Joel Bainerman

If Only Israel Would Throw Away Her Nukes

There are two things that unite all critics of Israel: their propensity to paint extremely wide brush strokes, and their insistence that they know what Israeli leaders think and what they will do in the future.

For instance, in his article "Israel's Weapons Of Mass Destruction" published in Covert Action Quarterly (August 13th, 2002) John Steinbach, who describes himself as "active in the Washington, DC-area peace and justice movement", writes:

"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."

Such a conclusion assumes that Iraq, Syria, Iran and Libya seeks "nuclear parity" with Israel, and that the only reason why these countries are developing weapons of mass destruction is to "counter Israel's threat."

Just for the record, I can't remember the last time an Israeli leader announced publicly that: "Iraq should be destroyed". I do remember hearing many times national leaders in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Libya publicly calling for Israel's destruction. I can't remember the last time there was a political demonstration in Israel which concluded with the burning of any Arab country's flag. I see such anti-Israel hostility nearly everyday broadcasted on Arabic TV stations from my home in Israel.

As for Israel being "an acute threat to peace and stability in the Middle East", such a statement implies that all Arab countries are peaceful and inherently stable. I don't know what Middle East John Steinbach is talking about but it isn't the Middle East that I live in. I don't know what honest analyst of the Middle East could refer to Israel's neighbors such as Libya, Iran, Syria or Iraq, would be "peace loving" and "stable".

Steinbach claims: "The existence of the Israeli nuclear program is a serious impediment to meaningful nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament."

I am one Israeli who would welcome such disarmament- however not just in Israel. If the entire world dismantles all of its nuclear weapons Israel should agree to as well. Why should only Israel be required to do this if all the nations in the world that possess nuclear weapons don't have to? Fair is fair.

He continues "Ébut the explosive revelations of Mordechai Vanunu, a nuclear technician working in the Dimona plutonium reprocessing plant, changed everything overnight. 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 London's Sunday Times. For this, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison."

You can interpret Vanunu's motivations for what he did any way you want, fact is the guy reveal national security secrets which he agreed not to when he went to work at the Dimona facility. Steinbach finds a problem with the fact that Israel would find him guilty. I guess if an American nuclear scientist had gone to a Russian newspaper and gave them photos of America's nuclear installations the US government would say, "oh well, you must have been acting out of good intentions, we won't charge you with revealing state secrets because you wanted to "help the world" by telling our enemies our security secrets."

Then, without any sources to check on a quote made by Ariel Sharon, Steinbach says that the current Prime Minister of Israel once said (when he was not the Prime Minister) "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches". Of course we don't know if Sharon was referring to nuclear weapons or just the overall level of superiority of Israeli weaponry, meaning the Arabs can start the war but we have the superior weapons to beat them. Without a source for the quote, we don't know if Sharon actually said it, what he was referring to, or if it came right out of Steinbach's imagination.

He quotes Oded Brosh, who is an "Israeli nuclear expert" but who isn't employed by the defence establishment or an Israeli national leader, as saying "...we need not be ashamed that the nuclear option is a major instrumentality of our defense as a deterrent against those who attack us."

I for one agree. It is a deterrent and thus it is perfectly legitimate for Israel to have nuclear weapons in its arsenal. The same way Pakistan has nuclear weapons as a deterrent against what they see as potential "Indian aggression" or North Korea who fears a strike by South Korea, so too does Israel have nuclear weapons as a deterrent against its enemies. Somehow Steinbach turns the tables and makes Israel out to the culprit because it has decided that it needs this type of weapon to ensure its survival against on onslaught by its enemies (who Steinbach doesn't believe either exists, or would ever do anything such as attack Israel).

Steinbach then contends: "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."

When has Israel ever intervened to protect "so-called moderate Arab states" from internal insurrection- with its nuclear threat or in general? And if two Arab countries were at war, as was the case with Iran and Iraq from l980-l988, what possible reason would Israel have to stop them from fighting by threatening them with nuclear weapons?

Steinbach claims that in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon to airlift massive amounts of military hardware to Israel. He bases this claim on a quote by then Israeli Ambassador to the US, Simcha Dinitz: "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..."

Dinitz may have said this, we don't know because Steinbach doesn't treat his readers to sources or footnotes. Yet even if Dinitz did in fact say this, the conclusions he may be referring to is the fact that the US is reneging on its promises to rearm Israel in case of an attack. Steinbach has nothing to base his claim on that Dinitz meant if the US doesn't rearm Israel, Israel will use nuclear weapons.

Steinbach continues: "As Israeli society becomes more and more polarized, the influence of the radical right becomes stronger. The prospect of some secular right-wing Israeli fanatics, or some of the delirious 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."

Unless Steinbach has some real numbers to provide us with, then these statements should be treated as nothing more than wild speculation. As for the Israeli security system relying on the "recruitment of cohorts from the ranks of the extreme right" anyone who has served in the Israeli army recently can testify to the "emotional stability" of recruits from the so-called "extreme right" sectors of the Israeli population. Besides, how many of these new recruits would be in a position to decide unilaterally to initiate a nuclear attack? And as worried as he is about some "delirious, right wing Israeli army general" hijacking Israel's entire security apparatus, he seems to have so such concern that weapons of mass destruction Arabs countries possess will ever fall into the wrong hands of delirious Libyan, Syrian, Iraqi or Iranian general.

He continues: "During a future Middle Eastern war -not at all unlikely given the
ascension of Ariel Sharon, an unindicted war criminalÉ.."

What exactly is an "unindicted war criminal"? Does that description fit anyone who has never been indicted as a war criminal? If so, that would probably include 99.99999999% of the world's population. If it was a typo and Steinbach meant "indicted" war criminal, he would be wrong. Ariel Sharon has never been indicted as a war criminal- anywhere.

So what is Steinbach's recommendation to the world?

"First, to place the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly on the table would have several salutary effects. This would expose the primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to each seek their own "deterrent."

There are a variety of reason why European nations and the US sell arms to the Arabs- none of which have to do with helping the Arabs "keep up with Israel's nuclear superiority". To suggest that Israel's nuclear weapons is the reason why arms are sold to Arab countries is painting those brush strokes extremely wide. The two main reasons why Arab nations buy arms from the West is to keep their neighbors at bay (Arab, not Israel), and to stifle their internal opposition. Keeping up with Israel's military is a distant third. Without or without Israel's nuclear weapons these massive arms sales would be made by the West to the Arab world.

He asserts that a nuclear-free Israel "could reasonably be expected to result
in a Nuclear-Free Middle East, making a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely."

I don't know which Middle East John Steinbach is looking at, but the Middle East I see has a whole slew of serious political and socio-economic problems that need to be solved- before peace can prevail. Contending that all these problems will magically be solved the day after Israel destroys its nuclear weapons shows a deep and profound ignorance of what the real problems this region faces.