More on Israeli "ethno-bomb" article:
1) Sorry about the link, Cobalt. I picked it directly off The London Times site (yes, I know it is free), and did not check out the URL as I usually do, before posting it. I gather you can't link directly to the article, but must go through the archive (for the Sunday Times). Anyway, if you enter the date November 15, you will get the piece -- the lead article for the day. Anyway, I note this only to show that the article is authentic; you already have the text, which I posted.
2) I keep on running across references to an "ethnic bomb" article that appeared in the Israeli press before The Sunday Times piece -- and which obviously prompted the latter (I work as a journalist, and I know how editors operate). There must have been, because an Israeli Knesset member, quoted in the Times piece, had already publicly denounced the alleged bio-weapons project a day or so before that piece appeared. However, the one concrete reference I had -- to the October 29th edition of the Jerusalem Post -- did not check out. At least, it was not in the Post's online edition for that day. In any event, it is clear that the Times reporters did not start this particular ball rolling.
3) On the theoretical possibility of engineering viruses to target specific genes shared by members of a particular ethnic group, it sounds pretty far-fetched. But the Chairman of the Commission the British Medical Association set up to look into this possibility, Vivienne Nathanson (quoted in the Times Article) is not ready to dismiss it. Check out this year-old Reuter's dispatch:
LONDON (Reuter) - Gene therapy could be twisted into terrifying genetic weapons that target and destroy ethnic groups,
British doctors warned Tuesday.
The British Medical Association (BMA) is so worried by the possibility that it has commissioned a team of geneticists, biologists, lawyers and warfare experts to see if the technology is possible, and if so, to ban it.
"It is a particularly horrifying thought," said Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics for the BMA, who started the study. "If you were a dictator somewhere in the world and you wanted to get rid of a group of people in your population who were opposing you -- whether you are talking about Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, Bosnian Serbs or 1930s Germany -- you could use this," she added. Gene therapy homes in on genes that certain people have that are different and can cause disease. For example, people with cystic fibrosis have easily identified mutations, as do some sufferers of breast cancer. New genes, or therapeutic proteins, can be delivered using engineered DNA -- the basic genetic building material.
Nathanson said this could be twisted.
"If we can target people to have a therapeutic effect then maybe you could put something in that is dangerous," she said in
a telephone interview. Race war would not be possible -- races are too genetically diverse and what people recognize as "race" has little genetic basis.
"You are looking for what in Scotland would be a clan or in Africa a tribe," Nathanson said. "It's a family grouping where one would expect to see a genetic similarity." Genes targeted by such weapons could control a person's appearance -- height or hair color -- or how their bodies process certain drugs.
"If that is the case, and it is likely to be the case, then it is possible to say we may have a weapon which was a virus or a chemical compound which has a genetic targeting component," Nathanson said. "We have to recognize that there is a potential for weapons with a fair degree of selectivity and extraordinary awfulness." Such compounds could be delivered as a gas or spray, or put into the water supply. They could kill, make people infertile or cause the birth of deformed children. "It would probably not be 100 percent effective but I've never really come across a dictator who seemed terribly concerned about losing some of their own population," she said. "We are doing the study at the moment using as many lawyers and other experts as we can to find out whether we think it is feasible," said Nathanson, who presented her fears to the BMA's annual meeting in Edinburgh. "If we do think such weapons are feasible, and so far we haven't heard anything that we think means they wouldn't be, a
ban that works would be needed," Nathanson said. "It would need international collaboration and cooperation." But Nathanson said she feared that, if such weapons were ever developed, there would be no way to ban them. For example, landmines were proving hard to ban because so many companies and governments earned money from their
sale.
"One of the things we have to learn is not to wait until the technology has been learned and dispersed around the world
before we ban them."
netlink.de
If I remember correctly, the Commission is scheduled to report its findings next month. Should be interesting.
4) I fail to understand why you pick on Mahnaimi, in particular. Why not his co-authors? He and Marie Corvin regularly file joint stories (including stories about Iraqi biological weaponry, by the way).
5) I agree with you (and with the Anti-Defamation League) that the sourcing for the story is weak. Here, incidentally, is the ADL's reaction:
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed outrage at the Sunday Times of
London for publishing a story claiming that Israel is developing
biological weapons that will harm only Arabs, but not Jews. In
a front-page story published on Nov. 15, the newspaper cited
unnamed sources and the publication Foreign Report as
originating the story. The story has since been spread by
newswires and syndicated news agencies to media outlets
across the United States.
The Times' story is "irresponsible and dangerous," said
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director. "Based on shady
unnamed sources and referring to a publication that has a
history of putting out dubious information, the venerable
Sunday Times of London presented speculation and hearsay as
a fact."
The problem,of course, is that when you are trying to report about secret weapons programs, nobody directly responsible for them will ever go on the record. Otherwise, they would not be secret programs. The only reason we have heard about South African attempts to develop an "ethno-bomb" is because the scientists involved testified before the Truth Commission (i.e., spilled the beans in hopes of amnesty). Eventually, the CIA, or some other intelligence agency, will no doubt come out with some kind of report/statement, but here again, don't expect concrete sources to be cited.
6) You write:
The fact that this story has not broken into wider reporting demonstrates that, it is not legitimate, in my opinion.
I would not say it is not legitimate, but I would say, at this point, that it is certainly not verifiable. Hence, I think that other publications have been wise to steer clear of it. But I trust correspondents based in Israel will keep their eyes open, and report back if there are any further developments.
jbe
P.S. Personally, I would guess that scientists in Israel, as in all other countries that have had biological weapons programs, have probably fooled around with all sorts of theoretical experiments, without necessarily expecting any practical results from them. In other words, sometimes a scientist just wants to know whether something is possible. Where "ethno-bombs" are concerned, it seems to me that an Israeli scientist would be just as -- or more -- interested in establishing whether Arabs could target Israelis, as in establishing whether Israelis could target Arabs. In any event, if Israeli scientists are seriously doing any "ethno-bomb" research -- which is very much open to question -- they will shelve it pronto,if they have any brains at all.
|
