Just the existence..

I don’t have a problem in believing this. It would be harder to disbelieve it.

Ok, but personally I’d expect somebody who is intent on painting Israel as an evil entity to milk Vanunu’s genocide allegations for all they’re worth (in his mind, anyway), rather than sweeping them under the rug.

Unless the evidence seems to come from a nutter. Kinda like the situation here where those who oppose Obama’s presidency avoid the allegation that he was really born in Kenya.

Which statements of his are you referring to?

I can’t answer that. The posters didn’t specify any actual statement.

Quite apart from the above, I think you will find many posters here never even attempted a judgement on the question of whether Israel’s nuclear weapons constitute a “misdeed”. Certainly if you read that out of my statements you would be in error, I never voiced an opinion one way or the other in this thread (but no, they are not a misdeed in my view, in case you were wondering).

Again, we agree.

Of course it is perfectly logical, but this was already done pretty thoroughly and professionally a quarter century ago. In the end, his technical disclosures stood firm against expert scrutiny, so what is the use of doubting them all over again? Do you expect the results to change somehow?

Just to be sure, I never said I doubted them in their entirety.

There are at least two posters whose only argument was that Israeli nuclear weapons exist, and while his irrational statements indeed do not further that argument, that is simply due to irrelevance. Vanunu’s disclosures of the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons were found valid quite independently from his much later political statements which have no retro-active bearing on the technical information he supplied.

As already said, he provided pictures and statements. The pictures seem to have spoken for themselves. His words are different. One poster has argued that his more recent statements are the result of his anger about being imprisoned and are not relevant to what he thought in the 80s. That is an argument that is impossible to prove.

His pictures may have been compelling. His statements, not so much.

Well no, I didn’t remember it as a Nazi thing, and if i had, i would have kept schtum!

I was under the impression it was one of the alternatives mooted in the pre war period whilst Palestine was being debated in the FCO.

Not that it matters, except it would have made sharing nuclear technology with South Africa alot easier !

No worries…as the Wiki article explained, it wasn’t just a Nazi idea.

It seems some Europeans thought that finding Jews a homeland was a good thing…as long as it was a NIMBY kind of thing!!

WRT the location for Israel,

Madagascar was the alternative wasn’t it?

Do you mean this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

UN is certainly good in some aspects my problem is with the elitist security council, which has the right to violate a nations soverignity arbitarily. And also stupid laws like NPT where by the powerful prevents the up and coming from having Nuclear weapons.

I asked you how you think problems in the Middle East would have worked out if the UN operated in the way you suggested.

I’m sure you must be aware of how UN resolutions affecting Israel have been received by the UN as a whole. Given that, what is your opinion of how the Middle East would look today after 60+ years of “democratic” UN governing?

Well, I think that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons is about as close to a fact as it gets in absence of an official declaration and open testing.

Probably so, but in the context of my general statement, I don’t think anyone here has challenged that notion.

In the case of Israeli nuclear weapons said facts seem pretty compelling to me – do you actually agree or disagree?

That question covers a lot of ground in this thread…from the origin and existence of such weapons to what Israel intends to do with them.

What is it that you want me to answer?

Maybe I missed something, but I don’t recall Vanunu’s genocide accusations being mentioned by anyone before you brought them up, let alone endorsed.

Of course not…that wouldn’t fit the narrative!!

Nobody seemed to even imply a link between the two issues, so you were effectively preaching to the choir – if you feel you’ve been misinterpreted this could be the answer?

Posters were offering both Vanunu’s statements and photographs as evidence of Israeli misdeeds. Are you suggesting that we should trust one but not the other?

My point was that Vanunu should be held responsible for everything he has said…that his motives are a direct result of his view of things. It isn’t illogical to question the credibility in whole of someone once that person’s credibility in part has been challenged. To use one of my favorite examples (and not to derail this discussion!), but if Bill Clinton would lie to his wife and daughter, why wouldn’t he lie to the rest of us?

The reason why nobody linked his irrational statements to his photographs is because doing so did not further their argument. As such, you can hardly say that my bringing up the subject to these posters was “preaching to the choir”!

From the way I read your statements originally it never occurred to me that you might not be dismissing his disclosures. So you were playing devil’s advocate, of sorts?

Maybe…or maybe it’s a good idea to question the basis for some of what is said, particularly when statements are made not as an opinion but as fact.

I guess it’s all about personal responsibility…even though folks post anonymously, there ought to be some sense of concern over what one posts. Otherwise, what’s the point in all of this?

…so a biased person is not automatically tainted as a source if he is supported by additional evidence on the issue in question.

I suppose it all depends on what is being said. In the case of Vanunu, he has his pictures and his testimony. Given that one accepts the verdict of experts, the pictures speak for themselves…however, they do not validate Vanunu’s accusations of Israeli genocidal policy.

I did get the impression that you were overly touchy on the subject of Israel and hence may have (rashly?) lumped you with the group of people who unquestioningly defend it. Your confusingly strong reaction to the mention of Israel’s nuclear capability led me to believe you might have this kind of attitude toward the topic.

The subject of Israel isn’t a touchy one for me nor do I have a strong reaction to the discussion of its nuclear capability. I just like a level playing field…and when I see folks who seem bent on tilting that field, then I think their statements are fair game.

I have much sympathy for the Israeli cause, having your very sovereignty challenged and your population subjected to regular fatal attacks is a completely untenable situation. However, I don’t let that prevent me from feeling (and saying) that the way they have approached these problems has been patently unhelpful at times.

That pretty much sums up my point of view as well.

Since you appear to rate the corroborating evidence for Vanunu’s disclosure of the nuclear programme as far less important than his political views in judging his claims, it is a bit hard to read your reactions in any other way. Can you explain?

I didn’t say that at all. If you wanted to know which I thought more persuasive, then why not ask?

If I had to say anything about this it would be to not put much stock in folks who have an ax to grind. And it would seem Vanunu fits that description. As I said before, I think forum discussions on this subject bring out that type of poster…and saying so then brings out much wailing and gnashing of teeth in some. Inconvenient truths, no clothes on the Emperor kind of a thing.

You lost me there.

No problem. Not a big deal.