Israel's nuclear statement resonates sound of silence

0 Comments | Insight on the News, March 27, 1995

Israel's nuclear policy, ever since U.S. monitors discovered the Dimona Reactor in the Negev in 1961, has been consistent and unchanging, an exercise in existential "bomb-in-the-basement" policy. Crudely put, this opaque nuclear attitude leaves nations guessing whether Israel has the capability to produce a nuclear bomb, and if so, whether it has in fact produced a bomb, while at the same time emphasizing that Israel would never be the first to use the bomb. Over a decade ago, a renegade Dimona technician told one newspaper that Israel possessed more than 300 bombs, a fact never verified and absolutely denied by Israel.

Israel's long-standing policy is now being challenged by Egypt, which is threatening to refuse to sign on for the renewal of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, or NPT, for another 25 years. (The NPT expires in May.) In fact, Egypt is urging Arab, Muslim and Third World "neutralist" countries to refrain from signing the treaty automatically -- or not to sign at all until Israel does. That posture has angered Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his arms negotiator, David Ivry

Egypt's reasons for this stance are several and not without merit. Beginning in 1974, and then in 1979 after the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty was signed, Israel promised, according to leading Egyptian diplomats, to declare itself to be a nuclear state or at least to join a regional nuclear-free-zone arrangement. Both of these options would have required Israel to change its bomb-in-the-basement policy. Egyptian leaders and top diplomats argue that Israel, having signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and now negotiating peace arrangements with the Palestine Liberation Organization, Syria and Lebanon, does not need to keep the Middle East nuclear structure unstable. Nations, they argue, cannot tolerate uncertainty.

The question is not that Middle East leaders -- or U.S. leaders, for that matter -- have any doubts that Israel is a nuclear power. The uncertainties surround Israel's nuclear intentions, which is precisely what makes the Israel policy a deterrent in and of itself. The Egyptians also argue that after 30 years of existence, the Dimona nuclear reactors suffer from material fatigue and must be closed, if not forever at least until new ones are built. They see this as an opportune time for Israel to declare its arsenal and intentions by signing the NPT. They also argue that their demands on Israel are not unreasonable and that they are in tune with the spirit of Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and his idea of the emergence of a new Middle East, whose aspirations and hopes lie in economic arenas, not in military ones.

Israel has said it will not announce a new bomb policy, at least not until all of Israel's rivals and neighbors -- Syria, Lebanon and the PLO -- have signed treaties with Israel. Moreover, Israel also insists that its existential foes -- Iran and Iraq -- make clear the extent and intentions of their nuclear power. Everyone, of course, has known of Iraq's pre-gulf war nuclear ambitions and Israel's destruction of Iraq's Osiris nuclear reactor. Iran's ambition and efforts to become a nuclear power in less than a decade also are clear. The ayatollahs' Iran is Israel's most implacable enemy. As Peres has noted with dry humor, "For the Iranians, we Israelis are a collective Salman Rushdie." Israelis also are concerned about the possibility of an American economic boycott, such as the one imposed on Pakistan when it declared itself a nuclear power.

Politically, the community of scholars, researchers and arms-control experts in Israel is small, but it is highly effective and strategically deployed in the Israeli media world, with fax access to top American and European publications. But the public is either ignorant or indifferent to these matters or highly confident that Israel's existential defense is the ultimate deterrent and weapon. Israel, according to Zeev Schiff, the usually reliable defense expert writing for the daily Haaretz, "had informed Egypt at least four times recently that it has no intention of changing its nuclear policy and no intentions of joining the NPT." Basically, Israel's reply to Egypt was "forget it:"

According to Schiff, when Egyptian Foreign Minister Amre Moussa offered to send a delegation of experts to Israel, Rabin replied, "We don't need experts in this matter, since it is being dealt with in the ongoing multilateral talks on arms control." Ivry also said, "It's your problem. We will not concede on such a critical matter." Based on my own impressions gained during a recent four-month sabbatical in Israel, that's the mind-set of the current Israeli government.

According to Schiff, Israel has agreed to sign at least several regional treaties dealing with chemical and biological weapons in a demonstration of goodwill. It might "even sign the NPT, although without a date assigned" said Schiff, and certainly not immediately or under Egyptian pressure.

In interviews and conversations with Israel's MOD Verification members, I found mostly negative attitudes about changing Israel's nuclear doctrine or signing the NPT The results inevitably will put Egypt on a collision course with the United States if Egypt refuses to sign the NPT's renewal because of Israel's adamant position. A small NPT community within the U.S. administration would like to see Israel pressured. But that is not likely to happen in this administration, because President Clinton and Secretary of State Warren Christopher's overriding concerns center on the peace process in the Middle East, rather than the NPT process. The peace process is complicated enough without adding the burden of NPT renewal.