Jewish Peace News
[JPN Commentary: Israel is going to receive some 4,500 bunker-busting "smart bombs" from the United States. While many reports have portrayed this as a run-of-the-mill sale between allies, it is important to note that the money Israel is using to pay for these weapons comes from their annual allocation of US aid. This sum, annually between 2.9 and 3.3 billion dollars, far exceeds any other country's aid. 75% of the grant money must be spent in the US, which, along with aid that the US gives to many other countries in the region as well as straightforward sales to many Middle Eastern countries, gives American corporations involved in weapons and hi-tech trade very good reason to lobby against measures that might bring progress toward a resolution of the ongoing conflict in the region.
Israel already has some of these kinds of bombs, and has used them in the Palestinian territories. The most well known of these incidents was in 2002 when Israel used such a bomb on an apartment building in Gaza, killing its intended target as well as numerous innocents sleeping in the same building (see JVP commentary here). But the sheer quantity of this shipment of bombs indicates that the Palestinians are not the intended target of the weapons. Rather, it is clear that another country is motivating this arms shipment, in this case, Iran. That country's nuclear program has come under intense scrutiny of late. While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed its concern over some reticence on Iran's part in its dealings with them, the IAEA has also noted that they have been granted access to all sites they have requested it for.
In Reuven Kaminer's article below, he lays out some of the framework we are dealing with. The US is mired in a much more difficult situation in Iraq than Bush administration planners (who have repeatedly demonstrated an appalling lack of understanding of the Arab world and the larger Middle East) anticipated. Lest we forget, many American troops are still in Afghanistan, another country where regime change has not been as simple as the US has been portraying (although they have been much more successful in portraying victory there and are not embroiled in anything like the battle they are facing in Iraq). American military resources are stretched thin.
But American ambitions for a re-drawn Middle East are not abated. Far from the populist idea currently gaining ground that the US is fighting its wars for the sake of Israel, the Bush administration is pursuing its own goals in the region. Israel is, of course, quite central to these plans. As Kaminer puts it, "It is just plain convenient for the United States to have in Israel an ally (an "enforcer") which operates beyond the borders of international legality. This is the essence of the 'special relationship' between the two countries."
Israel, of course, remains the only Middle East country with an atomic arsenal, albeit one that neither Israel or the United States will admit exists, though no one from any part of the political spectrum is unaware of its existence. This, naturally, leads Israel's rivals to work to develop their own atomic weapons. While it seems likely that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, there is no conclusive evidence of this, and Iran's non-compliance with the IAEA has consisted of their being somewhat late in granting access to certain sites and withdrawing from a voluntary commitment to cease enhancement projects. These projects for enhancing uranium can be part of weapons development, but they are also a normal part of developing atomic energy for domestic uses. The red flag just isn't there.
It is always best to prevent more countries from obtaining nuclear weapons. But the way to do that in the Mideast is to begin by eliminating Israel's nuclear capacity. As the second article below makes perfectly clear, it is not Israel's nuclear capability that gives it its military superiority, but that capacity does provide the impetus for other countries to expend considerable resources to develop their own. If Israel does attack Iran, it is almost certain to increase the instability in the region, already at a high pitch due to the Iraq occupation. It may well be that the shipment of these bombs is meant as a threat to get Iran to comply more fully with the IAEA. It must be hoped that this is the plan, although this seems unlikely---large quantities of weapons are normally meant to be used.
The US recently backed away from a push to bring the matter of Iran's nuclear potential to the UN Security Council, after numerous requests from Europe that it back off. So, today, Israel called on the UNSC to take up the matter. Again, where it is inconvenient for the US to act, it has a dutiful client to act on its behalf. When asked, Colin Powell said he was "unaware of any plans to attack Iran", but clearly left the door open for such an attack, and definitely did not voice any American opposition to it.
The US and Israel are working hand in glove, but accusations of the US acting for Israeli, rather than American interests are baseless. It is American control over the enormous oil resources of the Gulf region (already well in hand in the small Gulf monarchies and in Kuwait), particularly in light of diminishing confidence in and ties with Saudi Arabia that is at the root of current policy. Iraq, contrary to popular mythology, has not been even a minor threat to Israel since 1991, due to the first Gulf War and more than a decade of sanctions. Iran, which Israel has feared for a long time, has never engaged in overt hostilities with Israel. The extent of their physical conflict has been Iranian backing of Hizbullah in Lebanon. But the loss of its Iranian ally in 1979 still rankles in Washington, and it presents a major obstacle to US control of oil resources. In this, the American client, Israel, is proving quite instrumental. – MP]
Unholy Alliance in the Holy Land
From the desk of Reuven Kaminer
George W. Bush made another feeble attempt to show some sort of 'even handedness' between Israel and the Palestinians in his recent address to the United Nations. However, the very hard facts on the ground give daily evidence that Israel's hard line policy of intransigence towards the international community and international law is funded, sponsored and politically supported by the United States.
Israel is maintaining and even intensifying its policy of targeted assassinations from the air. Every few days we are informed by the Israeli army that it has 'eliminated' such and such 'terrorists'. Both Israeli and Palestinian sources then confirm that additional Palestinians, including women and children, were killed or injured for just being in the vicinity. Targeted assassination has become a routine affair and the fact that Israel had 'progressed' to the use on different occasions of smarter and smarter bombs and even unmanned aircraft missiles for this purpose hardly evoked comment. This extra-judicial means of execution, whereby the Israeli army can kill almost any Palestinian any time and any place, has not caused a ripple in the U.S.-Israeli relationship - though there might have been a negative comment about this sort of activity filed away somewhere in the U.S. Department of State.
Sunday night, September 19, 2004, an Israeli army helicopter missile killed a 'Hamas militant' from the Shati refugee camp. Hospital sources reported that they treated six wounded bystanders who were returning from a mosque. (Ha'aretz, September 20, 2004) A rather routine affair: no need for all the complications related to identification and accusation, no need for a court, a judge or any trial. No prosecution, no deliberation, just plain execution. The technical basis for this sort of thing is the possession of an arsenal of smart bombs, since it would be impossible to maintain that an individual had actually been targeted unless Israel was using one of the high-precision smart bombs.
Just a day later, Ha'aretz correspondent, Aluf Benn reported (Ha'aretz, September 21, 2004) that the U.S. is selling 5,000 smart bombs to Israel. Benn lists the bomb sizes, including, "500 one-ton bunker busters, 2,500 'regular' one-ton bombs, 1,000 half 'tonners' and 500 quarter 'tonners'﾿ [Israeli] government sources said that the deal did not face any difficulties, despite the use Israel made of U.S. made F-16's in some of the assassinations﾿the IDF used a one ton bomb to kill a senior Hamas officer, Salah Shehada, in July 2002 an assassination that also took the lives of fifteen Palestinian civilians, including children."
This morning on Israeli radio, Ariel Sharon reiterated Israel's thinly veiled threats to assassinate Yasser Arafat 'at a time and a place that is convenient to us'. The U.S. President, for his part, preferred a more diplomatic approach and called on the world to stop supporting Arafat. The justification for the 'targeted elimination' of terrorists who were originally defined as 'ticking time bombs' now covers any and all Israeli enemies and opponents. This policy is conducted with the technical ordnance supplied to Israel by the United States. Sharon says that he has the right to assassinate Arafat whenever he sees fit. Sharon doesn't care if the international community will conclude that his threats are actually Washington's real policy towards the elected leader of the Palestinian people.
For Whom These Bunker Busters?
Washington is pushing the United Nations to take action against the Iranian plans to create nuclear fuel. The U.S. is trying to prevent Iran from developing its capacity to produce atomic energy for civilian purposes by arguing that the relevant scientific processes can also then be used to create atomic weapons. However, the Iranian steps seem to be well within the country's rights under the relevant international agreements. The U.S. and other countries refuse to be bothered by 'formalities', which support the Iranian position. But if the U.S. and its Western partners really wanted to speak to the heart of this matter, it would require them to address the very serious challenge of banning nuclear bombs from the entire Middle East. This involves, of course, the 'little problem' of the existence of a serious atomic stockpile of nuclear weapons in Israel. All eyes focus on the Israeli role, but not in the way that one would assume. The United States, instead of opposing the Israeli atomic arsenal, grants total and unqualified protection to Israel's atomic status, directly encouraging the atomic arms race in the region. The U.S. is now playing a new and very dangerous game. It is threatening Iran by proxy and considering a strike against it by surrogate.
After Iraq, the United States appetite for another land war in the region has been greatly diminished. But, the Bushites don't like to admit failure. "Some American analysts warn that the international community has only a year or two to stop the Iranian program from achieving self-sufficiency." So what can be done? "One concern is that Israel, a member of the International Atomic Energy that has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and is presumed to have nuclear weapons, may decide to take the matter into its own hands, if diplomacy fails from deterring Iran from becoming a nuclear power." The information is from an article, by International Herald Tribune correspondent, Graig S. Smith, who goes on to comment on the bunker busters supplied to Israel: "Those bombs could be used to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities." (IHT, September 22, 2004) Israel 'may take matters into its own hands.' But the Israeli hands are not empty – they hold United States bunker busters. It is just plain convenient for the United States to have in Israel an ally (an "enforcer") which operates beyond the borders of international legality. This is the essence of the 'special relationship' between the two countries
Jerusalem, September 22, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel's nukes serve to justify Iran's
Deterring the deterrents
By Jonathan Power, International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
http://ga3.org/ct/f1aCgtM1DaJS/
LONDON: The more nuclear arms are lying around, the more the chances of them being used. So to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons is a laudable objective. But for the United States, Britain and France to insist on it is hypocritical.
These Western powers have argued convincingly for decades that nuclear deterrence keeps the peace - and themselves maintain nuclear armories long after the cold war has ended. So why shouldn't Iran, which is in one of the world's most dangerous neighborhoods, have a deterrent too?
And where is the source of the threat that makes Iran, a country that has never started a war in 200 years, feel so nervous that it must now take the nuclear road? If Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its nuclear ambitions, used to be one reason, the other is certainly Israel, the country that hard-liners in the United States are encouraging to mount a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear industry before it produces bombs.
The United States refuses to acknowledge formally that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though top officials will tell you privately that it has 200 of them. Until this issue is openly acknowledged, America, Britain and France are probably wasting their time trying to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons.
The supposition is that Israel lives in an even more dangerous neighborhood than Iran. It is said to be a beleaguered nation under constant threat of being eliminated by the combined muscle of its Arab opponents.
There is no evidence, however, that Arab states have invested the financial and human resources necessary to fight the kind of war that would be catastrophic for Israel. And there is no evidence that Israel's nuclear weapons have deterred the Arabs from more limited wars or prevented Palestinian intifadas and suicide bombers.
Nor have Israel's nuclear weapons influenced Arab attitudes toward making peace. In the 1973 Arab war against Israel and in the 1991 Gulf war, they clearly failed in their supposed deterrent effect. The Arabs knew, as the North Vietnamese knew during the Vietnam War, that their opponent would not dare to use its nuclear weapons.
Israelis say that they need nuclear weapons in case one day an opportunistic Egypt and Syria, sensing that Israel's guard is down, revert to their old stance of total hostility and attack Israel. But, as Zeev Maoz has argued in the journal International Security, these countries keep to their treaty obligations.
Egypt did not violate its peace treaty with Israel when Israel attacked Syria and Lebanon in 1982. Syria did not violate the May 1974 disengagement agreement with Israel even when its forces were under Israeli attack. Nor did Egypt, Jordan and Syria violate their treaty commitments when the second Palestinian intifada broke out in September 2000.
Since its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Egypt has reduced its defense spending from 22 percent of its gross national product in 1974 to a mere 2.75 percent in 2002. Syria's has fallen from 26 percent to 6.7 percent. The combined defense expenditures of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon amount to only 58 percent of Israel's. It is the Arabs who should be worried by Israel's might, rather than the other way round.
Israel's nuclear weapons are politically unusable and militarily irrelevant, given the real threats it faces. But they have been very effective in allowing India, Pakistan, Libya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, North Korea and now Iran to think that they, too, had good reason to build a nuclear deterrent.
Four of these nations have dismantled their nuclear arms factories, which shows that nuclear policies are not cast in stone. The way to deal with Iran is to prove to its leadership that nuclear weapons will add nothing to its security, just as they add nothing to Israel's.
This may require a grand bargain, which would mean the United States offering a mutual nonaggression pact, ending its embargo over access to the International Monetary Fund and allowing American investment in Iran. It would also mean America coming clean about Israel's nuclear armory and pressuring Israel to forgo its nuclear deterrent.
If Western powers want to grasp the nettle of nuclear proliferation, they need to take hold of the whole plant, not just one leaf.
Jonathan Power is a commentator on foreign affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jewish Peace News Editors:
Judith Norman
Alistair Welchman
Mitchell Plitnick
Lincoln Shlensky
Ami Kronfeld
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
John Wilner
Joel Beinin
Israel already has some of these kinds of bombs, and has used them in the Palestinian territories. The most well known of these incidents was in 2002 when Israel used such a bomb on an apartment building in Gaza, killing its intended target as well as numerous innocents sleeping in the same building (see JVP commentary here). But the sheer quantity of this shipment of bombs indicates that the Palestinians are not the intended target of the weapons. Rather, it is clear that another country is motivating this arms shipment, in this case, Iran. That country's nuclear program has come under intense scrutiny of late. While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed its concern over some reticence on Iran's part in its dealings with them, the IAEA has also noted that they have been granted access to all sites they have requested it for.
In Reuven Kaminer's article below, he lays out some of the framework we are dealing with. The US is mired in a much more difficult situation in Iraq than Bush administration planners (who have repeatedly demonstrated an appalling lack of understanding of the Arab world and the larger Middle East) anticipated. Lest we forget, many American troops are still in Afghanistan, another country where regime change has not been as simple as the US has been portraying (although they have been much more successful in portraying victory there and are not embroiled in anything like the battle they are facing in Iraq). American military resources are stretched thin.
But American ambitions for a re-drawn Middle East are not abated. Far from the populist idea currently gaining ground that the US is fighting its wars for the sake of Israel, the Bush administration is pursuing its own goals in the region. Israel is, of course, quite central to these plans. As Kaminer puts it, "It is just plain convenient for the United States to have in Israel an ally (an "enforcer") which operates beyond the borders of international legality. This is the essence of the 'special relationship' between the two countries."
Israel, of course, remains the only Middle East country with an atomic arsenal, albeit one that neither Israel or the United States will admit exists, though no one from any part of the political spectrum is unaware of its existence. This, naturally, leads Israel's rivals to work to develop their own atomic weapons. While it seems likely that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, there is no conclusive evidence of this, and Iran's non-compliance with the IAEA has consisted of their being somewhat late in granting access to certain sites and withdrawing from a voluntary commitment to cease enhancement projects. These projects for enhancing uranium can be part of weapons development, but they are also a normal part of developing atomic energy for domestic uses. The red flag just isn't there.
It is always best to prevent more countries from obtaining nuclear weapons. But the way to do that in the Mideast is to begin by eliminating Israel's nuclear capacity. As the second article below makes perfectly clear, it is not Israel's nuclear capability that gives it its military superiority, but that capacity does provide the impetus for other countries to expend considerable resources to develop their own. If Israel does attack Iran, it is almost certain to increase the instability in the region, already at a high pitch due to the Iraq occupation. It may well be that the shipment of these bombs is meant as a threat to get Iran to comply more fully with the IAEA. It must be hoped that this is the plan, although this seems unlikely---large quantities of weapons are normally meant to be used.
The US recently backed away from a push to bring the matter of Iran's nuclear potential to the UN Security Council, after numerous requests from Europe that it back off. So, today, Israel called on the UNSC to take up the matter. Again, where it is inconvenient for the US to act, it has a dutiful client to act on its behalf. When asked, Colin Powell said he was "unaware of any plans to attack Iran", but clearly left the door open for such an attack, and definitely did not voice any American opposition to it.
The US and Israel are working hand in glove, but accusations of the US acting for Israeli, rather than American interests are baseless. It is American control over the enormous oil resources of the Gulf region (already well in hand in the small Gulf monarchies and in Kuwait), particularly in light of diminishing confidence in and ties with Saudi Arabia that is at the root of current policy. Iraq, contrary to popular mythology, has not been even a minor threat to Israel since 1991, due to the first Gulf War and more than a decade of sanctions. Iran, which Israel has feared for a long time, has never engaged in overt hostilities with Israel. The extent of their physical conflict has been Iranian backing of Hizbullah in Lebanon. But the loss of its Iranian ally in 1979 still rankles in Washington, and it presents a major obstacle to US control of oil resources. In this, the American client, Israel, is proving quite instrumental. – MP]
Unholy Alliance in the Holy Land
From the desk of Reuven Kaminer
George W. Bush made another feeble attempt to show some sort of 'even handedness' between Israel and the Palestinians in his recent address to the United Nations. However, the very hard facts on the ground give daily evidence that Israel's hard line policy of intransigence towards the international community and international law is funded, sponsored and politically supported by the United States.
Israel is maintaining and even intensifying its policy of targeted assassinations from the air. Every few days we are informed by the Israeli army that it has 'eliminated' such and such 'terrorists'. Both Israeli and Palestinian sources then confirm that additional Palestinians, including women and children, were killed or injured for just being in the vicinity. Targeted assassination has become a routine affair and the fact that Israel had 'progressed' to the use on different occasions of smarter and smarter bombs and even unmanned aircraft missiles for this purpose hardly evoked comment. This extra-judicial means of execution, whereby the Israeli army can kill almost any Palestinian any time and any place, has not caused a ripple in the U.S.-Israeli relationship - though there might have been a negative comment about this sort of activity filed away somewhere in the U.S. Department of State.
Sunday night, September 19, 2004, an Israeli army helicopter missile killed a 'Hamas militant' from the Shati refugee camp. Hospital sources reported that they treated six wounded bystanders who were returning from a mosque. (Ha'aretz, September 20, 2004) A rather routine affair: no need for all the complications related to identification and accusation, no need for a court, a judge or any trial. No prosecution, no deliberation, just plain execution. The technical basis for this sort of thing is the possession of an arsenal of smart bombs, since it would be impossible to maintain that an individual had actually been targeted unless Israel was using one of the high-precision smart bombs.
Just a day later, Ha'aretz correspondent, Aluf Benn reported (Ha'aretz, September 21, 2004) that the U.S. is selling 5,000 smart bombs to Israel. Benn lists the bomb sizes, including, "500 one-ton bunker busters, 2,500 'regular' one-ton bombs, 1,000 half 'tonners' and 500 quarter 'tonners'﾿ [Israeli] government sources said that the deal did not face any difficulties, despite the use Israel made of U.S. made F-16's in some of the assassinations﾿the IDF used a one ton bomb to kill a senior Hamas officer, Salah Shehada, in July 2002 an assassination that also took the lives of fifteen Palestinian civilians, including children."
This morning on Israeli radio, Ariel Sharon reiterated Israel's thinly veiled threats to assassinate Yasser Arafat 'at a time and a place that is convenient to us'. The U.S. President, for his part, preferred a more diplomatic approach and called on the world to stop supporting Arafat. The justification for the 'targeted elimination' of terrorists who were originally defined as 'ticking time bombs' now covers any and all Israeli enemies and opponents. This policy is conducted with the technical ordnance supplied to Israel by the United States. Sharon says that he has the right to assassinate Arafat whenever he sees fit. Sharon doesn't care if the international community will conclude that his threats are actually Washington's real policy towards the elected leader of the Palestinian people.
For Whom These Bunker Busters?
Washington is pushing the United Nations to take action against the Iranian plans to create nuclear fuel. The U.S. is trying to prevent Iran from developing its capacity to produce atomic energy for civilian purposes by arguing that the relevant scientific processes can also then be used to create atomic weapons. However, the Iranian steps seem to be well within the country's rights under the relevant international agreements. The U.S. and other countries refuse to be bothered by 'formalities', which support the Iranian position. But if the U.S. and its Western partners really wanted to speak to the heart of this matter, it would require them to address the very serious challenge of banning nuclear bombs from the entire Middle East. This involves, of course, the 'little problem' of the existence of a serious atomic stockpile of nuclear weapons in Israel. All eyes focus on the Israeli role, but not in the way that one would assume. The United States, instead of opposing the Israeli atomic arsenal, grants total and unqualified protection to Israel's atomic status, directly encouraging the atomic arms race in the region. The U.S. is now playing a new and very dangerous game. It is threatening Iran by proxy and considering a strike against it by surrogate.
After Iraq, the United States appetite for another land war in the region has been greatly diminished. But, the Bushites don't like to admit failure. "Some American analysts warn that the international community has only a year or two to stop the Iranian program from achieving self-sufficiency." So what can be done? "One concern is that Israel, a member of the International Atomic Energy that has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and is presumed to have nuclear weapons, may decide to take the matter into its own hands, if diplomacy fails from deterring Iran from becoming a nuclear power." The information is from an article, by International Herald Tribune correspondent, Graig S. Smith, who goes on to comment on the bunker busters supplied to Israel: "Those bombs could be used to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities." (IHT, September 22, 2004) Israel 'may take matters into its own hands.' But the Israeli hands are not empty – they hold United States bunker busters. It is just plain convenient for the United States to have in Israel an ally (an "enforcer") which operates beyond the borders of international legality. This is the essence of the 'special relationship' between the two countries
Jerusalem, September 22, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel's nukes serve to justify Iran's
Deterring the deterrents
By Jonathan Power, International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
http://ga3.org/ct/f1aCgtM1DaJS/
LONDON: The more nuclear arms are lying around, the more the chances of them being used. So to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons is a laudable objective. But for the United States, Britain and France to insist on it is hypocritical.
These Western powers have argued convincingly for decades that nuclear deterrence keeps the peace - and themselves maintain nuclear armories long after the cold war has ended. So why shouldn't Iran, which is in one of the world's most dangerous neighborhoods, have a deterrent too?
And where is the source of the threat that makes Iran, a country that has never started a war in 200 years, feel so nervous that it must now take the nuclear road? If Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its nuclear ambitions, used to be one reason, the other is certainly Israel, the country that hard-liners in the United States are encouraging to mount a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear industry before it produces bombs.
The United States refuses to acknowledge formally that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though top officials will tell you privately that it has 200 of them. Until this issue is openly acknowledged, America, Britain and France are probably wasting their time trying to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons.
The supposition is that Israel lives in an even more dangerous neighborhood than Iran. It is said to be a beleaguered nation under constant threat of being eliminated by the combined muscle of its Arab opponents.
There is no evidence, however, that Arab states have invested the financial and human resources necessary to fight the kind of war that would be catastrophic for Israel. And there is no evidence that Israel's nuclear weapons have deterred the Arabs from more limited wars or prevented Palestinian intifadas and suicide bombers.
Nor have Israel's nuclear weapons influenced Arab attitudes toward making peace. In the 1973 Arab war against Israel and in the 1991 Gulf war, they clearly failed in their supposed deterrent effect. The Arabs knew, as the North Vietnamese knew during the Vietnam War, that their opponent would not dare to use its nuclear weapons.
Israelis say that they need nuclear weapons in case one day an opportunistic Egypt and Syria, sensing that Israel's guard is down, revert to their old stance of total hostility and attack Israel. But, as Zeev Maoz has argued in the journal International Security, these countries keep to their treaty obligations.
Egypt did not violate its peace treaty with Israel when Israel attacked Syria and Lebanon in 1982. Syria did not violate the May 1974 disengagement agreement with Israel even when its forces were under Israeli attack. Nor did Egypt, Jordan and Syria violate their treaty commitments when the second Palestinian intifada broke out in September 2000.
Since its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Egypt has reduced its defense spending from 22 percent of its gross national product in 1974 to a mere 2.75 percent in 2002. Syria's has fallen from 26 percent to 6.7 percent. The combined defense expenditures of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon amount to only 58 percent of Israel's. It is the Arabs who should be worried by Israel's might, rather than the other way round.
Israel's nuclear weapons are politically unusable and militarily irrelevant, given the real threats it faces. But they have been very effective in allowing India, Pakistan, Libya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, North Korea and now Iran to think that they, too, had good reason to build a nuclear deterrent.
Four of these nations have dismantled their nuclear arms factories, which shows that nuclear policies are not cast in stone. The way to deal with Iran is to prove to its leadership that nuclear weapons will add nothing to its security, just as they add nothing to Israel's.
This may require a grand bargain, which would mean the United States offering a mutual nonaggression pact, ending its embargo over access to the International Monetary Fund and allowing American investment in Iran. It would also mean America coming clean about Israel's nuclear armory and pressuring Israel to forgo its nuclear deterrent.
If Western powers want to grasp the nettle of nuclear proliferation, they need to take hold of the whole plant, not just one leaf.
Jonathan Power is a commentator on foreign affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jewish Peace News Editors:
Judith Norman
Alistair Welchman
Mitchell Plitnick
Lincoln Shlensky
Ami Kronfeld
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
John Wilner
Joel Beinin
posted by R7 | 9/23/2004 10:55:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home