Comments on: Vanunu http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:00:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joshua W. Burton http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-26000 Joshua W. Burton Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:05:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-26000 _Hmm. Wheelchairs and mosques. You have a pretty generous definition of “field of battle”._ "Not disabled, differently able." Hmm. Wheelchairs and mosques. You have a pretty generous definition of “field of battle”. “Not disabled, differently able.”

]]> By: Jagdish Gundara http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25999 Jagdish Gundara Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:56:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25999 Yes, you're right Chris. I relied on a secondhand source which was ambiguous and my thirdhand assertion made it seem conclusive. But the more I read about Vanunu the less I sympathize with him. He apparently had considerable liberty to communicate with friends and supporters despite what is described as long stretches of solitary confinement, and some of statements are quite controversial if they aren't just self-promotional. Yes, you’re right Chris. I relied on a secondhand source which was ambiguous and my thirdhand assertion made it seem conclusive. But the more I read about Vanunu the less I sympathize with him. He apparently had considerable liberty to communicate with friends and supporters despite what is described as long stretches of solitary confinement, and some of statements are quite controversial if they aren’t just self-promotional.

]]> By: Chris Bertram http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25998 Chris Bertram Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:33:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25998 <i>In fact it was the Italian government commission that concluded there was no violation of Italian law, but, of course, they neglected to call you as a witness…</i> In fact,thy concluded no such thing. They declined to pursue the matter due to "lack of evidence", which was a simply a diplomatic way of not pursuing a dispute with Israel. In fact it was the Italian government commission that concluded there was no violation of Italian law, but, of course, they neglected to call you as a witness… In fact,thy concluded no such thing. They declined to pursue the matter due to “lack of evidence”, which was a simply a diplomatic way of not pursuing a dispute with Israel.

]]> By: Conrad Barwa http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25997 Conrad Barwa Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:55:01 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25997 Just a couple of brief points I think should be mentioned. It is worthwhile comparing the nuclear WMD issue in countries that have decided to implement such programmes, the comparison of Israel, Pakistan, India and NK are quite justified in this regard. I can understand the argument that democratic states which have a reasonable level of political stability don’t pose that much of a risk in using these weapons. I think this is a reasonable and well established position, and I can’t see anything ‘racist’ about it. It is however not a view that I subscribe to and one that rests on a problematic theory of deterrence; always worthwhile to remember that the sole use of nuclear weapons has been by a democratic state, the problem as I see it is that during wartime normal decision-making procedures are short-circuited and the gap for consideration shortened which can lead to a large amount of discretionary power on whether to use these weapons or not. In this sense, I don’t think the distance between non-democratic and democratic states in decision-making on this issue is all that large – after all a fair number of nuclear states are not democracies and have managed to keep their fingers off the nuclear trigger. I think excessive attention towards internal politics can obscure the degree to which the policymakers are influenced by the external strategic environment in devising their responses – this is I would argue for those interested in nuclear confrontations a much more important variable. Frex to take Israel and Pakistan when these countries started their nuclear programmes both were faced with opponents/group of opponents that could pose a serious threat by virtue of greater access to resources, numbers and size and so acquiring a nuclear capability made some sense. They were also to some extent revisionist powers that sought to improve their balance of strength vis-à-vis other states in the region and so were more driven to engage in proliferation and swapping of technology. For Israel this was on a limited scale, though collaborating with apartheid South Africa was not in my view a wise or particularly sensible decision and doesn’t say much for Israeli concerns over proliferation but Pakistan has been by far the more serious problem here. Signing the NPT for Israel won’t be a problem now because it doesn’t need to indulge in any proliferation and neither does it make sense for it to do so from a strategic point of view; for Pakistan the situation is somewhat different. Re: India and the nuclear issue, this is something that has led to substantial interest amongst some theorists since while India didn’t follow a policy of nuclear ambiguity, there certainly was a lot of inconsistency and dissembling going on here. Nuclear capability was acquired well before the Pokhran II tests, so political scientists have had a lot of fun investigating why exactly there was such a delay. In anycase, I don’t think there are many lessons to be learned from the Indian case for other countries, simply because its internal politics don’t map easily onto that of most other potential weapon states and its nuclear policy has not always been very coherent or well planned. It is undeniable though that the Indo-Pak confrontation is probably the most sensitive nuclear hotspot in the current global scene and neither state has been particularly responsible about nuclear sabre-rattling. In the Pakistani case though, the nuclear control and command have always remained in the hands of the military, as Sharif found out when during his last term as PM; he was informed by the Americans that the Pakistani military had armed and moved nuclear missiles in the then stand-off with India. The question then revolves around the issue of whether the military in question is a reliable enough institution to maintain a restrained nuclear capability; one can debate this but in my view I don’t see much difference between a military hand on the button in Pakistan and a civilian one in India. The temptations to use them rest not on the internal basis of the regime but on the relative strategic positions of the two states involved. Re Pollard etc. I am simply amazed by some of the things being said here. There seems to be a persistent confusion over how states regard espionage and fruitless questions of whether one ‘likes’ a particular state or not or that somehow spying is not serious as long as secrets are passed onto ‘friendly’ countries. This is a laughable and ridiculous view of how international relations works and of state-agency in such a context; there is no such thing as a ‘friendly’ state when it comes to issues like nuclearisation or high-level arms deals; and states don’t have friends they have interests (however articulated) which they seek to defend. Absolutely no state will tolerate espionage –if it is able to, that passes on what it sees as sensitive secrets to other third party countries; there is also a tendency here to carried away with the rhetoric of some close alliances such as the US-Israel relationship, while this is a strong alliance it doesn’t mean that either state will hesitate to violate the interests of the other if it is deemed necessary. Any doubts over this can be seen in the forced passivity of the latter during the 1991 Gulf War when it had to passively sit and act as target practise for Iraqi missiles without any retaliation, or the willingness of Israel to selectively ‘leak’ high-level military technology that was meant to be restricted to it alone during arms transfers from the US. The absolute reluctance of existing nuclear weapons states to allow any overt move for proliferation by even close allies, indicates how states prefer to keep monopolies over advanced weaponry as far as possible, overriding even ideological affinities. I have to also say that I find Pollard a difficult case to compare with Vanunu; I certainly don’t regard the latter, as a hero but I don’t think he is a traitor either. The former basically overrode his loyalty both as a citizen and as a naval intelligence officer to the state he was sworn to serve to another state; in other words he was not in the wrong career but serving the wrong state. Justifying or condoning his actions, lays people open to the charge of dual loyalties; I am not personally in favour of reductive self-identifications but when it comes to state clashes in a hostile and competitive international arena one can’t really serve two masters. Even amongst allies the interests of the state will never coincide completely and will many times clash; it is not up to the individual conscience to choose selectively when to come down on what side if one is working in an area as sensitive as intelligence; this is not a matter of morality but simply of loyalty and these choices need to be made before one embarks on such a career not during it. I don’t have the same problem with individuals like Vanunu, I don’t think they necessarily are heroic and obviously they are in many cases motivated by ideological considerations which will make them hostile to what their states are doing but they aren’t privileging loyalty to another state over to the one they have served or are currently a part of. This is not to say that I agree with them or the way they go about it but to compare them to traitors who basically trade their current loyalties towards one state for another is mind boggling. Just a couple of brief points I think should be mentioned. It is worthwhile comparing the nuclear WMD issue in countries that have decided to implement such programmes, the comparison of Israel, Pakistan, India and NK are quite justified in this regard. I can understand the argument that democratic states which have a reasonable level of political stability don’t pose that much of a risk in using these weapons. I think this is a reasonable and well established position, and I can’t see anything ‘racist’ about it. It is however not a view that I subscribe to and one that rests on a problematic theory of deterrence; always worthwhile to remember that the sole use of nuclear weapons has been by a democratic state, the problem as I see it is that during wartime normal decision-making procedures are short-circuited and the gap for consideration shortened which can lead to a large amount of discretionary power on whether to use these weapons or not. In this sense, I don’t think the distance between non-democratic and democratic states in decision-making on this issue is all that large – after all a fair number of nuclear states are not democracies and have managed to keep their fingers off the nuclear trigger. I think excessive attention towards internal politics can obscure the degree to which the policymakers are influenced by the external strategic environment in devising their responses – this is I would argue for those interested in nuclear confrontations a much more important variable. Frex to take Israel and Pakistan when these countries started their nuclear programmes both were faced with opponents/group of opponents that could pose a serious threat by virtue of greater access to resources, numbers and size and so acquiring a nuclear capability made some sense. They were also to some extent revisionist powers that sought to improve their balance of strength vis-à-vis other states in the region and so were more driven to engage in proliferation and swapping of technology. For Israel this was on a limited scale, though collaborating with apartheid South Africa was not in my view a wise or particularly sensible decision and doesn’t say much for Israeli concerns over proliferation but Pakistan has been by far the more serious problem here. Signing the NPT for Israel won’t be a problem now because it doesn’t need to indulge in any proliferation and neither does it make sense for it to do so from a strategic point of view; for Pakistan the situation is somewhat different. Re: India and the nuclear issue, this is something that has led to substantial interest amongst some theorists since while India didn’t follow a policy of nuclear ambiguity, there certainly was a lot of inconsistency and dissembling going on here. Nuclear capability was acquired well before the Pokhran II tests, so political scientists have had a lot of fun investigating why exactly there was such a delay. In anycase, I don’t think there are many lessons to be learned from the Indian case for other countries, simply because its internal politics don’t map easily onto that of most other potential weapon states and its nuclear policy has not always been very coherent or well planned. It is undeniable though that the Indo-Pak confrontation is probably the most sensitive nuclear hotspot in the current global scene and neither state has been particularly responsible about nuclear sabre-rattling. In the Pakistani case though, the nuclear control and command have always remained in the hands of the military, as Sharif found out when during his last term as PM; he was informed by the Americans that the Pakistani military had armed and moved nuclear missiles in the then stand-off with India. The question then revolves around the issue of whether the military in question is a reliable enough institution to maintain a restrained nuclear capability; one can debate this but in my view I don’t see much difference between a military hand on the button in Pakistan and a civilian one in India. The temptations to use them rest not on the internal basis of the regime but on the relative strategic positions of the two states involved. Re Pollard etc. I am simply amazed by some of the things being said here. There seems to be a persistent confusion over how states regard espionage and fruitless questions of whether one ‘likes’ a particular state or not or that somehow spying is not serious as long as secrets are passed onto ‘friendly’ countries. This is a laughable and ridiculous view of how international relations works and of state-agency in such a context; there is no such thing as a ‘friendly’ state when it comes to issues like nuclearisation or high-level arms deals; and states don’t have friends they have interests (however articulated) which they seek to defend. Absolutely no state will tolerate espionage –if it is able to, that passes on what it sees as sensitive secrets to other third party countries; there is also a tendency here to carried away with the rhetoric of some close alliances such as the US-Israel relationship, while this is a strong alliance it doesn’t mean that either state will hesitate to violate the interests of the other if it is deemed necessary. Any doubts over this can be seen in the forced passivity of the latter during the 1991 Gulf War when it had to passively sit and act as target practise for Iraqi missiles without any retaliation, or the willingness of Israel to selectively ‘leak’ high-level military technology that was meant to be restricted to it alone during arms transfers from the US. The absolute reluctance of existing nuclear weapons states to allow any overt move for proliferation by even close allies, indicates how states prefer to keep monopolies over advanced weaponry as far as possible, overriding even ideological affinities. I have to also say that I find Pollard a difficult case to compare with Vanunu; I certainly don’t regard the latter, as a hero but I don’t think he is a traitor either. The former basically overrode his loyalty both as a citizen and as a naval intelligence officer to the state he was sworn to serve to another state; in other words he was not in the wrong career but serving the wrong state. Justifying or condoning his actions, lays people open to the charge of dual loyalties; I am not personally in favour of reductive self-identifications but when it comes to state clashes in a hostile and competitive international arena one can’t really serve two masters. Even amongst allies the interests of the state will never coincide completely and will many times clash; it is not up to the individual conscience to choose selectively when to come down on what side if one is working in an area as sensitive as intelligence; this is not a matter of morality but simply of loyalty and these choices need to be made before one embarks on such a career not during it. I don’t have the same problem with individuals like Vanunu, I don’t think they necessarily are heroic and obviously they are in many cases motivated by ideological considerations which will make them hostile to what their states are doing but they aren’t privileging loyalty to another state over to the one they have served or are currently a part of. This is not to say that I agree with them or the way they go about it but to compare them to traitors who basically trade their current loyalties towards one state for another is mind boggling.

]]> By: Jagdish Gundara http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25996 Jagdish Gundara Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:46:56 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25996 <i>You don’t deny that Israel acted in violation of Italian law...</i> In fact it was the Italian government commission that concluded there was no violation of Italian law, but, of course, they neglected to call you as a witness... You don’t deny that Israel acted in violation of Italian law… In fact it was the Italian government commission that concluded there was no violation of Italian law, but, of course, they neglected to call you as a witness…

]]> By: BP http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25995 BP Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:27:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25995 "f you mean (as you seem to with the "daily" qualifier) targeted killings on the field of battle (which, alas, includes MOUT), you are blurring a line between these and killings in custody. " Hmm. Wheelchairs and mosques. You have a pretty generous definition of "field of battle". Considering that Iraq and the US have been at loggerheads since 1991, I guess Saddam had even better grounds to define all of Iraq as a "field of battle". Technically, he wouldn't even have been wrong. Nope, I'm afraid the inaptness of your analogy stands. As for the broader question via-a-vis Saddam's Iraq, and Israel, I do think Israel was (and is) a much more pleasant place to live in for most Israelis, than Iraq was (and still is) for most Iraqis. Furthermore, I think that Saddam's treatment of his enemies was harsher than Israel's, especially in the 80s and early 90s. But as far as morailty goes, I also think that the reasonably pluriform nature of Israeli democracy has so far succeeded from allowing Israeli leadership to sink below the level of Saddam, because harsh genocidal tendencies are very evidently present in a significant segment of Israel society. And when I compare these people to Saddam, I see no difference, nor do I think they will behave any better given power and control of nukes. “f you mean (as you seem to with the “daily” qualifier) targeted killings on the field of battle (which, alas, includes MOUT), you are blurring a line between these and killings in custody. ” Hmm. Wheelchairs and mosques. You have a pretty generous definition of “field of battle”. Considering that Iraq and the US have been at loggerheads since 1991, I guess Saddam had even better grounds to define all of Iraq as a “field of battle”. Technically, he wouldn’t even have been wrong. Nope, I’m afraid the inaptness of your analogy stands. As for the broader question via-a-vis Saddam’s Iraq, and Israel, I do think Israel was (and is) a much more pleasant place to live in for most Israelis, than Iraq was (and still is) for most Iraqis. Furthermore, I think that Saddam’s treatment of his enemies was harsher than Israel’s, especially in the 80s and early 90s. But as far as morailty goes, I also think that the reasonably pluriform nature of Israeli democracy has so far succeeded from allowing Israeli leadership to sink below the level of Saddam, because harsh genocidal tendencies are very evidently present in a significant segment of Israel society. And when I compare these people to Saddam, I see no difference, nor do I think they will behave any better given power and control of nukes.

]]> By: chun the unavoidable http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25994 chun the unavoidable Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:13:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25994 I admire your faith in courts. You don't deny that Israel acted in violation of Italian law, but since there was insufficient evidence to prove it, it was ok. Who won the war between the <em>Times</em> and Israel, btw? There were reports that Arcturus turned into Pacman and chomped the hell out of a pink comet last night, but they came from recreational mycologists and were never confirmed. It's obvious bullshit to say that Vanunu's information disambiguated Israel's nuclear stance, since, as we've long discussed here, any interested entity on Earth knew about their nuclear program beforehand, but if there were some fanatic regime, let's say Pakistan, following the logic introduced above, ready to launch nuclear weapons against Israel, then maybe the revelations in this news story might have stayed their fingers. Since, following these assumptions, a declared nuclear program is always a stronger deterrent than an "ambiguous" one, Vanunu was arguably the greatest force for Israeli security in the nation's history. I admire your faith in courts. You don’t deny that Israel acted in violation of Italian law, but since there was insufficient evidence to prove it, it was ok. Who won the war between the Times and Israel, btw? There were reports that Arcturus turned into Pacman and chomped the hell out of a pink comet last night, but they came from recreational mycologists and were never confirmed. It’s obvious bullshit to say that Vanunu’s information disambiguated Israel’s nuclear stance, since, as we’ve long discussed here, any interested entity on Earth knew about their nuclear program beforehand, but if there were some fanatic regime, let’s say Pakistan, following the logic introduced above, ready to launch nuclear weapons against Israel, then maybe the revelations in this news story might have stayed their fingers. Since, following these assumptions, a declared nuclear program is always a stronger deterrent than an “ambiguous” one, Vanunu was arguably the greatest force for Israeli security in the nation’s history.

]]> By: Jagdish Gundara http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25993 Jagdish Gundara Fri, 23 Apr 2004 05:54:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25993 Chun, I'm not familiar with your methods of arguing; do you always resort to gross distortions? I said: "...someone who was clearly hostile to Israel... or whose exposé, at the very least, was compromising to Israeli security..." How does that become: "...the Times is a sworn enemy of Israel"? In May 1990, rejecting Vanunu's last appeal, the Israeli supreme court upheld his conviction for the "collection and delivery of secret information with the intent to impair the security of the state, and acts calculated to assist an enemy in war against Israel." But, of course, you are already on record as arguing that Vanunu "deserves a medal for enhancing Israel's security"...! Chun, I’m not familiar with your methods of arguing; do you always resort to gross distortions? I said: “…someone who was clearly hostile to Israel… or whose exposé, at the very least, was compromising to Israeli security…” How does that become: “…the Times is a sworn enemy of Israel”? In May 1990, rejecting Vanunu’s last appeal, the Israeli supreme court upheld his conviction for the “collection and delivery of secret information with the intent to impair the security of the state, and acts calculated to assist an enemy in war against Israel.” But, of course, you are already on record as arguing that Vanunu “deserves a medal for enhancing Israel’s security”…!

]]> By: jagdish gundara http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25992 jagdish gundara Fri, 23 Apr 2004 05:25:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25992 One further point, Chris. To the best of my knowledge, an Italian government inquiry into the Vanunu case could find no clear violation of Italian laws. The EU parliament passed a resolution that it did but EU resolutions of that type are popularity contests similar to what gets voted on in the UN General Assembly. That's not to say that Vanunu wasn't actually abducted in Italy, merely that no court (that I know of; I am ready to stand corrected) has ruled what happened illegal. One further point, Chris. To the best of my knowledge, an Italian government inquiry into the Vanunu case could find no clear violation of Italian laws. The EU parliament passed a resolution that it did but EU resolutions of that type are popularity contests similar to what gets voted on in the UN General Assembly. That’s not to say that Vanunu wasn’t actually abducted in Italy, merely that no court (that I know of; I am ready to stand corrected) has ruled what happened illegal.

]]> By: chun the unavoidable http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25991 chun the unavoidable Fri, 23 Apr 2004 05:12:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25991 <p>Yes, the <em>Times</em> is a sworn enemy of Israel. I'd really like to hear someone make a case about how this compromised Israel's security, as opposed to compromising Israel's already risible "nuclear ambiguity."

Yes, the Times is a sworn enemy of Israel. I’d really like to hear someone make a case about how this compromised Israel’s security, as opposed to compromising Israel’s already risible “nuclear ambiguity.”

]]> By: Jagdish Gundara http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25990 Jagdish Gundara Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:55:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25990 <i>As I understand it Pollard sold classified material to a foreign state. If there’s a clear case of treachery then that is it. Vanunu revealed “secrets” that weren’t secret to a newspaper and thereby embarrassed his government. Rather different I would have thought.</i> On the other hand, Chris, Pollard's secrets were given to a friendly state while Vanunu's secrets were passed to someone who was clearly hostile to Israel (or whose exposé, at the very least, was compromising to Israeli security. There were reports that Vanunu had offered his material to two foreign embassies in Canberra, but these reports were never confirmed.) Furthermore, Vanunu's secrets were not simply limited to a confirmation that Israel had nuclear weapons -- which everyone knew -- but included detailed layouts of the Dimona reactor, where the various controls were situated, and so on. Israel reportedly was forced to undertake a general reorganization of Dimona and to move some of its facilities to an entirely new site. As I understand it Pollard sold classified material to a foreign state. If there’s a clear case of treachery then that is it. Vanunu revealed “secrets” that weren’t secret to a newspaper and thereby embarrassed his government. Rather different I would have thought. On the other hand, Chris, Pollard’s secrets were given to a friendly state while Vanunu’s secrets were passed to someone who was clearly hostile to Israel (or whose exposé, at the very least, was compromising to Israeli security. There were reports that Vanunu had offered his material to two foreign embassies in Canberra, but these reports were never confirmed.) Furthermore, Vanunu’s secrets were not simply limited to a confirmation that Israel had nuclear weapons—which everyone knew—but included detailed layouts of the Dimona reactor, where the various controls were situated, and so on. Israel reportedly was forced to undertake a general reorganization of Dimona and to move some of its facilities to an entirely new site.

]]> By: p. hoolahan http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25989 p. hoolahan Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:22:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25989 <i>You have no basis for such a statement. I neither like nor dislike Israel, and certainly I defend its right to continue to exist. I also think that when Israeli policies are unjust then they merit criticism, don’t you?</i> Chris, I'm already late for a dinner appointment, so I'll reply briefly, and in spirit. I have two Israeli partners in my (mathematical) research, one of whom thinks I'm too hard on the Israeli government and the other too easy. Unlike you I rather like Israel (I've visited twice, including an extended excursion to Bir Zeit) and I apologize if the tone of my replies became progressively more critical, to the point of snarkiness. It's just that after an accidental visit to David Irving's site--in which Vanunu is predictably beatified--I've come to dislike the guy (both, of course) intensely. He seems oily and deceitful and hardly worth the waste of bytes. I'm sorry if you feel I've misjudged your motives. You have no basis for such a statement. I neither like nor dislike Israel, and certainly I defend its right to continue to exist. I also think that when Israeli policies are unjust then they merit criticism, don’t you? Chris, I’m already late for a dinner appointment, so I’ll reply briefly, and in spirit. I have two Israeli partners in my (mathematical) research, one of whom thinks I’m too hard on the Israeli government and the other too easy. Unlike you I rather like Israel (I’ve visited twice, including an extended excursion to Bir Zeit) and I apologize if the tone of my replies became progressively more critical, to the point of snarkiness. It’s just that after an accidental visit to David Irving’s site—in which Vanunu is predictably beatified—I’ve come to dislike the guy (both, of course) intensely. He seems oily and deceitful and hardly worth the waste of bytes. I’m sorry if you feel I’ve misjudged your motives.

]]> By: Joshua W. Burton http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25988 Joshua W. Burton Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:45:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25988 BP writes: _That’s kind of tangential to the point I was making, namely that attempting to draw moral (in)equivalence relationships purely on the basis of one or two isolated data points, is an exercise in futility._ Well, then, let's get away from anecdote and pose the problem more broadly. What general features of Saddam's regime and of Israel's parliamentary system would lead a fair-minded observer, not predisposed to Israel's harm, to conclude that the former can be trusted with secret treaty-violating nukes, while the latter's nuclear program must be exposed to the world? _Besides which you’ve chosen an especially inapt analogy, as extrajudicial killings of enemies of the State are daily bread-and-butter for the IDF._ If you mean Bus 300 twenty years ago, remember that a government nearly fell, and the implicated Shin Bet commander was stripped by an Israeli court of both immunity and anonymity, and did fairly serious prison time. If you mean (as you seem to with the "daily" qualifier) targeted killings _on the field of battle_ (which, alas, includes MOUT), you are blurring a line between these and killings in custody. That's not quite equivalent to falling all the way back to "war is murder", but the other lines on that slope are far less clearly demarcated. BP writes: That’s kind of tangential to the point I was making, namely that attempting to draw moral (in)equivalence relationships purely on the basis of one or two isolated data points, is an exercise in futility. Well, then, let’s get away from anecdote and pose the problem more broadly. What general features of Saddam’s regime and of Israel’s parliamentary system would lead a fair-minded observer, not predisposed to Israel’s harm, to conclude that the former can be trusted with secret treaty-violating nukes, while the latter’s nuclear program must be exposed to the world? Besides which you’ve chosen an especially inapt analogy, as extrajudicial killings of enemies of the State are daily bread-and-butter for the IDF. If you mean Bus 300 twenty years ago, remember that a government nearly fell, and the implicated Shin Bet commander was stripped by an Israeli court of both immunity and anonymity, and did fairly serious prison time. If you mean (as you seem to with the “daily” qualifier) targeted killings on the field of battle (which, alas, includes MOUT), you are blurring a line between these and killings in custody. That’s not quite equivalent to falling all the way back to “war is murder”, but the other lines on that slope are far less clearly demarcated.

]]> By: Chris Bertram http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25987 Chris Bertram Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:39:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25987 Jadish, As I understand it Pollard sold classified material to a foreign state. If there's a clear case of treachery then that is it. Vanunu revealed "secrets" that weren't secret to a newspaper and thereby embarrassed his government. Rather different I would have thought. Hoolihan: <i>It seems evident to me that Chris’ outrage is not disproportionate at all… to his dislike of Israel.</i> You have no basis for such a statement. I neither like nor dislike Israel, and certainly I defend its right to continue to exist. I also think that when Israeli policies are unjust then they merit criticism, don't you? Jadish, As I understand it Pollard sold classified material to a foreign state. If there’s a clear case of treachery then that is it. Vanunu revealed “secrets” that weren’t secret to a newspaper and thereby embarrassed his government. Rather different I would have thought. Hoolihan: It seems evident to me that Chris’ outrage is not disproportionate at all… to his dislike of Israel. You have no basis for such a statement. I neither like nor dislike Israel, and certainly I defend its right to continue to exist. I also think that when Israeli policies are unjust then they merit criticism, don’t you?

]]> By: p. hoolahan http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/21/vanunu/comment-page-2/#comment-25986 p. hoolahan Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:18:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1449#comment-25986 <i>You may not like Israel but your outrage here is — well, yes — disproportionate.</i> Jagdish, may I borrow--and rework--your words? It seems evident to me that Chris' outrage is not disproportionate at all... to his dislike of Israel. You may not like Israel but your outrage here is — well, yes — disproportionate. Jagdish, may I borrow—and rework—your words? It seems evident to me that Chris’ outrage is not disproportionate at all… to his dislike of Israel.

]]>