There is a letter from you circulating on the alternative internet press, asking for support in your legal bid to live in Norway.

I wish you well in your efforts, not because I support what you did, just because you are a fellow suffering human.

Whether you revealed nuclear secrets to the London Times for financial profit or not, I have no idea, very likely is the possibility that you in fact never agreed to any payment or were a part of an entrapment. We are all, after all a victim to what is orchestrated news.
But this is not why I write. The sobering news is when and if you are allowed to live abroad, do not expect freedom, instead expect 24 hour surveillance, this will no doubt be more motivated by revenge than justice.

Do not expect to ever share a spontanious meeting again. There will be a phone call or some other interference. You will never again be allowed to confide in another. The truth these days is irrelevant. Expect that if you sit down for a coffee or a rest, that an 8 or 9 year old girl will come to your company. Clearly after many of these experiences being photographed, it will be clear you are a sex pervert.

It will be grown men (behind the scenes) who will manipulate your life so that you can continue a form of solitary confinement outside in the free world. These grown men could have been artists and creators and inventors, instead they have been dealt cards that say they must interfere in peoples private lives, in order to uphold their belief in God, Nation and belief system.

Should you become rebellious and wish to enjoy your freedom, you will discover that you can trust no one, and every encounter turns into a betrayal. This I guess is a life sentence.
Mail, Internet, telephone is as controlled as I imagine it is in prison.
This post is a little negative, wish you well in a new life, time in solitary is the worst of punishments.

Letting you go would give a little of a human face to israel.

The Israelis have never confirmed they have nuclear weapons, but this has been widely assumed since a scientist leaked details in the 1980s.

(Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons', BBC News, 26 May 2008)

BBC is very careful about quoting—they put 'has 150 nuclear weapons' in quotes because they don't claim that this is true, but because it's just something that Jimmy Carter said. I'm not sure that all BBC readers actually understand this subtlety, but it's good that they do it.

However, they say that 'a scientist leaked details in the 1980s.' Obviously, they refer to Mordechai Vanunu, but he wasn't a scientist, just a technician. According to vanunu.org, a website that supports Vanunu, it is an "important point often misunderstood or forgotten"; quoting that site, "Vanunu was not an advanced scientist, but a subordinate technical assistant." But BBC misunderstood and forgot.

I don't strongly support Vanunu, because he makes too much of a joke out of himself, but i do support nuclear disarmament.

Having had the "mask of villain" imposed upon their faces by Western media--almost as a playwright might impose villainous actions upon his antagonist, they find themselves and their religion routinely mocked in the same media, typically in the guise of "humor." [Parenthetically, this is done by people who elsewhere beat the drums for "tolerance"--the new Masonic watchword which has been added to their other ludicrous watchwords of "liberty, equality and fraternity."]

Bogus Christians have been organized, plied with absurd doctrines that advance Zionism, and let loose to scream taughts at the pitifully injured and distressed Palestinians--many of whom are Christians, somewhat after the Shiites chanting with gleeful mocks, as Saddam Hussein was lynched in a procedure bearing the Federal U.S.'s nihil obstat. This comparison is meant to suggest the deep antipathy of bogus Christians and Shiites for these respective targets, but it is not meant to equate the targets, Palestinians and Saddam Hussein, respectively.

The entirety of the real policy of the Jewish state is to expropriate the property of all the Palestinians, sending them into their "natural" home of The Royal Kingdom of Jordan.

To justify this usurpation, Jews must defeat any enquiry into the question of whether or not they are even Israelites. This cannot be successfully done by intellectual argument upon the evidence, so Jews have organized "the world community" [typically by threatened economic injury] into passing a "snowballing" array of legislation which have the purpose of thwarting and punishing responsible academic investigation. The Western media being largely under Jewish control or economic influence, there is little chance of any meaningful enquiry from that source. Self-serving, tendentious articles don't amount to "responsible reporting."

By smoothing the way for corrupt Palestinian leadership to hold nominal sway under the watchdul guns of the Jews, the world is provided a suitable (though temporary) puppet for the "world community" to attend, proffering to this puppet the usual state protocol.

Frequent spokesperson for the "world community," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice typically applauds such movements as being on the "road map to peace." Naturally, the U.S. president shares this view. What this road map really envisions is an autonomous Palestinian Reservation, under the benign oversight of the kindly Jewish state. Perhaps the Bush family will invest in a casino there, seeing the Palestinian Reservation as a future Las Vegas of the Levant.

If President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Rice envision a "road map to peace" between the gun-loving Jews of the State of Israel (sic) and the puppet Reservation of Palestine, is it not possible for them to bring the same combination of economic and martial pressure elsewhere, including the U.S.A.? If Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice can apply the same principle of "watchful gunfulness" to Bible-believing Christians, won't a "new road map" result in the long-hoped-for callapse of Christianity itself? Will not the day be near when there will be slot machines in every church?

Far fetched? Maybe not. There are so few members of the Christian clergy at the Watch Tower that the only thing that most Christians are vigilant about is the opportunities for fun. Thankfully, the Rev. Ted Pike mans the Watch Tower still and shouts warnings to the frolicking Christians below. Apparently, he isn't heard. Consider some matters that he finds compellingly dangerous.

"The State Department 'Office of Global Anti-Semitism' says the New Testament claim that the Jews had Christ crucified is 'classical anti-Semitism'--a historic form of hate. It included as an 'anti-Semitic incident' the case of a Polish priest who said Jews killed Christ."    [AMERICAN FREE PRESS, May 19, 2008, p.9, article by Rev. Ted Pike]

Office of Global Anti-Semitism? As Jews have solidified their power over the American political machinery, they have scattered throughout the major departments of government and agencies of government these "search and destroy" offices, whose sole purpose is to find and destroy opposition to Jewish hegemony on a global scale. The U.S. State Department probably has more than one. Great effort is made to create the image of an upper echelon staff there, which is pro-Arabian, which is Jewish slight of hand for anti-Jewish. This is a mask.

Another Jewish "search and destroy" office is found within the Department of Justice. It is the Office of Special Investigations ("OSI"), which was established in 1979 at the urging of Rep. Holtzman (NY) and other Jews. It is part of the Criminal Division of Justice. It's first head was a Jew named Neal M. Sher, and he was assisted by a largely Jewish staff. It was created to hunt down Nazis. Recently, Mr. Eli Rosenbaum was appointed to head the OSI. His newly appointed "Principal Deputy" is Ronnie L. Edelman.

Parenthetically, as Michael Chertoff formerly was the head of the Criminal Division at Justice, prior to his appointment to a federal judgeship, followed by appointment to "Homeland Security," he must have worked closely with these "Nazi hunters." Since Nazis are getting scare due to natural mortality, and since federal police offices (and most any other federal office) don't like to perish along with their reason to be, is it not possible that "far-out" Christians and other non-Jewish, "kookie" & "wacko" religions may not be coming into the gun sights soon?

Consider the attack on the religious family at Ruby Ridge, characterized by fedcop lies and "shoot'em-up." Consider the holocaust of the David Koresh-led congregation at their compound at Waco, TX, which again is characterized by fedcop lies and "shoot'em up." Lastly, consider the recent assault on the "polygamist" compound of the offshoot Mormon sect. This was inspired by a "sixteen year old girl" who became a phantom. The likelihood is that there never was such a girl, and "authorities" simply wanted a pretext to stop what they probably viewed as a thinly veiled sex cult, whose primary crime from the point of view of federal and Texas authorities was producing too many children. Don't be surprised if they are shipped off to "foster" homes with lesbians and homosexuals--or even worse.

These types of goverment "search and destroy" missions always begin with groups that seem so different that the mass of people accept the actions as "OK," not noticing the precedences that are being established which can later be applied to less different groups.

Jews are the Grand Masters of the world in police state operations. They operated all the diabolical policing machinery in the U.S.S.R, along with its concentration camps, which were truly "death camps." Many disciple of these experts drifted over to the Jewish state or America, where they were welcomed and put to good use. President Bush appointed two such to advise federal agencies on "security" issues. The Israeli Mossad is legendary and operates freely in the U.S. There is advantageous cross-pollination between the Jewish state and its primary colony. 

Consider: "In the many countries now ruled by hate laws, it is already a federal offense to repeat the claim of New Testament 'hate literature' that the Jews had Christ crucified...The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith--architect of hate laws worldwide (and primary ideological and statistics-gathering force behind the Office of Global Anti-Semitism)--is moving rapidly to create bias against Christians as haters, particularly of Jews and homosexuals.   [AMERICAN FREE PRESS, supra]

Now, throughout recorded history, in one country after the next, prominent and even great voices have denounced Jews as being full of hate or for hate-spewing. it is a peculiar characteristic of Jews that they consistently accuse others of committing the very crimes that Jews themselves commit. Hence, the Jews see a need to enact "hate crime laws"--not to curtail their own violent hatred of non-Jews but to keep the relatively few honest and intelligent voices left in the world from being able to publish--or even utter--the truths, facts, and evidences which they uncover.

For the same reason there is little doubt that Jews will gain control of every library in the world in which there are books that provide evidence that casts a negative light upon some aspect of Jewry, and steal, destroy or make permanently unavailable such books. In the past Jews have been suspected of burning down libraries. Even now, at the Library of Congress, some books seem "off limits" except to "designated scholars." Further, if a Jewish-controlled Library of Congress offered to provide "copies," offending sections may have been removed. All of these things would be done in the name of "decency."

Parenthetically, many book stores are owned by Jews, and I personally suspect that these stores also act as "filters" by which "indexed" books can be found and removed from circulation by the store owner(s). Knowledge can be power. Why put loaded guns in the hands of children, reason "responsible" Jews.

Consider: "Despite passionate support of Israel by evangelicals, the ADL claims Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic. The ADL says the New Testament is the seedbed of suspicion and blame against Jews leading to the Holocaust of World War II. Televangelist John Hagee, recipient of numerous Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith awards, upholds ADL propaganda. He preaches that Jews did not reject or kill Christ, do not have to accept Him, and that New Testament Christianity is a primary source of anti-Semitism throughout the ages."   [AMERICAN FREE PRESS, supra)

Although in Jewish-inspired, bowdlerized versions of the Bible, anything is possible, excepting the death and resurrection of Yahshua, in standard texts of New Testament Scripture, it is evident on numerous occasions that Yahshua thought that the Jews were trying to kill him. It is evident that Yahshua was first brought before the High Priests (Edomite Jews), who found him guilty of "capital offences," which warranted death according to their reading of the law. Roman law prohibited their executing Yahshua. Therefore, they sought Rome to be a proxy.

Furthermore, John Hagee and similar televangelists are on national television because they serve the interests of Jewry and serve to advance their agenda, not because Hagee, et al, serve the Most High and Yahshua. As with other "Christian Zionists," televangelists, and other intellectually misbegotten, John Hagee enjoys "third heaping platters" of food, apparently, thanks to the generous gifts from his friends in Jewry. It is too bad that John Hagee and his followers have decided to model themselves after Judas Iscariot, rather than Christ. If they had followed Christ's example, they'd have chased the "money changers" out of the Temple, rather than invite them in, discreetly accepting "bulging envelope donations," as the money changers filed in to set up shop.

John Hagee and his followers try to serve two masters, but everyone knows that the money changers are king with these people.

Duping the "wandering sheep of Israel" isn't a limited game. First, the shearing, then the slaughter. Consider:

"Bible believers aren't the only ones at risk. The State Department report also says it is anti-Semitic to: Allege 'intentionally or unintentionally' that the state of Israel (sic) persecutes Palestinians; criticize 'intentionally or unintentionally' Zionism or Israel if such criticism leads to lowering of public opinion of Jews or the government, military, or people of Israel; publish cartoons depicting the Israeli government and military as similar to Nazis; diminish the 6 million figure of holocaust dead in any amount; allege that Jews exert undue influence in Congress, the White House and the media; and/or allege that American Jews are equally loyal to Israel."   [AMERICAN FREE PRESS, supra]

Who would charge that Jews in America are equally loyal to the Israeli state? They are clearly biased in favor of the Jewish state. Vanunu informed the world of the Israeli state's development of a nuclear bomb. He was shanghaied into the Jewish state, tried, and sentenced to a long stretch of incarceration. In time he became a Christian. His was and is a remarkable voice that was stifled. No Nobel Prize for Peacewill go to Mr. Vanunu. Yet, he wasn't an American spy who betrayed the Jewish state. On the other hand the U.S.A. has seen numerous American Jews who spied in behalf of and to advance the Jewish state. Jonathon Pollard, the Navy-based Israeli spy, is a hero to many Jews throughpout the world. He's probably a hero to "Christian" Zionists here in America.

This State Department report from its Office of Global Anti-Semitism is apparently a preliminary step to getting Congress to pass a "Hate Crime" Law (often with innocuous title), which embodies these concepts and undoubtedly other "nifty" ideas--if you'll pardon my Orwellian touch.

That Jews do, in fact, have undue influence on the White House and especially the Congress is certain. The Bush administration is like an extension of the Israeli Likud Party. Congress is filled with members who turn to organized Jewry, as flowers turn to the sun. Over half the money donated to the Democrat Party comes from Jews. Jews have also begun to take command of the Republican Party in an open fashion. Jews frequently hold high party positions, regardless of political party in control. There, they operate to advance the "Jewish world agenda." They are heavily represented in the most influential areas affecting policy, such as committee staffs. Over half of the high appointees of the Clinton administration were Jews. At least one such appointee wasn't even an American; he was Australian who had dual Israeli citizenship, and he was placed in an under-secretary position dealing with the Middle East at the State Department or DOD. As America is a de facto colony of World Jewry now, the necessity of a local governor does not carry absolute weight.

Even as Jews gather in increasing numbers at all the powerful position in government, media, entertainment, Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Board, and business, they piously lecture the world on "diversity." On the outside they are veritible monuments of finest marble, and nobly crafted. Inside, like the Borg of Star Trek, they have consumed hundreds of cultures whose bones rot inside the lovely walls. 

The Rev. Ted Pike--and I--hope that this is not to be the fate of most Christians. We know it can't happen to all of them. Why? It's in the Book.

Note: Rev. Pike reminds us that Congress UNANIMOUSLY created this office of thought crimes disinformation in 2004. He ask that you cast your vote to end its influence: call your senators and representative toll-free at 1-877-851-6437. Tell them: "Please revoke funding for the State Department's Office of Global Anti-Semitism. It does not represent scholarly research but the anti-Christian biases of the Anti-Defamation League."

Christians, it's time to stop being prodigal sons and come back to your Father. If you do not, your sons may not even have the life option to be either prodigal or righteous. It's time to stop the Borg.

Gobigfoot, 2008.

Det kan man 9. april 2008 læse i den israelske avis Haaretz.

Målt ud fra en hvilken som helst standard og udenfor enhver diskussion er Richard Falk – professor emeritus ved Princeton University, distingveret gæsteprofessor ved University of California og medlem af bestyrelsen af The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation i Santa Barbara – en af verdens ledende internationale jurister og fredsforskere.

Han er en exceptionel produktiv skribent om international politik og har udgivet dusinvis af bøger, lærebøger og tusindvis af artikler. I en alder af 77 har han bevist sit livslange engagement for social retfærdighed, ikke-vold, et nyt global demokrati (global governance), ligesom han utrætteligt har understreget den grundlæggende betydning af international lov, menneskerettigheder og FN-Deklarationen.

TFF – Den Transnationale Stiftelse, som jeg er chef for - er særdeles stolt over at have haft professor Falk som medarbejder (Associate) i 22 år. Her kan man finde en lille del af hans enorme produktion af artikler og få syn for sagen angående hans anseelse, hans moralske engagement og udholdenhed når det kommer til at promovere vores fælles humane værdier. Her kan man også finde hans tanker om demokratisering af Mellemøsten og hans artikel "Slouching Toward a Palestinian Holocaust" (Skredet hen imod et Palæstinensisk Holocaust).

Falks forbrydelse har du allerede gættet: Han er en jødisk akademiker, der kritiserer Israels politik, besættelsen og "undermenneske-behandlingen" – mit udtryk – af palæstinenserne. Han opfatter Israel/Palæstina-konflikten som asymmetrisk og tillemper folkeretten og menneskerettighederne med integritet og civilkurage på sin helt egen måde med bløde vendinger og en venlig dialogiserende fremtræden.

Som enhver intellektuel værd sit navn, forholder Falk sig kritisk til den israelske politik, murbyggeri og militarisme med dens 200-300 atomvåben, som det forudsættes at vi aldrig snakker om eller aktionerer imod. Vestens politikere og medier praktiserer "vend-det-blinde-øje-undtagelsen" i Israels tilfælde, noget som kun tillempes i ét andet tilfælde, den selvudnævnte "exceptionalismes" hjemland: Amerikas Forenede Stater.

Disse to, Israel og USA, praktiserer et symbiotisk forhold til hinanden, som kommer til udtryk i den veldokumenterede Israel-amerikansk/jødiske lobby; og begge hælder mod autoritær politik, 'nuklearisme' og fundamentalisme baseret på en ekstremistisk tolkning af lovene i hver deres monoteistiske gudstro: Med "os/USA" på den rigtige side må "alle andre" være på den gale side.

Her er også nøglen til det faktum, at der kun er to regeringer hvis propagandamaskiner – parret med en forældet, uciviliseret politik – har etableret en norm, der siger at hvis vi kritiserer deres politik, så er vi hadefulde eller modstandere af deres folk og kultur. Enhver der kritiserer USA's politik vil have hørt opponenter kalde sig "anti-amerikanske", og hvis kritikken rettes mod Israelsk politik vil man blive kaldt "anti-semit" eller anti-Israel. At dette er det rene intellektuelle nonsens bekymrer tilsyneladende kun få.

Selv har jeg kritiseret mange lande for deres politik - også mit eget land, Danmark. Det sidste for de intellektuelt og etisk ringe grunde til bombningerne af Jugoslavien og Afghanistan, besættelsen af Irak, og for at det holder sig med de nok mest fremmedfjendtlige love mod flygtninge - endda dem fra det selv samme Irak, som vi er med til at ødelægge. Kort sagt: det Danmark der er blevet en mini-bøllestat. Jeg har kritiseret Danmarks NATO-politik og dets årti-lange hængen sig intellektuelt og politisk-militært i USAs skørter. Og skønt jeg er blevet beskyldt for meget, endda for at være spion mod mit eget land, så er jeg dog aldrig blevet kaldt "anti-dansk".

Men vær sikker: en artikel som denne vil blive læst i både Washington og Tel Aviv, og nogen vil tænke, sige eller skrive, at Jan Øberg er anti-semit eller anti-amerikansk eller begge dele. Hvis noget sådant skulle blive offentliggjort, vil jeg blæse på at det; livet er for kort til at kæmpe mod al menneskelig dumhed.. . .

Den 31. januar skrev jeg en blog-post her om Arun Gandhi-sagen. Han blev i praksis smidt ud fra sit eget fredsinstitut i USA fordi han havde kritiseret Israels besætter-politik og den skamfulde mur. Har noget dansk medie taget den op eller givet denne sag den omtale, den burde have?

Det er på tide at akademikere og NGO'ere står frem til forsvar for mennesker af en sådan integritet, hvis eneste 'forbrydelse' er at de søger en dybere sandhed, praktiserer deres ret til intellektuelle og andre friheder, og dedikerer deres liv – mod alle odds, kan man sige – til retfærdighed og fred. En skruestik på én af dem, er en skruestik på os alle.

Det er yderst naivt at tro at freds- og udviklingsforkæmpere og ditto organisationer ikke er under beskydning i disse tider med den voksende totalitarisme i de vestlige demokratier.

Efter 1989 opererer de på grundlag af en kosmologisk misforståelse – à la Doris Lessing’s Shikasta – der siger, at det eneste system der dur, og derfor er det bedste med det højeste niveau af civilisation, er deres eget. I konsekvens heraf har de en gudslignende ret til at belære resten af verden og missionere det eneste system ud på alle og enhver.

Det skal blive meget, meget spændende at se hvordan Vestens regeringer, udenrigsministre og medier vil takle sagen med Richard Falk. De har sandelig ikke forsvaret Mordechai Vanunu – manden der fortalte verden om Israels atomprogram for 22 år siden og har siddet 18 år i israelsk fængsel, 11 af disse i enecelle. Og de har med vilje ignoreret Arun Gandhis sag.

Og vi ved hvorfor – ikke sandt?

Vil FN's generalsekretær mon endelig vise sig som en mand med civilkurage, der forsvarer sit Råd for Menneskerettigheder, FN-charteret og hans egen FN-udpegede undersøgelsesleder?

Der er mere om Richard Falk og hans forgænger John Dugard og om hvad Falk virkelig har sagt, med links, på Wikipedia her.

# 1197

Efter at Høyres leder, daværende kommunalminister Erna Solberg med støtte fra statsminister Bondevik i 2004 hadde vett nok til å avslå israeleren Mordechai Vanunus asylsøknad, er det nå duket for en ny runde i dette tragikomiske skuespillet. SV har invitert Vanunu til en konferanse og Universitetet i Tromsø har en stilling klar for han. Men det de fleste ikke vet er at det var Vanunus pengegriskhet og sexlyst, som førte til at han ble arrestert. Han slutter seg derfor pent inn i rekken av landsforrædere, der spionasje, penger og sex er drivkreftene i deres tilværelse.

Men hvem er nå denne Vanunu og hvorfor er han så interessant ?

Vanunu ble født i en jødisk familie i Marrakech, Marokko i 1954. Faren var rabiner. I sine første 9 leveår ble Vanunu flasket opp med marrokansk, muslimsk propaganda mot staten Israel. Dette ble nok sittende hardt i den unge guttens sinn. Men faren visste bedre.  I 1963 emigrerte familien til Israel og i 1973 meldte den unge Mordechai seg på kurs i matematikk og fysikk ved universitetet i Tel Aviv.

Kurset ble imidlertid brått avbrutt av Yom Kippur krigen 1973, da Israels 4 arabiske naboland, Egypt, Jordan, Syria og Irak, gikk til et brutalt og meget overraskende militært angrep på den jødiske staten i Israels høytid Yom Kippur, da 2/3 av den israelske hæren var på permisjon..

Krigen varte i tiden 6.-26.oktober, og i tillegg til nevnte land deltok også styrker fra Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Tunis, Algerie, Marokko, Sudan, Uganda og Cuba på den muslimske siden. Som kjent klarte Israel efter en nølende start å slå tilbake det fiendtlige overfallet.

Det ble altså ikke noe mer av Vanunus utdannelse innen matematikk og fysikk. Han ble innkalt til de israelske reservestyrker og fullførte 3 års militærtjeneste. I 1976 fikk han seg en jobb på Negev Nuclear Research Center, et israelsk senter for utvikling og produksjon av atomvåpen i Negev ørkenen syd for Dimona. Han meldte seg på deltidskurs innen geografi og filosofi ved Ben-Gurion University of Negev. Der ble han merkelig nok kritisk til den israelske regjering og deltok i en campus-gruppe bestående av 4 jødiske og 5 arabiske studenter. Han var også involvert i en gruppe som ble kalt ”Bevegelsen for avansert fred” og deltok aktivt i protest-demonstrasjoner mot den israelske ødeleggelsen av Sadam Husseins 2 atomreaktorer og dermed Iraks kjernefysiske program i 1981.

Så begynte den vendingen i hans liv, som førte til en total forandring i hans tilværelse.

I Sydney traff han en britisk journalist i The Sunday Times, London. I september 1986 fløy han til London med denne journalisten og forlangte å bli innlosjert på et luksus-hotell.

Stikk i strid med den avtale om hemmelighold av opplysninger han hadde undertegnet på ved senteret i Negev, avslørte han til The Sunday Times det han visste om Israels kjernefysiske program, inkludert fotos, som han hadde tatt i det skjulte ved Dimona. Vanunu ga en detaljert beskrivelse av en litium-6 prosess, som er nødvendig for å fremstille tritium, som igjen er nødvendig i fusjons-drevne fisjons-bomber. Vanunu kunne imidlertid ikke gi noe avgjørende bevis for at Israel lagde 2-trinns termo-nukleære bomber som nøytronbomber. Han beskrev Israels plutonium prosess, som ga ca. 30 kg pr år. Han hevdet videre at Israel brukte 4 kg pr. bombe, og det var dermed mulig å beregne at Israel hadde tilstrekkelig plutonium til omkring 150 atombomber.

For disse opplysningene forlangte Vanunu en utbetaling på 100.000 britiske pund. I tillegg forlangte han å få stilt horer til disposisjon hver dag, mens avisen kontrollerte Vanunus opplysninger med britiske og amerikanske atomvåpeneksperter. Det er altså klart at Vanunu avslørte Israels atomhemmeligheter for egen vinnings skyld.

Vanunus sex-lyst førte til slutt til at han ble arrestert av israelske agenter. Da utbetalingen av penger fra The Sunday Times dro i langdrag mens avisen sjekket Vanunus opplysninger, kontaktet Vanunu tabloidavisen Sunday Mirror. Eieren her var Robert Maxwell, som tipset Israels etteretningstjeneste, Mossad, via britisk secret service. Mossad kan også ha blitt alarmert av spørsmål fra Sunday Mirrors journalister til Israels ambassade i London.

Den israelske regjeringen bestemte seg for å arrestere Vanunu, men for ikke å skape problemer for den daværende britiske statsminister Margareth Thatcher, ville de ikke foreta arrestasjonen på britisk territorium. Med kjennskap til Vanunus interesse for kvinner ble Mossad agenten Cheryl Bentow, også kalt Cindy, maskert som en amerikansk turist og satt på saken. Hun innledet bekjentskap med Vanunu og overtalte han til å bli med henne på en week-end tur til Roma

I Roma ble han tatt av Mossad, dopet ned og sendt til Israel på et frakteskip. I Israel ble han stilt for retten og i 1988 ble han dømt til 18 års fengsel fra tidspunktet for arrestasjonen (30.9.1987 ?). I over 10 år satt han på enecelle. Likevel utførte han små protestaksjoner mens han satt inne. Han nektet å snakke med vaktene, leste bare engelskspråklige aviser og så bare på BBC Televisjon. ”Han er den mest stae og tøffe person jeg noen gang har møtt”, sier hans forsvarsadvokat.

Den 21.4.2004 ble han løslatt fra fengselet. Han nektet å snakke hebraisk, uttrykte håp om å forlate Israel og dra til et europeisk land eller til USA, og uttalte :. ”Vi trenger ingen jødisk stat. Det er behov for en palestinsk stat, men jødene kan  -  og har  -  bodd hvor som helst, så en jødisk stat er ikke nødvendig !”

En værre landsforrædersk uttalelse skal man lete lenge efter ! Og dette kommer altså på toppen av hans spionasjevirksomhet mot hans eget hjemland !

I april 2004 sendte Vanunu 6-7 søknader om asyl til diverse europeiske land, deriblandt Sverige, Norge og Irland, men fikk avslag alle steder. Han søkte også om å få norsk pass av ”humanitære grunner”.

Nå har SV invitert han til en konferanse her i Norge og han er blitt tilbudt en stilling ved Universitetet i Tromsø.

Vanunu skal nylig ha uttalt at jødene har skylden for alle kriger i Midt-Østen siden tidenes morgen ! Han mener derfor tydeligvis at jødene har skylden for profeten Mohammeds 3 forsøk på å erobre Jerusalem, muslimske araberes brutale erobring av Jerusalem med omegn i 637 e.Kr., deres erobring av Egypt i 639 med nedslakting av Egypts opprinnelige, koptiske folk, tyrkernes erobring av Jerusalem i 1077 og utryddelse av de kristne i området, som ga støtet til korstogene, etc., etc.

Mannen er jo totalt ute på jordet !

Siste nytt er et utenriksminister Jonas Gahr Støre sent i i går kveld uttalte at Norge må respektere den demokratiske staten Israels lover og domstoler. Han avslo å påvirke Israel til å la Vanunu slippe ut av landet. Og godt er det. Denne landsforræderen har vi ikke bruk for i Norge. Mordechai Vanunu bør bli hjemme ! Han har seg selv å takke for sine problemer.

Despite opposition from a regional Zionist group, Glasgow City Council has voted in favour of a motion supporting the Israeli nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu. Critics had argued that the Scottish city was wrong to debate “what another country has done.”
The Glasgow motion comes amidst the backdrop of the revelation that Tony Blair’s Government attempted to prevent a reference to Israel contained in the “dodgy dossier” from being published. Vanunu was convicted in Israel in 1988 of publishing state secrets on Israel’s nuclear industry. Vanunu completed his sentence but has since been sentenced to a further six months after breaking an order banning him from speaking to foreign journalists.
The motion, debated at a Council meeting on February 21, was raised by Scottish Green Party councillor Martha Wardrop.
The passing of the motion now means the Council will support campaigns for the nuclear whistle-blower’s release and support him in his role as rector of Glasgow University.

Stanley Grossman of the Scottish Friends of Israel spearheaded the opposition to the motion, writing to every councillor in protest. “I have had about half a dozen replies from councillors who said they did not know the full story and that they were going to vote against it. I also had a couple of very nasty replies,” Grossman told The Jewish Chronicle. “This was designed to put Mordechai Vanunu back in the public eye. We believe the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) was behind this.”
The SPSC did not hide their support for Vanunu, and called the Scottish Friends of Israel accusation of co-ordinating the campaign a “back-handed compliment”. In a statement to The Muslim News, SPSC campaigners said that their “input to the Green Party motion was simply to motivate a few constituents to approach their Councillor to raise the issue. We are proud to have played a role in each of these initiatives, and to be the only campaign to have played a role in all of them.”
Scottish Representative Council President, Philip Mendelsohn, said, “It was unfortunate that a local authority thought that it was a relevant thing for them to debate what another country has done through its judicial process. It was totally inappropriate. “There are plenty of other people in jail all over the world for similar offences, yet they don’t make a big issue out of it. It happens only with Israel.”
Chair of SPSC, Mick Napier, told The Muslim News that Mendelsohn’s sentiment was “a sign of the attitude they would take to other issues of free speech if they had the power; blind to the fact that Glasgow boasts a Mandela Square in the heart of the city centre.”
Wardrop rebutted both Mendelsohn’s and Grossman’s argument, telling The Muslim News, “The Council has the right to debate anything it chooses to debate, regardless of whether a foreign government would wish us to or not. Second, the treatment meted out Mr Vanunu is of great interest to the students of Glasgow University, many of whom I represent, who decided they wished him to represent them as their Rector but who have been denied his presence in Glasgow by the continued action against him by the Israeli Government
“Even if that prison term were justified, it is clear that he presents no threat to the state of Israel and that across the political spectrum there is growing support for the restrictions placed on him since being released from prison in 2004 to be lifted.” A document released in February has revealed that the Foreign Office fought to keep secret any mention of Israel in the first draft of the controversial Iraq war dossier, over fears it may damage relations with Israel.
The reference was reportedly written in the margin by an unknown person commenting on the opening paragraph of the draft dossier. It appeared beside the claim that “no other country (aside from Iraq) has flouted the United Nations’ authority so brazenly in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.”
Israel is the Middle East’s sole nuclear power with an estimated 200 warheads.
The head of the Foreign Office’s Arab, Israel and North Africa group, Neil Wigan, told the Information Tribunal, “Unfortunately, there is perception already in Israel that parts of the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] are prejudiced against the country.”
The Israel reference in the draft dossier “would therefore confirm this pre-existing suspicion and would increase the damage,” he added.
The Foreign Office had no objections, however, to references to the US and Germany as countries which had twice launched wars of aggression against neighbours, nor to referring to Japan in relation to the use of chemical weapons

Un responsable israélien a cependant nié cette information, tout en la qualifiant de « sans fondement ».

Part 1 of 5

This part describes how Vanunu revealed to the world the existence of 100+ nuclear weapons in Israel as well the biological weapons in Israel's arsenal.

Part 2 of 5

This part describes how Israel deceived our President, John Kennedy, and how our country has subsequently become complicit in the growth of Israel's nuclear ambitions, and in the spread of "nuclear ambiguity" about Israel's WMD.

Part 3 of 5

Part 4 of 5

Part 5 of 5

Missile test in Israel

By Amir Oren, Haaretz Correspondent, January 18, 2008

First, the facts: A successful test of a new dual-stage missile was carried out at the Palmachim air base at 8:45 A.M. Thursday, January 17, 2008. Every part of the system, including the launcher and the missile itself, functioned properly, and can thus be considered operational. This success can be credited to Israel Aerospace Industries; to the other firms involved in the project; and to the Israel Air Force.

The timetable for the test was not dictated by Tehran. The government and the defense establishment are always happy when these tests succeed, but the pace of development, including the schedule of tests, generally depends on the technology rather than on external events.

But foreign experts will surely issue lengthy analyses explaining how Israel is maintaining its deterrence, especially vis-a-vis Iran, by openly testing a missile without officially saying a word about the missile's significance. Those wily Israelis are reminding everyone what ammunition they have available, the pundits will say. Some will also comment on the exquisite timing: while U.S. President George W. Bush is visiting the region and Israel's foreign minister is in Moscow trying to persuade the Russians to take action on Iran's nuclear program.

Please click here to read the remainder of this article in Haaretz.

A different take on Israel's Nuclear Weapons

These clips before include some details that are not available in the BBC report--especially what countries helped Israel acquire nuclear weapons and how Vanunu was trapped and then kidnapped by Mossad.

Part 1 of 4

Part 2 of 4

Part 3 of 4

Part 4 of 4

Deployment of Israel's nuclear weapons

According to a detailed account contained in Time magazine, Israel assembled about a dozen bombs and readied them for use during the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The bombs could have been delivered by aircraft or missiles.

On 22 January 2006 Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz hinted that Israel is preparing for military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. "Israel cannot accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must defend itself, with all that that implies."

Role of supercomputers in Israel's nuclear weapons development

Source: The Wisconsin Project

Since 1988, Israel has been trying to buy supercomputers that would allow it to speed up its nuclear weapon calculations by a factor of one hundred. Supercomputers can simulate the implosive shock waves that detonate nuclear warheads, calculate the multiplication of neutrons in an explosive chain reaction, and solve the equations of state that describe the behavior of nuclear explosives (plutonium and high-enriched uranium) under high temperature and pressure--all essential problems for nuclear weapon design. Although it is possible to develop unsophisticated nuclear weapons with less powerful computers, supercomputers are particularly valuable to countries such as Israel that seek to avoid conducting nuclear tests. They also can be used for missile design by modeling the forces acting on a flying body, such as the heat and shock waves encountered by a long-range missile reentering the atmosphere.

In January 1992, Israel's Technion University procured two "parallel" computers capable of reaching supercomputer speeds from the U.K. company Meiko Scientific Ltd.. The sale effectively circumvented U.S.- and Japanese-imposed restrictions for countries that had not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). But in November 1994, the United States approved the sale of nine supercomputers to Israel: two from Cray Research, five from IBM and two from Silicon Graphics. (The speeds of the nine computers ranged from 1,071 to 6,796 MTOPS.) The end-users--Technion University, Hebrew University and the Weizmann Institute--all have links to Israel's nuclear and missile programs. U.S. officials opposed to the sales were concerned that Israel would get a boost in computing power to work on a major engineering problem: shrinking thermonuclear warheads to fit on long-range missiles

Please click here to read about the Wisconsin Project's assessment of Israel's nuclear weapon capability.

Other articles of interest:

1. The above videos refer to an Israeli undercover agent named Cindy.  Her new name is Cheryl Hanin, and she now lives in the US, working as a real estate agent in Florida.  Please read the following article about her.

2. Britain played a major role by providing Israel with 20 tons of heavy water without the knowledge of the Americans.  The BBC program, Newsnight, broadcast on August 3, confirmed that Britain was in fact the original source of heavy water, the crucial ingredient that allowed Israel to transform its generic nuclear reactor in Dimona in the Negev Desert – initially developed with French help – into a proficient nuclear manufacturing plant.  Please read the article from the BBC.

3.  Please click here to see some of pictures inside Dimona WMD manufacturing plant taken by Vanunu.

4.  Please read the Der Spiegel article Is Israel Planning a Nuclear Strike Against Iran?

5. Please read Olmert under fire for implying Israel has nukes.

DUNDEE University was last night locked in a bizarre stand-off with its own rector after he used his first speech to students to accuse the institution of authoritarianism, comparing it to an "English polytechnic".

Craig Murray, Britain's former ambassador to Uzbekistan, was elected by students as rector in February this year, succeeding the TV presenter3 Lorraine Kelly.

But the controversial diplomat - who was forced out of his post three years ago after claiming the United States and Britain were involved in torture in Uzbekistan - has already fallen out with college heads following his maiden speech to students.

The 48-year-old claimed he had asked twice for information about cuts in academic provision which he said the university had blamed on "higher-than- expected pay awards, an unexpected increase in the cost of energy and increased building costs through a higher cost of steel."

He said he asked for a cost breakdown at two successive university court meetings this year, but received no answers. Mr Murray also claimed the fact he had asked the question did not appear in the minutes.

"Dissent is deemed not to happen," the rector told students.

Mr Murray went on: "Scottish universities are traditionally democratic self-governing communities, and the election of the rector is a vital reminder of this ... my view is that the governance of this institution in recent years has been more akin to an old English polytechnic than a Scottish university."

Mr Murray, who will serve as rector for three years, even accused the university of attempting to influence the election for rector against him, in favour of Andy Nicol, a former Scotland rugby captain.

He claimed former rectors Ms Kelly and the comedian Fred Macaulay chose to back Nicol "not without some encouragement from within the university hierarchy".

The rector made his address after the traditional trip through the streets of the town in a carriage pulled by students.

Mr Murray, himself a Dundee University graduate, went on to argue in favour of a liberal education and against what he claimed was an increasing concentration on vocational qualifications.

He said: "Universities - including this one - have been much afflicted by a cult of right-wing managerialism, exemplified in the view that businessmen are the only people whose expertise is useful and transferable."

Mr Murray, who lives in London, was yesterday supplying copies of his speech to journalists, claiming the press office at Dundee University had refused to provide it, place it in the library or put it online.

He said: "I'm sure the university would love to get rid of me but I am here to stay."

A university spokesman said: "The speech isn't factually correct and it does not represent the views of the university."

The official said the university's press office had not released copies of previous rectors' speeches and only a portion of Ms Kelly's had appeared on the university website, adding that any speech would only be kept in the library if it was published.

The position of rector in Scottish universities is steeped in tradition, dating back to papal edicts of the 15th century. The rector is chosen by the students and the holder is not part of the university's administration.

The rector has a seat on the university court - its board of governors - and can vote on issues such as its budget and annual accounts. The holder of the post is also there to provide a voice for the students, although other student representatives also have a seat on court.

Celebrities or high-profile people with no previous ties to universities are often elected. Mordechai Vanunu, jailed for 18 years for leaking Israel's nuclear secrets, is the rector of Glasgow University. However, he cannot attend court meetings as he is forbidden from leaving Israel.

And now Murray's speech:

Vice-Chancellor, My Dear Friends,

It is most kind of you to come along here today as I receive the singular honour of being made Rector of my own University.

I arrive here following our tradition of an idiosyncratic pub crawl known as the Rectorial Drag. That sounds like an occasion for which I should be picking out a nice skirt and blouse – which as some of my former student colleagues here will tell you would not be the first time. The Rectorial Drag however is an occasion where the students pull their new Rector through the streets in a carriage, from City Hall to University, entering the pubs on the way. I can honestly say it is the first time I have ever been dragged to a pub. Dragged out, yes. Chucked out, frequently. Dragged in is a new one.

By chance it is thirty years almost to the day since I arrived, bewildered, into freshers’ week, clutching everything I owned in one cardboard box and a battered BOAC flight bag.

Little did I dream that thirty years later I would become Rector of the place. Certainly not – I expected to be much too busy being Prime Minister.

In that distant first week I attended the Rectorial Installation of Sir Clement Freud. He was a man of great wit and perspicacity, and his installation address was hilarious. Sadly, as we all know, decline and decay is the natural order of things, and with the passing years Sir Clement declined to the extent that he eventually became Rector of St Andrews.

These occasions traditionally involve a certain amount of knockabout humour, and I am sure that no offence will be taken. We look in fact with fond regard to our sister institution south of the Tay Estuary, marking with sadness the scent of her senile decline, as we might an elderly relative whom we care about but are grateful we don’t have to live with.

I believe that Clement Freud was the only one of my predecessors to have made that particular error. Stephen Fry was invited to stand at St Andrews but sensibly declined. They can always try again when he’s 70.

All of which brings me to note what a tremendously talented bunch my predecessors as Rector have been. Here I give the obligatory tip of the hat to Sir Peter Ustinov.

I am biased in the case of two of them, George Mackie
and Gordon Wilson, because I was the seconder of one and proposer of the other. That made my own election my third successful rectorial campaign, and I claim the record, to be beaten when I am re-elected in 2010.

Getting elected is of course the difficult bit. My own election was fiercely contested and the result was close. I would like to pay a sincere tribute to Andy Nicol, a real gentleman, for his well-fought and constructive campaign, and for being such a good loser. Though, of course, as a former captain of the British Lions rugby team he did have a great deal of practice.

One excellent piece of electioneering by my opponent was securing the entire front page of the election day Dundee edition of the Daily Record. Most of the page was taken up by a picture of Andy and the headline screamed “I was born to lead Dundee Students”. The Daily Record is a paper which is at least consistent in its standard of accuracy.

The flaw in this great ploy, achieved with considerable effort, was of course that not many of our electorate are Daily Record readers. Some folk surmised that this mistake came about because Scottish Labour HQ were under the impression the election was at the University of Abertay.

Anyway, it was a good bit of electioneering, and made even better by the fact that in this special edition of the Daily Record, my two immediate predecessors, not without some encouragement from within the University hierarchy, chose to endorse the candidature of my opponent.

The Record told us “Outgoing Rector Lorraine Kelly and comedian Fred Macaulay threw their weight behind Nicol as the former Scotland captain urged the University’s Record readers to vote for him in the polls today.”

I believe the University’s Record readers both did.

I don’t regard former Rectors campaigning for a candidate – and thus perforce campaigning against a candidate - as quite the done thing. But it is still potentially effective electioneering. The only downside I see is that, should the ploy fail and someone else get elected, and were that person in the least bit vindictive, that person would then have a great platform in front of the entire University to get his own back. I do see that potential danger, don’t you?

Some of you will be relieved, and some disappointed, to hear that I do not intend to do this. I am very glad that my predecessor, Lorraine Kelly, was Rector of this University. Otherwise she might have gone her entire life without ever seeing the inside of an institute of higher education.

The other ex-Rector involved was Fred Macaulay, apparently a local comedian, though that is not obvious from reading his rectorial address. In the most striking passage, Fred tells us he does a great impression of Sean Connery, adding “Hey, I’m bald and Scottish, how hard can it be?”

Very hard, Fred, very hard. Sean Connery is bald, Scottish and immensely talented. Fred, however, is more like this egg: bald, Scottish and easily crushed. (Breaks egg).

I did say we should have some knockabout stuff, and seriously Fred was a hard-working and popular Rector. I am sure he’ll come up with some much better jokes about me.

Now this is going to be a very dull afternoon if I just ramble on like this and you just gawp at me. We need some atmospherics – feel free to laugh and cheer, or clap or shout “Rubbish” when you want to. Above all do heckle. Heckling is a fine tradition. The very word comes from Dundee.

Heckling is a process in the jute industry. To heckle is to comb out the jute prior to spinning. It was a tough, manual job and the heckling shops were murky with dust that choked the lungs. The hecklers were famous for their radicalism, probably a reaction to their terrible working conditions, and would turn up and yell at politicians. I think that’s quite right – present company accepted I don’t recall ever meeting a politician who did not ought to be shouted at. Thus the hecklers yelled, and the verb “To heckle” jumped from a textile process to a political barracking. Uniquely, as far as I know, what other student unions call election hustings, DUSA called election hecklings.
One appalling development in modern politics is the death of heckling.

Nowadays politicians deliver their sound-bites to a pathetically complacent and complicit media, in front of a carefully selected and vetted audience of the faithful. Just try getting close enough to a politician to heckle them. I mean that literally – please do try. When someone does manage, like Walter Wolfgang, the eighty year old who shouted “Rubbish” at Jack Straw, they are likely to be manhandled and arrested under the laughably named Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Jack Straw, incidentally, is a man who should have “Rubbish” shouted at him from the moment he steps out of the shower in the morning until the moment he retires with his evening cocoa.

The peculiar criminalisation of heckling is part of the most extraordinary onslaught on our civil liberties. Here in Dundee a woman was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for walking on a cycle path. That is true – Google it. And last year we had the extraordinary incident of the Special Branch walking around Fresher’s Fayre. That is something which I promise you will not happen again. A university is no place for the thought police. We have no terrorists here; what our students are thinking is our students’ business. That is why they are here; to think.

The Rectorial Address is a great tradition, and I am standing here on the shoulders of giants. Those who have delivered their rectorial address at Scottish universities include figures like William Gladstone, Adam Smith, Andrew Carnegie and JM Barrie. These addresses were great occasions. They have their traditions and their protocols. They have on occasion been highly rumbustuous, and sometimes speeches have been fiery and partisan.

I have however been told that the recent style has been for speeches to be non-political and uncontroversial. So I gave a great deal of thought to a suitably bland title for this address, and I came up with:
“Why London Should Stop Worrying about Scottish Independence Because We Scots Can Still Rule England From Brussels.”
Nothing to argue with there, I think.

The truth is, my whole life I have believed that there is no point in getting on your back legs and opening your mouth in public, unless you are really going to say something. It may not sound very radical, but the vast majority of speakers, particularly in modern politics, manage to sound off for ages without actually saying anything at all. Our Prime Minister – another former Scottish University Rector – did so in his big conference speech last week. That certainly ought not to happen inside universities, but I am afraid it does.

A university must be a place of stimulating intellectual debate across not only the myriad topics of academia, but on the issues of the day affecting society as a whole. The best minds must clash and spark, and students must be fully and intellectually engaged. A university must constitute a vast whirring machinery of the mind, reacting to and operating on the wider society of which it forms an integral part. It must be a place of the liveliest and best informed debate, where no subject is out of bounds, or over-respected, or immune from the heat of debate. A university must be a democratic discussion. If it is not that, it is not a university.

We must be unapologetic that a University is about much, much more than training to get a job. The over-emphasis of vocational training bedevils higher education. Of course your career is important; but you have the entire rest of your life to be a slave to it. You don’t have to start now. The student who concentrates purely on his future career leaves here equipped for only a small part of life. I learnt vastly more in discussions with people of other academic, social, cultural and ethnic backgrounds in bars and kitchens, and from private reading, than I ever did in the lecture theatre. In my formal university learning I acquired skills of logic, analysis, ordering and debate. A University Education must teach you to think, not just to stack widgets. And that is true across every one of our disciplines – as relevant to nurses and dentists as to lawyers.

Scotland has a great intellectual tradition based on this radical liberal concept. Scotland had a prototype of universal education two centuries before England, and had five universities for centuries when England only had two.

I would like now to quote from an essay by Lindsay Paterson, Professor of Educational Policy at the University of Edinburgh, published in 2020, Agenda for a New Scotland, Luath Press 2005. I am going to break a golden rule of speechmaking and read at length from Professor Paterson, because this states what I believe more eloquently than I can express it, and I believe this is a vastly important essay which everyone involved in Scottish universities should read. Professor Paterson’s aim is to sketch out the principles on which Scottish education should be based:

The first premise is to insist on the emancipatory potential of intellectual, serious, theoretical and difficult learning. If secondary schools and universities are not about that, then they are barely worth having. “Relevance” is something we learn with experience, and experience can only be experienced, not taught; we cannot judge relevance unless we have already grasped the principles of a system of understanding. In particular, therefore, vocational courses are not what initial education should be about. They are about training for specific jobs. Where they are not best done on the job itself, learning from the accumulated wisdom of more experienced colleagues (whatever the line of work), they presuppose a body of theoretical knowledge and understanding that ought to be engaged with first. Practice without theory is blind.

…Second, since the building of an efficient economic system ought never to be an end in itself, but only the means to such goals as building a fair, democratic and culturally enriching society, an equally important premise has to be that programmes of general liberal education are better at preparing people for life as decent citizens than any other kind of learning. That was something which the old radicals understood well. You could make citizens for the new era of mass democracy by equipping them with the cultural capacities which the aristocratic or bourgeois ruling class had acquired through their education. Citizenship was not something to be segregated into discrete programmes, but should permeate many types of study – literature, history, geography, politics, science, religion. The student who learns how to debate the meaning of a poem by Liz Lochead, or a novel by Alisdair Gray, or a film by Paul Lavery, or to weigh the evidence for and against wind farms or genetic modification, or to understand the reasons why Islam and Christianity have sometimes been in conflict is in fact well prepared for life as a citizen of Scotland.

Third, we need therefore a debate about cultural purposes. This is where new radical thinking is urgently needed. Although I have been arguing that we should recover the old idea that democratising access to a general, liberal education is the only programme that is truly radical, it would not be radical simply to adopt uncritically the content of pedagogical methods that would have constituted such a programme in earlier eras.

For example, the culture to which students should now be exposed is certainly not the unitary one of even half a century ago. In Scotland, we inherit ideas from Islam as well as from Christianity, literature by women as well as by men, working class political ideas as well as middle class ones, Scottish philosophical thought as well as Anglo-Saxon. We have to make selections from a potentially enormous set of curricular options. The guiding principles might be partly the intellectual capacities that we want to be the outcome for students. But it can’t be only that…There have to be moral, aesthetic and other judgements about the value of particular knowledge, unfashionable though that is at a time when values are supposed to be inherently relative and the curriculum is supposed to be only about developing competences …

What should we reasonably expect our graduates to know and be able to do, at an advanced level? Is it sufficient to say that their broad cultural and intellectual preparation has finished at school, or should we expect something more? At the moment, to be frank, we don’t even know whether and to what extent existing programmes of higher education are any kind of common basis for citizenship at all.

I am entirely with Professor Paterson, but it is fair to say that almost all the contributions I have heard from others within the governing bodies of the University have been tending to the opposite, with an increasingly narrow vocational focus. The need for students to get a job on leaving has always been there. The lack of grants and the tuition fees paid by some of our students add to the pressures. But my generation graduated into a labour market with three and a half million unemployed and few opportunities. But the idea that our university experience should be solely about finding a job would rightly have been laughed out of court. People are marvellous things, so much more than simply machines for economic production. Indeed, I would say that is the aspect of them that has the least to do with a university.

Professor Paterson sets his thoughts within a specifically Scottish tradition. That is appropriate today – we are a university open to the world and with a worldwide reputation, but we are also Scottish, as testifies the fact that I stand before you today in the uniquely Scottish position of Rector, elected by the students.

Becoming Rector here fulfils two of my great ambitions in life. The first was when I had a Highland Reel named after me, written by in my view Scotland’s best traditional music exponents the Battlefield Band. Sadly the great Jimmy Shand is no longer with us, but I like to imagine it at ceilidhs – “Our next set is a highland reel, with The Lang Heid followed by Lady Margaret Campbell of Glenlyon followed by Ambassador Craig Murray of Tashkent.” That will confuse them.

So my very own reel a great honour, and my first ambition. My second was to become Rector of the University of Dundee.

I might have to give up on the third, as I don’t suppose Kylie Minogue would be up for it.

You will have noted that my robe is rather plainer than many of the gorgeous ones around. That may surprise you in such an elevated office. The Rector is the second most senior officer of the University. In the University’s foundation document, the Charter, Article 4 says “There shall be a Chancellor of the University who shall be the head of the University”. Article 5 says “There shall be a Rector of the University who shall be elected by all the matriculated students”.

Only after these great honorary offices, from Article 6 onwards, does the Charter go on to list the hired help, starting with the Principal. That is not an accidental running order – for one thing, the Queen by definition does not make mistakes, and for another the order is precisely the same in all the Scottish universities which have Rectors, and is clearly set out as such in successive Universities (Scotland) Acts. But it is an order that this University appears to have mislaid in recent practice. I shall be restoring the influence and the dignity of the position to its rightful place, not for me, but for the reason I am wearing this unembroidered gown – this is based on an undergraduate gown, to indicate that my role is to fight for the interest of the students.

I should be plain that everyone in the University has the welfare of the students at heart – it is simply useful to have someone who has it as their primary concern amid other pressures. One of the problems universitys face is that for funding purposes a prime driver of academic departments is the need to publish a large volume of well reviewed books to produce brownie points. This has led to appalling distortions. You can be a great university academic without ever publishing major research, if you are up with your subject, and communicate knowledge, wisdom and love of the spirit of learning to your students. Cutting edge research provides a key edge to our best teaching, and is a great advantage of many parts of this university. But it is not the sole arbiter of merit, and it is in danger of being so.

My own view – and remember, I have said that a university must be a forum for debate. You don’t have to agree with me at all. What you have to do is listen, respect and then engage, from your own perspective and experience.

Nevertheless, my own view is that the University has put too little emphasis on the quality of undergraduate teaching. If you look at The Times’ detailed table of university rankings, you will find that our students arrive with a score representing their school qualifications placing us 23rd highest in the UK. We have the 23rd highest qualified people coming in the doors. But our completion rate – those actually achieving their degree – is the 105th best in the country.

You can look up the table yourself. So we have some of the best students arrive, but do poorly on getting them through their degree. Of course, there are statistical anomalies, and the figures vary widely from course to course. But the figures do not lie on overall trend, however you try to spin them, and the truth is that we are not good at value added. Doing better by our undergraduates in this respect will be a major goal of my time as Rector.

Another goal will be to improve the governance of the University. Let me try to illustrate my point visually. These are the minutes of University Court for 91-92. These are the minutes for last academic year. The difference is startling. These are not freak years – you can look at the bound minutes yourselves, and the series gets slimmer and slimmer, with a real step change down around 2001.

That certainly reflects my experience of returning to University Court in 2007 after leaving it in 1984. Minutes are fewer, shorter. The whole Court does not lunch together beforehand now, but rather the Administration cabals with trusties. Decisions are taken outwith Court and without consultation. As Rector, I do not expect to hear of the cutting of a vital student service like the free Ninewells minibus, simply by receiving an email like any member of staff telling me it has already been cut. If the University continue to treat the Rector – and Court - like that, I will continue to embarrass them like this.

The sparsity of the Court minutes is a genuine reflection of the amount of information given to court and the extent Court really takes the decisions. At my first two Court meetings this year I complained that we were being asked to take decisions on cutting academic provision, without having any but the scarcest financial information before us.

We were told, for example, that factors in the University being short of money included higher than expected pay awards, an unexpected increase in the cost of energy and increased building costs through a higher cost of steel. I asked for this to be quantified. How much were wage costs estimated, and what was the outturn? How much were energy costs estimated, and what was the outturn? How much had contactors increased the contract by for the higher cost of steel? None of this could be deduced from any of the information given to Court.

Not only did I raise this at two successive Court meetings, without to this day receiving a substantive reply, but the fact that I had asked the question did not appear on either occasion in the minutes. One reason why these volumes are so slim. Dissent is deemed not to happen.

I started some time ago, and I am grateful to you for your patience, by emphasising the need for a University to be a place of free and open debate. Scottish Universities are traditionally democratic self-governing communities, and the election of the Rector is a vital reminder of this. I keep repeating that nobody is obliged to agree with my view, but you should know it. And my view is that the governance of this institution in recent years has been more akin to an old English Polytechnic than a Scottish University.

Let me make plain to you that I believe that under Sir Alan Langlands, this University has blossomed under dynamic and effective leadership which has seen a tremendous expansion, continued cutting edge academic achievement and the introduction of wonderful new facilities, including this one. This has become a truly world-class institution. But I completely reject any notion that the traditional forms of academic community and decision making cannot deliver such results.

Indeed, a wider input can make things better, and too narrow a system of direction can lead to error. I have already mentioned my concern at lack of priority on undergraduate teaching. Another example is this building.

It is a lovely new asset, but it could have been designed twenty years ago. Huge atrium. Central air conditioning. People and Planet conducted a survey of all the UK’s universities to rate them for how green they are. We were near the bottom of the list – and you can google that equally true. Look at this building with new eyes. What can you see of the modern innovations in building design which work to offset a building’s carbon footprint? What do you think the carbon footprint of this building is? You see what I mean about the need to involve more people. Making this University greener is another of my major aims – because I believe that is in the true interests of the students.

Universities – including this one – have been much afflicted by the cult of right-wing managerialism, exemplified in the view that businessmen are the only people whose expertise is useful and transferable. This goes hand in hand with the obscene view that a business model applies to every form of social interaction and thus social institution. The Scottish Funding Council is packed with businessmen, as is our own University Court. It is worth noting, by the way, that Scottish businessmen are not nowadays renowned for their interest in the cutting edge, as Scottish businesses are in the bottom quartile of OECD tables on percentage of costs spent on research and development.

Now many of those on our Court are excellent people, but they do seem to have a similar perspective on many issues. Wisdom does exist elsewhere in Scotland. In an institution which embraces a great College of Art, it might be good to see a working artist on the Court, more from the professions, journalism, the law, the clergy, the theatre, the arts, the police. A schoolteacher, perhaps. A bit more creative spark. And representatives of all the staff, not only the academics.

Let us reinvigorate the idea of the Scottish democratic community in its universities. We have a great chance now, we a radical government in Edinburgh determined to emphasise all that is best and distinctive in Scottish tradition.

I have a firm proposal to make. I call for the institution of the Scottish tradition of Rectors in all Scottish Universities, not just the ancient ones. I shall be lobbying the Scottish government to take forward this proposal.