Israeli nukes, their
history and politics
In
July 1956 President Nasser of Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal.
This
was a major event in world politics – and history.
Anthony
Eden's government in Britain and Guy Mollet's government in France saw this as
a major blow to their prestige and interests.
They
decided to invade Egypt, overthrow Nasser, seize the Canal and hand it back to
the Suez Canal Company, in which they were major shareholders. Most British and French citizens
opposed this policy. They did not
want their sons to risk their lives in a war for a colonial empire in which
they no longer believed. After WW2
the era of empires and colonies was over.
The people of the colonies had information, and ability, to become free,
and struggles for national liberation started in every colony of Britain,
France, Portugal, Holland, and Belgium.
The
US too opposed an invasion of Egypt. It wanted Egypt to join the Baghdad Pact directed
against the Soviet Union. But the Soviet Union provided arms and political
support to many liberation struggles against colonial powers. It financed and
helped to build the high ham in Aswan.
Nasser didn't want to antagonize it. He refused to join the Baghdad Pact.
The
US wanted to change his policy by economic pressure, not by force.
So
Eden and Mollet decided to disguise their war as a "peace keeping
operation".
They
agreed with Ben-Gurion, Israel's PM, that Israel will invade Egypt, seize the
Sinai Peninsula and approach the Suez Canal from the east. Then Britain and
France will issue an ultimatum to both Israel and Egypt to withdraw 10 miles
from either side of the Canal, to "ensure freedom of passage in the
Canal to ships of all nations". They knew Nasser could not accept this
ultimatum while Egypt was invaded, but Ben-Gurion will accept it, as it invited
him to annex the Sinai.
Ben-Gurion
flew to Paris on 22.10.1956 and signed this secret pact with Eden and Mollet..
In Israel he denied he had done so, and kept denying this till his death in
1973.
So
too did Shimon Peres, who only admitted it 30 years later, in 1986.
Israel,
itself a product of British imperial politics in the Middle-East in WW1, always
depended on political, financial, and military support of foreign powers
dominating the Middle East. The
military presence of the British Army in the region enhanced Israel's security. BG opposed the departure of the British
from Egypt, Iraq, Cyprus, and Jordan and of the French Army from Algeria and
Tunisia. .The Israeli secret service used contacts with Jewish communities in
North Africa to help the French in their war against the liberation movements
in Algeria, and Tunisia.
Most
Israeli citizens did not know about these clandestine operations and would have
opposed them had they known about them. BG was aware of this and therefore
withheld the truth from them. In
1956 most Israelis opposed collaboration with colonial powers. So BG sent Shimon Peres - who was not a
member of the Cabinet or Knesset - as his personal messenger - to France to
bypass the Cabinet, the Knesset, and the Press. One of the bonuses France
offered Israel was construction of a nuclear reactor in Israel capable of
producing plutonium for nuclear bombs.
BG
was afraid the majority in the Knesset and in his Cabinet would oppose his
decision to invade Egypt, and likewise his decision to produce nuclear weapons
in Israel. He kept both decision secret.
Peres never informed the Cabinet or the Knesset about his negotiations
in Paris.
He
commuted between Paris and Jerusalem to negotiate the military agreement
between BG, Mollet and Eden, report only to B.G.
On
October 29, 1956, Israeli paratroopers commanded by Ariel Sharon landed in the
Sinai, Israel seized the peninsula as planned and reached the Suez Canal. Eden
and Mollet issued their ultimatum and their troops invaded the Suez Canal zone.
It seemed as if the plan was going to succeed. But US President Eisenhower was
outraged and forced Israel, Britain, and France to withdraw from Egypt. The war
ended in a fiasco. Britain and
France ceased to be counted among "The four great powers". The era of the Two Superpowers - USA
and USSR - has begun.
Eden
and Mollet had to resign but BG stayed in power, presenting his war to the
Israelis as a "preventive war" that prevented an Egyptian attack on
Israel. Actually, Nasser had
offered BG Peace rather than a war…
He
did this in a public statement at the Bandung Conference in 1955.
Despite
being forced by the US to withdraw from the Sinai (and from the Gaza strip) BG
(and Peres) considered the construction of the nuclear reactor in Dimona by
France to be a major achievement well worth the losses in this war.
They
did not say this to the families of the soldiers killed in this war.
The
decision to build nuclear weapons in Israel was never discussed or debated in
the Knesset, in the Cabinet, in the army, in the press, or in the security
services.
This
decision was taken by one man alone - Ben-Gurion. In 1956 the Israeli population stood at about 1.5
million. The surrounding Arab
states had many millions of citizens, their armies were much bigger, and they
had plenty of Soviet weapons. BG feared that a combined attack by Egypt, Syria,
Iraq and Jordan could destroy Israel. He decided to build atom bombs as an
insurance against such a possibility. In 1956 France agreed to sell Israel a
nuclear reactor of the type it had just installed at Marcoule, near Avignon. Built
in 1952, the G1 reactor in Marcoule was France's first plutonium production
reactor, using natural uranium, graphite moderated, and gas-cooling. Its first
plutonium separation plant was known as UP1. Two reactors were built. One in Marcoule, the other in
Dimona, Israel. The Israeli
reactor began to produce plutonium in the early 1960s. The French G1 reactor
was dismantled after 40 years of service. The one in Israel has continued to
work for the past 50 years and has become a health hazard, causing many deaths
by cancer to its workers. So
far the Israeli government has refuses to compensate them.
B.G.
knew that the US was opposed to nuclear proliferation, and being dependent on
US support he denied that Israel was producing nuclear weapons. Israel's official policy is neither to
deny nor to admit that it has - and builds - nuclear weapons. This policy of
"ambiguity" is presented in Israel as profound wisdom. Actually it
fools no one. Its only purpose is not to embarrass the US, where Senator Stuart
Symington introduced an amendment forbidding the US to provide aid to countries
that produce clandestine nuclear weapons.
This policy was never applied to Israel.
Of
course the US knows very well what Israel's nuclear capabilities are. But an
open Israeli admission that it has nuclear weapons would embarrass the US and
expose the duplicity of its nuclear non-proliferation policy. In fact, as early as the 1960s the
U2 spy planes of the CIA
photographed the Dimona reactor as it was being built and President Eisenhower
knew about it in 1960. However,
the US did nothing to stop construction of the reactor nor did it force Israel
to accept international inspection of it.
Israel has always refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) or to allow any international inspection of its nuclear facilities, and
continues to do so to this day.
Israel's
nuclear capability forced many Arab States to seek weapons of mass destruction
- mostly biological and chemical ones - to counter the Israeli arsenal. So Israel started an arms race for
weapons of mass-destruction in the Middle-East.
BG
did not consider the possibility that an Arab country might acquire nuclear
weapons.
He
knew that neither the US nor the Soviet Union would give such weapons to an
Arab State. He did not believe the Arabs were capable of building such weapons
themselves. The collapse of the Soviet Union (making nuclear weapons available
for money) and production of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and Iran were
possibilities he failed to foresee.
When
this happened the situation changed.
Israel's nuclear deterrent changed from an asset into a liability.
Israel's small area and high population density, especially the urban areas of Tel Aviv and Haifa, can be destroyed by
just two H-bombs - one on each centre.
The
destruction of these two urban centers would amount to the destruction of
Israel.
This
is the area where most of Israel's economy and population are concentrated and
after a nuclear attack they would be uninhabitable for years. Iran, with its vast mountainous
territory, cannot be destroyed like this and is far less vulnerable. Even if Israel launched a second strike
after being attacked it could destroy Iran. Israeli second-strike capability,
recently achieved by acquiring two nuclear submarines from Germany, would not
repair the damage caused to Israel by just 2 H-bombs nor would it deter Iranian
religious fanatics. It is
therefore essential for Israel to change its nuclear policy from threatening
Iran and continuing the nuclear arms race to a policy of seeking to make the
entire ME a nuclear-free zone under international supervision. This does not seem
imminent.
The
Iranian nuclear threat was described recently by Dr. Yuval Steinitz, Chairman
of the Knesset 'Foreign and Defense' Committee. He said: "Iran plans to
set up 54000 centrifuges for enriching uranium.
This
means that they want to become a nuclear world-power capable of producing 20 to
30 bombs per year, not 2 or 3 bombs that will make them a regional
power." (Ma'ariv 9.10.2005, p.24)
Facing
this situation - and the next Israeli elections in March 2006 - there is a growing concern among
Israelis about Iranian long-range missiles, capable of reaching Israel, and the
imminent ability of Iran to build nuclear weapons. So election candidates propose various Israeli nuclear
policies to attract voters.
The
daily Ma'ariv published the following
on 5.12.2005:
P.M.
Ariel Sharon, leader of the new Kadima Party is quoted as saying:
"We
shall not accept a situation in which Iran has nuclear weapons. We act with
Europe and the USA. The correct expression on this matter was Bush's statement
in which he said that he did not think this matter can be left without treating
its foundations. I hope the
Security Council will soon decide to impose sanctions on Iran to stop the
process"
But
the Chief of Staff of the Israeli armed forces, Dan Halutz, commented that the
diplomatic efforts to stop the process will fail and raised a second possibility
of applying physical pressure, or military pressure, to Iran. He is reported as
saying:
"Who will apply military
options? This is not a question I shall answer.
When
will this option be applied? I
shall not answer this either. But
there are options"
Benjamin
Netanyahu, the front-runner of the Likud, Party declared:
"I shall lead the next government
to stop the Iranian threat, including all the necessary operations. If this is
not done by the present government I intend to lead the next government to stop
this threat. This includes all operations necessary to stop Iran from
threatening us with nuclear weapons."
Amir
Peretz, the new leader of the Labor Party, said:
"I
hope the Israeli government will do whatever is required, ignoring foreign
consideration"
The
Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz, said:
"The
latest statements on this issue
are irresponsible. The nuclear issue must not be part of the election campaign". (Ma'ariv
5.12.2005 p.1 and 2)
However,
since the Israeli public is worried about the issue no candidate can ignore it.
The
crucial - and revealing - point is that no Israeli politician, journalist, or
academic, has proposed the simple option of an Israeli nuclear policy of
support for a nuclear-free Middle East under international control. This omission exposes Israel's
intransigence and the hypocrisy of US policy on this issue. Why does the US refuse to pressurize
Israel to sign the NPT and allow international inspection of its nuclear
facilities ?
The
honesty of US nuclear policy in the ME is proportional to the pressure it puts
on Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and support a
nuclear-free ME.
As
long as the US does not apply any such pressure its policy cannot be accepted
as honest.
A
recently published US report (funded by the Pentagon) proposes that Israel
change its nuclear policy. Its authors, Henry Sokolsky and Patrick Clawson in
their 314 page document ("Getting ready for a nuclear-ready Iran")
say "the idea is not that Israel give up its nuclear weapons
unilaterally hoping that others will too. Instead, Israel should simply take a
small, reversible, step, in an effort to promote a reciprocal process that
would de-escalate the regions nuclear arms race."
But
Israeli officials dismissed the idea that Israel would lead a regional nuclear
disarmament process in response to a nuclear-ready Iran. Israel's position, an
official said, is that a nuclear-free Middle East could be achieved only
through comprehensive regional peace treaties.
In
1986 Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu provided technical proof to
the London "Sunday Times" that Israel had some 200 nuclear war heads.
Today this number is much higher. Vanunu joined the so-called Nuclear Research
Centre in Dimona in 1978 as a technician.
At
this time he was a follower of the religio-nationalist Rabbi Kahana. Like every applicant for a job in
Dimona he was checked by the Israeli Secret Service. His support for Rabbi Kahana was not seen for as a
hindrance. After working a few
years he became a student of philosophy at Beersheba University. For a project
for a Master's degree he chose the subject, "Moral issues in the nuclear
era". Reading material on
this issue he gradually became convinced that nuclear weapons are immoral since
their main use is against civilian populations. They are weapons for destroy
whole cities. He also discovered
that in Israel there had never been a public debate and a democratic decision
to build nuclear weapons. The decision to do this was the private decision of
one man - David Ben-Gurion. Vanunu
therefore decided to resign from his job in Dimona and protest in the Israeli
press about the secret – and illegal - activity in Dimona. To prove his claim he took some photos
of his workplace before leaving his job.
He resigned in 1986. He
soon realized that if he informed any Israeli Newspaper he would be
arrested. He therefore decided to
leave Israel. For a few months he traveled in Europe, passed through the
Soviet-Union, and finally reached Australia where he converted to
Christianity. He never
approached any foreign embassy to offer the photos he had taken in Dimona. After a few months in Sidney a
friend persuaded him to offer them to the Sunday Times in London. He did so and
the Sunday Times invited him to London to check the reliability of his
information. He was interviewed by nuclear specialists who checked his photos
and information and concluded that they were reliable and that Israel had
produced some 200 nuclear bombs. Vanunu was not paid for this information. His
aim was to warn the world and Israel's citizens about the illegal activity of
producing nuclear weapons in Israel. It is illegal because it was never endorsed
by any majority representing the Israeli citizens. The Sunday Times published Vanunu's report in October 1986
and the Israeli Secret Service began to hunt him down. They lured him to Italy,
from where they hijacked him to Israel. He was tried behind closed doors - no
journalist was allowed into the courtroom - and was sentenced to 18 years in
prison.
In
2004 he was released after serving the full sentence (out of whichh he spent 11
years in solitary confinement) but was forbidden to leave Israel or to talk to
journalists.
The
Vanunu trial was a travesty of justice, since Israel does not admit it has
nuclear weapons. A government that does not admit it has nukes punishes someone
for revealing something whose existence it denies?
From
a nationalistic perspective, Vanunu rendered Israel a service. As Israeli
nuclear weapons are supposedly needed to deter Israel's enemies from destroying
it, then these enemies must be told that Israel has such weapons. For they will
not be deterred without proof Israel has such weapons. Whoever provided such proof did Israel
a service. For this reason there
were some observers in Israel, like former general-turned-historian Meir Pail who
insisted Vanunu was an agent of the Secret Service and his revelations were
organized by the Secret Service.
But the fact that Vanunu was sentenced to 18 years in prison, and served
the entire sentence (unlike criminals who get a remission of one third of their
sentence) raises questions about the treatment of Secret Service agents by
their own government. To reward a man who rendered a service to his country by
an 18 years prison sentence is unusual, to say the least.
Those
who really want to create a nuclear-free ME must apply international pressure,
including economic sanctions, on ALL
ME governments to accept international inspection of all their nuclear
research facilities.
Economic,
political, and PR pressures must be applied to EVERY country that opposes
international inspection of its nuclear facilities.
This
is a minimal demand since "inspection" is not
"disarmament".
Israel
has persistently and emphatically opposed any international inspection of its
nuclear facilities. So far
no one has put ANY pressure on Israel to sign the NPT and declare its support
for a nuclear-free ME, though such a declaration alone would still be a long
way from dismantling nuclear weapons.
The
latest farce in this saga is the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to ElBaradie
and the International Atomic Energy Authority for their efforts to reduce the
threat of nuclear energy.
The Nobel Peace Prize for
2005 was awarded to IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei for their "efforts
to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure
that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible
way".
Why did the Nobel Prize
Committee prefer ElBaradei to Mordechai Vanunu who was 18 years in Israeli
prison for informing the world press about Israel's nukes?
Awarding the Peace Prize
to Vanunu would have been a bold step against nuclear armament.
It seems the Nobel Peace
Committee is afraid of antagonizing the Israeli government, or - of being branded anti-Semitic.
Yet what are the facts?
1. Israel was the first to
introduce nuclear weapons into the ME and thus started the nuclear arms race in
the Middle-East.
2. For 40 years Israel has
refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
3. Israel refuses to allow
IAEA inspection of its Dimona nuclear reactor.
Those who REALLY want to
stop the nuclear arms race in the ME must take active steps, such as economic
sanctions, political pressure, severing diplomatic relations, etc. to compel
Israel to sign the NPT and allow an IAEA inspection of Dimona.
This will indicate to all
other governments in the region that the efforts to make the ME a nuclear-free
zone are not biased.
If Israel persists in its
refusal to sign the NPT and to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities and
refuses to return to Norway the 30 tons of heavy water it had been lent for
nuclear research on condition that it is not used for the production of nuclear
weapons, then the same steps the USA and IAEA applied to Iraq must be applied to Israel.
What did ElBaradei do
about Israeli nukes?
Nothing.
What did he say about
Israel's refusal to sigh the NPT?
Nothing
What did he say about
Vanunu being jailed for 18 years for informing the world press about Israel's
nukes? Nothing
He visited Jerusalem and
refused to meet Vanunu lest he antagonize the Israeli government. No wonder Israel congratulated
ElBaradei and the IAEA on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. The IAEA applied to Israel a very
different policy from the one it applied to Iraq.
It tries to solicit
co-operation on nuclear disarmament from a government that has refused for 40
years to do so. This policy
has failed for 40 years.
Why continue with it?
Why reject applying any
pressure to such a government to make it change its nuclear policy?
The USA, IAEA, and the
Nobel Committee know very well that Israel has nuclear weapons and keeps
building them in Dimona, refuses to join the NPT and refuses an IAEA inspection
of Dimona. Yet the USA, IAEA, and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee adamantly
refuse take any step against Israel's nuclear policy. This makes them accomplices to Israel's nuclear policy. Israel persists in its refusal to sign
the NPT, yet ElBaradei and the IAEA do not even criticize this - and get the
Nobel Peace Prize.
Albert Einstein, Bertrand
Russell, Hans Bethe , Linus Pauling, and Niels Bohr would have denounced this
as duplicity.
Or, as Niels Bohr used to
say: "VERY interesting"
The
ME doomsday clock is ticking.
Today
the danger of nuclear war in the ME is greater than it ever was in the
past.
An
Israeli academic tried recently to calm those worries about nuclear war in the
ME.
Dr.Ephraim
Kam, Head of the Yaffe Centre for Strategic Studies in Tel-Aviv University
said:
"We
must not forget that even when Iran does have nuclear weapons it will live
under major constraints, mainly American deterrence. If Israel succeeds in
making the US declare that it will consider a nuclear attack on Israel
tantamount to an attack on the US this will improve the deterrence of Iran. But
even without such a declaration the Iranians know that by launching a nuclear
attack on Israel they risk a US attack on them. They will also take into account an Israeli
retaliation that will destroy Tehran.
During the Cold War mutual deterrence prevented war between the US and
the USSR" (Ma'ariv 9.10.2005.
p.24)
This
ignores the profound differences between world politics and regional ME
politics.
ME
politicians lack a sense of responsibility for Humanity that Kennedy and
Khrushchev had during the Cuban nuclear missile crisis in 1962.
In
the ME, politics - and leaders
- are motivated by considerations
of Honour, Nationalism and Religion rather than by concern for all humanity.
If
outside pressures are not applied to ALL M-E governments, a nuclear war in the
M-E will be unavoidable.
Its
consequences will not be confined to the M-E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.11.2005 By Aki ORR
(member
of the Israeli Committee for a M-E free of all weapons of mass-destruction )
- Contatti