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. 
	 
       
       
       | 
     | 
     
      
      
      
      
     |