Talk:Mordechai Vanunu/Archive 2

Specific changes discussion
I hope you can participate Xed so we can resolve the disagreement. I suspect you know more than me, so I would welcome the discussion so I can learn something. I sure won't learn if you just blow me off though.

Some specifics:
 * Abduction not arrest

Governments do not abduct their own citizens, except in science fiction. The Mossad is entitled under Israeli law to arrest any citizen anywhere for breaches of Israeli law.


 * See abduction, paragraph 5, which disputes this statement. - Amgine 16:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you mean kidnapping instead? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Abduction or kidnapping, the Mossad violated the Italian law (or whatever international treaty) that protects anyone who is currently under Italian jurisdiction. That means it was not legal arrest. -- Toytoy 22:18, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a legal arrest by the Mossad of an Israeli citizen and was found to be legal by Israeli courts. Is there something we're missing here? Whether one disagrees or not, and there are plenty on both sides seemingly, he was not kidnapped as defined by any dictionary. Nor abducted. He was arrested, as an Israeli citizen for serious breaches of Israeli law, as determined by the Israelis, not by us. He was convicted by the highest Israeli court and don't think has ever seriously disputed the facts underlying the charges. So whether Vanunu is a freedom fighter or a bad guy is not the point, as an Israeli he is subject to Israeli law obviously so to call his arrest a kidnapping is just wrong as a question of fact. Like saying Scott Peterson was kidnapped by the authorities and is being held hostage. It's crazy stuff. Deuxmachina2 02:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it's not legal to arrest people on foreign soil even if they are citizens in your country. You can only legally arrest people in your own country. They would have to ask Italy to arrest him and send him back to Israel. I would say that the word abducted could be used in this situation as well as arrest. Jeltz 14:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you guys are arguing over whether it was illegal in some sort of transnational sense. The Mossad may have not violated Israeli law, but they probably violated Italian law. I do not know if there are international laws relating to such things, and whether both Italy and Israel are participants in said laws, etc. Point is, "legality" is defined by the authority in question. The question is figuring out which laws we are talking about here and what sense of "legality" one means. I think the nature of the arrest (foreign soil, secret operatives, drugs) makes it a good candidate for the word "abduction," personally. --Fastfission 22:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Comparisons with Ossietsky and Arnold

Rather than have both, I believe the article should have neither. They Ossiestky comparison is especially inappropriate Deuxmachina 14:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I recommend you explain in greater detail why you think this comparison is "especially inappropriate". Jayjg 15:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * He explained before that the comparison unfairly compares Israeli government to Nazi government (as it is done many times by certain critics of Israel) --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * To a non-Israeli third-party, I think Carl von Ossietzky had done more than Vanunu in fighting government misconduct. However, they are all serving human needs. As to the "Benedict Arnold" accusation, it is obviously a joke to me. A more relevant case could have been Chang Hsien I (張憲義), a less-known man who exposed Taiwan's nuke plan to the U.S. in 1987 (I guess). He's now hiding somewhere in the U.S. -- Toytoy 22:18, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate and even offensive given Ossietzky was an anti-Nazi pacifist. It seems many of Israel's opponents love to call or infer it's a Nazi state or somehow uses the same tactics as Nazis because it defends its borders and its citizens. I don't agree with the comparison. And I doubt any sensible person does. To compare as Toytoy seems to Government misconduct between the Nazis and Israel is really wrong. The Israelis are not without sin clearly but they are not guilty of genocide. I would be more comfortable with deleting all comparisons which are both unsourced anyway. Deuxmachina2 02:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ossietzky was opposed to the politics of his own state and this was before National Socialism. He was convicted of high treason and espionage in 1931. Anyway, the National Socialists were not guilty of any genocides when Carl von Ossietzky lived. In fact, the Zionist regime in Israel is much worse than the National Socialist regime was in his lifetime. I understand that Israelis are ashamed of that regime.


 * As someone who understands why comparison of Israeli government to Nazi government is an insult to Israelis, I think the comparison should be replaced (or removed). Comparing him to Nelson Mandela would be less of an insult to Israeli and some Jewish readers. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Eichmann

Eichmann was arrested by The Mossad in similar circumstances outside of Israel, there was no further comparison made. As serious as Vanunu's crimes were under Israeli law, they were not comparable to Eichmann obviously.
 * I agree. If Vanunu's crime and conviction counts, then George Washington and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, maybe the holocaust victims were all convicted criminals. -- Toytoy 22:18, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Vanunu worked in a secret government lab. Got the sack. Then blabbed the secrets. Imagine a similar circumstance in the US. His feet would not touch the ground on his way to 20 years in prison. I wish Israel wouldn't have nukes, like I wish they didn't exist anywhere, but it's a fact of life unfortunately. Israel's possession of nukes is just as unfortunate as the Russian or American possession of them. The double standards people bring to the Israel debate shine through don't they? Deuxmachina2 02:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Vanunu's secrets were not the sort of thing that are useful for enemies of the state to know in attacking Israel or making their own weapons (he is not like Klaus Fuchs, for example), they are secrets relating to the existence of weapons. Which is to say: you are framing this as being espionage, whereas one might more usefully see it as whistle-blowing. Both involve transferring secret information, but the ultimate aims and purposes are quite different, as well as the use of the data. In the USA, giving away "secrets" is seen as a traitorous thing, undoubtly. But whistle-blowing is usually seen as a virtuous thing. It's an important frame to acknowledge when trying to write NPOV about something like this.--Fastfission 22:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * According to MFA he did actually release important security information which labels the whole thing as espionage. Even if the Ministry is not correct, he still released pictures made inside the facility and helped to determine the capability of Israeli nuclear arms. This capability information can be used by Israel's enemies against it (no country wants to give exact information about the capability of its forces). --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 23:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, the MFA site is down at the moment so I can't really comment on what they say or do not say. But my point was more a matter of framing: the Israeli government sees it as espionage, the supporters of Vanunu see it was whistle blowing. Depending on which model you have for it, of course you will either find Vanunu's punishment to be understandable or oppressive. It also changes drastically who you view Vanunu as being analogous to. In the article, it would be easy to have a section which contrasts the two viewpoints without taking either one of them fully (i.e. under the heading of "Controversy" or something along those lines). The basic facts of Vanunu are represented fairly well in this article, in my opinion/knowledge of them, what is missing is a real explanation of his cultural relevance (why some people love him, why some people hate him). --Fastfission 02:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The MFA site works for me now but just in case I mirrored the article. In any case, I don't see how the definition of Vanunu's actions as "espionage" is a POV statement. It's like saying that capital punishment is not "killing" because it's done with just cause. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 05:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nobel Peace Prize

It was POV not to explain that the nominations for the Nobel were coming from anti-Israel groups trying to make a political point. It had hitherto sounded like it was the Nobel organization giving him some recognition. That's not the way they work.

Deuxmachina 14:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Suggestions for articles contents should not be taken seriously if they are from sockpuppets. - Xed 14:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed you won't participate in the Talk process. Let me know if you change your mind. Deuxmachina 15:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I won't discuss an article with such an obvious sockpuppet - Xed 15:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't let Xed's recalcitrance discourage you; the purpose of the Talk: page is to gain consensus for all edits with all editors (not just Xed), so I encourage you to continue. If there are other edits you have made, or POV sections of the article you wish to highlight, please bring them here as well.  Also note that those who do not engage in meaningful Talk: page discussion give implied consent to any edits. Jayjg 15:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nominations for the Nobel prize may be made by anyone, and who did the nominating is not revealed by the Nobel committee. This is a specious argument because the author could not know all the persons or organizations who nominated Mr. Vanunu, and so could not have given attribution for the nomination. Also, the claim anti-Israel is unsubstantiated and would undoubtedly be contested. - Amgine 16:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion: The Nobel Peace Prize nomination may be notable, but it's not so very notable it rates a mention in the intro. (Getting the prize might be; being nominated clearly isn't.) I suggest it be moved to the 'Prison' section, probably just above the honorary doctorate, once the article's been unprotected - David Gerard 18:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's a very good suggestion. But to be sure we should compare this article to the articles about other individuals who were nominated. If their nominations are mentioned in the first paragraph... --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Not a big deal. Please mention it in the Prison section. I have little respect in that prize. It has been awarded to wrong persons over and over in the past. However, I thank Vanunu for his good job. -- Toytoy 22:18, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Shou1ld we delete the Nobel Prize nomination reference? I'd be happy with it out, it's not encyclopaedic unless he's going to win one (unlikely at this point) or has won one (definitely worthy of mention then). Deuxmachina2 02:3, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't lose sleep over it. This is much more important peice of information in my opinion. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Compulsory military service"

My version explained that IDF service for 18-20 years old (I think) is compulsory and practically everyone does it except for those with religious or medical reasons. To delete this seems highly strange. He wouldn't have done jail time for not serving had it been optional so I believe it must stay. Deuxmachina2 02:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Left wing students"

Vanunu formed an on-campus group with fellow left wing students. Why was the reference to their political perspective deleted. It's quite relevant I should think. Deuxmachina2 02:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "cannot live in Israel because he is afraid of his life, a demonstrably false assertion"

This part was deleted as well and is just as bad as what replaced it, so I suggest:

''Vanunu has claimed asylum on the basis that he is afraid of being killed. Having been tried and convicted for treason, and been released he cannot be re-tried for the same offense under Israeli law. He has lived safely outside of prision for ___ years and in Israel high-security prison for ____ years. ''

It does seem unlikely he will be killed and this puts his claim into factual context. His high profile is his protection I would suggest. Deuxmachina2 03:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category
Could someone paste this in when the page is unfrozen: Thanks ... Dbiv 14:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reference
I think the following statement absolutely needs to be referenced (i.e. attributed to a reputable source):
 * The arrest came three months after Vanunu said in an interview that Israel was behind the John F. Kennedy assassination. In the interview he had said the assassination was due to "pressure [Kennedy] exerted on then-head of government David Ben-Gurion to shed light on Dimona's nuclear reactor." (See also: Kennedy assassination theories).

Which interview? When? Where? With whom? &mdash; mark ✎ 16:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * - XED . talk  17:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, so it's a 25 July 2004 Jerusalem Post article referring to the Arabic supplement 'Al-Wassat' of the London-based paper Al-Hayat which has claimed to have interviewed Vanunu. I have added the link to the statement. &mdash; mark ✎ 19:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alleged
While our vandalizing/reverting friend is obviously not following proper procedure, he/she does bring up the question (and I think perhaps rightfully) about whether the nukes are "alleged" or not. As I understand it, the Israeli government has taken a policy of purposeful nuclear ambiguity -- no acknowledgement, no denial. That being so, there are practically no governments or intelligence sources which would question for a minute that Israel has weapons (or at least did when Vanunu took his pictures). Should there be any hedging of the language to reflect this official ambiguity? --Fastfission 14:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's under Israel and weapons of mass destruction. The link is http://www.fas.org/news/israel/980714-israel1.htm. -Rjyanco 15:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well that's not exactly the same thing as transparency. Perhaps it is worth a few lines in this article about Israel's previous stance on the bomb program -- it would emphasize how important Vanunu's article was, as well as have the hedging effect. --Fastfission 15:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The Peres statement, made while he was not a government official, is not unique, and uses the phrase "nuclear option", which along with "nuclear potential" is commonly used by Israeli officials regarding the Israeli nuclear program. It does not use the phrase "nuclear weapon", and does not imply a the Israel possesses such weapons, but rather that it reserves the option to acquire them. This is consistent with the official Israeli position (that Israeli will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the middle east), coined by Peres himself in 1963 (according to Cohen).
 * Thus the use of the word "alleged" is justified. That Israel possesses nuclear weapons is about as substantiated as it was that Iraq possessed WMDs prior to the 2003 invasion. 85.250.118.183 12:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It is much more substantiated than that, I'm afraid. But there is some ambiguity, though not a whole lot. --Fastfission 13:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's hindsight re: Iraq. In both cases all you have is a bunch of intelligence analysis (read: circumstancial evidence, at best) and politically-motivated informers (Chalabi, Vanunu). At any rate, a) non of the evidence in either case amounted to more than speculation or allegations; b) the Peres quote doesn't change any of this. I'm returning "alleged". I'm not changing the paragraph you Fastfission added, but I think it belongs in the Israeli WMD article (which is linked from the very sentence) rather than here. 85.250.118.183 15:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 85.250.118.183, this "alleged" thing is a canard, along the lines of "Jerusalem is allegedly the capital of Israel". Vanunu gave pictures, which clearly demonstrated the nukes.  FAS may not be unbiased, but let's quote them here:  "Atomic experts, after debriefing Vanunu, estimated that Dimona was producing something in the region of 40 kilogrammes of plutonium every year, enough for 8-10 Hiroshima-size bombs a year. Nuclear experts, such as Dr Frank Barnaby and Theodore Taylor (a major pioneer of the US nuclear programme) regarded this evidence as both sound and conclusive." .  Your Iraq/Israel comparison is pathetic.  When the US alleged that Iraq had WMD's (not nukes, WMD's), the logical response was for Iraq to allow weapons inspectors in to "confirm their nonexistence" (or, if you think Iraq was lying, at least confirm that they were hidden well).  This they did.  Most of the people who had been on the ground (e.g., Scott Ritter) were quite vocal in saying that Iraq didn't have WMD's.  The Bush administration's allegations frankly didn't pass the smell test, because it would make no sense for Iraq to develop WMD's while they were under such intense scrutiny.  By contrast, no one seriously entertains notions that Israel does not have nukes.  Israel is not letting anyone into Dimona to inspect it.  Israel won't let Vanunu talk to the foreign press because they say he has more secrets to reveal.  If he was a crackpot he wouldn't have been abducted by the Mossad, and he would not be restricted as he now is. -Rjyanco 16:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sentance now reads is a former Israeli nuclear technician who exposed Israel's alleged possession of nuclear weapons to the public in 1986. How can u expose alleged possession? He didn't expose the allegation. Either he exposed possession or he alleged possession. I favour the first. The BBC website has just published a story on Vanunu being charged for defying parole, it refers to the Times article as exposing exposing Israel's atomic secrets.. At any rate the current fudge makes no sense.--JK the unwise 16:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Fudge and other issues
The so called "fudge" is easily remedied by rephrasing the sentence and removing the word "exposed" which sounds sensationalistic anyway. On one of my recent edits I have done that but it was reverted by Gadfium. I noticed that this user has contributed nothing to the article other than to revert my edits and to accuse me of logging on as different user and violate the three revert rule. He has posted as much on my "talk" page.

Also the last sentence "Israel considers him a traitor" does not fit the body of the third paragraph. It is a poorly written paragraph and out of sync.

This article is very biased in the form prefered by the net janitor from New Zealand. --Mikejm 09:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Content issues aside, it isn't good to make personal attacks (I've trimmed some from your comment). Also it is immaterial whether someone has contributed to this article before--nobody owns it.


 * To describe the weapons as "alleged" seems unnecessary. I have produced a merge and added one or two words of my own to the history section. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gadfium has reedited my user page and has criticized me for editing this article because I did not post here first. He has also warned me not to edit hs comments which I have not done and has accused me of using multipke accounts which I have not done. So far he has yet to contribute anything other than his mindless reverts and false accusations.

I have reverted the article with a clear concious for the reasons I already stated.

--Mikejm 08:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The "Israel still considers him a traitor" bit is for NPOV. The article reads like a hagiography. That's not actually a good thing. I'm a supporter and I find this article horribly pro-Vanunu POV - David Gerard 14:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That sentence does not fit with the paragraph though. Whether or not Israel considers him a traitor or not is irrelevant to the subject of the paragraph.

The word "exposed" in the first paragraph is sensationalistic. It sets the whole tone for the rest of the article- you need not read any further because you already know the article is going to be biased. That's probably why you can't easily fit "alleged" and "exposed" neatly into the same sentence- that should be telling you something right there.

Anyway, it's obvious to me that there is a tight nit cadre of editors and revert bots that are very intent on mantaining the articles bias and it's a waste of time trying to improve it. The article sucks and I'm burned out on it. Fuqit.

--Mikejm 04:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

My Edits
I have no idea what makes my edits controversial, but whatever.


 * Mordechai is Jewish, so I added that.
 * WMDs are alleged, as Israel has no confirmed or denied them, and it is a POV to say that Israel has them
 * pointed out that he violated his nondisclosure agreement when he committed treason and gave information to foreign nations, and that he was still in violation when he spoke to foreign journalists after his release.

Other edits are minor italization of groups he was a part of. Your turn.


 * 1) Article already describes his ethnic/religious background.
 * 2) It is a generally accepted fact that Israel has a nuclear weapons program. It is POV to imply that there is a dispute when there isn't. Israel does not deny it, as you point out.
 * 3) No doubt if there was a non-disclosure agreement (can you point us to a URL where we can read it?), Vanunu violated it when you gave the secrets to the British press. So what? What does this have to do with the restrictions placed on him after release from prison? They are not the same as the pre-conviction restrictions. Mirror Vax 20:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The restrictions placed on him after his release are based on the non disclosure agreement that he signed before he became employed in Dimona. The contract has never expired. That is the position of the Israeli government. Normally, a person who has betrayed his country stays in prison for life, but he was for whatever reason sentenced to 18 years. After his release, The govermment has no reason to trust anything he says about what else he knows about Israel's nuclear program. The man committed treason and has shown that he has absolutely no regard for his former country. While he revealed information about Dimona, Vanunu protested the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility in 1982 o he doesnt mind nuclear weapons as long as they arent in Israel's hands. . Under this, they have activated restrictions to what he can say, because his contract with the government is still binding. He violated it before, so they placed more restrictions on him after release so he doesnt continue to violate his contract when he is out. It appears that he failed in that too. As for a url to his nondisclosure agreement, I dont have it and I dont think it exists on the web.

Guy Montag 02:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is just a bunch of opinions. If you have any verifiable information about the non-disclosure agreement you say exists, you can include it. Mirror Vax 07:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * While Israel may not have confirmed that it has nuclear weapons, it is widely known to have them. A single citation from a respectable body, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation group, should be sufficient to establish that fact. -Willmcw 21:51, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is certainly not widely known. I suggest that the article say that it is widely believed, and of course tell how Vanunu has contributed to that belief. 85.250.28.246 22:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, "widely believed" is fair enough. Note that there is a full discussion of the issue at Israel and weapons of mass destruction, which says "very widely believed." The two article should be consistent. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:59, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, changing "alleged" to "widely believed" is acceptable.

Guy Montag 02:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

current edit war
Burgundavia and Blankfaze, please explicitly explain here why you've reverted the recent edits of Guy Montag. I am a bit surprised that there has been no such dialog in this TALK page about the reasons behind the reverts. Let's get to it, please. Kingturtle 03:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Bad faith POV pushing. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 03:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you please be explicit in your reasoning? give examples. provide reasoning. Kingturtle 03:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything in his version excepting the sentence "...giving various interviews to a foreign journalists and news corporations such as the BBC" and his minor spelling/bold/italics corrections. His use of "widely believed" is an attempt to make it seem like Israel doesn't HAVE a nuclear program, only a "widely believed" one.  His addition of Category:Espionage is quite frankly, silly.  BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 03:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In other words, you have a pov about some of my edits but you have absolutely no legitimate reason to blank revert the article. You have not disputed the factual relevency of my claims, and you attempt to brush it all off in some arrogant belief that everyone sees the problem exactly as you. Guy Montag 12:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I feel the espionage categorizing is appropriate (it fits wikipedia's definition!). Spikeballs 13:28, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Widely believed seems to be quite loose to me, too. How about "Officially denied, but internationally believed/recognised"?--Fangz 03:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The same wording was used in the Osiraq reactor page. Widely believed is a legitimate term that we have discussed and within seconds reached an agreement on with users who actually discussed edits instead of blank reverting them.Guy Montag 12:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, "internationally believed" is unfair as well. You feel it's right, because you're probably thinking, "How can anybody with a sensible mind think they DON'T have WMDs?" But truth is that there are people who trust Israel's denial. Or maybe they don't believe it, but still think Israel doesn't have the abilities everybody thinks they have. In fact, even some Muslim countries say Israel is just trying to scare its neighbours. And maybe they're right... "Alleged" is perfect. Especially given the explanations provided in Israel and weapons of mass destruction. To avoid further fighting, we can add a paragraph somewhere in the beginning (even if it doesn't feel too relevant) explaining that "Israel is believed to have WMDs by most international agencies. Vanunu's publishings only strengthened the existing suspicions. Still, Israel currently denies them. For more information see Israel and weapons of mass destruction." Spikeballs 07:39, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Still me. Checked the article again, and COME ON! This is NOT neutral. All of Vanunu's actions in Israel (e.g. violations of release terms) are "alleged" while Israel's claims are simpy true. Remind yourselves that for this to be neutral it's not enough for it to feel true and fact-based. It's like posting there is no God. Neutrality means you give equal space to all subjectivite POVs. Spikeballs 07:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

On a sidenote - can anyone find any independent confirmation of the Osirak protest claim? If it is true, then it definitely ought to be included. But I don't think opinion articles from pro-Israeli newspapers are sufficient evidence...--Fangz 03:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Vanunu was involved with left wing groups when he was attending Ben Gurion University. It was during that time and one of the groups listed in his biography that protested the bombing. There is no reason to doubt an opinion made by the Jpost because this is the voice of the editors themselves. Do you have proof that they are lying? Because that would be interesting news. Vanunu didnt deny it, or he would have wrote an opinion piece or sued them for defamation. Finally, the Jerusalem Post is a legitimate mainstream newspaper. There is very little reason to doubt what it says.

Guy Montag 12:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is every reason to doubt an opinion article. Opinion articles have, after all, been wrong before. Mainstream newspapers have been wrong before. It simply comes to my notice that no anti-Israeli/neutral sources have mentioned this at all. Further, we don't even know if Vanunu was actually aware of the claims. He is, after all, imprisoned. Lack of denial does not equal confirmation - statement of sources or an acknowledgement is. It is perfectly possible that the writer of that piece looked at his background with groups that opposed the bombing, and assumed that he was with them. This may or may not be a true assumption, but it is an assumption, and cannot be stated as though it was accepted fact.--Fangz 19:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The only relevent question is, are you claiming that the Jerusalem Post editorial staff is lying or is innacurate? If so, provide the facts. The editorial piece was released well after Vanunu's release. The only thing that the silence of anti Israel or "neutral" sources is telling me, is that they either accept it as fact or they do not want it mentioned. This claim has been out for years. Vanunu did not have to answer it, his supporters could in his absense. If his supporters wished to answer it, they had all the time in the world. By questioning the claim of the editorial piece, you are questioning the accuracy of the Jerusalem Post's reporting. It comes down to this, do you have the facts to claim that the editorial piece is innaccurate? If not, then leave it alone.

Guy Montag 05:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't need facts to claim the piece is accurate. Good journalism needs to state its sources. JPost doesn't seem to have the facts to claim its piece is accurate, and not just a theory drawn by inference. The silence of the opposition can mean a variety of things - that they don't want to lend the idea credibility by giving a drawn out debate. That they weren't able to interview Vanunu extensively, so they don't want to presume to know what the truth is. That they think that anything so long ago, during a time where Vanunu was obviously pro-nuclear enough to work in the Israeli program, must surely be irrelevant. I, for one, (who think I am neutral, but then again, who doesn't?) was not even aware of the Osiraq claim - maybe they didn't hear of it, either. Can you or anyone claim to read the minds of all these people? Even as you accuse me of disputing the accuracy of JPost, you are also accusing the entire left/centre media of the entire world of being in a vast conspiracy of ommission. Do you have the facts to back that up? The Osiraq claim is an allegation which has not been responded to. Nothing more, nothing less. Until proven otherwise.--Fangz 10:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Does Israel deny having a nuclear weapons program?
At least two people on this page have claimed that Israel "denies" having nukes or a nuke program. The Israel and weapons of mass destruction article states that, "The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny that it has a nuclear weapon program..." which I believe is correct. They don't deny; they just don't explicitly confirm.

There is nothing illegal about Israel having a nuclear weapons program, by the way. They never signed the NPT. Mirror Vax 07:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If Israel doesn't have any nuclear weapons, then how can Vanunu have broken his contract by revealing information about them? PatGallacher 12:05, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

He isnt supposed to reveal any information about what he saw or didnt see in Dimona. Plus, maybe there is a nuclear program there. It is a nuclear reactor, and he revealed information about the reactor that he wasnt. He is supposed to keep his mouth shut, and if he speaks about it, lying or not, he damages national security and breaches his contract.

Guy Montag 12:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a whole argument about whether it is sometimes in the public interest for people to disclose information, even if they are breaking their contract of employment. Disclosing information about a purely civilian nuclear power programme may be a breach of contract, but it is hardly treason, a threat to national security, or a serious offence meriting several years imprisonment, or Mossad going to the trouble of complicated entrapment operation. PatGallacher 12:34, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

And while we're on about comparisons with Benedict Arnold, from an official British standpoint he was not a traitor, he was a loyal subject of King George III of the United Kingdom. PatGallacher 20:23, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

As my opinion was requested, here it is: As far as I know Israel has an official policy of "nuclear ambiguity" regarding nuclear weapons; that is, they refuse to confirm or deny that they have any. While it seems highly likely that Israel has the weapons, I don't think stating that they do outright would be NPOV, given that there has never been official confirmation. Ideally some wording which accomodates both the high probability of them having them and the lack of official confirmation can be worked out. Were there other outstanding article content issues? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The other contested issues stem from the blank deletion of cited information. Information about Vanunu's involvement with protest against the Osiraq reactor bombing, and information about Vanunu expressing support for the destruction of Israel. These are important and documented actions which he took. This is vital information which allows the reader to see all of Vanunu. I have yet to read one statement, one argument, by those who keep erasing this information. They have not challenged its relevency, they have not challenged its sources; all they do is erase the information without an explanation as if everyone magically knows what the problem, if any is. I can't modify my statements if I dont know what the objections are, or even if these objections are valid. Until then, I will ignore all blank reverts as I have before as unwarranted.

Guy Montag 22:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC) 22:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If they have been properly cited from respectable sources, I'd be interested in seeing what the objections are to their inclusion. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Likewise.

Guy Montag 19:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Guy is lying. Scroll up slightly, and you will see me asking for a non-POV, non-opinion article to provide verification for that claim. He even responded to me! Vanunu hasn't commented on it. No factual sources/witnesses have been referenced or quoted. It's an allegation, not a fact, until proven otherwise. ADDENTUM: Additionally, I question the placement of that event. We have no idea whether Vanunu had changed his mind between in between 1981 and 1986. We have no idea as to the reasons behind his Osirak protest (maybe he was opposed to unilateral action, for example. Maybe he feared Saddam might escalate the conflict. It's not our job to read his mind.) - if he was involved in that. We know for a fact that the statements he is currently making - that all nuclear weapons are bad - contradict any Osirak protest. The placement of the event text at present implies a specific, subjective point of view. If it is included, it needs to be put into the context of his history, to let the reader make his own judgements.--Fangz 21:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I could not respond to your post because I was blocked for a 3RR breach. I didn't even know you answered back until today. I have written an appropriate response. It doesn't matter why he did what he did. If you wish to find out, please add the information when you do. Now we have the facts. He protested the bombing of the Osirak reactor, then in the BBC interview on April 19, 2004 he used the Osirak reactor as a comparison to Dimona and was quoted as denying the right of Israel to exist. Perhaps he does not want Israel to have WMDs and only the Arab states to because he hates Israel. There are eyewitnesses that state how Vanunu was a radical Arab activist at that time (and probably now). That is as probable a conjecture for his actions as any you might conjure up. But we are not here to get into ifs buts, but what we have recorded. This is not a court room, we have no reasonable doubt standards here. Facts stand as facts until proven otherwise. And you have not proven otherwise to the facts provided. Just to be clear, left wing websites such as Mother Jones have printed the same claim from the same author. There is wide consensus that this happened.

Guy Montag 06:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that your response to Jayjg came after I posted my second complaint, and after you responded to my first.
 * The Mother Jones article references the same JPost article. (And I'll point out that it refers to JPost as a right wing source, and that the reference was in there to illustrate the fury of the right.) Everything comes back to that JPost article. Which does not reference any eyewitnesses at all. We can't assume that Vanunu is guilty, until he is proven guilty. Facts don't get added as facts until they are shown to be facts. Not the other way round. Until then, everything is an allegation. The facts we know are the words he is quoted as saying, the affiliations he has acknowledged in his biography, and the fact that we know about those affiliations' stance on certain issues.--Fangz 10:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I like much of the additions made by you Fangz, but I do not think that "allege" is a correct term used here. "Alleged" implies that it isnt proven, while "noted" says nothing on the status of the claim. Because the word implies falsehood, I think another one should be chosen.

Dictionary.com describes alleged as "Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed."

and noted as "To show; indicate" or "To make mention of; remark"

I think this is a more neutral term.

Guy Montag 00:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think noted is that neutral a word. Consider if the article were to talk about 'Israel's internationally noted clandestine nuclear weapons program'. What about 'Vanunu noted that Israel has no right to exist.' Would _you_ be happy with _that_? I mean, the point is that the JPost claim does not appear to be proven, but it has not been denied. (At the risk of trolling, the comparison with Vanunu's claims about Israel's arsenal shows that the Osiraq claim is far weaker. Vanunu gave factual evidence for that, and Israel failed to forcefully deny or debate the issue afterwards.) People tend to note things that are true.--Fangz 11:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, to prevent this word war from becoming too silly, a (non-exhaustative) list of words I'll be happy with, from a thesaurus: advance, charge, claim, declare, maintain, put forward, state. Any sort of intersection you can see there. --Fangz 11:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

How about stated. That sounds good.

Guy Montag 22:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Stated is fine.--Fangz 02:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of both Israeli govt. policy and Wikipedia NPOV policy, but there must come a point that something is clearly established. Imagine the response if a Wikipedia article said it was "highly probable" that Nazi Germany committed genocide against the Jews and Gypsies, or "highly improbable" that Jews ever carried out ritual murders of Christian children. PatGallacher 12:14, 2005 May 15 (UTC)


 * I don't think this kind of thing can be discussed in terms of probability to begin with. If probability can even be assigned to such questions (I realize that I may be over-mathematical in my view of probability), then whoever assigns them does so based on facts and beliefs. Thus, I (still) think that using the phrase "widely believed" and reporting what Sunday Times has published is the most accurate and NPOV statement of the facts in the context of the Vanunu article. Other reasons why it is widely believed that Israel possesses nuclear weapons should (and probably do) appear in the article about the subject. 217.132.154.197 14:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering the lack of hard evidence on this specific matter, I don't think the analogies are comparable. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to say that there is or is not an Israeli nuclear capability. We should say that the belief that there has been and probably still is a Israeli nuclear weapons program is widespread among proliferation experts but the suggestion is uniformly denied by Israeli politicians and its allies and the IAEA has not shown much keenness to investigate--I think the latter is probably through lack of jurisdiction more than anything else. I believe Israel signed the partial test-ban treaty but not the NPT.


 * Actually, I'm quite certain that no Israeli officials ever denied that Israel had a nuclear weapons program (nor have they ever confirmed it, of course). As far as I remember, no Israeli politician has ever denied it either, whereas a few (right now I can recall MK Issam Mahoul) make statements to the opposite (i.e. that Israel possesses nuclear weapons), but I think that politicians' statements, as opposed to those of officials (who may or may not be politicians), are quite insignificant for this question. 217.132.149.26 06:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: only two other states have failed to sign the NPT, and they're India and Pakistan. Israel is at the very least the technological equal of either. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Putting it this way seems appropriate for the NPT article or for the Israel and WMD article. In the context of Vanunu, I think it's redundant to get into these details (assuming they're be covered in one of the aforementioned articles), and using the widely believed phrasing would suffice. Note that this may require more the pasting "widely believed" at random positions in the article (as has been done in one of the edits), and sometimes a little more rephrasing is required. 217.132.149.26 06:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Maxwell's Jewishness
I removed the reference to Maxwell's Jewishness from the article. The only reason I can imagine anyone would think it relevant to this article, is as a way of inserting a mildly anti-Jewish POV (see cabal). Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK 18:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you shouldnt be so presumptuous. See specifically the section on Robert Maxwell's death, and dont jump on the "everyones out to get the jews" bandwagon -Bastion

Deletions
''Vanunu is seen by many human rights groups as a prisoner of conscience, and they often compare him to the German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky. Amnesty International described his treatment as constituting "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment [...] such as is prohibited by international law". The Israeli government still considers him a traitor. Dr. Vanunu serves as the current Lord Rector of Glasgow University.''
 * Any special reason why this text was deleted? Is it untrue? -Willmcw July 8, 2005 23:52 (UTC)

Will, there is a discussion on this topic a year ago where Jayjg, touched upon it. Basically it is a tacit attempt by one man to push an inflammatory unsupported comparison between a prisoner of conscience of the Nazi government and Israel. In other words, compare Israel to Nazi Germany. Browse a little through talk, you will see what I mean.

Guy Montag 9 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)


 * Is he not the Lord Rector of Glasgow University? Did Amnesty Internal not make that allegation? -Willmcw July 9, 2005 01:26 (UTC)

Have any sources been provided? In the last year and a half of various anons inserting this information, no sources were provided. The fact that he was elected rector is already mentioned in this article.

Guy Montag 9 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)


 * The Rectorship seems like an honor worthy of mentioning in the intor, maybe even in the lead paragraph. As for the Amnesty International quote, it's apparently from here . -Willmcw July 9, 2005 01:43 (UTC)

This information has already been recorded in the base of the article by Jayjg.

Guy Montag 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine. Thanks for making sure. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:24, July 9, 2005 (UTC)