20 thoughts on “Latest Shin Bet Outrage: Threatening Eichmann-like Abduction of Blau – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Didn’t I read earlier that Kamm is urging Blau to return to Israel? I find this very strange.

    Is it possible that she’s being used to lure Blau into a trap?

    1. Funny you should mention a “trap” as Feldman, Kamm’s attorney specifically says he feels certain that Blau will not be “tricked” if he returns. All that’s ironic in that Kamm was unmasked & arrested precisely because the Shin Bet violated a written agreement with Haaretz NOT to further investigate the source of Blau’s leaks if he returned the documents he promised & witnessed the destruction of his computer. All of which he did, no sooner than which they turned around & arrested Kamm. Remember the lyrics to that Who song: “We won’t be fooled again!” That’s precisely what Blau’s probably listening to right about now on his iPod.

      What I understand that Kamm did is that she released him from his journalisitic commitment to maintain her anonymity. And she did ask him to return though I’m not sure why. This in turn may enable him to confront the authorities as it did Judy Miller in the Scooter Libby case. But I still don’t see why it’s in his interests to return at this point.

      1. How can he return? Who can trust Shin Bet when they failed to honor their agreement with Blau? I can only imagine what they’ll do to him if he does return.

        If he has proof of “war crimes”, he should inform the International Crimes Court and see if somehow he can get protection under International Law.

        I hope his lawyer is investigating all avenues to protect him from Shin Bet who could care less about Israeli Law or International Law.

        Perhaps this will advance the Goldstone Report to prosecution by the International Criminal Court, but maybe it’s just my wishful thinking.

  2. Interestingly enough, Yossi Beilin, in a column in Israel HaYom, says Kamm should be prosecuted and put in prison.
    It has been pointed out that if she was aware of malfeasance in the IDF she should have gone to someone like Yossi Sarid who is on the Left, yet has a long history of involvement in security matters, and he has had high-level security clearances. It is speculated that had she decided to do it the way she did because by going to a politician she would have missed on the her 15 minutes of fame that leaking it to a journalist has brought her.

    1. I’d rather read what Yossi Beilin wrote before passing judgement on him. But there is much that Beilin does & says w. which I disagree. This may be yet another subject where that is the case. I’d like Yossi Beilin to take a lie detector test & be asked whether he has ever passed top secret gov’t documents to a journalist. Undoubtedly the answer would be yes. And then I’d like him to face what Anat Kamm is facing & see whether he’s still singing the same tune.

      she should have gone to someone like Yossi Sarid who is on the Left

      What makes you think she didn’t? How do you know who she approached & who she didn’t? YOu don’t. So don’t waste our time w. baseless speculation.

      It is speculated

      More worthless speculation fr. unknown sources who don’t know their asses fr. their elbows. Anat Kamm has said to the Shin Bet that she did what she did to reveal possible IDF war crimes. I’m not prepared to entertain cynical rightist conspiracy theories that place Kamm in the worst light possible unless you can prove that she actually said or did something specifically that supports this claim. If you can’t do this, keep it to yrself & go publish it at Rotter. They love such speculation.

      1. Richard – I am sorry to see you are deeming the “cynical theories” (which are hardly conspiracies – no-one claims Kamm conspired with others on the issue) to be “rightist”.

        The facts we have point at least equivocally if not stronger to the personal motives than to the “whistleblower” motives. I fail to see why leftists cannot consider this option in understanding the story.

  3. Vanunu was actually kidnapped in Rome, after having been lured there from London by a female agent.

    What I don’t understand is the Shin Bet’s insistence on Blau returning the documents. From their POV, how would they know Blau hadn’t made another set of copies? And from Blau’s POV, wouldn’t he have to be afraid of being held hostage forever by the Shin Bet, who might blame any subsequent leak of any document from the time frame of Kamm’s army service (whether or not the specific document was among those copied by Kamm) on him? For an investigative journalist such a deal would be professional suicide, wouldn’t it?

  4. Is being moderated the consequence of any dastardly deed on my part, or is it just that I have dynamic IP? (I’ve always had the latter.)

    1. Yes, first time commenters are moderated via their IP. Sorry about that. It has nothing to do w. you. It’s more a protection from abusive first time trolls and commenters who spew venom. Usually, if I can catch them the first time they don’t return. So it’s the dynamic IP that’s the issue for you.

  5. They might try to abduct someone in London.

    What is less clear, is whether or not they would succeed.
    The most probable outcome of a Dubai-style operation in London would be twenty to thirty Shin Bet operatives in custody facing a full process of law that tends to grind regardless of political pressure, and certainly grinds away regardless of threats and intimidation.

    And there are many hitherto unsolved crimes on the books that might be solved by an influx of Israeli agents into the UK’s DNA database, as shared with most of the free world.

    How dumb do you think they are, Richard?

  6. RE: “It’s true that they did kidnap Adoph Eichmann in Argentina and Mordechai Vanunu in London…” – R.S.

    MY COMMENT: Technically, they kidnapped Vanunu in Italy (according to Wikipedia).

    FROM WIKIPEDIA: Mordechai Vanunu (Hebrew: מרדכי ואנונו‎, born in Marrakech, Morocco, on 14 October 1954) is an Israeli former nuclear technician who, citing his opposition to weapons of mass destruction, revealed details of Israel’s nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986.[1][2] He was subsequently lured to Italy by a Mossad spy, where he was drugged and kidnapped by Israeli intelligence operatives.[1]…

      …Vanunu states in his letters that he intended to share the money received from the newspaper (for the information) with the Anglican Church of Australia. Apparently, frustrated by the delay while Hounam was completing his research, Vanunu approached a rival newspaper, the tabloid Sunday Mirror, whose owner was Robert Maxwell. In 1991, a self-described former Mossad officer or government translator named Ari Ben-Menashe alleged that Maxwell had tipped off the Mossad, possibly through British secret services, about Vanunu. It is also possible that they were alerted by enquiries made to Israelis or to the Israeli Embassy in London by Sunday Mirror journalists.
      The Israeli government decided to detain Vanunu, but determined to avoid harming its good relationship with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher*, and wanting to not risk confrontation with British Intelligence, determined Vanunu should be persuaded to leave UK territory under his own volition. Masquerading as an American tourist called “Cindy”, Israeli Mossad agent Cheryl Bentov befriended Vanunu, and on 30 September persuaded him to fly to Rome with her on a holiday.[23] Once in Rome, Mossad agents drugged him and carried him to Israel on a freighter,[23] beginning what was to be more than a decade of solitary confinement in Israeli prisons…..

      *P.S. I believe I have read that Thatcher was nonetheless quite perturbed about Vanunu’s abduction.

      FROM SouceWatch: …The Israeli government had promised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that they would not conduct operations on British soil; therefore it was important to get Vanunu out of the country under his own volition…

  7. RE: The National reports that the Shin Bet said it would “take the gloves off” in dealing with self-exiled Haaretz reporter Uri Blau and even consider kidnapping him to forcibly return him to Israel. Someone ought to tell this numbskull that the Shin Bet isn’t allowed to kidnap Israeli citizens on foreign soil. – R.S.
    MY COMMENT: Since Israel insists that it is The Jewish Nation, wouldn’t its “enforcers” have a right to go after “Jews” wherever they might be? Is the jurisdiction of The Jewish Nation confined to the geographic boundaries of Israel? Analogize to the Bush/Cheney concept of The Global War on Terror™ and its amorphous “battlefield” that stretched to all corners of the globe (and perhaps even beyond our own universe).

  8. I’m not sure why do you interpret “taking the gloves off” as a threat to take measures outside of the legal domain. Sure, Blau is “uncomfortable” for some politicians and army officers. That, however, doesn’t imply that any illegal means might be taken against Blau.

    Yes, government oversight of the IDF and Of Shin Bet is weak but it’s not THAT weak. This case is being closely watched by the public and every move by both sides is scrutinized. I doubt very much the Shin Bet has the nerve to kidnap an Israeli journalist, not widely recognized as guilty (as opposed to Vaanunu or Eichman). Let alone, the means.

    Not ever in Israel’s history had security forces attacked (by any means beside legal) the press or any of it’s members.

    Judicial means were used against newspapers in Israel twice. Once in the Al ard case and another time in Hadashot’s case. Yet both times, threats were made or acted upon against members of these newspapers.

    It’s your interpretation to infuse “taking the gloves off” with physical threats yet you have no precedent to rely on. Yet, for some reason, you choose “taking the gloves off” to mean the worst possible outcome.

    As I understand it, “taking the gloves off” have the much more reasonable (and historically consistent!) meaning of not settling this out of court with some sort of an agreement.

    An example of historical consistency would be Elhanan Tenenbaum’s case, when he exchanged immunity for his cooperation to fully inform the Shin Bet what secrets had he revealed in captivity, if any. Had he refused, there was plenty to charge him with: Drug dealing, contact with enemy agents and what not.

    1. why do you interpret “taking the gloves off” as a threat to take measures outside of the legal domain

      You mean kidnapping Blau is not outside the legal domain? You’re an Israeli & you don’t recognize that this phrase means taking any measure necessary (& I mean ANY) to achieve the Shin Bet’s objective. And given the history of cold blooded murder of detainees it doesn’t like you think this phrase means a strict adherence to law? Be real, would you.

      it’s not THAT weak

      This simply is not credible & not even the avg. Israeli would believe it & certainly no one here does. Precisely what oversight do either face?

      I doubt very much the Shin Bet has the nerve to kidnap an Israeli journalist,

      The pt isn’t whether or not they have the nerve to do it. It’s that they would even publicly threaten to do so. It speaks volumes about the impunity of the secret police (as Roy Arad calls them).

      Not ever in Israel’s history had security forces attacked (by any means beside legal) the press or any of it’s members.

      Except for the thugs who nearly killed Uri Avnery in the 1950s. But no one could ever prove they were Shin Bet goons though Avnery if I recall correctly firmly believes the gov’t was involved.

      1. ofcourse kidnapping blau is outside the legal domain. It’s unclear that “taking the gloves off” equals kidnapping blau.

        As an Israeli, I absolutely disagree with the automatic equality between “taking the gloves off” and “taking any measure necessary” that you claim.

        The oversight over the Shin Bet *in this case* is that of the public. Uri Blau is a public persona and his wellbeing and whereabouts are being closly watched.

        Be fair yourself. While I do not, in any way, condone excutions of detainees without due process (or at all), you might see there’s a difference between captured terrorists and a fleeing journalist. You can’t seriously claim these two are the same.

        As to the public threat of kidnap, you assume what you wish to prove. It’s only a public threat of kidnap if the public understands the meaning. It’s not clear the Israeli public thinks that “taking the gloves off” is kidnapping blau.

        It’s fine that Avneri believes the government was involved. That hardly makes it a fact. However, the facts I offered (Al Ard, Hadashot and Tenenbaum) you seem to disregard somehow.

        1. The oversight over the Shin Bet *in this case* is that of the public.

          How can the public oversee the Shin Bet when most of what it does happens in the dark (including the putative Kamm gag). Do you know it’s budget for example? I bet not.

          there’s a difference between captured terrorists and a fleeing journalist. You can’t seriously claim these two are the same.

          Yes, one is Palestinian and the other Israeli. So they have to treat Blau minimally better. But would they kidnap him if they thought they could get away w. it (in terms of political cost)? Absolutely.

    1. You ARE kidding aren’t you? You try to link to the NY Kahane Shmateh here, of all places? And why should I surprised when someone with the last name “Levinger,” as in Moshe Levinger, attempts to slip in a link the Meir Kahane’s favorite shmateh? That’s quite some yichus you have there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *