Al-Jazeerah History
Archives
Mission & Name
Conflict Terminology
Editorials
Gaza Holocaust
Gulf War
Isdood
Islam
News
News Photos
Opinion
Editorials
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
www.aljazeerah.info
|
|
Hypocrisy of Demanding Iran Not to Be Nuclear
While Ignoring the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal
By Adam Keller
Gush Shalom, Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, October 7, 2013
About ambiguity and hypocrisy
In the midst of
the intensive debate about the Iranian nuclear program (the uranium
enriching centrifuges “turning round and round in underground installations
protected with thick layers of concrete”) suddenly, there came nuclear news
from Israel’s own past. Simultaneously in the United States and in Israel
was published the recorded testimony of the late Arnan Azaryahu - a former
senior ministerial adviser who had been party to many secrets. He told of
what occurred on the 7th of October 1973 , the second day of the Yom Kippur
War - when the admired Defense Minister Moshe Dayan was badly rattled by the
initial successes of the Egyptian and Syrian armies. He therefore asked
Prime Minister Golda Meir to authorize a "demonstrative use" of Israel's
nuclear arsenal , and brought with him to the Inner Cabinet meeting the Head
of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission, so that preparations for this nuclear
demonstration could begin immediately.
What would have happened, had
Dayan got the authorization to demonstratively set off a nuclear warhead -
probably in the air over an uninhabited area in Egypt or Syria or both? The
Soviets had already placed in Egypt (still their ally at the time) nuclear
armed missiles of their own. The United States declared at that time a high
alert - higher than then at any other time except for the Cuban Missile
Crisis in 1962. Moshe Dayan was definitely playing with fire . Fortunately
Prime Minister Golda Meir and her close adviser, Minister without Portfolio
Israel Galili , along with Dayan’s great rival Yigal Allon, immediately
removed the matches from Dayan’s hands. Which is quite a positive moment in
the career of people otherwise remembered mainly for having conducted a
policy of nationalist arrogance in the years after 1967 and having laid the
foundations for the settlement enterprise in the Occupied Territories.
Ultimately, Israel successfully conducted the war by conventional means
and it ended without an unequivocal victory to either side - and such wars
are often the ones most likely to end with peace. But Israel's nuclear
arsenal remains in place, like a sword hanging over the Middle East , though
not pulled out of its sheath.
This is far from the first revelation
regarding the history of Israel's nuclear program, what Prof. Avner Cohen
called "Israel’s worst-kept secret”. Quite a lot has already come out, in
one way or another. It is known that as part of the military alliance which
Israel forged with France and Britain in order to launch the attack on Egypt
in 1956, then Deputy Defense Minister Shimon Peres gained French assistance
in establishing the nuclear reactor in Dimona. It is known that Israeli
Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion became entangled in a prolonged conflict
with U.S. President John F. Kennedy, who insisted on monitoring what was
going on in what Israel the officially termed "The textile factory in
Dimona”. It is known that sophisticated means of deception were used,
including the erection of an entire fake floor in the Dimona Pile, so that
it could be presented to the American inspectors who were eventually
allowed to get there. (The similarity to the means of deception used forty
years later by the Iranians to hide their own nuclear program might not be
entirely coincidental.) . And despite all the sophisticated deceptions, it
is known that President Kennedy remained suspicious of the Israeli reactor
at Dimona right up to the moment when the assassin’s bullet ended his life
at Dallas.
In the end, a mutually-satisfying solution was found.
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol who replaced Ben Gurion reached an agreement with
President Lyndon Johnson who replaced Kennedy, an agreement establishing the
"nuclear ambiguity " which persists to this day. The State of Israel has
never officially declared its possession of nuclear weapons nor did it hold
any test of such a weapon. ( At least, not a test whose origin can be
clearly attributed - the question of who it was who once detonated a nuclear
device over the Indian Ocean, thousands of miles from the coasts of Israel,
remains unanswered).
So long as the State of Israel does not
announce its possession of nuclear weapons , there is no reason to invoke
against Israel the clause of U.S. law which mandates the cessation of all
aid to a country which developed nuclear weapons. That is, apparently, why
the government of Israel continues to prevent the "Nuclear Whistleblower "
Mordechai Vanunu from leaving Israel's territory , even many years after his
having served the eighteen- year prison term imposed on him. Were Vanunu to
show up on Capitol Hill and hand to Senators and Representatives signed
affidavits, testifying to his having witnessed the manufacture of nuclear
arms in Dimona , would it cause a stop of all U.S. aid to Israel? That is
not very likely. It would, however, cause a headache to American and Israeli
policymakers, who would need to find a creative face-saving formula , such
as the one found to explain that the seizure of power by the Egyptian Army
is not really a military coup . Rather than having to go through that, it is
far more simple and easy to have the Minister of the Interior extend each
April by one more year the administrative decree which prohibits Mordechai
Vanunu from leaving Israel's borders and even approaching the gates of a
foreign embassy.
Professor Avner Cohen , an Israeli who dwells in
the United States and from there researches the Israeli nuclear program , is
a nuclear whistleblower of a completely different type than Vanunu . Not for
him Vanunu’s way of entering into an all-out confrontation with the entire
military and political hierarchy, disclosing all that he knew and paying
the full heavy price . Avner Cohen is collecting written documents and
interviewing people who had been present at crucial decisions and who in
their old age agreed to disclose some of what they had heard and seen. Over
many years he is writing articles and books and playing cat and mouse games
with the state authorities and the military censorship . No one would
seriously consider sending Mossad agents to kidnap this Research Fellow
from the Woodrow Wilson Institute in Washington D.C. and haling him to an
espionage trial in Israel. He and his associate, journalist Ronen Bergman in
Yediot Aharonot , have steadily nibbled at the Israeli Nuclear Ambiguity. So
did quite a few other. By now, there is not a lot left to reveal.
On
the pages of "Makor Rishon", the right-wing columnist Amnon Lord this week
pointed out what seems to him a grave new threat : "The outlines of the
sophisticated new Iranian strategy can already be discerned. It is a
strategy similar for that used by the Palestinians. As the Palestinians
succeeded in internationally de-legitimizing Israel through the so-called
"occupation", so might Iran do in the nuclear sphere . ( ... ) There is
reason to think that the Iranians might begin calling upon the International
Community to strip Israel of its nuclear option . They might take this as
their task for the coming decade”.
For the time being , this is no
more than a small cloud on the horizon . For the time being, the United
States is formally committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons , by diplomatic means if possible , while at the same time being
careful not to look what lies behind Israel’s Nuclear Ambiguity. For the
time being, the State of Israel can stridently demand a further exacerbation
of the economic sanctions which already brought Iran’s economy to the brink
of collapse, and the very same time strongly demand of the Dutch government
to avoid such a minimal step as marking settlement products , a move that
could lead consumers in Amsterdam to take their own decision on whether or
not to purchase them. It is still possible to demand that the Iranians
freeze the enrichment of uranium while negotiations continue on the fate of
their nuclear program - and at the same time firmly reject the demand that
Israel freeze settlement construction while it is negotiating the fate of
the territory where the settlements are being established.
Still,
ultimately, the main argument for the State of Israel to demand a
preferential treatment and the exclusive right to hold nuclear weapons in
the Middle East is based on its being "The Only Democracy in the Region", a
supposedly respectable and responsible member of the family of Western
democracies . With every year that the Israeli occupation of millions of
Palestinians continues to deepen, this argument sounds ever more hollow.
|
|
|