|
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated
delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the
World's 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France
and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal.
Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia,
each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a
major nuclear power, and should be public ally recognized as such...
Since the Gulf War in 1991, while much attention has been lavished
on the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the major
culprit in the region, Israel, has been largely ignored. Possessing
chemical and biological weapons, an extremely sophisticated nuclear
arsenal, and an aggressive strategy for their actual use, Israel
provides the major regional impetus for the development of weapons
of mass destruction and represents an acute threat to peace and
stability in the Middle East. The Israeli nuclear program represents
a serious impediment to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation
and, with India and Pakistan, is a potential nuclear flashpoint.(prospects of meaningful non-proliferation are a delusion
so long as the nuclear weapons states insist on maintaining their
arsenals,) Citizens concerned about sanctions against Iraq, peace
with justice in the Middle East, and nuclear disarmament have an
obligation to speak out forcefully against the Israeli nuclear
program.
Birth of the Israeli Bomb
The Israeli nuclear program began in the late 1940s under the
direction of Ernst David Bergmann, "the father of the Israeli bomb,"
who in 1952 established the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission. It was
France, however, which provided the bulk of early nuclear assistance
to Israel culminating in construction of Dimona, a heavy water
moderated, natural uranium reactor and plutonium reprocessing
factory situated near Bersheeba in the Negev Desert.
Israel had been
an active participant in the French Nuclear weapons program from its
inception, providing critical technical expertise, and the Israeli
nuclear program can be seen as an extension of this earlier
collaboration. Dimona went on line in 1964 and plutonium
reprocessing began shortly thereafter. Despite various Israeli
claims that Dimona was "a manganese plant, or a textile factory,"
the extreme security measures employed told a far different story.
In 1967, Israel shot down one of their own Mirage fighters that
approached too close to Dimona and in 1973 shot down a Lybian
civilian airliner which strayed off course, killing 104.(3) There is
substantial credible speculation that Israel may have exploded at
least one, and perhaps several, nuclear devices in the mid 1960s in
the Negev near the Israeli-Egyptian border, and that it participated
actively in French nuclear tests in Algeria.(4) By the time of the
"Yom Kippur War" in 1973, Israel possessed an arsenal of perhaps
several dozen deliverable atomic bombs and went on full nuclear
alert.(5)
Possessing advanced nuclear technology and "world class" nuclear
scientists, Israel was confronted early with a major problem- how to
obtain the necessary uranium. Israel's own uranium source was the
phosphate deposits in the Negev, totally inadequate to meet the need
of a rapidly expanding program. The short term answer was to mount
commando raids in France and Britain to successfully hijack uranium
shipments and, in1968, to collaborate with West Germany in diverting
200 tons of yellowcake (uranium oxide).(6) These clandestine
acquisitions of uranium for Dimona were subsequently covered up by
the various countries involved. There was also an allegation that a
U.S. corporation called Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation
(NUMEC) diverted hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium to Israel
from the mid-50s to the mid-60s.
Despite an FBI and CIA investigation, and Congressional hearings, no
one was ever prosecuted, although most other investigators believed
the diversion had occurred(7)(8). In the late 1960s, Israel solved
the uranium problem by developing close ties with South Africa in a
quid pro quo arrangement whereby Israel supplied the technology and
expertise for the "Apartheid Bomb," while South Africa provided the
uranium.
South Africa and the United States
In 1977, the Soviet Union warned the U.S. that satellite photos
indicated South Africa was planning a nuclear test in the Kalahari
Desert but the Apartheid regime backed down under pressure. On
September 22, 1979, a U.S. satellite detected an atmospheric test of
a small thermonuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean off South Africa but,
because of Israel's apparent involvement, the report was quickly
"whitewashed" by a carefully selected scientific panel kept in the
dark about important details. Later it was learned through Israeli
sources that there were actually three carefully guarded tests of
miniaturized Israeli nuclear artillery shells.
The Israeli/South
African collaboration did not end with the bomb testing, but
continued until the fall of Apartheid, especially with the
developing and testing of medium range missiles and advanced
artillery. In addition to uranium and test facilities, South Africa
provided Israel with large amounts of investment capital, while
Israel provided a major trade outlet to enable the Apartheid state
avoid international economic sanctions.(9)
Although the French and South Africans were primarily responsible
for the Israeli nuclear program, the U.S. shares and deserves a
large part of the blame. Mark Gaffney wrote (the Israeli nuclear
program) "was possible only because (emphasis in original) of
calculated deception on the part of Israel, and willing complicity
on the part of the U.S.."(10)
From the very beginning, the U.S. was heavily involved in the
Israeli nuclear program, providing nuclear related technology such
as a small research reactor in 1955 under the "Atoms for Peace
Program." Israeli scientists were largely trained at U.S.
universities and were generally welcomed at the nuclear weapons
labs. In the early 1960s, the controls for the Dimona reactor were
obtained clandestinely from a company called Tracer Lab, the main
supplier of U.S. military reactor control panels, purchased through
a Belgian subsidiary, apparently with the acquiescence of the
National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.(11) In 1971, the Nixon
administration approved the sale of hundreds of krytons (a type of
high speed switch necessary to the development of sophisticated
nuclear bombs) to Israel.(12) And, in 1979, Carter provided ultra
high resolution photos from a KH-11 spy satellite, used 2 years
later to bomb the Iraqi Osirak Reactor.(13) Throughout the Nixon and
Carter administrations, and accelerating dramatically under Reagan,
U.S. advanced technology transfers to Israel have continued unabated
to the present.
The Vanunu Revelations
Following the 1973 war, Israel intensified its nuclear program while
continuing its policy of deliberate "nuclear opaqueness." Until the
mid-1980s, most intelligence estimates of the Israeli nuclear
arsenal were on the order of two dozen but the explosive revelations
of Mordechai Vanunu, a nuclear technician working in the Dimona
plutonium reprocessing plant, changed everything overnight. A
leftist supporter of Palestine, Vanunu believed that it was his duty
to humanity to expose Israel's nuclear program to the world. He
smuggled dozens of photos and valuable scientific data out of Israel
and in 1986 his story was published in the London Sunday Times.
Rigorous scientific scrutiny of the Vanunu revelations led to the
disclosure that Israel possessed as many as 200 highly
sophisticated, miniaturized thermonuclear bombs. His information
indicated that the Dimona reactor's capacity had been expanded
several fold and that Israel was producing enough plutonium to make
ten to twelve bombs per year. A senior U.S. intelligence analyst
said of the Vanunu data,"The scope of this is much more extensive
than we thought. This is an enormous operation."(14)
Just prior to publication of his information Vanunu was lured to
Rome by a Mossad "Mata Hari," was beaten, drugged and kidnapped to
Israel and, following a campaign of disinformation and vilification
in the Israeli press, convicted of "treason" by a secret security
court and sentenced to 18 years in prison. He served over 11 years
in solitary confinement in a 6 by 9 foot cell. After a year of
modified release into the general population(he was not permitted
contact with Arabs), Vanunu recently has been returned to solitary
and faces more than 3 years further imprisonment. Predictably, The
Vanunu revelations were largely ignored by the world press,
especially in the United States, and Israel continues to enjoy a
relatively free ride regarding its nuclear status. (15)
Israel's Arsenal of Mass Destruction
Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum
of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is
little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world's most
sophisticated, largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle
East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are "neutron bombs,"
miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma
radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in
essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16)
Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching
Moscow, cruise missiles, land mines(In the 1980s Israel planted
nuclear land mines along the Golan Heights(17)), and artillery
shells with a range of 45 miles(18). In June, 2000 an Israeli
submarine launched a cruise missile which hit a target 950 miles
away, making Israel only the third nation after the U.S. and Russia
with that capability. Israel will deploy 3 of these virtually
impregnable submarines, each carrying 4 cruise missiles.(19)
The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger than
the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of
weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential
arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly
greater than any conceivable need for "deterrence."
Israel also possesses a comprehensive arsenal of chemical and
biological weapons. According to the Sunday Times, Israel has
produced both chemical and biological weapons with a sophisticated
delivery system, quoting a senior Israeli intelligence official,
"There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or
biological weapon . . .which is not manufactured at the Nes Tziyona
Biological Institute.")(20) The same report described F-16 fighter
jets specially designed for chemical and biological payloads, with
crews trained to load the weapons on a moments notice. In 1998, the
Sunday Times reported that Israel, using research obtained from
South Africa, was developing an "ethno bomb; "In developing their
"ethno-bomb", Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical
advances by identifying distinctive a gene carried by some Arabs,
then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus... The
scientists are trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack
only those bearing the distinctive genes." Dedi Zucker, a leftist
Member of Knesset, the Israeli parliament, denounced the research
saying, "Morally, based on our history, and our tradition and our
experience, such a weapon is monstrous and should be denied."(21)
Israeli Nuclear Strategy
In popular imagination, the Israeli bomb is a "weapon of last
resort," to be used only at the last minute to avoid annihilation,
and many well intentioned but misled supporters of Israel still
believe that to be the case. Whatever truth this formulation may
have had in the minds of the early Israeli nuclear strategists,
today the Israeli nuclear arsenal is inextricably linked to and
integrated with overall Israeli military and political strategy. As
Seymour Hersh says in classic understatement ; "The Samson Option is
no longer the only nuclear option available to Israel."(22) Israel
has made countless veiled nuclear threats against the Arab nations
and against the Soviet Union(and by extension Russia since the end
of the Cold War) One chilling example comes from Ariel Sharon, the
current Israeli Prime Minister "Arabs may have the oil, but we have
the matches."(23) (In 1983 Sharon proposed to India that it join
with Israel to attack Pakistani nuclear facilities; in the late 70s
he proposed sending Israeli paratroopers to Tehran to prop up the
Shah; and in 1982 he called for expanding Israel's security
influence to stretch from "Mauritania to Afghanistan.") In another
example, Israeli nuclear expert Oded Brosh said in 1992, "...we need
not be ashamed that the nuclear option is a major instrumentality of
our defense as a deterrent against those who attack us."(24)
According to Israel Shahak, "The wish for peace, so often assumed as
the Israeli aim, is not in my view a principle of Israeli policy,
while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence is." and
"Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of
averting domestic change not to its liking, if it occurs in some or
any Middle Eastern states.... Israel clearly prepares itself to seek
overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East..., without
hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including
nuclear ones."(25)
Israel uses its nuclear arsenal not just in the context of
deterrence" or of direct war fighting, but in other more subtle but
no less important ways. For example, the possession of weapons of
mass destruction can be a powerful lever to maintain the status quo,
or to influence events to Israel's perceived advantage, such as to
protect the so called moderate Arab states from internal
insurrection, or to intervene in inter-Arab warfare.(26) In Israeli
strategic jargon this concept is called "nonconventional compellence"
and is exemplified by a quote from Shimon Peres; "acquiring a
superior weapons system(read nuclear) would mean the possibility of
using it for compellent purposes- that is forcing the other side to
accept Israeli political demands, which presumably include a demand
that the traditional status quo be accepted and a peace treaty
signed."(27) From a slightly different perspective, Robert Tuckerr
asked in a Commentary magazine article in defense of Israeli nukes,
"What would prevent Israel... from pursuing a hawkish policy
employing a nuclear deterrent to freeze the status quo?"(28)
Possessing an overwhelming nuclear superiority allows Israel to act
with impunity even in the face world wide opposition. A case in
point might be the invasion of Lebanon and destruction of Beirut in
1982, led by Ariel Sharon, which resulted in 20,000 deaths, most
civilian. Despite the annihilation of a neighboring Arab state, not
to mention the utter destruction of the Syrian Air Force, Israel was
able to carry out the war for months at least partially due to its
nuclear threat.
Another major use of the Israeli bomb is to compel the U.S. to act
in Israel's favor, even when it runs counter to its own strategic
interests. As early as 1956 Francis Perrin, head of the French
A-bomb project wrote "We thought the Israeli Bomb was aimed at the
Americans, not to launch it at the Americans, but to say, 'If you
don't want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to
help us; otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'"(29) During the
1973 war, Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Kissinger and Nixon
to airlift massive amounts of military hardware to Israel. The
Israeli Ambassador, Simha Dinitz, is quoted as saying, at the time,
"If a massive airlift to Israel does not start immediately, then I
will know that the U.S. is reneging on its promises and...we will
have to draw very serious conclusions..."(30) Just one example of
this strategy was spelled out in 1987 by Amos Rubin, economic
adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who said "If left to its
own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense
which will endanger itself and the world at large... To enable
Israel to abstain from dependence on nuclear arms calls for $2 to 3
billion per year in U.S. aid."(31) Since then Israel's nuclear
arsenal has expanded exponentially, both quantitatively and
qualitatively, while the U.S. money spigots remain wide open.
Regional and International Implications
Largely unknown to the world, the Middle East nearly exploded in all
out war on February 22, 2001. According to the London Sunday Times
and DEBKAfile, Israel went on high missile alert after receiving
news from the U.S. of movement by 6 Iraqi armored divisions
stationed along the Syrian border, and of launch preparations of
surface to surface missiles. DEBKAfile, an Israeli based
"counter-terrorism" information service, claims that the Iraqi
missiles were deliberately taken to the highest alert level in order
to test the U.S. and Israeli response. Despite an immediate attack
by 42 U.S. and British war planes, the Iraqis suffered little
apparent damage.(32) The Israelis have warned Iraq that they are
prepared to use neutron bombs in a preemptive attack against Iraqi
missiles.
The Israeli nuclear arsenal has profound implications for the future
of peace in the Middle East, and indeed, for the entire planet. It
is clear from Israel Shahak that Israel has no interest in peace
except that which is dictated on its own terms, and has absolutely
no intention of negotiating in good faith to curtail its nuclear
program or discuss seriously a nuclear-free Middle East,"Israel's
insistence on the independent use of its nuclear weapons can be seen
as the foundation on which Israeli grand strategy rests."(34)
According to Seymour Hersh, "the size and sophistication of Israel's
nuclear arsenal allows men such as Ariel Sharon to dream of
redrawing the map of the Middle East aided by the implicit threat of
nuclear force."(35) General Amnon Shahak-Lipkin, former Israeli
Chief of Staff is quoted "It is never possible to talk to Iraq about
no matter what; It is never possible to talk to Iran about no matter
what. Certainly about nuclearization. With Syria we cannot really
talk either."(36) Ze'ev Shiff, an Israeli military expert writing in
Haaretz said, "Whoever believes that Israel will ever sign the UN
Convention prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons... is
day dreaming,"(37) and Munya Mardoch, Director of the Israeli
Institute for the Development of Weaponry, said in 1994, "The moral
and political meaning of nuclear weapons is that states which
renounce their use are acquiescing to the status of Vassal states.
All those states which feel satisfied with possessing conventional
weapons alone are fated to become vassal states."(38)
As Israeli society becomes more and more polarized, the influence of
the radical right becomes stronger. According to Shahak, "The
prospect of Gush Emunim, or some secular right-wing Israeli
fanatics, or some some of the delerious Israeli Army generals,
seizing control of Israeli nuclear weapons...cannot be precluded.
...while israeli jewish society undergoes a steady polarization, the
Israeli security system increasingly relies on the recruitment of
cohorts from the ranks of the extreme right."(39) The Arab states,
long aware of Israel's nuclear program, bitterly resent its coercive
intent, and perceive its existence as the paramount threat to peace
in the region, requiring their own weapons of mass destruction.
During a future Middle Eastern war (a distinct possibility given the
ascension of Ariel Sharon, an unindicted war criminal with a bloody
record stretching from the massacre of Palestinian civilians at
Quibya in 1953, to the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Sabra
and Shatila in 1982 and beyond) the possible Israeli use of nuclear
weapons should not be discounted. According to Shahak, "In Israeli
terminology, the launching of missiles on to Israeli territory is
regarded as 'nonconventional' regardless of whether they are
equipped with explosives or poison gas."(40) (Which requires a "nonconventional"
response, a perhaps unique exception being the Iraqi SCUD attacks
during the Gulf War.)
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such
an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms
control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear
war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East
again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as
the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a
last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar
Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is
gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional."(42)
Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not
the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the
principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to
furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive
data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since
launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy
secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously
complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the
very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel
is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold
for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words
of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its
weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed
soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could
trigger a world conflagration." (44)
Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let
alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the
region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and
flawed action strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of
mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action
agenda would have several salutary effects. First, it would expose a
primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and
compelling the region's states to each seek their own "deterrent."
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the
U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for
developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously
protecting and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing
Israel's nuclear strategy would focus international public
attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons
of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith.
Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East
and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely.
Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its
covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any
meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that
Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
1. Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and
American Foreign Policy, New York,1991, Random House, p. 319 (A
brilliant and prophetic work with much original research)2
2. Mark Gaffney, Dimona, The Third Temple:The Story Behind the
Vanunu Revelation, Brattleboro, VT, 1989, Amana Books, p. 165
(Excellent progressive analysis of the Israeli nuclear program)
3. U.S. Army Lt. Col. Warner D. Farr, The Third Temple Holy of
Holies; Israel's Nuclear Weapons, USAF Counterproliferation Center,
Air War College Sept 1999 <www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr,htm
(Perhaps the best single condensed history of the Israeli nuclear
program)
4. Hersch, op.cit., p. 131
5. Gaffney, op.cit., p. 63
6. Gaffney, op. cit. pp 68 - 69
7. Hersh, op.cit., pp. 242-257
8. Gaffney, op.cit., 1989, pps. 65-66 (An alternative discussion of
the NUMEC affair)
9. Barbara Rogers & Zdenek Cervenka, The Nuclear Axis: The Secret
Collaboration Between West Germany and South Africa, New York, 1978,
Times Books, p. 325-328 (the definitive history of the Apartheid
Bomb)
10. Gaffney, op. cit., 1989, p. 34
11. Peter Hounam, Woman From Mossad: The Torment of Mordechai Vanunu,
London, 1999, Vision Paperbacks, pp. 155-168 (The most complete and
up to date account of the Vanunu story, it includes fascenating
speculation that Israel may have a second hidden Dimona type
reactor)
12. Hersh, op. cit., 1989, p. 213
13. ibid, p.198-200
14. ibid, pp. 3-17
|
