By Gideon Spiro
"An ill wind is blowing from the Egyptian Foreign Ministry." Such was Yitzhak Rabin's response to Egypt's demand that Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The demand would subject this country to international inspection of everything connected to nuclear armament. It is therefore an Egyptian interest first of all. But it is also, I think, an Israeli interest.
Our media, unfortunately, have fallen into line on this issue, sparing the public any exposure to Israelis who favour an alternative nuclear policy.
In the academic world the picture is similar: the so-called leftist (Dr Avner Cohen) and the so-called right-winger (Prof Shlomo Aaronson) prophesy in the same spirit, and in similar tones, against the signing and in favour of maintaining obscurity. Recently a day of discussion was devoted to the nuclear issue at Yad Tabenkin, where members of academe and the army each seconded the other against signing the treaty.
The true Israeli interest, I maintain, would be to dismantle our nuclear capacity with all possible speed. This interest has both an internal and an external dimension.
Internally
First, a Nuclear Goldstein: Israeli society is torn apart against a backdrop of politics, religion and competing ethnic groups. A nationalistic right wing has blended with religious fundamentalism.
Whenever a peace arrangement threatens to strip these right-wingers of their extra rights in the occupied territories, they discover a divine decree permitting them to turn everything on its head. If a nuclear device will help, that too is kosher. It is not inconceivable, indeed, that a few undercover nuclear Goldsteins have already penetrated the system of atomic weapons production in Israel, waiting for D-day.
The Vanunu affair proved that one cannot seal the system hermetically. To our good fortune, Vanunu felt responsible for our fate. When he went "AWOL", it was in a democratic, humane direction. The nuclear Goldstein, if one already exists, could easily take us the other way on the day he decides to act. He will send us all heavenward in a mushroom cloud.
Secondly, potential failures in judgment: the heads of the political and military establishments have shown far too often that we should not rely on their judgment. It was they who put the weapon in Goldstein's hands; it was they who gave us defective gas masks; they have erred countless times in assessing the enemy's intentions; they have forced on us unnecessary wars; they can also err by mistakenly firing nuclear weapons, whether in the framework of an exercise or a war.
What is the chain of command for unleashing these bombs? Is an order from the prime minister or the defence minister enough to launch a nuclear weapon? Are one or two other ministers privy to the code, so that it will not work without them? Does the order go directly to the chief of staff, and does he pass it on? Or must the relevant army unit receive the order from several sources? In the present regime, for example, the prime minister is also the defence minister. What would happen if he were to become incapacitated during a war — say, after raising the possibility with the chief of staff of "going nuclear"? Would the chief of staff then be permitted to proceed on his own?
What about the soldiers and officers who are present in the bunkers with the bombs? Do they undergo periodic mental health checkups? And the bombs themselves — are they ready for firing? Can someone just push a button? What standing orders exist to ensure that a soldier in the inner sanctum, undergoing a personal crisis, might not seize the opportunity to avenge himself on the world? These questions need to be asked and asked again in a loud clear voice, until we get answers.
A third possibility is nuclear catastrophe. In Israel the regime conducts its nuclear business on the Soviet model: minimal public knowledge and maximal obfuscation. On this issue there is no essential difference between extreme right-wingers and left-wingers. All represent the basic doctrine: "Trust us. You're in good hands with Big Brother."
Such a policy can have catastrophic results, as became apparent in the Soviet Union with the Chernobyl disaster. The former Soviet Union is big enough so that the regime could close off thousands of square kilometres. Israel has no such reserve space. A nuclear accident, even a little one, will make this country unfit for human habitation. A few years ago, there was an enormous explosion in one of our armaments plants on the densely populated coastal plain. What assurance do we have that the like won't happen in one of the plants that makes nuclear arms?
Externally
Let's begin with the arms race. Israel has become the chief catalyst for nuclear, chemical and biological armament throughout the region. It will not be possible to stop the process unless Israel dismantles its arsenal. The more widespread such arms become in our volatile area, the shakier will be the security of all countries here.
Even without atomic weapons, Israel is today the strongest military power in the Middle East. By conventional forces alone, this nation is able not only to preserve its existence and launch ad hoc attacks, but also to conquer territories from neighbouring lands and hold onto them for decades.
Even supposing that Israel can maintain a nuclear monopoly forever, atomic weapons facilities constitute a perennial target. An attack against the one in Dimona, for example, or against any of the nuclear arms warehouses (as shown in the French and Russian satellite photos which were recently published in Israel) would pollute the land with radioactivity.
What is to be done?
1) Israel must end the policy of obfuscation, admitting to its citizens and neighbours alike what, in any case, we all know from other sources.
2) It should announce a five-year moratorium on the production of nuclear weapons and open the Dimona reactor to international inspection.
3) Israel should call for a regional council, which will achieve a treaty within those five years, creating a Middle East that is free from weapons of mass destruction. Such a treaty would include a system of mutual inspections.
4) As a gesture of good will toward its neighbours, Israel should dismantle several dozen warheads from among the hundreds it has (according to US intelligence services and the reports of strategic research institutes in London and Stockholm).
5) It should establish a non-governmental system of supervision, enabling inspectors to oversee all that is done in the nuclear field in Israel. These inspectors must be independent of the government. This is common practice in other democratic countries.
6) Israel should sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
7) It should free Mordechai Vanunu.
Against the mad race to build up arsenals of mass destruction, these seven steps would constitute a sane alternative.
[Abridged from the Israeli magazine Challenge.]