Korea is a member of the NTP. It threatened to withdraw from the Treaty in 1993, but did not do so, and then later in 1994 signed an agreement (with the US to freeze and dismantle its nuclear weapons). Apparently, however, develpment of nuclear weapons continued in North Koera, which means they violated two agreements on the subject. Given that, I don't see why they should be trusted in this latest offer. Can you explain that to me?

because the latest offer include garantees and more than a draft. north Korea wants this agreement to be internationally verified. besides the north only reactivate its nuclear program when the US stopped its part of the deal (at least officially).
Any new agreement will include checks and inspections. If the North violates the agreement than the us can do the same.
But anyway i can't possibly see why the US should resist to an offer to sign a non-aggression-treaty, it means the uS and the south will be free of Northern attacks, while north-Korea can stop its paranoia that the us plans to attack the North. (unless of course you wANT the us to invade the North, which is a totally different point of view...)


Oh? Which one is that? AFAIK Israel does not have a secret service devoted to threatening people against revealing nuclear secrets.

OK, I saw it in a BBC documentory, the name of the man who heads it was repeated often, but i forgot, i'll try to find it. officially of course this organisation doesn't exist, but it's actually the thirth largest secret service according to insiders.

Regarding Vanunu - he knowingly set out to break the law (one whose applicability on himself he explicitly acknowledged when he signed the agreement which is part of a security clearance) on an issue which Israel considers vital for his security.

But why can he be detained for over 16 years for just talking to the press about something Israel officially doesn't even possess???????? I don't know any other such example in a democratic country.


How could Israel do that when it doesn't acknowledge having WMD's?

officially neither north Korea nor Iraq have ever threatened to use wMD. But of course anyone knews israel will use nukes when it is loosing a war that threatens its existance, while the same is generally accepted to be true in the case of North-Korea.

[eyl]

Originally posted by takeo

OK, so if North Korea pulls out of the Treaty as it theatened to do so, it would be OK for them to devellop WMD??? Was iraq a signatory as well before the Gulf-war? I doubt so.

If it withdrew from the NTP, NK could develop nuclear weapons - preventing such a withdrawal would be a matter for diplomacy and international pressure, not law. As for Iraq, it signed the NPT in 1968 (though it's nuclear program violated it).



actually even in a democracy one man can decide to employ the weapons, in the US it's the president, in israel the prime minister. And in the case of the US i'm not completely at ease with this fact......
Even dictatorships have a system of checks, as for example was very clear in the Soviet Union. On this matter dicatorships do not really differ from democracies. By the way the nuclear programm of Israel has never been voted in the parliament, so there's no popular involvement.
Israel could sell wMD just as any thirth world country. Did you know that the El-Al accident in Amsterdam made clear that Israel IS importing and exporting WMD????


I don't know the exact mechanism for nuclear release in the US, but in a democracy, the leader is responsible to the people, and must ultiamtely face their judgement at the polls, and is subject to the courts of the country. Any US president who was perceived to use nuclear weapons unnecessarily would likely be impeached (if he was lucky). In Israel, any use of nuclear weapons would likely (given the way our system works in other matters) require the authorization of the Cabinet or a limited portion of it; I find it very unlikely the prime minister can order a nuclear strike on his sole discretion (given that he can't order a conventional strike on his own discretion either).
As for exporting weapons - sure, Israel could sell WMDs. So could the US, France, and any other country which possesses them. But do you consider it plausible? Or likely? NK, OTOH, has threatened to sell nuclear weapons to third parties.
As for the El-Al crash - the plane was carrying dimethyl methylphosphonate. While it is used for the production of Sarin, it also has other uses:

Dimethyl methylphosphonate (98% pure) is one of four chemicals nominated by the U.S. Army for toxicology and carcinogenesis studies because it was being considered for use to simulate the physical and spectroscopic (but not the biologic) properties of anticholinesterase (nerve) agents. Dimethyl methylphosphonate is also used as a flame retardant, a preignition additive for gasoline, an antifoam agent, a plasticizer and stabilizer, a textile conditioner and antistatic agent, and an additive for solvents and low-temperature hydraulic fluids. The United States produces 0.2-2 million pounds (91,000-910,000 kg) of per year. Gavage was chosen as the route of administration for all four candidate "simulants" to mimic potential exposure.

http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/LT-studies/tr323.html


Incidently, if you maintain this proves Israel imported WMDs, it neatly demolishes your argument that Iraq had no WMDs; after all, lots of pesticide was found (hidden and camoflouged, I might add), and undiluted pesticides can be used as chemical weapons (the primary difference between bug spray and military nerve gas is concentration)

because the latest offer include garantees and more than a draft. north Korea wants this agreement to be internationally verified. besides the north only reactivate its nuclear program when the US stopped its part of the deal (at least officially).
Any new agreement will include checks and inspections. If the North violates the agreement than the us can do the same.
But anyway i can't possibly see why the US should resist to an offer to sign a non-aggression-treaty, it means the uS and the south will be free of Northern attacks, while north-Korea can stop its paranoia that the us plans to attack the North. (unless of course you wANT the us to invade the North, which is a totally different point of view...)

The previous agreement also included inspections. North Korea evaded or blocked them.

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaDprk/dprk.pdf

And as for the Non-Agression Pact - if North Korea violates the agrrement, the US will most likely spend months in the UN before it can respond in any way. Also, the question is what conditions NK is attaching to that pact.




But why can he be detained for over 16 years for just talking to the press about something Israel officially doesn't even possess???????? I don't know any other such example in a democratic country.

Because exposing vital security secrets to the press in the way he did is treason.


officially neither north Korea nor Iraq have ever threatened to use wMD. But of course anyone knews israel will use nukes when it is loosing a war that threatens its existance, while the same is generally accepted to be true in the case of North-Korea.

Sorry, "anyone knows" is not the same as "Israel threatened the use of nuclear weapons", which is what you said.

[Am Yisrael]

Originally posted by eyl
As for the El-Al crash - the plane was carrying dimethyl methylphosphonate. While it is used for the production of Sarin, it also has other uses:


If Iraq had dimethyl methylphosphonate, monsier Takeo would say that they were using it for a hydraulic fluid addititive... but if Israel has dimethyl methyphosphonate, Takeo would say Israel is developing chemical warfare against poor helpless Arabs.

(I like that tongue twister.... dimethyl methylphosphonate :p )

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
The US rejected the Syrian proposal to make the Middle East an area free of WMD, in a reaction to the us accusation that Syria would possess WMD. Apparently, WMD is not the main concern of the US, because the US-government is well aware of Israel's illegal possession of WMD, a taboo in the American and Israeli press. Israeli scientists who did talk to the press had to pay a very high price... yep, this is the only democracy in the Middle East according to to some!
in the meanwhile no wMD have been found in Iraq, the official reason to start this war witch killed many 1000's of people and destabilised the world.
cynism in a new dimension...


Takeo,

As an aside, I have only been on this site for a little while, but this is the second or third time I have seen you assert something to be illegal under international law or pursuant to UN security council resolutions when they are not. In this case, I think the point has already been made that Israel is not a signatory to this treaty, while in the other that I immediately recall you compared Israel's non-compliance with resolution 242 (which, incidentally, the Arab states have also not complied with) to non compliance of Iraq to binding security council resolutions, notwithstanding the fact that they were adopted under different titles.

All this does is undermine the credibility of your arguments. May I also suggest that you try (once or twice) removing all language that you believe others will perceive as biased or inflamatory, and only asert facts in formulating arguments. Reference to "extreme right wing" "illegal settlements" and the like are clearly unhelpful in conducting rational discourse. The fact that you assert something to be illegal or land to be "occupied" does not necessarily make it so. It does not make you wrong either, but when you make such assertions all you do is inflame and divert the course of rational dialogue.

Going back to your claims regarding Israel and nuclear weapons, I thought it has been common knowledge for some time that Israel has a nuclear capability.

The US is unconcerned with it because it perceives Israel to be a responsible user of such weapons.

While I don't particularly like ad hominem arguments, it seems that with respect to nuclear prolifiration, the French have constantly been the number one obstacle. This is, of course, not to excuse Israel of any illegal or immoral conduct, but it has to be remebered that the purpose of the non-prolifiration treaty is to prevent prolifiration of nuclear weapons. If anyone needs to be constrained, it is the French, not the Israelis.

If I may, I get the impression that for you, the legality or illegality of an action is what imparts on it its moral character. More specifically, you seem to be of the view that if an action is illegal it must be immoral. Thus your reference to "illegal" nuclear weapons, "illegal settlements" and the like. I have made the point before, but it is worth repeating: while the legality of an action contributes something to the moral character of the action, the fact that something is illegal does not make it immoral. And the primary responsibility of any national governemnt is to its people.

And given the complete disfunction of international institutions like the United Nations (for example, if the US can effectively buy votes on the security council its resolution will be approved but if the US cannot, the resolution will fail), where totalitarian regimes and kleptocracies have standing on human rights tribunals and the like, why does any action of the UN afford something any moral weight.


While you seem to have little sympathy for Israel's security concerns, I would expect you to appreciate that Israelis do not share your perspective. I also expect for you to have recognized that until Israel achieved a defensible border in 1967, she perceived herself to be, and in fact was, at continuous risk of being overrun and her people slaughtered. And while the risk was real, the language comming out of both the Arab street and Arab capitals only reionforced this position. Given this, do you not think that it would be both entirely reasonable and inherently moral for Israel to develop nuclear capabilities. The development of such capabilities could both act as a deterrent (thus aleviating some of Israel's security concerns) while at the same time avoiding the damage on Arab populations that conventional deterrence would have to incur. You may not like Dr. Strangelove's game, but it is sometimes necessary for countries to play.

And with respect to the whistleblower, every country has laws dealing with classified information. It is necessary in a free and democratic society to have such laws. This prevents individuals from imposing their policy views on the democratically elected representative government. If a government wants to keep something secret, where the reason for this desire stems not from a need ot avoid embarassment but legitimate security or diplomatic concerns, then it is just to punish those who violate this confidentiality.


May I ask you one other thing. Chomsky makes reference to "worthy and unworthy victims" in his assessment of bias in the western media. I completely agree. However, it also appears to me that the "left" has exactly the same problem. Thus victims which are in a group perceived to be disadvantaged for one reason or another is considered a worthy victim (i.e. Palestinians) while another group is not perceived to be worthy (i.e. Israelis). While you may deny that you feel this way, it is clear from the media on the left that they do, in fact, practice this worthy vs unworthy dicotomy. And it is fairly clear from your posts that you make the same value judgments. I am wondering (as someone equally disenfranchised with both the left and the right) how people who perceive themselves to be so knowledgable and so progressive play the same game with the facts as those they skewer for playing the same games.

[LevyCohen]

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
If Iraq had dimethyl methylphosphonate, monsier Takeo would say that they were using it for a hydraulic fluid addititive... but if Israel has dimethyl methyphosphonate, Takeo would say Israel is developing chemical warfare against poor helpless Arabs.

(I like that tongue twister.... dimethyl methylphosphonate :p )

I bet that was some copy and pasting, huh?
As for takeo, who seems to beleive that the only country in the world NOT allowed to defend itself is Israel, you seem to be a bit confused...
I wouldnt put it past you to say that you beleive Jews shouldnt be alive anyways, but I beleive that Jews, like ANY OTHER GROUP, have a right to exist and be in control of their own safety.
France, which aided and continues to aid enemies to the state of Israel, has always ensured that Israel wasnt getting anything better than its arab enemies, especially before they did. Maybe your line of crazy thinking comes from that?

That France can hold WMDs astounds me(with its history and current politics), but I dont beleive we should attack France and disarm you silly nutcases because of it. You have a right to defend yourself. So do we.

This fight isnt about WMDs, or legality..its about Jews being able to defend themselves. Saddam and his arab "friends" have shown time and again their willingness to use power and politics for their own aims and gains..this means military and speech.
Perhaps we should have disarmed the US during world war 2, gave the nazis the green light to destroy all of france and perhaps we'd all speak japanese...

again, Jews, like any other group, have the right to self-defense.

[Mediocrates]

France's drive to develop a nuclear force was borne of their colonial defeat in Indochina and not even based on any credible threat to their own country. It was not until they had a credible deterrent in the Force Frappe that France decided to cook up their policy of going it alone.

[Da Chuckstar]

Why do you even bother arguing with someone who compares Israel with Iraq and North Korea? Its a subtle way of trying to insult Israel. Takeo's mind has been rotted away by Arab propoganda.

I saw someone in this forum with a signature that made perfect sense and which should shut Takeo up (for at least a few minutes anyway). It said the following:

If the Arabs put down their weapons, there would be no war. If the Jews put down their weapons, there would be no Israel.

Until the Arabs put their weapons down and stop inciting hatred, no one has any right to tell Israel to put its nuclear weapons away. I don't know of a single country in this world that deserves to have nuclear weapons more than Israel does. And as someone else mentioned, it was Jewish people that invented the nuclear bomb.

[danholo]

Originally posted by Da Chuckstar
And as someone else mentioned, it was Jewish people that invented the nuclear bomb.

Yup, yup. It's all the Jews fault. I guess we are trying to destroy or take over the world - without us even knowing it.

We're so powerful it's scary. :D

[Evgeny]

the only way to keep your nation from being "liberated" is to arm your self. The Cowards Bush, Wolfowicz, and Franks wouild not dare to attack an enemy who could put up a fight. Their will be a day when it is not populare any more to support jews in america and they will turn on Israel. The only way Israel can be safe is to arm its self. But why keep it secret. let the world know that they are not to be reckoned with.