Nuclear Neuroses

Written by Liz Orenstein

Israel and the Bomb
When envisaging Israeli apocalypse, it’s difficult not to picture the Jewish State and Iran locked in a nuclear death-match. Two perspectives on how to keep Israel safe, though, couldn’t be more contradictory: some believe that Israel must maintain a nuclear arsenal as a deterrant, while others believe it is Israel’s arsenal itself that poses the greatest threat to Israelis. New Voices spoke to disarmament activist Rayna Moss and political scientist Raymond Cohen about Israel and the mushroom cloud.

Disarmament Debate

Last year, Israel released Mordechai Vanunu from an eighteen-year prison sentence for exposing Israel’s nuclear reactor at Dimona to the international press. Now, Vanunu’s on trial again—this time, for violating his terms of parole. Meanwhile, Israelis face the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Together, one might think these events would make nuclear war the top insomnia-inducer in the country.

But not according to Rayna Moss, Israeli coordinator for the Campaign to Free Vanunu, who explains that the Israeli public is largely oblivious to the issue. “Public awareness of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy,” she says, “is about what it was in the US in the 1950’s. Maybe earlier.” While Vanunu’s case has brought media attention to the subject, Moss explains that there is no Israeli disarmament movement and that few Israelis think twice about their country’s nuclear program. “Generally,” she says, “people buy into the argument that if we don’t have nuclear weapons we can’t defend ourselves and it’s worth taking the risk.”

Moss believes that risk is too great. And she may not be alone: when Israelis do discuss the issue, she says, many worry about the dangers posed by having a reactor–especially one older than Chernobyl’s was at the time of its accident. “There was a lot of concern about eight months ago,” she explains, “because the government decided to distribute iodine tablets to residents who live in the area of the reactor. These tablets are the equivalent of ‘duck and cover’ in the States—they’ll do nothing for anyone close to an accident!”

If having a reactor doesn’t spark debate over nuclear weapons, one might think the specter of a nuclear Iran would. “It makes people very worried,” says Moss. “Of course the easiest answer is what the government says: They shouldn’t have it, and we should.” But she also theorizes that Iran’s activities may be triggering a development in Israeli public opinion. “I think people realize that Israel is responsible for the nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and unless there is a nuclear free zone here we will always be in danger,” she says. “I hope it doesn’t take a nuclear disaster to make people realize we’re sitting on a keg of gunpowder.”

Ultimately, even if the chances are slim, Moss wants to see Israel lead the way to nuclear non-proliferation. “If we start the race,” she says, “we have to be responsible for ending it as well.”
–Miriam Felton-Dansky

Biblical Blowup

“To me, the idea is an utter absurdity,” says Professor Raymond Cohen, political science professor at Hebrew University. Cohen is referring to the Samson Option, an Israeli nuclear worst-case scenario. And—perhaps unfortunately—not everyone finds it so absurd.

In 1991, Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published The Samson Option—a tome on Israel’s nuclear policy. The title ominously refers to a theory of nuclear last resort, in which an Israel threatened with annihilation by its neighbors would trigger a nuclear holocaust and devastate the entire region—Israel included. The strategy is named for the story of biblical strongman Samson, who brings a temple down on thousands of Philistines, crushing himself in the process.

Nuclear weapons have been part of Israeli defense policy from its beginnings; Israeli engineers began seeking to build a bomb as early as 1949. In the wake of the Holocaust and in a region rife with enemies, any method of defense was ultimately deemed acceptable. “Our secret weapon: no alternative,” said Golda Meir of Israel’s military successes. According to Hersh, Israeli thinkers have long held the theory that a last-resort response to devastation would be to simply devastate right back. “Should any Arab nation fire missiles again at Israel,” he wrote, “a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a [last] resort, would now be a strong possibility.”

Cohen would beg to differ. “The ‘Samson Option’ doesn’t make sense ethically, humanly, politically, strategically, or diplomatically,” he argues. “It is strategic nonsense, since the goal of a sane defense policy is to protect the homeland and its population.” Cohen argues that the Samson Option would be unethical for a country founded as a refuge for persecuted Jews and that it would be “diplomatic madness because it could only alienate Israel’s friends.”

One might think the growing likelihood of Iran’s nuclear arsenal would make nuclear war an increasingly realistic possibility. But Cohen doesn’t: “Iran’s major foes and competitors,” he says, “are in its immediate vicinity. Israel is not a real strategic threat to Iran.” Cohen’s convinced Iran wouldn’t fire a shot in Israel’s direction. “First,” he explains, “it would be irrational for it to strike at holy Palestinian land, even if ‘occupied’; second, because the destruction of Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam, is inconceivable; and third, because a strike against Israel would likely guarantee retaliation by a Western power.”

Let’s hope Cohen’s right. “The people of Israel want to live above all in safety,” he says. “We love life, our families, and our children and grandchildren.”

Comments

Add New

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Current Issue

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.