I'm not sure if this is a better post for this forum or the weapons forum, as this is my first post....
Anyhow, I have been fascinated by the world of international relations for quite some time and have paid particular attention to the Middle East
situation since at least 96. One issue that I have followed over the years was the status of the Israeli nuclear scientist, Mordechi Vanunu. For
those who don't know, in 86 Vanunu was arrested (I suppose that's the most polite way to say it) by the Israeli government for allegedly releasing
critical information regarding the status of Israel's nuclear arsenal. He supposedly sold pictures to London's Sunday Times of the weapons, and
contributed to the release of a story confirming the existence of the weapons. Israel considered him as a traitor, and apprehended him...
Anyhow, I'm getting off my point here, there has been some degree of speculation over the year's that Vanunu was never really a "traitor," and
that he was never really "apprehended," but that he was a messenger of the Israeli government with the job of re-establishing credibility in an
arsenal that had lost it's deterrent value. These people claim that the Israeli arsenal, if it even exists, had become such a non-factor politically
by the mid-80s that the government had to take action to re-assert the existence of the arsenal, and demonstrate that it held/holds great importance
as a weapon of utility for the state of Israel.
While I never really had given this scenario a lot of crediblity, and why not i can't explain (especially since most/all reports confirming the
existence of the arsenal begin and end with the Sunday Times report in 86), I began to think that the release of Vanunu earlier this year might
actually be circumstantial evidence backing this view up. If Vanunu was the traitor that Israel described him as for 18 years, why would he be
released. Releasing critical information on such an issue, seems to warrant permanent incarceration, at a minimum.
Now, Vanunu has been re-arrested (here's a link to one of the many sources carrying the story:
), for the same reasons.
There seems to be something very fishy here. Why release him? Why do it again? Why be calm as tons of Israeli commandos storm a church where you
are being given sanctuary (www.sfgate.com...
/news/archive/2004/11/11/international0908EST0531.DTL)? Why the need for
20, heavily-armed, commandos to apprehend a known peace activist who has given no reasons to assume a proclivity towards violence?
Perhaps the recent events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the recent overtures made by Iran towards nuclear weapons, suggest that the time
had come for Israel to turn to it's most important agent for another boost in nuclear credibility?