
A number of points.  You are making assumptions about the manner
in which the cards are used.  True, by law, all residents, citizens,
and tourists must carry a form of identification with them.  For
citizens, the standard ID is the ID card.  The purpose this serves
on a daily basis, wherein they are presented at public places,
is for the purpose of identifying the bearer.  This takes place
in banks (cashing checks), post offices (registered mail and such), etc...
Quite frankly, it was rare that I ever had to present my ID card
for such activities more than once per week.  There is no law or
requirement that forces people to wave their ID cards in public.
Furthermore, none of the services I outlined discriminate against
the bearer in any manner by having access to this information.

The only case that I can think of in which the Le'um field might
be taken into account is during interaction with the police,
based upon the scenario.  In general though, arab citizens are
clearly recognizable, as are non-arabs. Your argument therefore
becomes moot unless you can provide an example of how this field
is being used to discriminate against them officially.



I take issue with your assertions.  I think that Arab countries
do know that they have nothing to fear from "Israeli expansionism".
Militarily, Israel is not capable of holding onto large tracts of
land under occupation to a hostile, armed, and insurgent population for a
sustained period of time.  As is, the intifada is heavily taxing
the Israeli economy.  Proof of this can be seen in the Israeli
withdrawal from Lebanon.  Israeli troops pulled back from the
Awali, and later from the Litani, in order to control the minimal
strip needed to keep towns out of range of Katyusha missile fire.
Public opinion in Israel has turned towards settling the intifada
via territorial concessions.  The Israel public is sufferring from
battle fatigue of sorts and the gov't is aware of it.

With regards to borders, let me state the following.  I may not agree
with the manner in which negotiations are being held, however the crux
of the matter is that everyone either makes or refrains from stating
a starting position.  The arab parties have called for total withdrawal
and a return to pre-48 borders.  If Israel were to state large borders,
the negotiations might never get under way.  If Israel were to state
smaller borders, then the arab countries might try and force even smaller
borders during the negotiations.  I think that leaving the matter to be
settled by negotiations and peace treaties is infinitely more realistic
and sensible.


Your statement is typical of the simple minded naivety of a "center for
policy research".  Whether or not all of Vanunu's revelations were true has no
bearing on the fact that some were.  For disclosing "state secrets"
after having signed contracts and forms with the understanding that
said secrets are not to be made public, one should be punished.
As to which were and which weren't, I am under no moral obligation
to disclose that - quite the reverse in fact.
He was taken to court, tried, and found guilty.  You may take issue
with a number of things but clearly you have no understanding of the
concept of "Secrets of state", something which every democratic govt
has.


I noticed that he was documenting the fact that such prisoners could exist
more than he documented the fact that they do exist.  The CLU noted,
which you evidently did not pay attention to, that they know of no such
reports or cases.  I am sorry to tell you but in a country of 4 mill,
as tightly knit as Israel, even if the matter of the arrest was not
made public, within a relatively short time frame, most people would know
about it.  My own feelings are that the matter of the arrest should be
made public unless a court order is issued allowing a delay of X hours.
This would be granted only if a judge could be convinced that an
announcement would cause irreparable harm to the ongoing investigation.


Well, I am sorry to say that your questions are slanted.  Such
questions are often termed "tabloid journalism" and are not
disturbing because they avoid any attempt at objectivity.
Such questions were often used during the McCarthy era as
a basis for the witch-hunts that took place then.  To use
your own example, these questions might have been lifted
from the format used by Stalinist prosecutors that were looking
for small bits of evidence that they could distort and portray
as a larger and dirtier picture.

My answers were not any more "hysterical" than the questions
themselves.  The problem is not that the q's were provocative,
it was that they were selective in their fact seeking.  You
fall into the same category of those who seek "yes" "no" answers
when the real answer is "of sorts".
I suspect that as long as the answers to these questions is not an
unequivocal NO, you would remain unsatified and choose to interprete
them as you see fit.  A sign of strength is the ability to look
You remind me of those mistaken environmentalists who once advocated
culling wolves because of the cruelty to deer, only to find that they
had broken the food chain and wreaked havoc upon the very environment
they sought to protect.  The color blindness you exhibit is a true
sign of weakness.


Ditto.
