Vanunu Talks
Aussie Dave | May 30, 2004 | 5 comments
Nuclear whistleblower and Israeli traitor Mordechai Vanunu wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him on the bum. And if it did bite him, I hope it would leave teeth marks and incredible soreness.
He continues to play the martyr role to the BBC’s willing cameras. Now he claims he did what he did to protect the Jews.
“I felt it was not about betraying; it was about reporting. It was about saving Israel from a new holocaust.”
U-huh.
“What I did was to inform the world what is going on in secret. I didn’t come and say, we should destroy Israel, we should destroy Dimona. I said, look what they have and make your judgement.”
..and then decide whether or not to destroy Israel..
I wonder if he even keeps track of his previous comments.
Does he have any regrets?
“I have no regrets despite the fact I have paid a heavy punishment, a large price,” he said.
And speaking of prices, don’t be surprised that he doesn’t mention the amount he was paid for betraying Israel.
About the Author
An Australian immigrant to Israel, Aussie Dave has been blogging since early 2003.Filed Under: MT Archives
Don’t fall for the trap of the leftist media. He is not a whistleblower but a traitor only.
He was a whistleblower since he revealed something covert (Merrian Webster definition). I think it is obvious from reading my post that I hold him in utter contempt, regard him only as a traitor, and there is no risk of me falling into any leftist media traps.
We are on the same side on this issue, so I’m not going to hold you at gunpoint on this. I may be wrong, but as I understand the term whistle-blower it has a positive spin on it, as you said, reveal something covert – and blowing the whistle on it, because it is bad and wrong. E.g. a whistle-blower would be someone who uncovers a lie and ‘blows the whistle’ on it. But not someone who reveals state secrets. Someone who does that is simply a traitor, he hasn’t done any good at all.
The linked article is a devestating destruction of what little credibility Vanunu and his backers have.
There is a pertinent analogy: nuclear weapons and the ambiguities of polivy in regards to their use and actual tactical capibilities was vital to resisting both the former USSR and China – China having been a solid supporter of the North Korean communists and vietwnames and during both the Vietnam and Korean wars. In regards to the USSR, it was a vital deterrant straight away on the end of WWII:
Russia’s conventional army by then was large, well equipped and battle hardened. The threat of USSR invasion of European countries other than those it had already taken over during the final year of WWII was real. It was the possession of nuclear weapons which dissuaded the USSR against further conquest, and that fruitful tension, holding the USSR in abeyance by the threat, was maintained, after some traitors had furnished the USSR with top secret material on the allied nuclear weapons programme and stocks, by maintaing the technological lead in the development of nuclear weapons , as well as conventional weapons.
As the linked article state: while Arab-Muslim govts. and terrorists remain committed to the destruction not simply of Israle but the Jewish people, it is indeed proper Israel holds that card against these persecutors of the Jewish people and Israel.
No-one would disgree, it would be far better if standing armies were not required, and such weapons needed and produced. On the other hand, Israel certainly does not live in a region in which disarmament is an option, nor viz some other countries, like North Korea, against all civilised countries and those aspiring to the realisation of an open society. Until that day, Israel’s present policy is both rational and effective.
I have a Question regarding Israels nuclear capability.
They currently have an undisclosed number of nuclear weapons, both freefall bombs (air launched) and ICBM’s. The current series of nuclear ICBM the Jericho 2 has a range of approximately 3500km. The next series named Jericho 3 (strangely enough) has a range estimated to be 6500km.
My question is- the Jericho 2 can conceivably deliver a nuke to anywhere in the Mid East through to North Africa and Pakistan and most of Southern Europe. Why in the world does Israel need to virtually double the range of its nuclear deterrent, if in fact it is as it is commonly referred to a defensive arsenal?
Now guys I’m truly not an anti-semite and I’m certainly not an arab sympathiser. and I dont deny Israels right to posess nuclear weapons, I’m just an Aussie who has some knowledge of these things and want to know what you lads think.