Coin Collecting Club

Is it “Myanmar” or “Burma”? “Yangon” or “Rangoon”?

Burma and its major city Rangoon were renamed Myanmar and Yangon in 1989 by the military junta that had seized power there at that time.

The United Nations has officially recognised these changes in names by one of its member countries

America, England and Australia have not.

President George Bush, and Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and John Howard still continue to use “Burma” and “Rangoon”. Such use is deliberate and is intended to signal their total rejection of the junta’s takeover and anything done thereafter as a result.

Not a bad way to get your point across - by the use of just one word. Such is the power of semantics..

China, Russia and the Association of South East Asian Nations [ASEAN] on the other hand follow the United Nations and use “Myanmar” and “Yangon”.

In their view when you deal with a Government you cannot interfere in the internal affairs of that country. Nothing could be more internal than calling a rose by any other name.
Semantics - especially where place names are concerned - clearly plays a big part in either clouding or clearly defining the real political issues that dog the conduct of foreign relations by many countries.

What is particularly interesting in this current semantic battleground is the role taken by the media. They are split on which terms to use.

President Bush’s choice is not the choice of all in the US media.

The Voice of America, the Washington Post, and Time follow the President and use “Burma” and “Rangoon”. However the New York Times, CNN and the Wall Street Journal use “Myanmar” and “Yangon”.

Reuters, Associated Press and the International Herald Tribune have come down on the side of the United Nations and use “Myanmar” and “Yangon”. They would consider themselves as being even-handed in accepting the choice of an independent arbiter.

Deliberate policy decisions are obviously being taken by individual media outlets as to which names to use - probably indicating their political position on the crisis. This is a healthy exercise in freedom of speech rather than all slavishly following each other in their reporting.

Honours are about even in the media’s semantic war over Burma/Myanmar.

The media split on Burma /Myanmar is however absent when it comes to using the place names “Judea and Samaria” rather than the place name “the West Bank” to describe the area captured by Israel from Jordan in 1967.

“Judea and Samaria” were the names used by the United Nations in Resolution 181 on 29 November 1947 - the famous Partition Resolution - that is now in the media spotlight once again.

That constituted as official an endorsement as you could get from the United Nations of the correct place names for an area that had been so designated and known for the previous 3000 years.

Judea and Samaria were the two locations of the two biblical Kingdoms of the Jews - the southern Kingdom of Judah and the northern Kingdom of Israel, the capital of which was for a time in the town of Samaria. These areas were the cradle of the Jewish Nation. The main religious sites and tombs holy to the Jews are located there. 450000 Jews live there today.

“The West Bank” was only coined by Jordan in 1950 and was used till 1967 to delineate the area west of the Jordan River which had been seized by Jordan in the 1948 Arab- Israel War when Jews living there had been driven out by the Jordanian army. This new name operated to irrevocably sever any historic connection of the Jews with the place of their national birth and existence .

Israel’s attempt to reinstate the term “Judea and Samaria” after its capture from Jordan in 1967 has been undermined by clever and persistent Arab use of the term “West Bank” at every opportunity in the media.

Only some right wing Jewish media in Israel and abroad now consistently and repeatedly use “Judea and Samaria”

The Israeli Foreign Office and the Foreign Minister use both as the occasion suits them. The fact that 450000 Jews live there now is apparently of little consequence to the Government that is supposed to be protecting their rights of permanent residence as provided by international law.

The international media have adopted the term “West Bank” without demur in virtually every editorial piece they publish. By extension this territory has now become “occupied Arab land”, or “occupied Palestinian territories” as the Arabs ram home their semantic advantage on a daily basis.

The claims of the Jews to these areas have been arbitrarily dismissed by the media pack who hunt together with a broad unanimity and use the term “West Bank” - in stark contrast to the case of Burma/Myanmar.

One news outlet - the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) - has adopted a fair and reasoned stance calling the region “the West Bank ( Judea and Samaria, Israel’s biblical heartland)” or “Judea and Samaria ( the “West Bank”)”.

This small area of land is going to receive blanket coverage in the media over the next six months.

Perhaps those in the media now deliberately making choices on the use of “Burma” or “Myanmar” might take the lead from CBN and make their own individual decisions to acknowledge the 3000 year old geographical names of “Judea and Samaria” alongside the use of the 50 year old term “West Bank” - thus giving recognition to the fact that Jews also have claims there as well as the Arabs.

The old adage “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me” has been turned on its head by the media’s failure to identify the “West Bank” as being also known as “Judea and Samaria.”

It is never too late to redress the imbalance.

Newsagencies in Iran and China of all places have used the term “Judea and Samaria” recently. Western media outlets should use both names to dispel the notion of any possible bias in favour of the Arabs.

A short while ago the election of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner elevated her to the presidency of Argentina. Despite the overwhelming result that swept the first elected woman into office following her husband’s term as president, the country remains at a political crossroads. The politics and economics and self-interest of Argentina are hedged between leftist president Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and George Bush.

More evenly dispersed wealth and prosperity for Argentina does not have to be elusive. The country is rich in resources and there exists substantial demand for its goods. However, increased and more equal education seems indicated and overdue. A general pause by the country as a whole to assess the willingness to absorb the tradeoffs required to achieve a universal better state of living is more than overdue. Perhaps the new leader of Argentina will take that pause and properly act on that reflection..

After having spent nearly six months prior to the election in Argentina, one thing is certain. No matter how hard a new president may try to change matters, the facts seem to imply that the majority is too complacent to welcome any major change from the status quo, vociferous noises from a vocal minority notwithstanding. One young person was overheard to say in seeming jest, “What this country needs is a good war!” With the history of violence of several past governments, a wide gap between rich and poor, as well as ingrained cultural patterns spanning centuries, such complacency should not be unexpected.

Nonetheless, from an outsiders’ perspective, certain basics spell renewed disaster for the once-prosperous nation.

In a recent conversation with a bright, educated Argentine student, the young fellow seemed to think nothing of leaving his country. In his early twenties, he intends to live, study, work and earn overseas and save or invest his money in a country “that works.” Little thought was expressed as to the wide and growing gap between the prosperous and impoverished denizens of the Argentine landscape. He provided a perfectly good example that the dwindling middle class aspires only to join the “rich” as long as it can avoid sinking to the morass of “the poor.” The fact that Argentina’s problems have been even further exacerbated by more impoverished immigrants from Bolivia, Peru and other South American nations was explained away by suggesting that, in his view, “Argentina needs a labor pool willing to accomplish unskilled labor others are not willing to do.”
Whether one agrees with the young student’s perspective is somewhat irrelevant. One can agree or disagree with his philosophy and potential course of action. Missing from the entire discussion, however, is the fact that only a miniscule “middle class” exists in Argentina. As in other cultures, the term “middle class” is vague and imprecise. Yet, it is precisely the “middle class” and a functioning, private and governmental infrastructure that are two key elements that produced success in most of the world’s advanced nations. Despite relative growth in Gross Domestic Product, progress has often been stunted in nations replete with a large, wealthy land-owning class, especially in Latin or South America.

Although often disparagingly referred to as a “nation of shopkeepers,” England prospered from the times of Elizabeth I. It expanded most noticeably following the times of Adam Smith and other notable thinkers of the eighteenth century. It was the formation and expansion of the middle classes, its manufacturing base, and its financial acumen coupled with powerful colonial resources and inexpensive labor that propelled England through the centuries.Wealth filtered to the growing middle classes and a working infrastructure in England, as elsewhere in Europe, the United States and now in China and India. The phenomenon is evident world-wide.

A working country’s civil infrastructure does not have to be limited to roads and highways and other facilities, although the lack of these significantly impacts any nation in past or present centuries. Infrastructure can be expanded to include a society’s ability and willingness to provide communications and education, to banking or medical care, and to a general freedom from governmental bureaucracy to impede entrepreneurship and the production and distribution of goods and services.

Argentina may reasonably boast of a classic infrastructure. It certainly has thousands of kilometers of maintained roads and highways, developed airports and docks, and public utilities. It has been in the forefront of South American communications, banking and medical care. Many of those services are owned by foreign entities. Why? Because there does not exist a strong middle class to undertake entrepreneurial risks. The wealthy prefer to keep their capital outside the country, while the poor are too uneducated and have little, if any, capital.

In addition, Argentina’s general production and distribution of goods and services, domestically and internationally, are predominantly hampered by a vast and powerful bureaucracy that strives not for efficiency, but rather for patronage and continued employment.

Beyond infrastructure, a country’s perception and self-perception are equally as important. These factors may have even more influence on the state of a nation’s life than even the most advanced infrastructure. This self-perception and resultant philosophy may be often more responsible than the lack of certain economic amenities. It breeds a lack of concern and indifference on the part of the population, rather than active and positive work and competition and accomplishment.

Despite the brave political words and a rebound from the worst of economic shocks, default on its economic debt, Argentina still suffers from a markedly decreased optimism and a widening gap in confidence in government. Although Argentina has spent the last two decades free from civilian or military dictatorship, people’s attitudes change slowly. Partly, this lack of optimism and confidence stems from Argentina’s continuing practice of turning a largely blind eye to graft and corruption inside and outside of government.

One simple but painful indictor of festering problems stems from the fact that the Argentine government continually runs short of ordinary coins in circulation. This shortage does not stem from lack of materials from which to shape coins. Rather, it derives from a combination of a lack of confidence and graft. Recently, very small denominations starting with the peso coins were actually hoarded by the population. Incorrect as it may be, there is apparently more faith in coins than in paper money, not simply the opportunity to make three to five percent profit on hoarding and reselling small change. Taxi drivers and small kiosks repeatedly fail to have change available for the smallest of purchases for these reasons, as do government institutions like the post office or public utilities.

In an economy based largely on cash transactions, rather than checks, debit or credit cards or electronic banking, this attitude foreshadows only the tip of the iceberg of problems confronting the country. Argentina certainly has most of the necessary computer availability. Most large banks are well interconnected across the country.

However, “most of the people would not know how to deal with automated banking, like paying bills,” one source offered. While that lack may be ascribed in part to a poor educational system, it leaves wide open the door to engage in tax evasion and other forms of corruption. Inefficiency aside, long lines inside a bank branch ironically seem to be positive indicators of solvency, increases in cash and employment to the general populace. That image of illusory prosperity may persist if one ignores the beggars, including very young children, lining the streets asking for pesos. It does nothing for improving personal or national efficiency.

Remarkably, the majority of the population appears to tolerate the long lines and general inefficiency in the infrastructure with barely a sniffle. “Oh, it’s only Argentina,” one property-owning person suggested, trying to explain away whatever daily problems occurred, whether simple plumbing or a citywide taxi strike.

Whether the archaic social custom of closing businesses or schools for two to four hours at midday, or utility or other regular bills are invariably paid in person by cash, these and other customs may be quaint for the tourist, but they are inefficiencies that abound throughout the country.

Perhaps some of these inefficiencies are designed purposely to maintain and increase employment. Perhaps some are reminiscent of an older, more personable way of doing business. Some, perhaps, are steeped in traditions where efficiency counts much less than relaxation and which have resulted in the classic Latin “manana” epithet. Whatever the reason does not stand the country in good stead for its competitive position in a global economy against the materialistic leaders of the world.

Despite rampant inefficiency and visible poverty, many visitors or potential expatriates to Argentina expound at length on its inexpensive and perceived more relaxed, cultural way of life. Often, daily problems with infrastructure or the local population are dismissed by visitors with a shrugged shoulder. Many have to deal with neither. For a few Argentine pesos, hotel or short-term apartment staff can generally accommodate the transient visitor by shielding him from crime, corruption or inefficiency.

“Inexpensive” is certainly true of Argentina when compared to Europe or the United States or even many competing places in South America. This is most definitely true after the currency devaluation less than a decade ago. Spending Euros or American dollars at the official exchange rate easily permits one to overlook many of the vagaries of life in Argentina. Cheaper black market rates, readily obtained from mobile sellers on street corners, can make life even less expensive. Focusing on the natural beauty of Bariloche, the colonial architecture of Salta or the night life and its tango in Buenos Aires is a simple process for a transient visitor. Life in Argentina, however, is certainly not inexpensive for full-time residents, trying to eke out a living, even with a fairly decent job, any more than it would be in Lima or Santiago or Caracas.

Neither is life in this land of natural beauty any more or less “cultural” or more relaxed than in London, or Paris or New York for the permanent denizen of Argentina. From a tourist perspective, the quaint, small streets of Salta, bustling with humanity and traffic, may seem to be like a picturesque Hollywood movie film set. For the single mother of four, working as a part-time maid, however, everyday life is no easier than it is in Santa Fe, New Mexico, a cultural mecca in the United States.

Few except those with disposable income in Argentina neither know of an opera, been to an art exhibit, nor heard a live symphony concert. Many have not even made the lengthy trip to Buenos Aires from their particular village in the vast country. Much the same can be said, of course, of other nationalities who have never seen an art exhibit at the Louvre or Tate museums in France or London, attended a concert at the Konzerthaus in Vienna, nor seen a dance recital at the Bolshoi in Russia although they may have lived in the respective countries all their lives.

Much of Argentina’s mystique has been carefully and skillfully cultivated by the tourist boards. The image is, in turn, mindlessly nurtured and perpetuated by the casual traveler. Inefficiency becomes a more “relaxed” way of life, while a simple dance in the town square becomes “culture.”

More than simply dazzling the tourist with a broad-strokes display of natural beauty and a seemingly contented populace, Argentina seems more to cater to its well-to-do, short-term transients rather than to its own people. Fortunately, the transient visitor hardly ever sees the seething resentment boiling just below the surface veneer of smiles and politeness, nor the petty crime and bribery lurking at the next street corner or with the sales clerk at a local business.

Before its collapse, the ancient Roman Empire was known for its policy of “Bread and Circuses.” Certainly, Argentina seems to subscribe to that maxim. While the price of bread and other staples continues to escalate in local shops or supermarkets, Argentina tries to keep its citizens entertained by its “circuses” through its extensive television channels. There is no dearth of television offerings on its many cable channels, from chat programs to quiz shows, to sports and movies to keep the populace entertained.

Interesting, though, one can legitimately ask for whom the telecasts are intended. Certainly, soccer matches and other competitions draw great local viewing audiences whether on off-the-air stations or the Latin version of ESPN. So do various movie channels.

Yet, while nearly ninety percent of films aired are of American or British origin, most of these are in spoken in English, subtitled in Spanish. That may be wonderful for tourists or other foreigners whose first language is English and who choose to take the pose of a couch potato at night. Unfortunately, it does little for native Castellano speakers, let alone the local indigenous population whose command of Spanish is hazardous at best. Reading rapidly changing subtitles can hardly be conducive to learning English when it is far more interesting to see the action developing on the screen. Moreover, much of the population can ill afford the relatively modest charges for a television set or a cable hookup.

Maybe it is necessary to entertain the masses to keep them from exploding into chaos. Maybe such entertainment can offer a necessary respite to the everyday worker in whatever occupation. Maybe it allows a vicarious view of other cultures. Unfortunately, it may also breed envy and, worse, emulation of the violence so readily broadcast, especially by the modern fare of Hollywood’s output.

American television offerings of violence are hardly conducive to the youth of Argentina that easily succumbs to the greed or envy generated by the silver screen. Worse, it only underscores the lack of education in the classrooms. While Argentina may have the highest literacy rate in Latin and South America, according to most studies more than fifty percent of students fail to continue their education beyond the age of fourteen, the legal mandatory age for leaving school. Since education, including the college level, is free for students attending government-run schools and colleges, one may properly ask why such a large dropout rate exists.

Once again, the overall picture of Argentina is misleading. Despite the high literacy rate, the high dropout rate at an early age tells a different story. A recent Interamerican Development Bank report showed that the causes for a highly unequal outcome between Buenos Aires students and those of rural areas results from both lack of high quality of school facilities and lack of skilled teachers and instructors in rural areas. Moreover, even Buenos Aires, the capital city known for its university with nearly 140,000 students, is even more renowned for the more rapid growth and enrolment of students in private, rather than public schools.

Since education is but one all-important factor in Argentina’s development in the twenty-first century, one must clearly ask if the recent governments – even after the devaluation – are inclined to perpetuate the growing disparity between rich and poor, spelling certain doom for the nation as a whole. Yet that disparity is likely to increase if government lacks the will to change quality public education versus private education, such as in Buenos Aires and Cordoba or Mendoza.

Quality and success of education also derives from a myriad of social factors, many of which result from the disparity of income and the lack of a “middle class” in the historic sense. Argentina would be well warned by the young man’s quip that the country “needs a good war.” While no war from the Falklands to Iraq can ever be termed a “good war,” no matter who the perpetrators, a growing disparity between rich and poor in Argentina makes just such an exercise a probability, whether as an outright war or a disguised dictatorship. Bread and circuses or a lack of change are only preliminary indicators. Only the will and perception of the country’s people can make the difference.

Recently Senator John McCain erroneously claimed Iran is training and supplying al-Qaeda in Iraq. McCain corrected himself after Senator Joseph Lieberman [of whom it has been whispered holds dual USA and Israeli citizenship] whispered in his ear, “You said that the Iranians were training al-Qaeda. I think you meant they’re training in extremist terrorism.”

McCain prefaced and ended with an apology “the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda, not al-Qaeda. I’m sorry.”

Robert Dreyfuss, investigative reporter whose latest article in The Nation is entitled, “Hothead McCain” explains, “If you thought George Bush was bad when it comes to the use of military force, wait ’til you see John McCain.”

McCain thinks that the Vietnam War could have been won if we had just stayed another five, ten or fifteen years, and he is gleefully prepared to do the same in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraqi journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad’s blows the doors off the US military surge by traveling into the belly of Baghdad: an open air prison which divides Sunni and Shia populations behind 12ft high walls.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/mar/17/baghdad.city.of.walls

Those concrete walls in Baghdad are dwarfed by the 30ft high concrete ones in the ‘Holy’ Land; which is in pieces, Bantustans. Both builders of those walls claim to be democracies and that the walls are for Security. Both builders of those walls exhibit the schizophrenic discipline of thinking two contradictory truths at the same time. Coined by Orwell as doublethink, the Ministry of Peace wages war, the Ministry of Truth fabricates lies and the Ministry of Love tortures and kills any it deems threatening. Most threatening for Big Brother are those with independent thought.

In 2007, Naomi Klein, in her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, argued that at the height of the 2003-07 economic boom, the military industrial complex was driving Israel’s tremendous economic growth, and Israel had the largest GDP growth of any Western country.

Klein theorized that the source of Israel’s tremendous economic growth in the past five years cannot be attributed simply to its encouragement of high tech entrepreneurship and basic science. Its success must be understood, rather, as a product of its ability to use the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank as a laboratory for defense industry innovation — and to showcase their wares.

“Young Israeli computer scientists and engineers gain their training in the military, and then go on to start the kind of technology companies that have proliferated wildly in Israel and whose products are much sought after abroad. The entire Israeli hi-tech sector and not just military technology per se, is thus an outgrowth of Israel’s hyper militarization. The Israeli economy’s tech sector grew by 20% in 2006 alone, and Israel is now the foreign country with the second most US stock exchange-listed companies. Klein’s point that Israel’s military-derived technologies are an economic growth-driver because they can be tested in situ is correct, but it is insufficient for describing the magnitude of the military’s tremendous *********** of the country’s economy. Palestinians under occupation can indeed be seen as human “guinea pigs” and not just merely military targets, as Klein claims, but the society’s militarization is far more profound than even she suggests.” [1]

After the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, Israel’s economy was devastated, but then came 9/11, and “suddenly new profit vistas opened up for any company that claimed it could spot terrorists in crowds, seal borders from attack and extract confessions from closed-mouthed prisoners…Many of the country’s most successful entrepreneurs are using Israel’s status as a fortressed state, surrounded by furious enemies, as a kind of twenty-four-hour-a-day showroom–a living example of how to enjoy relative safety amid constant war…Israel now sends $1.2 billion in “defense” products to the United States—up dramatically from $270 million in 1999…That makes Israel the fourth-largest arms dealer in the world…Much of this growth has been in the so-called “homeland security” sector. Before 9/11 homeland security barely existed as an industry. By the end of this year, Israeli exports in the sector will reach $1.2 billion–an increase of 20 percent. The key products and services are …precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock in the occupied territories. Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the “global war on terror… Israel’s policy of erecting walls and checkpoints to seal off the occupied territories are also “laboratories where the terrifying tools of our security states are being field-tested Palestinians–whether living in the West Bank or what the Israeli politicians are already calling “Hamasistan”–are no longer just targets. They are guinea pigs…” [2]

Poster-boy for Israel’s Industrial Security/Surveillance Complex is the Christian convert from Judaism, Mordechai Vanunu. Every email Vanunu has ever written, snail mail received, phone call conversation and walk he has ever taken through east Jerusalem, has potentially been monitored 24/7, since his release from an Israeli prison in 2004.

During my first trip to east Jerusalem in June 2005, Vanunu told me that during the first two years of his 18 years in jail [most all in solitary confinement] a light shone above his head 24/7 in a tomb sized cell. When ever he closed his eyes a guard would come in and shine a brighter light into his face and say, “Just checking if you had committed ******* yet.”

A few weeks ago, and thirty odd years from my first time, I reread Orwell’s 1984, that was published in 1949. I was struck at how much Vanunu reminded me of Winston Smith, Orwell’s man with an independent thought that Big Brother; The Party incarnate found so threatening they tortured him beyond his endurance in order to break him, brainwash him and strip him of his humanity.

In 1987, in Ashkelon Prison, Vanunu wrote, I had “no choice. I’m a little man, a citizen, one of the people, but I’ll do what I have to. I’ve heard the voice of my conscience and there’s nowhere to hide…yes, it’s there all right. I’m all right. I do see the monster. I’m part of the system. I signed this form. Only now I am reading the rest of it. This bolt is part of a bomb. This bolt is me…Who else knows? Who has seen? Who has heard?” [3]

“A working prophet, is able to see deeper than most of us into the human soul. Orwell in 1948 understood that despite the Axis defeat, the will to fascism had not gone away…the irresistible human addiction to power were already long in place…the means of surveillance in Winston Smith’s era…[are] primitive next to the wonders of computer technology…most notably the Internet.” [4]

“Universal peace and justice are the goals of man, and the prophets have faith that in spite of all errors and sins…[and] although under the illusion of fighting for peace and democracy…all the fighting nations lost moral considerations…the unlimited destruction of civilian populations…atomic bombs…can human nature be changed so that man will forget his longing for freedom, dignity, integrity, love-can man forget that he is human?” [5]

The “Fabric of Life Road” in occupied Palestine is in reality an apartheid road; separate and unequal. Palestinians must travel through sewage and tunnels, but Israelis ride on only well maintained contiguous highways. At the checkpoint from Jerusalem to the little town of Bethlehem in occupied territory, the Ministry of Tourism draped a thirty foot high doublespeak sign that proclaims: “Peace be with you” a loose translation of “War is Peace.”

In Orwell’s epic, Winston Smith played the role of the archetype of all threats to Big Brother; an individual with an open and free mind, independent thought, memory of history, a voice of dissent and willing to take bold action. Orwell’s Big Brother tortured all threats in order to get inside their head and then to brainwash them into accepting doublethink as truth.

The atomic bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a baby step compared to the 21st century slaughter that can be achieved by thermonuclear weapons with capacities to wipe out 100% of a country within minutes. The Industrial Military Complex cranks out new weapons about every five years and soon the minds driven mad with doublethink-”war is peace”- will create 100 or 1,000 megaton bombs.

“Orwell demonstrates the illusion of the assumption that democracy can continue to exist in a world preparing for nuclear war…leaders…have only one aim, and that is power…and power means to inflict unlimited pain and suffering to another human being……how can a minority of one be right?…we spend a considerable part of our income and energy in building thermonuclear weapons, and close our minds to the fact that they might go off and destroy one third or one half of our population and that of the enemy…another example of doublethink-from a Christian standpoint” is the evil of killing any other. [Ibid]

Vanunu threatens Israel in 2008, far more than he did in 2004.

Vanunu has not only continued to speak out for a nuclear free Middle East, he has also become a spokesperson regarding the Christian Exodus from east Jerusalem, where he has lived these last four years. [7]

Over the last four years of house arrest, Vanunu has met thousands of tourists and pilgrims. Everyone of them understands that the only way Vanunu can hurt Israel is with bad PR.

If Israel had practiced justice and mercy, they would have let Vanunu go in 2004, and chances are, that by now Vanunu would have faded into a footnote in history, instead of keep making it.

In Israel’s 60th anniversary year, Vanunu exposes how the Jewish state is a democracy in name only, for it continues to forbid him-an Israeli Christian the right to speak to a sister or brother in Christ if they happen to be from a foreign country.

Today’s Big Brother: The Industrial Military Media Security/Surveillance Complex, has not yet found the way to stop the flow of independent thought streaming through the world wide web.

Last week, Vanunu was scheduled to return to court on Easter Sunday, fighting a six month jail sentence, handed down in July 2007 that was rendered because Vanunu spoke to professional foreign media in 2004. He also was being punished for attempting to travel by cab the five miles into the little town of Bethlehem; occupied territory, on Christmas Eve 2004, but he ended up in a jail cell that night too.

From emails Vanunu wrote to me, March 24-27, 2008:

“Court hearing postponed to May 13, 2008-the appeal against 6 month prison sentence for speaking to foreign media. I found out about the change a few days before Easter, but not until Easter Day, did I learn about the day for the next hearing. My lawyer and prosecutor want to move it to different day.

“……I think the hearing was postponed because, from the beginning of the trial until now, they really don’t know what they want. All was a game to try to put me under new pressure to see if they can gain something by holding me here…

“All this means is that Israel just continues what they have done since my release in 2004, delaying and holding me here…instead of sending me for real freedom…they want me very poor and angry, but I am surviving…One thing is very clear: my case is over. They should let me go free…

“…My lawyer is very busy with the trial of the previous president…Kasav. He was accused of **** and sexual harassment by many women in his office, while as a minister office many years ago, and again in his palace as president. But the turmoil here is that the prosecutor made a deal with him; no trial no prison sentence, just a symbolic punishment. So today he will go to court with my lawyer to get his deal and be totally free…

“…There is a lot of suffering here…Israel wants to hide so much because it is not good for its image as a democracy and a friend of America…

“1984, yes I read it many times and many years ago.1984 is here in 2008.”

1. Lincoln Shlensky, Jewish Peace News editor, email March 28, 2008, to subscribe: http://www.jewishpeacenews.net

2. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070702/klein

3. http://www.vanunu.com/

4. Thomas Pynchon, Foreword, Centennial Edition 1984

5. Erich Fromm, Afterword, Centennial Edition 1984

6. Ibid

7. “30 Minutes with Vanunu” “13 minutes with Vanunu” freely streaming @ http://www.wearewideawake.org/