Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Israel renews restrictions on nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu

Despite serving 18 years in prison, including 11 in solitary confinement, Vanunu is forbidden from traveling and speaking to the media. Recently, he was denied a permit to speak before the British Parliament, following an invitation by 54 MPs. 

The Israeli interior minister and the IDF Central Command have decided to extend restrictions on nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu’s freedom of movement and speech. Vanunu’s attorney, Avigdor Feldman, has been notified on the decision and told +972 Magazine he will once again petition the High Court of Justice on Vanunu’s case.

Since his release from prison in 2004, Vanunu hasn’t been allowed to leave Israel, enter a foreign consulate or embassy, come within 500 meters of an international border, port or airport or enter the West Bank. He is forbidden from speaking to journalists, and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) monitors all foreign nationals with whom he meets. The Shin Bet must also approve Vanunu’s meetings with a foreign national who the Israeli media says is his partner.

Last month, Vanunu’s request to travel to London for a three-day visit was denied. He had been invited to speak before the British Parliament (his invitation was signed by 54 MPs) as well as to attend an Amnesty International event. Feldman also petitioned the Israeli High Court of Justice against that decision.

Vanunu was a radiation technician in the Negev Nuclear Research Center, which according to foreign sources, is a facility used to develop and manufacture nuclear weapons. Vanunu was fired in 1985 due to his political activism for left-wing causes. In 1986 he gave extensive details regarding the Negev facility to British Sunday Times reporter Peter Hounam, along with pictures he took without authorization. The Mossad later lured Vanunu to Rome where Israeli agents kidnapped and renditioned him back to Israel. He was convicted of treason and espionage, and sentenced to 18 years in prison.

Vanunu sepnt his first 11 years in solitary confinement; he went on to serve his sentence in full – up to the very last day. The restrictions regarding his freedoms of travel and speech shouldn’t be confused with terms of parole (as CNN does here); they came in addition to his sentence. In 2010 Vanunu served two and a half months in prison for violating the restrictions placed on him.

Feldman describes those restrictions as new form of punishment placed on Vanunu after he fully paid his debt to society, without having a single day deducted from his sentence. “I don’t know of another example or precedent like this,” says Feldman. “All Vanunu is asking for is to be able to leave the country and spend what’s left of his life in another place. Many countries have offered to take him.”

Feldman rejects the state’s claim that Vanunu, who last set foot in Israel’s nuclear facility some 30 years ago, is still in possession of any information that was not long ago obtained by the press. Until now, all attempts to appeal his case in the Supreme Court have failed.

Here is a link to Israeli officials’ letters informing Feldman of their intention to prolong the restrictions on Vanunu; here is Feldman’s petition to the High Court regarding the request to travel to London. Both documents are in Hebrew.

Nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, Jerusalem 2009 (Eileen Fleming CC BY-3.0)

Nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, Jerusalem 2009 (Eileen Fleming CC BY-3.0)

There is little doubt that Vanunu is the most important whistleblower in Israel’s history and one of the more important whistleblowers worldwide in recent decades. The information he provided to the Sunday Times allowed experts to estimate Israel’s nuclear capabilities (according to foreign sources, Israel has between 80 and 400 nuclear warheads), and established Israel’s position as a leading military and nuclear power.

The jury is still out on whether this publicity harmed or helped Israel. I have seen conspiracy theories claiming that Israel crafted Vanunu’s leak in order to create deterrence without forcing Jerusalem to reverse its policy of nuclear opacity. It’s an absurd notion, but there is some truth to the claim that Israel profited from the Vanunu leak. Anyway, when it comes to Vanunu the person, that debate is irrelevant. Vanunu was a pacifist who broke the law and his non-disclosure commitments, and paid the heaviest price for it — losing his freedom. His current treatment seems more about revenge than national security or the rule of law. A simple Internet search can lead to just about everything Vanunu knew, and way more.

One thing that troubles me about the case is the relative indifference to his case by the Israeli Left and liberals in the country (compare the silence to the way the Left rallied behind Anat Kamm or the conscientious objector movement). Born in Morocco to a religious Jewish family and raised in one of the poorest neighborhoods of the southern city Be’er Sheva, Vanunu was never close to the lefty elites or the media. Unlike in other cases, journalists immediately adopted the state’s narrative in the case, beginning with their childish celebration of his kidnapping.

There is, of course, a wider context at play. Save for a few rare exceptions, liberals in Israel are all too happy to adhere to the ban on discussing on the nuclear issue. The harm it leads to was never seriously discussed: the lack of adequate public or parliamentary — let alone international — oversight over the nuclear program; the inability to properly review its environmental consequences; the lack of any local analysis of its political and geo-political impact; and finally, the excessive measures taken against those who violate those restrictions, intentionally or not. In short, for a country involved in a nuclear arms race, a domestic nuclear debate is completely missing.

Yet even those who completely subscribe to Israeli nuclear policies and their draconian enforcement should understand how disproportionate Vanunu’s treatment is, not to mention how absurd the current “charges” against him are. If there is one person in this world who is fully aware of Israel’s long arm and the vindictive nature of its security establishment, it’s Vanunu. He is the last person who would think that asylum in Norway or the UK would grant him impunity.

Vanunu will be 60 this year. It’s time Israel let him go.

This article was originally published in Hebrew on Local Call.

Related:
Should Israel go public about its nuclear capacities?
Former President Carter: Israel has 300 nuclear bombs

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. The treatment of Vananu is in interesting contrast with the demands by the Israeli right that Jonathan Pollard be released. Vananu finished his legal sentence and is still being restricted; Pollard was sentenced to life and is still serving his term. Vananu’s revelations served to benefit Israel’s deterrence; the information that Pollard stole for Israel may have ended up in the hands of America’s enemies, including the Soviet Union.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Jan

      In the country that likes to brag that it is a democracy that follows the rule of law it is obvious that Israel is not a democracy for all.

      For Vanunu, who many in the world consider to be a hero, to be treated as he has been is monstrous. He should long ago been allowed to leave Israel. The treatment of Vanunu can be described as sadistic. What he knows of Israel’s nuclear program goes back to the 1980s. Surely Israel is far advanced in what it is doing in the field of nuclear weapons. Of course no one is allowed to know that because unlike Iran and other countries, Israel has not only refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but also refuses inspections.

      Vanunu can reveal no more. But perhaps one of his even greater crimes in the eyes of the Israeli government is that he rejected Judaism and converted to Christianity which in the eyes of some, if not many, in Israel is a mortal sin for which he must be punished.

      Hopefully one day the Israeli government will either come to its senses and let Vanunu leave Israel, the country where he no longer wants to live, or he will be smuggled out to live in a freer world.

      Finally it is not hard to imagine the hue and cry that would come from Israel if after Jonathan Pollard’s eventual release from prison he were treated in the same manner as Vanunu is being treated and not allowed to leave the United States. The U.S. would quickly be accused of anti-Semitism for not allowing Pollard, who sold secrets to US enemies, to leave for Israel.

      Well here’s the deal Israel. You let Vanunu the hero leave and the US will let Pollard the man who sold US secrets to leave.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Marcos

      Another nonsensical rant by Jan.

      Reply to Comment
      • Jan

        Hey Marcos, I’ll bet you can’t wait until Pollard is free. He is likely one of your heroes even though he sold US secrets to the US.

        He will be free and I would also bet that were he treated as Israel has treated Vanunu you would be livid and among the first to scream out that this is “anti-Semtism.”

        BTW, Pollard never spent 11 years in solitary confinement as did Vanunu.

        I would hope that unless there is a change in Israeli policy toward Vanunu that Pollard receive the same treatment when he is released. Do not let him leave the US. Do not let him speak to the media. Treat him in the same way that Israel has treated Vanunu. Would that be OK with you?

        Reply to Comment
        • Marcos

          You sure are projecting much my way. To answer your questions, I do not believe that the two cases are or should be linked as you explicitly do in your final paragraph.

          It is this odd collection of thought and the hysteria in paragraph three that make your ideas worthy of omission by any responsible adults.

          I have empathy for both men.

          Reply to Comment
    4. GilGamesh

      ” Vanunu was a pacifist who broke the law and his non-disclosure commitments”

      He sold state secrets and photos to the highest bidder, trying to paint his actions as ideological in nature is disingenuous and false.

      Reply to Comment
      • William Burns

        Vanunu sold evidence to the highest bidder? I think you’re confusing him with Pollard.

        Reply to Comment
        • GilGamesh

          I think you need to do a little research. He first approached Newsweek and then sold the info to the Sunday Times.

          Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Oscar Guerrero was Mordechai Vanunu’s agent. Oscar Guerrero demanded $300.000.00.- from Sunday Times and other news papers for the right to publish the info stolen by Mordechai Vanunu. The Daily Mirror published the info first and paid large sums of money for it. Before leaving from Australia for England, Mordechai Vanunu had a discussion about all the money he was going to receive with his local priest in Australia and claimed that “he wanted to use the money for god’s work” (imagine that!). And there is more.

          Reply to Comment
    5. Mary Hughes Thompson

      Free Vanunu. And Free Palestine.

      Reply to Comment
      • Lisbon Portugal

        Free your poor husband from your shrill voice

        Reply to Comment
        • JG

          Free the readers here from your paternalistic misogyny.

          Reply to Comment
    6. I was just an American writer in Jerusalem when I met Vanunu in 2005. I became a reporter because Vanunu told me:

      “The French were responsible for the actual building of the Dimona. The Germans gave the money; they were feeling guilty for the Holocaust, and tried to pay their way out. Everything inside was written in French, when I was there, almost twenty years ago. Back then, the Dimona descended seven floors underground.

      “Did you know that President Kennedy tried to stop Israel from building atomic weapons? In 1963, he forced Prime Minister Ben Guirion to admit the Dimona was not a textile plant, as the sign outside proclaimed, but a nuclear plant. The Prime Minister said, ‘The nuclear reactor is only for peace.’

      “Kennedy insisted on an open internal inspection. He wrote letters demanding that Ben Guirion open up the Dimona for inspection.

      “In 1955, Perez and Guirion met with the French to agree they would get a nuclear reactor if they fought against Egypt to control the Sinai and Suez Canal. That was the war of 1956. Eisenhower demanded that Israel leave the Sinai, but the reactor plant deal continued on.

      “When Johnson became president, he made an agreement with Israel that two senators would come every year to inspect. Before the senators would visit, the Israelis would build a wall to block the underground elevators and stairways. From 1963 to ’69, the senators came, but they never knew about the wall that hid the rest of the Dimona from them.

      “Nixon stopped the inspections and agreed to ignore the situation. As a result, Israel increased production. In 1986, there were over two hundred bombs. Today, they may have enough plutonium for ten bombs a year.”###

      On 2 October 2009, The Washington Times reported that Obama agreed to keep Israel’s nukes ‘secret’ and reaffirmed a 4-decade-old understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections.

      Three officials spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, but all said Obama pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May 2009.

      Reply to Comment
      • shachalnur

        Israel got their nukes in exchange for “liberating” the Suez Canal in 1956.

        JFK wanted to stop Israel from building nukes.(1963)

        JFK wanted to scrap the Federal Reserve.(1963)

        JFK was killed in November 1963.

        If Zionism thinks these facts will be forgotten,they’re wrong.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Here comes – yet again – the anti-Semite Sheik Al Noor alias Shachalnur with his blood libel! This is a good example of the kind of filthy creatures attracted by +972.

          Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            You may call me anything you like,GangreenEis.

            It’s called “free speech”,and “freedom of expression”.

            Facts are nasty things though,and some of them won’t go away just because you call it whatever.

            The world is supposed to accept a claim Zionists believe to have from over 2000 years ago,and accept your behaviour today based on facts 70 years ago.

            Do you really think that when the SHTF the behaviour of 1897 Zionism and their sponsors will stay under wraps?

            You seem to miss that Israel’s (former)sponsors are having a serious battle with BRICS and are losing.

            When the US/Europe will have to save their own skin,they’ll drop you like a hot potato.

            And that’s what’s happening now.

            Have a nice ride.

            Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          On one bright morning, in November 1963, Mrs Faputznick took her dog for a walk.

          JFK was killed in November 1963.

          If people whose name begins with ‘F’ think that we will overlook these two highly significant and interrelated facts, they are profoundly mistaken.

          So long as we have people like Shakhalnur in our corner, the evil ‘F’ brigade cannot pull the wool over our eyes …

          Reply to Comment
        • Marcos

          1) Eisenhower wanted Israel to withdraw from the Sinai
          2) Eisenhower was not ask are
          3) Chess was invented in India

          Reply to Comment
    7. Tzutzik

      Well it is an open secret. Nor did Israel do anything illegal. Unlike Iran, It never signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

      For those who don’t know what that means, by signing that treaty, Iran undertook not to build bombs. Israel never undertook to refrain building bombs.

      I hope we will never need to use it.

      Reply to Comment
      • William Burns

        And Iran hasn’t built bombs!

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          Not yet. And not for want of trying …

          Reply to Comment
          • William Burns

            How long did the Manhattan Project take? How long did it take the Soviets to build a bomb, or Israel, for that matter? If the Iranians wanted a bomb, they’d have one by now.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            That’s 100% procent correct,william.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            So what are the Iranians playing at, Willie?

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            The Persians invented chess,and the World Champions are usually non-Zionist Jews.

            You figure it out yourself,you won’t believe the strategy anyway.

            You’re just a pawn.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “You’re just a pawn.”

            Ooooh aaaah I am coming up in the world Shaky baby. I am a pawn now, am I? You used to call me a slave …

            And what are you Sheik-Al-Noor? A clumsy Arab psy-op agent sowing misinformation that might, I say might work in a 4th world country or in the Middle Ages. Not in the 21st century in the age of the Internet. Nice try though, Shaky baby. People like you do a better job for us than what we are capable of doing. You show everyone the stupidity that we are up against.

            PS
            By “everyone”, I mean non-haters. Not some of the people who post on sites like these. They are just a non representative lunatic fringe.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Pawns usually end up sacrificed.

            What keeps them going is the promise they might might become a queen.

            Or a horse.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            You mean to say, pawns are worse than slaves, Shaky baby?

            Ok, so now you got me worried Sheik-Al-Noor. Not!

            LOL.

            Reply to Comment
    8. Ginger Eis

      This article is another good example of the degenerate ideology upon which +972 is founded: an ideology that has no concern for the truth; an ideology that is intrinsically dishonest, duplicitous and double-tongued; an ideology that glorifies everything reprehensible and plays apologist for abomination. Mordechai Vanunu is a convicted criminal. Nothing more. Nothing less. Mordechai Vanunu was charged with (a) espionage and (b) treason against his own people and given a fair trial. Mordechai Vanunu was represented during said trial by one of the finest criminal- and human rights counsels and was dully convicted on both counts. Mordechai Vanunu’s intention was NOT to help Israel or increase Israel’s deterrence. On the contrary, in Mordechai Vanunu’s world, Israel is an illegitimate country; Mordechai Vanunu continues to state till today that his intention was- and remains to bring harm to the State Of Israel and facilitate her demise, while still having information he is yet to shear with others. That is who Vanunu the man is: a criminal, odd, dishonest, vengeful and brutish. A traitor to his people. But a hero to +972 and the enemies of his people.

      Reply to Comment
      • William Burns

        The entire point of the article is that Vanunu is not being treated as a “criminal, nothing more, nothing less” in that even after serving his entire sentence, his freedom is still restricted. Did you even read the article?

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          Oh willie spare us …

          You are gloating about Pollard. Who was treated at least as badly. But you make every bit of excuse in the book for Vanunu who committed at least as much of an act of treason as you blame Pollard for.

          Your hypocrisy and double standard is sickening.

          Reply to Comment
          • William Burns

            This is what is so frustrating about the internet. Nowhere in this thread have I made any “excuse for Vanunu,” let alone “every bit of excuse in the book,” but because that’s what you want to see, you see it. I’d suggest a course in elementary reading comprehension, but what would be the point?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “This is what is so frustrating about the internet. Nowhere in this thread have I made any “excuse for Vanunu,”

            You made no excuses for Vanunu? Pardon moi Willie, but I thought this statement of yours sounded like you were whitewashing him:

            “I think you’re confusing him with Pollard.”

            Obviously the “him” who you were talking about was not Vanunu.

            Sigh … I share your frustration, Willie …

            Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          William Burns, no riots today, you hear? Ok. Now, I am certain that Mr. Sheizaf will vehemently dispute your claim that ‘the entire point of the article is that Vanunu is NOT (emphasis mine) being treated as a criminal”, because the opposite is true. Did you even read the article, sir? (!).

          Reply to Comment
          • William Burns

            “Feldman describes those restrictions as new form of punishment placed on Vanunu after he fully paid his debt to society, without having a single day deducted from his sentence. “I don’t know of another example or precedent like this,” says Feldman. “All Vanunu is asking for is to be able to leave the country and spend what’s left of his life in another place. Many countries have offered to take him.””

            Granted this is Feldman and not Sheizaf, but Sheizaf seems to agree.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Indeed, Feldman and Sheizaf agree with each other BUT both disagree with YOU (!) because you claimed this: “the entire point of the article is that Vanunu is NOT (emphasis mine) being treated as a criminal, nothing more, nothing less”! Your claim is a lie, sir. That lie, sir, is what you need to address – if you know waht integrity and honesty mean.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            Ginger, can I assume that if after his release Pollard is treated in the same way as Israel is treating Vanunu it would be perfectly OK with you? If Pollard would be denied his wish to leave the US for Israel that would also be OK with you too?

            Or would you scream “anti-Semtism” to the high heavens?

            Reply to Comment
          • IlonJ

            “Or would you scream “anti-Semtism” to the high heavens?”

            I will answer for Ginger, Jan.

            I think you are an antisemite Jan. there. I said it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            No way am I anti-Semitic. I wrote the comment I did because I often note that all too often those who criticize what Israel does are tagged with the epithet of being “anti-Semitic.” Yes, there are anti-semites in the world but people like you who throw that epithet around do no service to Jews. In fact, you help the real anti-Semites. I will tell you that if any other country, including my own, was treating a released prisoner as Israel is treating Vanunu, I would say that is wrong. If America treated Pollard in the same way as Israel is treating Vanunu and I said it was wrong would you support me or would you say that I was “anti-American.” My guess is that you would support me.

            I have also heard those Jews who are pushing for the release of Pollard calling some in the US “anti-Semitic” for keeping in prison until he finishes his prison term and I am certain that were he to be treated as has been Vanunu, there would be more cries of “anti-Semitism.” I know that and you know it.

            But, oooooh, I am supposed to keep my mouth shut lest I offend your tender sensibilities. I’ll speak out wherever I feel that injustice is being done and what is being done to Vanunu is an injustice.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            JAN:”No way am I anti-Semitic.”

            The lady doth protest too much. But first let’s see what you are NOT:

            You are not Islamophobic because you did not say this:

            1. “The world has the right to think of all Muslims as oppressors.”

            Nor are you anti-black because you did not say this:

            2. “the world has the right to think of all Blacks as …”

            {fill in the dots}

            But you ARE anti-Semitic, Jan dearest because you DID say this about Jews:

            3. JAN:”the world has the right to think of all Jews as occupiers and oppressors.”

            And this is where you said it …

            http://972mag.com/beitunia-killings-and-the-medias-incredibly-high-bar-for-palestinian-stories/91166/

            Get it Jan dearest? Anytime someone calls an entire group of people as this or that … by saying “ALL” … are … such people are racists. Jan dearest, recognise yourself?

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            Can’t Ginger speak for herself.

            Aah, I guess not. She would not answer with anything else but calling me an “anti-Semite.

            Neither you nor she addressed the issue of Pollard vs. Vanunu. I suspect that well might be because both of you believe that Pollard should be treated well and allowed to leave the US for Israel while Vanunu must, to all intents and purposes, remain a prisoner in Israel, the country that he wants to leave.

            Since you won’t truthfully answer my question all you can come up with his the tired old saw of “anti-Semitism.” Oh how sad.

            Reply to Comment
          • GilGamesh

            Pollard has already served twice as long as Vanunu, and is serving life. Are you screaming release Pollard Jan ?

            Reply to Comment
          • William Burns

            The entire point of the article is that Vanunu is being treated worse than a criminal, not “nothing more, nothing less.” The only reason you can’t see this is that you don’t want to see it. That is why your accusation of lying has no weight.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            He is not being treated worse than Pollard though, even you would admit that willie, wouldn’t you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            William Burns,

            1. on the on hand you claim: “the entire point of the article is that Vanunu is NOT (emphasis mine) being treated as a criminal. Nothing more, nothing less”.

            2. On the other hand you claim: “The entire point of the article is that Vanunu is being treated worse than a criminal, not “nothing more, nothing less.”

            Now, Mr. Burns, are you confused? Which of the statements is true? Or, are both statements true at the same time, what exactly is your position? The length you go to hide- and not concede mistakes just show how dishonest you are, no?

            Reply to Comment
    9. At high risk of being bashed, I would like to point out that Ginger and William seem to be talking past one another. One is a criminal upon conviction, incarceration, or parole, but not after serving sentence in full. True, felons are denied some civil rights in the US, such as voting, but that is statutory, mostly predefined at time of conviction; that is, such denial is part of pre-defined punishment.

      As I understand Noam’s piece, Vanunu’s case differs in that the present restrictions are not part of the legal code; they were not optionally present as punishment at time of conviction. They are essentially security made law of a rather micro controlling kind with, moreover, rather unclear material rationality given intelligence decay in whatever he might once have known. But the core issue is whether the executive can create its own law under the color of “security.” Even if it can do so, is this legal innovation to the person beyond judicial review? I think the answers are clearly “no” and “no.”

      William is correct in noting that Vanunu is no longer a criminal, with some of his restrictions clearly extra-legal punishment upon an Israeli citizen. Passport access may be different. Many Western countries deny passports to citizens; the Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling was denied one by the US in the 1950′s under an enhanced “security” law. Overall, the real issue is exactly what the Israeli code has within it. Letting the executive impose new restraints is contrary to the rule of law, an executive fiat which may later expand.

      Noam’s wish that Vanunu might now find some peace after serving his full sentence is another matter–however one, I think, the rule of law would largely sustain.

      Reply to Comment
    10. Tzutzik

      Well, good people, security is security.

      The US solved the problem of Pollard by keeping him in jail. It is now the 35th year that Pollard is serving 7 of which he too served in solitary confinement. And he is still in Jail.

      Vanunu is out of jail he served 18 years but he suffers some restrictions. Boo hooo my heart is breaking for the traitor.

      I wonder whose shoes most people would rather be in if they would be convicted as traitors to their countries? Sit in jail? Or out of jail with some restrictions.

      PS
      Yes I know, the law is the law. And lawfare is lawfare too. But security trumps all.

      Reply to Comment
      • Jan

        If security is security than the US had better not restore Pollard’s passport, must not let him ever leave the US and must deny him any access to the press.

        Wouldn’t you agree? Or do you operate on a double standard.

        Reply to Comment
        • Mike Panzone

          Of course zionists operate on a double standard. Their posts here never cease to amaze me, running on at the mouth trying to defend their antiquated ideology.

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Hey Mikey

            Try this quick quiz:

            If you would be convicted as a traitor to your country would you rather be …

            1. In Jail for 35 years and still going … Like Pollard?

            2. Or would you rather be out of Jail after 18 years and have some restrictions imposed on you, like Vanunu … ?

            Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          At the rate they are going it will never come to that Jan dearest. Pollard is in Jail. At least Vanunu is out of Jail.

          Which one do you think is better off, Jan dearest?

          Reply to Comment
    11. Ginger Eis

      Jonathan Pollard is (a) a Jew and (b) an Israeli citizen. He will be coming home soonest. I know that to be true and you guys can suffocate in your hate! Jonathan Pollard’s crime is passing US’ military secrets to the best friend of the US – Israel, and he eternally regrets that; till date Jonathan still apologizes for said crime with heartfelt pledges of not to do it again. Beyond that, Jonathan Pollard has served- and is still serving more jail-time than other US citizens who have committed comparable crimes! This raises issues of equal protection under the law and forbidden discrimination. Above all, Jonathan’s crime MUST be considered and weighed within the ambit of the nature of the relationship between the US and Israel. The US and Israel are each other’s natural- and best allies in all fields of life, especially in culture, art, literature, science and technology. Both countries shear everything with one another – with Israel contributing more in terms of new, game-changer-technologies and the US doing more in terms of financing. In fact, many of the key technologies upon which US’ defense and economy rest are either Israeli or originated from Israel! When the United States cried, Israel shall have wept. America’s joys and pains are Israel’s joys and pains and vice versa. Both Nations are the only true guarantors of liberty and individual freedom on earth and anyone who thinks that this two Nations have conflicting interests or that he can drive a wedge between them is just a moron. There is NOTHING Jonathan Pollard can tell Israel today about the US that Israel has not known since several decades ago! Thus, except for the fact that that little weasel called Mordechai Vanunu is a Jew, there is no ground to justify the comparison you guys make between him and Jonathan Pollard. Mordechai Vanunu TODAY remains steadfast in his commitment to bring harm to the State Of Israel and millions of her citizens. Mordechai Vanunu has the tools to bring about said harm. But the State Of Israel won’t grant him the opportunity to do so, (!).

      Reply to Comment
      • shachalnur

        Pollard will stay in jail ,because Israel gave the info he stole to Russia.

        Pollard and Israel ratted out several CIA operations and operatives by giving this info to Russia.

        Pollard will die in prison for what Israel did,not what Pollard did.

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          “Pollard will stay in jail ,because Israel gave the info he stole to Russia.”

          Are you nuts? Russia is NOT Israel’s friend. It always sides with the Arabs. Why would Israel want to help Russia?

          At least try and make sense, Sheik-Al-Noor, when you try to make up stories.

          Reply to Comment
      • Jan

        Nor will the United States give Pollard more opportunity to hurt the country of which he is a citizen, the US. Pollard did his dirty deeds for the money that he was paid by Israel.

        If you want to read more about Pollard’s treasonous activities you can read it here.

        You can also read about Israel selling Pollard’s information to the Soviet Union. Now that is not a nice thing for an ally to do to an ally is it? But, if it benefits Israel they will do whatever they like and not give a damn.

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/576453/posts

        I think that since Pollard has served his sentence he should be able to leave the country he betrayed and so should Vananu.

        Of course you won’t agree. You likely believe that since Pollard spied for Israel the US should let him go when his is released but Vannunu who told the world of Israel’s secret nuclear program must stay in the country where he no longer wants to be.

        I wonder, GInger, had Pollard not been Jewish and had he spied for an Arab country or any other country would Israel and Jewish organizations be working to get him out of prison. I doubt it.

        Neither Pollard nor Vanunu can do much more damage to either Israel or the US so they should be able to leave. If you don’t agree that shows you are a bloody hypocrite.

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          “You can also read about Israel selling Pollard’s information to the Soviet Union.”

          Jan

          You have already proved yourself to be an anti-Semite. Now with your above statement you also proved what a liar you are.

          Nowhere in that link that you gave in your post is there a statement which accuses Israel or Pollard of selling information to the Soviets. At most, some speculate that the Soviets acquired some information because the KGB had spies in Israel. If true that would be bad enough. But why do you have to resort to blatant lying, Jan? You are full of hatred. Your own hatred will eat you up from the inside out, you poor woman.

          Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            You obviously did not read all of the cited article. The article did not say that Pollard sold the information that he sold to Israel. The article states that many in the US government believe that it was Israel itself that sold the information to the Soviets in exchange for the release of Soviet Jews.
            Read first before you come out with your stupid responses.

            You know, I don’t give a damn if you think I am an anti-Semite. Someone who is an anti-Semite hates all Jews. I dont’. I don’t hate my myself, my family, my friends, Jews in and without of Israel who stand for justice for all and not just for Jews.

            If criticizing what Jews do is anti-Semitic to you then it is you that has a real problem. It is you who is full of hatred. You hate truth. You hate anyone who dares to question what Israel does. I feel sorry for you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “The article states that many in the US government believe that it was Israel itself that sold the information to the Soviets in exchange for the release of Soviet Jews.”

            Believe? The article clearly said there is no smoking gun to support that belief.

            Some people believe that the earth is flat Jan. And you Jan quoted their unsubstentiated belief as gospel truth. If you were to give such evidence in a court of law without stating that what you say is just someone’s theory, you would be convicted of perjury, Jan!

            Like I said, you are a hater. When it is about Israel, your default position is to believe the worst thing possible that anyone says about us. To the extent that you are even willing to resort to lies to make other people believe the same.

            PS
            Read up about Chinese whispers, Jan dearest. That is what people like you do. It starts with someone’s malicious speculation and as the whispers progress, it becomes gospel truth to you people. You sicken me.

            Reply to Comment
        • shachalnur

          Israel is indeed world leader in military equipment specialized in killing and maiming as effectively as possible.

          Israel is also on the cutting edge in assisting dictatorships all over the planet in controlling the oppressed with knowledge ,training and experts on the ground.

          Israel’s technological specialized knowledge is indeed a light amongst nations,an example to the world.

          “Tikun Olam is Israel’s “raison d’etre”,as Naftali Bennett explained online a few weeks ago.

          Oh,and another Israeli “doctor” got caught paying poor Israeli girls some shekels for their kidneys,and was trafficing the organs abroad.

          Israel,always one step ahead of the others.

          Israel became a monster,like you GangenEis.

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Oh,and another Israeli “doctor” got caught paying poor Israeli girls some shekels for their kidneys,and was trafficing the organs abroad.”

            What is your point, fool? That crime only happens in Israel?

            That fucking Doctor is a criminal. He should be put in jail and the key should be thrown away. And seeing that he has been caught, he will find himself in jail, put in there by Israel’s courts.

            What point were you trying to make in bringing that random case up? We know that there is crime in Israel. You don’t have to remind us. We don’t like it either. Or are you trying to say that crime exists ONLY in Israel and nowhere else?

            Random! I thought this is a political forum. But it seems that most people here want to use it as a mud slinging fest against Israel. You are making fools of yourselves.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Zu Sick,

            You see yourself as the 1897 Zionism’s Chosen Grand Inquisitor who decides who’s a Jew,who’s anti Semite or selfhating Jew.

            And you’re still whining.

            Pawn or slave?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Sheik-Al-Noor

            Never mind as to what I see myself. I see you for what YOU are.

            You hate everything that is good for Jews. Yet you pretend to be Jewish.

            That makes YOU a fraudster and a liar. Now why would you be like that? Not because you are a leftie. You already made it clear that you hate lefties too.

            So you are either a Nazi or an Arab who hates Jews. Pick your choice.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            When the world turned against apartheid South Africa, Israel became their only friend. Israel sold weapons to the apartheid regime and reportedly was helping them to develop a nuclear weapon. S.A. military were sent to Israel to learn better techniques of population control in order to better control their black population. Maybe this one of the technologies of which Ginger wrote.

            During the 1970s and 1980s when right wing dictatorships ran amok in Latin America Israel was right there with the sales of weapons. An anti-Semitic junta took over in Argentina in 1976 and many of the 30,000 killed and disappeared were Jews.

            One of those arrested and imprisoned was Jewish newspaper owner Jacobo Timerman who has written of his imprisonment.

            Anti-semitism increased during the 1970s as right-wing factions became more powerful. Jews were targeted in the media, including television stations operated by the government. A book called Plan Andinia, published anonymously in 1977, warned of an international Zionist conspiracy to control part of Argentina.

            Anti-semitic bombings also increased, to a frequency of ten per month in 1976. Police defused bombs placed outside of La Opinión headquarters during a wave of antisemitic violence in August of that year. An enormous bomb detonated in early 1977, at a screening of Victory at Entebbe (a pro-Israel film) in Córdoba, which damaged almost 80 businesses.

            Did all of these anti-Semitic acts keep Israel from selling weapons to the junta? Not at all.

            In Central America when the U.S. cut off arms sales to the murderous contra terrorists in Nicaragua, Israel stepped into the breech selling the weapons that targeted teachers, nurses, doctors, coffee cooperatives and anything and anyone else who worked with the Sandinista government.

            In Guatemala, the army carried Israeli weapons some of them used in the massacres of thousands of peasants in the Mayan highlands.

            Of course Israel was not the only country to arm these right wing murderers. To its ever lasting shame my country, the country that prates about “democracy,” the country that has overthrown several democratically elected governments, armed these fascists in Latin America. Shame on both the US and Israel for their dirty deeds.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Parece que sabes de que estas hablando,Jan.

            Guatemalan Pres. Otto Molina still has Israeli specialists there to help him keep control.

            Did you know Solel Boneh,Israeli construction company,has been building roads in the Highlands,especially K’iche,for the last 15 years?

            The expulsion of some group of fanatic Jews in San Juan la Laguna,Solola happened 500 yards away from a Beit Chabad in San Pedro.

            I know the area well.

            These events are connected and developing.

            Always happy to see knowledgeable people in a comment section.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Yes, just like every other country trades with just about anyone.

            As for having unpalatable allies, Israel is in good company on that score. In WW2, the Brits and the Americans allied themselves with the Soviet Union. Did that mean that they liked the Soviet Union? Of course not. It means that they were allies of convenience fighting a more dangerous common enemy.

            Oh and what about the Soviet Union itself? At one stage, Stalin signed a non aggression pact with Nazi Germany because he wrongly viewed the West as a greater threat. Did that mean that the Nazis and the Soviets liked each other? Of course NOT!

            Guilt by association is not admitted in a valid court of law. Only in Kangaroo courts, Shaky baby.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Of course Israel was not the only country to arm these right wing murderers.”

            Yet you only single out Israel for your hatred.

            “in Nicaragua, Israel stepped into the breech selling the weapons”

            And you forgot to mention that Nocaragua unconditionally supported Arab terrorists and murderers who murdered Israeli women and children. It’s called Karma. What goes around comes around. We will always support the enemies of our enemies. That’s normal human behavior.

            “Anti-semitism increased during the 1970s”

            Thanks to the efforts of your Arab and Soviet friends. And thanks to people like you today Jan.

            As for right wing anti-Semites, I agree with you. It just shows you that we must be doing something right. Both left wing and right wing extremists hate us. They usually both hate people at the political centre. People like me who profess centre right views or even those others who profess centre left views.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            Nicaragua was not supporting terrorists. They were fighting American backed terrorists otherwise known as the contras.

            In 1987 I made two trips to Nicaragua. In the US we had heard Reagan administration propaganda that there were no Jews left in Nicaragua. One night I went to dinner with a Nicaraguan friend at the home of one of her friends. I thought perhaps that the friend might be Jewish and I said that in the US we are told that there were no more Jews left in Nicaragua. She laughed loudly and told me that she was Jewish and that her uncle was Nicaragua’s ambassador to the US.

            The night I returned home I turned on the TV and there was then Secretary of State George Schultz once pushing the US line. “There are no more Jews left in Nicaragua,” he told the press. The lies came from his mouth like honey dripping from a spoon.

            Yes, many Jews did leave Nicaragua. They left for the same reason that others left. Most were business people and they feared for their livelihood. But Nicaragua was not against Jews. In fact one of their main markets was named after one of the Jewish heroes of their revolution.

            Whether or not you like it, the US and Israel along with remnants of the anti-Semitic Argentine junta were the main suppliers of weapons to the contras and to Guatemala. Other countries may also have sold weapons but not to the extent of the US and Israel. Sorry this upsets you but it is true.

            I would like you to document your assertion that the Nicaraguans were supporting Arab terrorists. Are you trying to say that they sent arms and money and fighters to them? I think they were far too busy fighting American and Israeli backed terrorists in their own country.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “I would like you to document your assertion that the Nicaraguans were supporting Arab terrorists.”

            Your wish is my command Jan. look at the chummy picture of the two hand holding figures too and see for yourself.

            “Cooperation between the Sandinistas and the PLO also goes back to the late 1960′s, according to the Digest. The report charged the following:

            In 1969, Sandinista guerrillas went to Tyre in Lebanon for training under the PLO.

            In 1978, the Sandinistas joined the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine in a joint “declaration of war” against Israel.

            Nicaragua is one of the few countries in the world where the PLO Mission is officially designated as an Embassy and the ranking PLO official is referred to as “Ambassador.”

            http://pamelageller.com/2013/12/nyc-mayor-candidate-bill-de-blasio-supported-sandinistas-active-allies-of-palestinian-jihadists.html/

            Reply to Comment
        • Jan

          Israel is ahead in many areas of technology. That is true.

          But Israel is also ahead in the number of years that it has militarily occupied another people. Israel is also up there with Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and various other Muslim countries when it comes to the freedom to marry. Jews who are not Orthodox must leave the country to have a religious ceremony if they don’t want an Orthodox ceremony. Jews who choose to marry a non-Jew must also leave the country and their non-Jewish spouse may never be recognized as an Israeli citizen.

          I suggest that you check out this article in today’s Haaretz and click on the link to the world map just to see how free people are to marry in your so-called “democratic” state. You are closer to the Muslim states than you think.

          As for being a “lamp of the earth,” I think that you got the words wrong. Israel has long claimed that it is a “light unto the nations.” But no matter how great is Israeli technology you will never be a either a light or a lamp unto the world or the nations as long as you maintain religious supremacy and a brutal occupation. Your light went out in 1967.

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Your light went out in 1967.”

            And now you are a comedian too Jan, or just trying to be, because you are not funny.

            In 1967, Israel proved to itself and to the rest of the world that those who hate us and try to harm us will come to a sticky end.

            Live with it Jan. Or stew on it for all we care.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            As I recall it was Israel that began the attack when they launched a sneak attack on the Egyptian air force as their planes sat wing to wing on the tarmac. Had Egypt been planning an attack they never would have left their planes in such a vulnerable position.

            Jordan and other countries were bound by treaty to come to the aid of Egypt.

            I would not be surprised if some day in the future when the Israeli archives about the Six Day War are opened they will show that Israel wanted the war knowing full well that they could defeat any attackers and gain control of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem.

            There is much in the Israeli archives that the public cannot see. When the archives surrounding 1948 were opened in the 1980s they revealed that indeed Israel engaged not only in ethnic cleansing but in the killing of many Palestinian civilians. The information from these archives was made available in books by two Israeli historians, Ilan Pappe and Benny Morris. No one in the Israeli government has been able to refute what they wrote and now Mr. Morris says that he wishes that Israel had ethnically cleansed every Arab.

            It is too bad that every country, including my own, does not open its archives after a few years have passed. A lot of garbage and criminal acts would show their dirty faces.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “As I recall it was Israel that began the attack when they launched a sneak attack on the Egyptian air force”

            As usual you only recall the bits that you want to recall, Jan.

            Do you also recall that before Israel launched it’s attack what the Arabs did?

            - Egypt’s leader, Nasser, told the UN peace keepers to pack their bags and leave.

            - Nasser, Syria and Jordan then lined up hundreds of thousands of troops along Israel’s borders.

            - Nasser then blockaded the straits of Tiran, an international waterway. Which was used to supply 90% of Israel’s oil supplies and other vital trades.

            - The Arabs then also launched raids into Israel by their Palestinian irregular forces called Fedayeen.

            - The Arabs then openly declared that the forthcoming battle with Israel will be the decisive battle to wipe out Israel.

            As a consequence, Israel too had to mobilise it’s citizen army and that put further strains on Israel’s economy because industry ground to a halt.

            The Arabs actually challanged Israel to attack them because they were so confident that Israel would be too scared to do so. They were happy to just wait it out and keep Israel under siege till it would be hopelessly weakened under the strain.

            But Israel knew that it had no other choice than to attack. The alternative would have meant an economic collapse followed by military defeat.

            According to most mainstream legal experts, Israel was fully justified to launch it’s attack on Egypt under the circumstances. As for Jordan, IT fired the first shots on Israel. So their aggression is beyond dispute. Your claim that they were obliged by treaty to support Egypt’s provocation against Israel is akin to excusing Italy for joining the war on the side of Nazi Germany. I am sure you know that Italy and Nazi Germany too had a treaty?

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            Read this first before you comment any more.

            http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/#.U45_tyhhoQI

            http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm

            Then there is this:

            General Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:
            “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” (Le Monde, February 28, 1968 )

            General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:
            The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was “no threat of destruction” but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could “exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.” “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.” (Ha’aretz, March 29, 1972)

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Well, Jan, you obviously haven’t read what I wrote.

            I too said that Nasser’s strategy wasn’t to attack Israel. His strategy was to besiege and blockade Israel in order to collapse Israel’s economy. After that, it would have been easier for the Arabs to defeat Israel.

            So what did you expect Israel to do? Put up with that? Israel’s army was indeed stronger. That’s why Israel had to launch the preemptive strike. By doing so, it had every chance to win. Had it not done so, it’s military advantage would have been whittled down after Israel’s economy would have collapsed.

            How do you think your country would react to the type of military seige that Israel was subjected to? Do you think your country would put up with it?

            Reply to Comment
    12. Y.

      Well, Vanunu, as we know, committed essentially treason in order to serve his own agenda. As he keeps saying in interviews, he intends to skip the country and try to undermine Israel’s alleged ‘nuclear opacity’ policy. Given that his entire notoriority is due to his treason, I do not find it reasonable to allow him to profit from his crime and use his raised profile to undermine Israel’s policies. Not to mention literal profit in the inevitable book and movie deals. This is odious and the Israeli government is right to prevent that in the only way it can (indeed, in the US there are laws against this), if only to deter further treason.

      And all this is assuming V. has no further information to divulge – which none here actually know, but previous court decision have stated he does have.

      Reply to Comment
      • Jan

        Maybe the same could be said for Pollard. Maybe he has more information to divulge, information that the US does not want to share with anyone.

        By your reasoning Pollard should never be allowed to leave the US, profit from a book or movie deal or in any way profit from his crime.

        Unless you operate on a double standard you would have to agree.

        Since I don’t operate on a double standard I think that both men should be free to leave the country in which they were imprisoned. Vanunu should be free to leave and when he is released Pollard should also be free to leave.

        Actually I think that Pollard’s crime was far greater since eventually the world would have learned about Israel’s nuclear program while far more damaging US information was stolen by Pollard, some of it likely ending up in Soviet hands.

        Reply to Comment
        • Y.

          Not sure if a parallel is sensible, since Pollard never stated he’ll use his crime to campaign for something or another (what could he campaign for?). Moreover, Vanunu may well have left Israel vulenrable against, say, an Iraqi chem/bio strike in 1991 (if his desire to disarm the country would have succeeded, there would have been nothing to deter Saddam), so he’s far worse in my book.

          But if you must make a parallel, it would involve releasing Pollard but keeping him in the US – which I doubt anyone actuallly opposes [The campaign was to release him - can't recall anyone even talking or caring much about whether he wants to immigrate or not].

          So you support releasing Pollard? Because that’s the only operative result of your argument…

          Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          “Unless you operate on a double standard you would have to agree.”

          Jan, the only person with double standards around here is you.

          You keep on talking about Pollard, excusing Vanunu and vilifying Israel for how they treat Vanunu. BUT you wilfully overlook the fact that Pollard is still in Jail after 35 years while Vanunu is out of jail putting up with some restrictions.

          So who is better off? You seem to be wearing your heart on your sleeve for Vanunu but you ignore Pollard’s plight. Wouldn’t you say that is a double standard?

          Reply to Comment
    13. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel