Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Outing The Mother of all Weapons of Mass Destruction
Officially, Israel refuses to confirm or deny reports on its nuclear weapons program, maintaining a long-held policy of what it calls \"deliberate ambiguity\" about its offensive capacity.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, citing what it said was a classified United States Department of Energy study, said this fall that Israel has the sixth-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Shimon Peres stated: \"The public knows that there are certain things it does not want to know,\" he said in an interview with Israeli television.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, citing what it said was a classified United States Department of Energy study, said this fall that Israel has the sixth-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Shimon Peres stated: \"The public knows that there are certain things it does not want to know,\" he said in an interview with Israeli television.
November 25, 1999
Israel Eases Secrecy Over Nuclear Whistle-Blower\'s Trial
Related Articles
Israel Clings to Its \'Nuclear Ambiguity\' (June 21, 1998)
Week in Review: Shhh! That\'s a (Not Very) Secret. (Jan. 14, 1996)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By DEBORAH SONTAG
ERUSALEM -- The Israeli government Wednesday allowed a newspaper to publish censored excerpts from the classified transcript of a treason trial of 12 years ago. They provided the first glimpse ever into the courtroom where Mordechai Vanunu was convicted for blowing the whistle on Israel\'s secret nuclear program.
The excerpts, published by the newspaper Yediot Ahronot, contained no earth-shattering revelations about an infamous case with a spy novel plot. But their release signaled the government\'s increasing awareness that it can no longer maintain absolute silence on whether it has nuclear weapons.
The state attorney, avoiding a court challenge, pre-emptively released more than 1,200 pages of censored testimony to the newspaper, which had been fighting to obtain the documents.
\"Things have changed since the trial and it was decided by defense officials that anything that will not harm the security of the country will now be published,\" said Devora Hen, a lawyer for the state attorney.
Officially, Israel refuses to confirm or deny reports on its nuclear weapons program, maintaining a long-held policy of what it calls \"deliberate ambiguity\" about its offensive capacity.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, citing what it said was a classified United States Department of Energy study, said this fall that Israel has the sixth-largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
\"I think that there is an evolving understanding that a long-term policy of complete secrecy is untenable and creates whistle-blowers like Vanunu,\" said Avner Cohen, an Israeli scholar whose book, \"Israel and the Bomb,\" was published last year in New York. \"There is stuff that really should be classified, but not the fact of the nuclear policy itself.\"
Though Cohen\'s study was initially banned in Israel, it was recently approved for publication in Hebrew in Israel, another sign of a relaxation of the government\'s strict secrecy.
Yediot Ahronot devoted almost 10 pages of its newspaper Wednesday to the case, and it dominated the airwaves.
The documents showed that Vanunu, a former nuclear technician, testified in his closed-door trial that he had exposed Israel\'s nuclear warchest in an effort to force the government to acknowledge its existence and accept international supervision of the program.
\"I wanted to confirm what everyone knows,\" he said about the information he sold to the Sunday Times of London in 1986. \"I wanted to put the matter under proper supervision.\"
Vanunu further testified that as a result of his revelations, Shimon Peres, who was prime minister at the time the article was published, could not \"keep lying to Reagan and telling him that we do not have nuclear weapons.\"
In the fall of 1986, the Sunday Times published Vanunu\'s claim that Israel had stockpiled roughly 100 nuclear weapons. Vanunu, a Moroccan-born Jew who grew up in a religious home, had worked at the Dimona nuclear reactor for nine years before emigrating to Australia and converting to Christianity. The newspaper paid him to fly to London and collaborate on the story about Israel\'s nuclear capacity.
\"It was clear to me that Vanunu was in danger,\" Peter Hunam, an English journalist for the Sunday Times, testified, according to the transcripts.
\"I wanted him to move to another hotel, but I realized he was exceedingly nervous and was talking about leaving London or the country.\"
After his interviews with the newspaper, but before the story was published, Vanunu was lured from London to Rome by a blond female Mossad agent called \"Cindy.\" There he was kidnapped and flown to Israel to stand trial as a spy and a traitor.
\"I didn\'t know if they were going to shoot me or kill me,\" he said about his abduction during the trial.
The documents show that the prosecution believed that it had the authority to sentence Vanunu to death but refrained from requesting this. In 1988, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison, where he has served 13 years, mostly in solitary confinement. Only recently has the government allowed even a photograph of him in jail to be published.
Peres, who is credited with organizing Israel\'s nuclear program as a young aide to David Ben-Gurion, Wednesday denounced the release of the transcripts for bringing to the surface a subject that is best left suppressed.
\"The public knows that there are certain things it does not want to know,\" he said in an interview with Israeli television.
Earlier in the day, on Israel radio, Peres said, \"The whole Vanunu affair makes my blood boil. One day a man gets up in the morning and he decides what is good for the country. Does he carry the responsibility?\"
During the trial, Yediot Ahronot reported, Peres said that he believed that the revelations in the Sunday Times had injured Israel, increasing \"beyond what is desirable, suspicions and reservations about Israel.\"
Vanunu\'s detailed allegations about the scope and sophistication of Israel\'s nuclear weapons program have never been challenged by Israeli officials or by knowledgeable Israeli civilian defense experts. Independent assessments by international arms-monitoring organizations have also concluded that Israel\'s nuclear stockpile is exceeded only by those of the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom.
Cohen said the Israelis have long maintained that Vanunu\'s revelations accelerated Arab nuclear projects. \"I do not believe this,\" he said, \"even though in my opinion Vanunu had a serious effect on the Arab press and attention to the subject.\"
\"It was not Mordechai Vanunu who caused the Iraqi nuclear program to move fast,\" Cohen continued. \"It was an Iraqi decision following Israel\'s bombing of its nuclear reactor in 1981.\"
In 1981, Moshe Dayan, then the defense minister, said publicly that Israel had no active \"atomic bombs\" but had the capacity to assemble weapons for attack in short order.
Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company
Israel Eases Secrecy Over Nuclear Whistle-Blower\'s Trial
Related Articles
Israel Clings to Its \'Nuclear Ambiguity\' (June 21, 1998)
Week in Review: Shhh! That\'s a (Not Very) Secret. (Jan. 14, 1996)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By DEBORAH SONTAG
ERUSALEM -- The Israeli government Wednesday allowed a newspaper to publish censored excerpts from the classified transcript of a treason trial of 12 years ago. They provided the first glimpse ever into the courtroom where Mordechai Vanunu was convicted for blowing the whistle on Israel\'s secret nuclear program.
The excerpts, published by the newspaper Yediot Ahronot, contained no earth-shattering revelations about an infamous case with a spy novel plot. But their release signaled the government\'s increasing awareness that it can no longer maintain absolute silence on whether it has nuclear weapons.
The state attorney, avoiding a court challenge, pre-emptively released more than 1,200 pages of censored testimony to the newspaper, which had been fighting to obtain the documents.
\"Things have changed since the trial and it was decided by defense officials that anything that will not harm the security of the country will now be published,\" said Devora Hen, a lawyer for the state attorney.
Officially, Israel refuses to confirm or deny reports on its nuclear weapons program, maintaining a long-held policy of what it calls \"deliberate ambiguity\" about its offensive capacity.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, citing what it said was a classified United States Department of Energy study, said this fall that Israel has the sixth-largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
\"I think that there is an evolving understanding that a long-term policy of complete secrecy is untenable and creates whistle-blowers like Vanunu,\" said Avner Cohen, an Israeli scholar whose book, \"Israel and the Bomb,\" was published last year in New York. \"There is stuff that really should be classified, but not the fact of the nuclear policy itself.\"
Though Cohen\'s study was initially banned in Israel, it was recently approved for publication in Hebrew in Israel, another sign of a relaxation of the government\'s strict secrecy.
Yediot Ahronot devoted almost 10 pages of its newspaper Wednesday to the case, and it dominated the airwaves.
The documents showed that Vanunu, a former nuclear technician, testified in his closed-door trial that he had exposed Israel\'s nuclear warchest in an effort to force the government to acknowledge its existence and accept international supervision of the program.
\"I wanted to confirm what everyone knows,\" he said about the information he sold to the Sunday Times of London in 1986. \"I wanted to put the matter under proper supervision.\"
Vanunu further testified that as a result of his revelations, Shimon Peres, who was prime minister at the time the article was published, could not \"keep lying to Reagan and telling him that we do not have nuclear weapons.\"
In the fall of 1986, the Sunday Times published Vanunu\'s claim that Israel had stockpiled roughly 100 nuclear weapons. Vanunu, a Moroccan-born Jew who grew up in a religious home, had worked at the Dimona nuclear reactor for nine years before emigrating to Australia and converting to Christianity. The newspaper paid him to fly to London and collaborate on the story about Israel\'s nuclear capacity.
\"It was clear to me that Vanunu was in danger,\" Peter Hunam, an English journalist for the Sunday Times, testified, according to the transcripts.
\"I wanted him to move to another hotel, but I realized he was exceedingly nervous and was talking about leaving London or the country.\"
After his interviews with the newspaper, but before the story was published, Vanunu was lured from London to Rome by a blond female Mossad agent called \"Cindy.\" There he was kidnapped and flown to Israel to stand trial as a spy and a traitor.
\"I didn\'t know if they were going to shoot me or kill me,\" he said about his abduction during the trial.
The documents show that the prosecution believed that it had the authority to sentence Vanunu to death but refrained from requesting this. In 1988, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison, where he has served 13 years, mostly in solitary confinement. Only recently has the government allowed even a photograph of him in jail to be published.
Peres, who is credited with organizing Israel\'s nuclear program as a young aide to David Ben-Gurion, Wednesday denounced the release of the transcripts for bringing to the surface a subject that is best left suppressed.
\"The public knows that there are certain things it does not want to know,\" he said in an interview with Israeli television.
Earlier in the day, on Israel radio, Peres said, \"The whole Vanunu affair makes my blood boil. One day a man gets up in the morning and he decides what is good for the country. Does he carry the responsibility?\"
During the trial, Yediot Ahronot reported, Peres said that he believed that the revelations in the Sunday Times had injured Israel, increasing \"beyond what is desirable, suspicions and reservations about Israel.\"
Vanunu\'s detailed allegations about the scope and sophistication of Israel\'s nuclear weapons program have never been challenged by Israeli officials or by knowledgeable Israeli civilian defense experts. Independent assessments by international arms-monitoring organizations have also concluded that Israel\'s nuclear stockpile is exceeded only by those of the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom.
Cohen said the Israelis have long maintained that Vanunu\'s revelations accelerated Arab nuclear projects. \"I do not believe this,\" he said, \"even though in my opinion Vanunu had a serious effect on the Arab press and attention to the subject.\"
\"It was not Mordechai Vanunu who caused the Iraqi nuclear program to move fast,\" Cohen continued. \"It was an Iraqi decision following Israel\'s bombing of its nuclear reactor in 1981.\"
In 1981, Moshe Dayan, then the defense minister, said publicly that Israel had no active \"atomic bombs\" but had the capacity to assemble weapons for attack in short order.
Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company
For more information:
http://tms.physics.lsa.umich.edu/214/other...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
1 February, 2003 (IAP News)
An Israeli professor and military historian hinted that Israel could avenge the Holocaust by annihilating millions of Germans and
other Europeans.
Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Creveld said Israel had the capability of hitting
most European capitals with nuclear weapons.
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most
European capitals are targets of our air force."
Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, pointed out that "collective deportation" was Israel's only
meaningful strategy towards the Palestinian people.
"The Palestinians should all be deported. The people who strive for this (the Israeli government) are waiting only for the right man and the
right time. Two years ago, only 7 or 8 per cent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 per
cent, and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent."
Creveld said he was sure that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wanted to deport the Palestinians.
"I think it's quite possible that he wants to do that. He wants to escalate the conflict. He knows that nothing else we do will succeed."
Asked if he was worried about Israel becoming a rogue state if it carried out a genocidal deportation against Palestinians, Creveld quoted
former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who said "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Creveld argued that Israel wouldn't care much about becoming a rogue state.
"Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down
with us. And I can assure you that that this will happen before Israel goes under."
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=2929
An Israeli professor and military historian hinted that Israel could avenge the Holocaust by annihilating millions of Germans and
other Europeans.
Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Creveld said Israel had the capability of hitting
most European capitals with nuclear weapons.
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most
European capitals are targets of our air force."
Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, pointed out that "collective deportation" was Israel's only
meaningful strategy towards the Palestinian people.
"The Palestinians should all be deported. The people who strive for this (the Israeli government) are waiting only for the right man and the
right time. Two years ago, only 7 or 8 per cent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 per
cent, and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent."
Creveld said he was sure that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wanted to deport the Palestinians.
"I think it's quite possible that he wants to do that. He wants to escalate the conflict. He knows that nothing else we do will succeed."
Asked if he was worried about Israel becoming a rogue state if it carried out a genocidal deportation against Palestinians, Creveld quoted
former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who said "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Creveld argued that Israel wouldn't care much about becoming a rogue state.
"Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down
with us. And I can assure you that that this will happen before Israel goes under."
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=2929
Israeli defence forces will inevitably lose to the Palestinians
ABC WORLD IN FOCUS ^ | March 20, 2002 | Martin van Creveld
Posted on 06/21/2002 8:41 AM PDT by robowombat
WORLD IN FOCUS Interview with Martin van Creveld
Broadcast: 20/03/2002
Interviewer: Jennifer Byrne
Professor Martin van Creveld, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is Israel's most prominent military historian. In this interview with Jennifer Byrne he claims that despite the recent increase in Israel's military operations, the huge Israeli defence forces will inevitably lose to the Palestinians. Transcript:
Byrne: Thanks for joining us tonight on Foreign Correspondent. How has it come to this, Martin... how is it that the mighty Israeli army – one of the world’s most powerful - with its helicopter gunships, with its tanks, with it’s missiles, can be losing to this relatively small, relatively under-armed if fanatical group of Palestinians?
Van Creveld: The same thing has happened to the Israeli army as happened to all the rest that have tried over the last sixty years. Basically it’s always a question of the relationship of forces. If you are strong, and you are fighting the weak for any period of time, you are going to become weak yourself. If you behave like a coward then you are going to become cowardly – it’s only a question of time. The same happened to the British when they were here... the same happened to the French in Algeria... the same happened to the Americans in Vietnam... the same happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan... the same happened to so many people that I can’t even count them.
Byrne: : Martin you used the word ‘cowardly’ yet what we’ve seen tonight – these commando units, the anti-terrorist squads – these aren’t cowardly people.
Van Creveld: I agree with you. They are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.
Byrne: : You are a military historian, but let’s face it the Prime Minister was a general... how could General Sharon – Prime Minister Sharon – be getting it so wrong, by your analysis?
Van Creveld: It’s not a question of personalities, it’s a question of the balance of forces. I’ll use a metaphor that I’ll take from Lao-tzu – the Chinese sage who lived about 2,400 years ago – ‘a sword put into salt water will rust’ – it is only a question of time. And this is happening to the Israeli army and to the Israeli society, almost regardless of who is leading it.
Byrne: : Are they losing, or have they lost, in your opinion?
Van Creveld: No they have not yet lost, but they are as far as I can see, well on the way to losing, which is why Israel over the last few weeks has been positively begging the Palestinians for a ceasefire. We have arrived at the point where, if you will, like Johnson in Vietnam, we are constantly asking the other side for a ceasefire, and the other side either will or will not respond as it pleases him – the reason being of course that they have so much less to lose.
Byrne: : The reason being also, in a sense, that it’s what isn’t about, isn’t it? A ceasefire would provide security for the Israelis, which is what they want, but it would not provide statehood for the Palestinians, which is what they want.
Van Creveld: Exactly. The other side will definitely not have a ceasefire without some considerable political achievement. If I were Arafat and the Palestinians, I would not put an end to this intafada, because the way I see it, from the first day of the first intafada they have been winning.
Byrne: : What options does the Israeli army have, do you think?
Van Creveld: Nothing will work.
Byrne: : Nothing at all? Do you think there’s no change of strategy?
Van Creveld: No. There is one thing that can be done – and that is to put and end to the situation whereby we are the strong fighting the weak, because that is the most stupid situation in which anybody can be.
Byrne: : And how do you do that?
Van Creveld: Exactly. How do you do that. You do that by A, waiting for a suitable opportunity... B, doing whatever it takes to restore the balance of power between us and the Palestinians... C, removing 90% of the causes of the conflict, by pulling out... and D, building a wall between us and the other side, so tall that even the birds cannot fly over it.... so as to avoid any kind of friction for a long long time in the future.
Byrne: : Well, that’s a tall list. Let’s start with the last one – the wall... I mean, when I was there last month people were talking about a wall but you’re seriously saying this is an option, to build a gigantic wall.... what.... on the old green line, basically – there’s Gaza – there’s the West Bank – and there’s Israel proper, and they shall never be combined?
Van Creveld: “Never” is too much of a word. Nothing lasts forever. But history proves that walls work. The Roman wall – the Limus(?) – worked for hundreds of years... the Great Chinese Wall worked, not forever, but for hundreds of years... the wall in Korea has been working for fity years... the wall between Turks and Greeks in Cyprus is working.... the Berlin Wall worked beautifully.... Unfortunately, the Israeli army insists against all military logic on being present on both sides of the wall. We could formally finish the problem at least in Gaza, in 48 hours, by getting out and building a proper wall. And then of course, if anybody tries to climb over the wall we kill him.
Byrne: : What about the many thousands of extremely belligerent Israeli settlers that would be on the wrong side of the wall?
Van Creveld: If it were up to me, I would tell those people – and you’re quite right, many of them are quite belligerent – look, ladies and gentlemen, you have been magnificent, you have served us well, you have protected us all those years, but this is coming to an end. If you choose to stay, it’s your problem – you are on your own. My guess is that 95% of them will come home.
Byrne: J: What about another scenario, which has been much discussed in recent months – which is one of full military solution? Basically, the Israeli army just goes in... it doesn’t build a wall – it basically blows up the Palestinian home... razes the camps... stops, as it might say, pussyfooting around, and it’s “curtains”?
Van Creveld: Look... a home that has been demolished offers even better shelter than a home that stands intact. The Americans in Vietnam tried it. They killed between two-and-a-half and three million Vietnamese. I don’t see that it helped them much.
Byrne: : Martin, just personally... can you bear the thought of living in Jerusalem behind a wall – as the only way to be safe?
Van Creveld: Quite to the contrary – I came to live in Jerusalem in 1964... three years before the 1967 war. There actually was a wall, and life was wonderful. Nothing ever happened. Jerusalem was the quietest, safest place on earth. More than that, between 1957 and 1967 the number of Israelis who lost their lives as a result of enemy action was just thirty-five. Now we pray for a week in which we shall not lose thirty-five people.
Byrne: : Martin van Creveld, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you.
Van Creveld: Thank you. Bye.
ABC WORLD IN FOCUS ^ | March 20, 2002 | Martin van Creveld
Posted on 06/21/2002 8:41 AM PDT by robowombat
WORLD IN FOCUS Interview with Martin van Creveld
Broadcast: 20/03/2002
Interviewer: Jennifer Byrne
Professor Martin van Creveld, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is Israel's most prominent military historian. In this interview with Jennifer Byrne he claims that despite the recent increase in Israel's military operations, the huge Israeli defence forces will inevitably lose to the Palestinians. Transcript:
Byrne: Thanks for joining us tonight on Foreign Correspondent. How has it come to this, Martin... how is it that the mighty Israeli army – one of the world’s most powerful - with its helicopter gunships, with its tanks, with it’s missiles, can be losing to this relatively small, relatively under-armed if fanatical group of Palestinians?
Van Creveld: The same thing has happened to the Israeli army as happened to all the rest that have tried over the last sixty years. Basically it’s always a question of the relationship of forces. If you are strong, and you are fighting the weak for any period of time, you are going to become weak yourself. If you behave like a coward then you are going to become cowardly – it’s only a question of time. The same happened to the British when they were here... the same happened to the French in Algeria... the same happened to the Americans in Vietnam... the same happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan... the same happened to so many people that I can’t even count them.
Byrne: : Martin you used the word ‘cowardly’ yet what we’ve seen tonight – these commando units, the anti-terrorist squads – these aren’t cowardly people.
Van Creveld: I agree with you. They are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.
Byrne: : You are a military historian, but let’s face it the Prime Minister was a general... how could General Sharon – Prime Minister Sharon – be getting it so wrong, by your analysis?
Van Creveld: It’s not a question of personalities, it’s a question of the balance of forces. I’ll use a metaphor that I’ll take from Lao-tzu – the Chinese sage who lived about 2,400 years ago – ‘a sword put into salt water will rust’ – it is only a question of time. And this is happening to the Israeli army and to the Israeli society, almost regardless of who is leading it.
Byrne: : Are they losing, or have they lost, in your opinion?
Van Creveld: No they have not yet lost, but they are as far as I can see, well on the way to losing, which is why Israel over the last few weeks has been positively begging the Palestinians for a ceasefire. We have arrived at the point where, if you will, like Johnson in Vietnam, we are constantly asking the other side for a ceasefire, and the other side either will or will not respond as it pleases him – the reason being of course that they have so much less to lose.
Byrne: : The reason being also, in a sense, that it’s what isn’t about, isn’t it? A ceasefire would provide security for the Israelis, which is what they want, but it would not provide statehood for the Palestinians, which is what they want.
Van Creveld: Exactly. The other side will definitely not have a ceasefire without some considerable political achievement. If I were Arafat and the Palestinians, I would not put an end to this intafada, because the way I see it, from the first day of the first intafada they have been winning.
Byrne: : What options does the Israeli army have, do you think?
Van Creveld: Nothing will work.
Byrne: : Nothing at all? Do you think there’s no change of strategy?
Van Creveld: No. There is one thing that can be done – and that is to put and end to the situation whereby we are the strong fighting the weak, because that is the most stupid situation in which anybody can be.
Byrne: : And how do you do that?
Van Creveld: Exactly. How do you do that. You do that by A, waiting for a suitable opportunity... B, doing whatever it takes to restore the balance of power between us and the Palestinians... C, removing 90% of the causes of the conflict, by pulling out... and D, building a wall between us and the other side, so tall that even the birds cannot fly over it.... so as to avoid any kind of friction for a long long time in the future.
Byrne: : Well, that’s a tall list. Let’s start with the last one – the wall... I mean, when I was there last month people were talking about a wall but you’re seriously saying this is an option, to build a gigantic wall.... what.... on the old green line, basically – there’s Gaza – there’s the West Bank – and there’s Israel proper, and they shall never be combined?
Van Creveld: “Never” is too much of a word. Nothing lasts forever. But history proves that walls work. The Roman wall – the Limus(?) – worked for hundreds of years... the Great Chinese Wall worked, not forever, but for hundreds of years... the wall in Korea has been working for fity years... the wall between Turks and Greeks in Cyprus is working.... the Berlin Wall worked beautifully.... Unfortunately, the Israeli army insists against all military logic on being present on both sides of the wall. We could formally finish the problem at least in Gaza, in 48 hours, by getting out and building a proper wall. And then of course, if anybody tries to climb over the wall we kill him.
Byrne: : What about the many thousands of extremely belligerent Israeli settlers that would be on the wrong side of the wall?
Van Creveld: If it were up to me, I would tell those people – and you’re quite right, many of them are quite belligerent – look, ladies and gentlemen, you have been magnificent, you have served us well, you have protected us all those years, but this is coming to an end. If you choose to stay, it’s your problem – you are on your own. My guess is that 95% of them will come home.
Byrne: J: What about another scenario, which has been much discussed in recent months – which is one of full military solution? Basically, the Israeli army just goes in... it doesn’t build a wall – it basically blows up the Palestinian home... razes the camps... stops, as it might say, pussyfooting around, and it’s “curtains”?
Van Creveld: Look... a home that has been demolished offers even better shelter than a home that stands intact. The Americans in Vietnam tried it. They killed between two-and-a-half and three million Vietnamese. I don’t see that it helped them much.
Byrne: : Martin, just personally... can you bear the thought of living in Jerusalem behind a wall – as the only way to be safe?
Van Creveld: Quite to the contrary – I came to live in Jerusalem in 1964... three years before the 1967 war. There actually was a wall, and life was wonderful. Nothing ever happened. Jerusalem was the quietest, safest place on earth. More than that, between 1957 and 1967 the number of Israelis who lost their lives as a result of enemy action was just thirty-five. Now we pray for a week in which we shall not lose thirty-five people.
Byrne: : Martin van Creveld, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you.
Van Creveld: Thank you. Bye.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network