100s Demonstrate Overlooking Military Prison
Hundreds demonstrate on hill overlooking Military Prison-6 [] For Sharon's Israel, peace is the biggest danger -
Avnery's weekly [] How to keep Vanunu from telling what everybody knows
[] Hundreds demonstrate on hill overlooking Military Prison-6
Climbing the mountain opposite Military Prison 6 at Atlit, from where protesters could be visible (and audible) inside
the prison, is a tradition going back to the time of Lebanon War - before many of today's refusniks were born. But last
week's verdict condemning five young people to spend a whole year behind these grey prison walls there gave today's
protest a feeling of special urgency, and quite a few people had come who were not seen at the mountain before. The call
of Yesh Gvul and the Refusnik Parents' Forum was joined by ourselves of Gush Shalom as well as Courage to Refuse and
Ta'ayush. Altogether, hundreds of people - among them two Knesset Members, Barake and Makhoul - traveled hours in order
to climb the rocky slopes, now slippery with the past few days' rainfall.
Among the crowd were parents and grandparents and siblings and some girlfriends of the prisoners. Dr. Gadi Elgazi was
there, who was sentenced to a year back in 1981 and got pardoned after half a year of intensive campaigning. And quite a
few refusnik prisoners from more recent years. Yoni Ben Artzi had come - set free just a few days ago after a year and
half behind bars, with the military authorities apparently about to grant him the long-denied CO status. If army
intended to create a split in the refusers' ranks by making this gesture at the same time that the Five were dealt with
so harshly, it failed - Ben Artzi was warmly greeted and congratulated.
There were also quite a few potential prisoners, on whom the next steps in the struggle may depend. Many signatories of
the Shministim (highschool seniors) letter of refusal were there. Some of them, scheduled for conscription within a few
months, were especially indignant and defiant: "The judges wanted to frighten us by imposing such a long term on the
Five. Well, we are not frightened of prison, they will soon see we're not!". This was followed by the familiar strains
of "No thank you, Mr. Sharon/Go yourself to Hebron/damn your schemes all to Hell/off we go to prison cell". "Stop -
Apartheid Ahead" was the big banner of Yesh Gvul, and Courage to Refuse had "Refusal to the Occupation is Zionism". And
there were smaller, hand-painted signs: "Long live the refusers", "We are all refusers", "Release the refusers -
imprison the ministers!". A big rainbow flag fluttered above, with the big word "Pace" - Italian for "Peace". "These
flags were all over Europe during the Iraq War and later, we should have some here too" said the activist who brought
it. An excited shout on the megaphone: "Look at the guard tower on the right, and the white shack near it! There are
people waving over there, four or five!" Were they our five? And then, waving from another part of the prison complex,
identified by a former prisoner as the officers' enclosure. That might have been reserve Captain Dan Tamir, imprisoned
for refusal to go to the West Bank. (Except for the famous Five, there are six reservists in the military prison, on
terms of 28 or 35 days each). "I know how it feels to be in there and see a demonstration up here on the mountain. I
know what a wonderful warm feeling of support it gives" said Yigal Rosenberg, who spent several months at prison 6 in
2002. "The military court imposed a whole year's imprisonment on the five who refused to take part in occupation and
oppression. Soldiers who shot unarmed Palestinians to death got a suspended sentence - if they were prosecuted at all.
Those who killed a five-year old child at Nablus last week were not even investigated, much less punished" said Yishai
Menuchin of Yesh Gvul. "The army hopes that after the immediate media upsurge, these five young people will be forgotten
behind the prison wall. We will not let them be forgotten, we will maintain an ongoing campaign in the country and all
over the world, we will not give the military and civil authorities a moment of rest " said Alex Ma'or, father of the
imprisoned Adam Ma'or; he also called upon those present to keep up to date on the struggle by regularly visiting the
new website - http://www.refuz.org.il - of the Refusers' Parents Forum
*** [] For Sharon's Israel, peace is the biggest danger - Avnery's weekly
Uri Avnery 10/1/04 A Fox called Lion
òáøéú òì ôé á÷ùä àå á÷øåá áàúø
You really can't rely on these Arabs. Take this fellow, Qaddafi. For decades he played the clown. The whole world
laughed at him (except when he downed a French plane in Chad and the Pan-Am jet over Lockerbie.) His Libya was a "rogue
state", an international pariah. He was working on Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Americans hated him, and from time
to time bombed him, killing his daughter on one such occasions. You could rely on good old Qaddafi. He supplied us with
an alibi for producing all kinds of interesting weapons. Everybody understood that with such people around, Israel needs
the doomsday weapon, and that it's useless to talk about peace. And then, suddenly… Suddenly Qaddafi becomes the darling
of the world. Look at him, in his Bedouin robes: a serious man, a sober and pragmatic statesman. Pays a fortune to the
families of the victims in the planes he has downed. Invites the Americans along to see for themselves how he destroys
his stock of WMD. Flatters President Bush. Makes advances to Israel. Tomorrow - God forbid! - he may invite Bush to
mediate between himself and his dear colleague, Ariel Sharon. If Bush starts to pamper Qaddafi, he will coddle Sharon
less. He might get the idea that Israel, too, get rid of its Weapons of Mass Destruction. Perish the thought! Or take
Iran. Well, they aren't really Arabs, but they are Muslims, and all Muslims are the same, aren't they? Anti-Semites.
Israel-haters. Plotting to destroy us. One used to be able to rely on Iran. There is always somebody there shouting
"Death to America! Death to Israel!" They are trying to produce nuclear bombs. They vow to bury the Great Satan together
with the Small Satan (us). True, we did sell them some arms, quite quietly, with American blessing (see: Irangate), but
that doesn't count. President Bush even included them in his "Axis of Evil". We were hoping that after the occupation of
Iraq, the Americans would deal with them. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran sits like an almond between the jaws of a
nutcracker. And then, suddenly… Suddenly Iran is dripping honey. They thank the Americans for the generous assistance
sent to the victims of the big earthquake. They invite international inspectors to check their nuclear installations.
And the Americans - who can believe it? - let themselves be seduced. They emit conciliatory noises. And there are
already some people who expect us to behave like Libya and Iran, to open our nuclear installations to inspection. Perish
the thought! But all this is nothing compared to Syria. If there was one Arab nation you could rely on without
reservation it was the Syrians. Born Israel-haters. Tough. Uncompromising. Stockpiling chemical and biological weapons.
True, they respect the cease-fire line with Israel, but they use the Hizbollah against us instead. And they play host to
the headquarters of the militant Palestinian organizations in Damascus. The Bush administration has officially labeled
Syria a terrorist state. It has targeted them. Our friends in the Pentagon, Wolfowitz and the other Neo-Zionists,
promised us that Syria would be the next candidate for an American invasion, right after Iraq. Our good friends, the
Turks, were also to join in the party. After all, they have had an ongoing quarrel with Syria since the late 1930s, when
the French (who controlled Syria at the time) gave them the Syrian Alexandretta region. And this conflict deepened even
more when Syria began supporting the Kurdish revolt in Turkey and demanded a bigger share of the Euphrates water. And
now, suddenly… Suddenly this youngster, Bashar, changes direction overnight. Suddenly al-Assad ("the Lion") turns into
al-Taleb ("the Fox"). Says he wants peace. Wants to help the Americans. Invites Israel to renew negotiations. Visits
Turkey and forges an alliance with them against Kurdish independence in northern Iraq. That is dangerous. Terribly
dangerous. The American might pressure us to make peace with Syria and give the Golan back to them. True, up to now, the
Americans have reacted coolly to the Syrian overtures, but that may change. As the American elections draw nearer, and
Bush's adversaries increasingly paint the Iraq war as one big fiasco, Bush will be keen to demonstrate that the war was
actually an enormous success. To wit: It has created a New Middle East (alas, without Shimon Peres). The wicked states,
Iran, Syria and Libya, have forsaken their bad old ways and are basking in the Pax Americana. All the Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the region have been abolished, except for Israel's. No wonder the Sharon government is in a dilemma.
They are doing what they can to foil this plot. They publish Qaddafi's overtures, so as to embarrass him into denying
them. They reject Assad's peace stratagem. "Don't run and jump!" Sharon admonished his ministers this week, commanding
them not to get excited about it. Assad is not serious. He only wants to suck up to the Americans. He wants to use us in
order to reach Bush. For him, Israel is only "a stair of the White House", as Sharon put it. Defeatists might say: let's
seize the opportunity. Assad is weak? Assad is afraid? Assad want to appease the Americans? All the better, that is the
opportunity to make peace. What have we got to lose? If Assad is serious, we can put an end to our conflict with a
dangerous enemy. And if he isn't, we will unmask him. (The same defeatists proposed in 1972, too, that we should accept
the peace offers sent by Anwar Sadat via the UN emissary, Gunnar Jaring. But Israel had a tough leader, Golda Meir, who
rejected them "out of hand". True, this led to the Yom-Kippur war and the deaths of some 2000 young Israelis, not to
mention the tens of thousands of Egyptians and Syrians, but it certainly screwed the defeatists.) Sharon will not accept
the Syrian proposal, because that might lead to peace. And peace with the Syrians would mean the return of the Golan and
the dismantling of all the settlements there. That would be awful. It would also be a dangerous precedent for the
Palestinians. Bashar Assad, the fox in lion's clothing, wants to renew the negotiations at the point where they were
broken off by Ehud Barak. At the time, Barak just managed to save himself from the threat of peace in the nick of time.
Assad Sr. would accept nothing less than regaining the shores of Lake Tiberias (the June 4, 1967 line) instead of
staying ten meters short of it (the 1949 line). Barak couldn't stand the idea of Assad dipping his long feet in the
waters of this lake. Now Assad Jr. is hinting that he is prepared to forgo the pleasure. He can dip his long feet
somewhere else. Perhaps in the waters of the Euphrates. Sharon will not repeat the mistake of Barak, who barely
extricated himself by the skin of his teeth. He will not start negotiations at all. And indeed, if Assad is weak, why
negotiate with him? Catch 23: If the Arabs are strong, you can't make peace with them. You have to defeat them. And if
the Arabs are weak, there is no need to make peace with them. Why offer them anything? Catch 24: If the Arabs say they
want war, you have to believe them. But if the Arabs say they want peace, they are clearly lying. And how can you make
peace with liars? ***
[] How to keep Vanunu from telling what everybody knows
[These days both mass circulation papers, Ma'ariv and Yediot Aharonot write a lot about what life Mordechai Vanunu can
expect after his release from the 18-year prison sentence. Rayna Moss, a years-long anti-nuclear activist sent us the
following translation.]
------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:07:46 +0200 From: rayna moss
úøâåí îéãéòåú àçøåðåú ùì éåí çîéùé
Atomic Problem Yediot Ahronot (p. 4) by Ronen Bergman -- Jan. 8
Three years ago I went to Shikma Prison in Ashkelon to interview an Arab prisoner. And there, in the middle of the
well-tended garden made by the prisoners, I saw him-Mordechai Vanunu.
For a short moment I saw a bucolic scene, as if taken from some other reality. A serene, smilin g man, sitting on a
bench in a garden and reading Nietzsche in English. I approached him and extended my hand. Vanunu smiled and shook my
han d weakly. "Pleased to meet you, my name is Ronen," I said. "I'm Motti," the most confined prisoner in the State of
Israel replied. Before we c ould continue to talk, screaming wardens rushed over and grabbed him away from what could
have been an exclusive interview.
Just like the picture in the garden was misleading, so too, those who think that the war over I srael's ambiguity has
died down, are misled. This war is being waged full steam on a number of fronts. One of the most important is abou t to
flare up. Mordechai Vanunu, the atomic spy who revealed Israel's nuclear secrets to the entire world, is about to
complete the 18 year se ntence he was given and to go free.
Concern that Vanunu Will Want Revenge
The Defense Ministry and the Justice Ministry began three years ago to think what to do about V anunu. As Yehiel Horev,
in charge of security at the Defense Ministry and responsible for nuclear ambiguity, says, Vanunu is like a bull who has
already tasted blood. He has never expressed remorse, he has only continued to justify his acts, he has accrued great
anger toward the State of Israel for imprisoning him under harsh conditions for so many years, and according to some
versions, has lost his reason in the cou rse of those long years.
The security establishment is almost certain that if Vanunu is allowed to go on his way, he wil l leave Israel (as he
has said he will do, in order to teach history in the US) and begin to sing. To prevent this future problem from coming
true, the Justice Ministry and Defense Ministry are examining a number of possibilities, all based on the emergency
regulations. One possibility, not highly likely, came up in the first meetings, and that is to put Vanunu under
administrative detention, as is done to Palestinian wanted men.
This is problematic from a number off aspects. First, such a move would arouse great protest in Israel and in the
world, since this would mean continuing his imprisonment, which was completed in full. Not only that, since the secur
ity establishment does not believe the danger Vanunu poses will pass one day, this means he would have to be held in
detention until his dying da y.
Another possibility, more likely, is based on the regulation that allows the interior minister to stop a person from
leaving the country. Vanunu could then be released tomorrow, and if he again lets his tongue loose, he can be t ried and
thrown into jail.
The last time use was made of this Draconian measure was when the previous interior minister, E li Yishai, prevented
the head of the Islamic Movement, Sheikh Raed Salah, from leaving the country because of the investigation against the
Islamic Movement.
The State Attorney's Office is considering making use of another regulation as well, making it possible to restrict the
movements of somebody to a specific geographical location in Israel. Use of this rule was made in the past again st
extreme right wing activists and underworld figures.
Why Are They Scared of Him? Why, actually, are they so afraid of Vanunu? The whole issue of nuclear ambiguity is in
fact a g ame of let's pretend, carried to absurdity. On the face of it, what we have is the most classified secret in
the State of Israel. In practice, anyone on the globe who is interested, thinks he knows not only what Israel has, but
also where exactly it is storing it.
Yehiel Horev considers himself as standing on the front line, keeper of the seal of Israel's de epest secrets. In
closed forums, Horev compares Israel's ambiguity to a glass of water. "My job," Horev said, "is to ensure that the water
doesn't spill over the glass. Up until the Vanunu affair, the water was at a very low level. The affair caused the water
l evel to rise significantly and caused Israel great damage, but the water still didn't overflow. If we let certain
people act in the matte r, the water will spill." Horev watches the "water level" and every year publishes a report with
an updated "ambiguity index."
As Horev sees it, the very preoccupation with the Vanunu affair will reawaken the whole nuclear issue for an
international debate. All this interest, Horev says, makes the water level rise and therefore affects state security. To
mini mize the damage, Vanunu must be silenced. The very thought that the nuclear spy will talk on television the day
after his release, is Horev's nightmare.
The gist of the problem, Horev believes, is not that he will reveal some detail or another. Van unu, after all, has
already said everything he knows. The Americans, so the security establishment claims, deliberately ignore what Israel
does, in exchange for a promise given them back during Golda Meir's time, to maintain ambiguity.
This is getting harder and harder: Horev claims that today there are already a great many items , such as certain kinds
of computers, that Israel finds hard to obtain because of its refusal to sign the NPT. Relinquishing ambiguity will ma
ke this impossible. Horev says that the principle of ambiguity is even convenient for Egypt: breaking this principle
will obligate Egypt to cool its relations with Israel even further.
On the other hand, other experts contend that since in any case this is a game of let's pretend , in which the
Americans look away from what is under their noses, then only an official declaration by Israel about its capabilities
can dispel the nuclear ambiguity. The fact is, these experts say-among them Dr. Avner Cohen, who wrote the most
comprehensive book on Israel' s nuclear history-Vanunu went public in 1986 and even this didn't completely dispel the
nuclear ambiguity.
The battle over Vanunu's fate becomes more significant in light of recent developments in the M iddle East. Iranian
consent, at least on the surface, to stop enriching uranium and to sign the convention, along with Libya's abandoning
its ef forts to obtain such weapons, puts Israel with its back to the wall. Today Israel is even considering deviating
from its usual policy and sig ning the convention against the proliferation of chemical weapons, just so long as it does
not have to sign the convention against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
This is How the Nuclear Spy Can Be Restricted
Yedioth Ahronoth (p. 5) by Tova Tzimuki -- On April 21, in 105 days, the gates of Shikma Prison wi ll open and atomic
spy Mordechai Vanunu will go free after 18 years. But the closer his release comes, so the confusion and uncertainty in
the legal establishment increases.
At this stage, the security establishment is considering an unofficial appeal to State Attorne y Edna Arbel to plan the
restrictions that will be imposed on Vanunu. Arbel has not held a discussion on the matter yet, and it is believed it
will take place in a month.
"We are facing an unprecedented legal challenge," admit senior legal officials. "The problem is twofold: it is clear to
us that any means we take to restrict Vanunu's freedom-after he has paid his debt society-will be examined meti culously
by the High Court of Justice and by human rights organizations all over the world."
The legal establishment is considering a "package of restrictions" to prevent Vanunu from conti nuing to reveal the
secrets he has. The following are the possible actions that could be taken: 1. Ban on leaving the country. Mordechai
would not be able to get a passport on the grounds tha t he still poses a risk to state security. This measure will
likely be adopted. 2. Restricting his movement in Israel. The state may decide that Vanunu can only stay in a cert ain
geographic area. This will make it easy to monitor him and know with whom he is meeting. This measure will also likely
be taken. 3. Censorship restrictions. The Israeli media may not be allowed to publish interviews with Van unu in which
he reveals sensitive information. The likelihood of this measure being taken is high. 4. Administrative detention. The
state could leave Vanunu in prison claiming he still endangers security. The likelihood of such an unusual step is low:
the security establishment would find it hard to explain to the High Court of Justice why someone who has served his
sentence should not be released. In addition, such a step would arouse international protest.