OPINION & EDITORIAL
Weapons of mass destruction forgotten; Israel ignored
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Natalie Mikhail:
- No more excuses for Israel (November 12, 2004)
- Bush appears poised to claim 2nd term (part one) (November 3, 2004)
- A messy situation in Haiti cries for international help (October 21, 2004)
- Saudi women barred from voting in upcoming election (October 14, 2004)
- Darfur genocide needs end (September 23, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Justification for Iraq in North Korea (April 28, 2003)
- A diplomatic two-step (January 27, 2003)
- It's time for action, not talking, regarding Iraq (September 17, 2002)
- U.S Government tries to right its wrongs (May 1, 2003)
- Troops deserve to come home (April 13, 2007)
by Natalie Mikhail
Wednesday, September 1, 2004
A year and a half after the start of the war in Iraq, the search for weapons of mass destruction has turned up a stockpile of bloody retaliations against American incursions, but no weapons. This has left many wondering, “Why did we go to war in the first place?”
Several theories have entered mainstream society from Saddam Hussein harboring terrorists, to fighting for democracy, to securing the United States’ control of oil in the region. Even Michael Moore’s documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” produced its own conspiracy theories. But it seems that we have lost sight of the original issue on which the United States justified its invasion of Iraq in March 2003 — the possession and production of nuclear and biological weapons.
During the 1980s, the U.S. government wanted to ensure that Iraq did not lose the war with Iran. It supported the Iraqis by supplying them with billions of dollars of credits, providing extensive military intelligence and monitoring third-party arms sales to Iraq. According to an affidavit by a member of former President Reagan’s National Security Council, Howard Teicher, when a “key component in a weapon was not readily available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq.” This action fed the Iraqi war machine that became so “threatening” to the United States once the alliance between the two countries ended in the early 1990s.
The current Bush administration used the knowledge it possessed of Iraq’s arms to push the United Nations and its International Atomic Energy Agency to investigate any illegal possession and production of nuclear and biological weapons. In its public-relations campaign to the American people, the administration conveniently excluded information that the United States knew Iraq possessed these weapons because it was the United States that supplied them to Iraq during the 1980s. The Bush administration is the main contributor to the confusion over the actual purpose of the war. This lack of focus further confirms alternative agendas.
While the United States scrutinized Iraq for its weapons and launched a war, the American government continues to support Israel, which is widely believed to be a nuclear power. Because Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was established in the 1970s as an alliance to deter countries from engaging in disastrous nuclear conflicts by preventing the global spread of arms and placing sanctions on countries that violate the treaty, it is not subject to inspections or the threat of sanctions by the IAEA.
In an interview published last month with the London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat, Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu warned that Israel’s Dimona reactor facility in the Negev desert endangers the lives of millions throughout the Middle East. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is particularly at risk because the reactor operates mainly when “the wind blows toward Jordan,” suggesting that those living close to the border with Israel may be exposed to nuclear radiation. A strong earthquake in the region, Vanunu continued, may crack the reactor and cause a radioactive leakage that would result in the death of millions, much like the explosion of the Ukrainian Chernobyl power plant in 1986 that caused the world’s worst civilian nuclear catastrophe.
Israel recently announced plans to distribute iodine anti-radiation pills to residents living close to the nuclear reactor in the city of Dimona. While the government has assured there is no danger, its actions have left many in doubt. If there is no danger, why waste taxpayers’ money by distributing the pills house-to-house to approximately 100,000 Israeli residents? On the other hand, if there is danger, why is it being kept a secret?
The secrecy gives Israel the upper hand. Not only is it not subject to world inspections, but also, the U.S. and European nations lack either the will or political and economic interest in pressuring Israel into revealing the full extent of its nuclear capabilities. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in July that his country’s “ambiguous” nuclear policy is effective and will continue. He even questioned the visit to Israel by the head of the IAEA Mohamed El-Baradei in July, which was designed to open a dialogue with Israel on the possibility of a nuclear-security-free zone.
“Israel has to hold in its hand all the elements of power necessary to protect itself by itself,” Sharon said, according to a BBC report.
Analysts suspect that Israel possesses about 200 warheads at Dimona, which can be delivered by long-range ballistic missiles or advanced warplanes. It is believed that up to 100 kilograms of enriched uranium was taken from a facility in Apollo, Pa., to Israel since the start of Israel’s nuclear program in the early 1950s, and 200 tons of uranium ore also disappeared from a ship in the Mediterranean Sea in 1968 and were probably diverted to Israel. These suspicious events leave the possibility of a massive nuclear-weapons capability in Israel that is largely ignored by the Western world.
International scrutiny of nuclear programs in North Korea, Libya and Iran further show the biases of inspection. In the last year, Iran, especially, has come under sharp attacks from the United States for developing a secret nuclear-weapons program in the nuclear facility at Brushehr, built under a Russian-Iranian agreement. Iran, however, denies such claims, saying its nuclear program is designed solely to provide energy.
In response to U.S. pressure, the U.N. toughened its inspections, and a resolution was drafted to hold Iran to a timetable that could impose sanctions on Iran. Tehran responded in anger to this “bullying,” arguing it did not violate the treaty and would not cooperate if the resolution stood.
So who really should be subject to inspections? Who determines which countries are a nuclear threat and how? Isolating countries and placing separate standards on them for international law only heightens the problem and the danger. Using alliances only for the convenience of one event and then dropping them (and consequently, becoming enemies), has only caused hatred toward the United States — its government and policies, not its people — and its influential allies. The disasters occurring right now in Iraq are a perfect example of how forced action with little substantial basis led to animosity and bloody retaliations, killing hundreds of troops and civilians.
Furthermore, giving unequivocal and unconditional financial, political and economic support to Israel, as well as any country in a similar situation, only adds fuel to the fire, especially when such support adversely affects millions of other citizens in neighboring countries and damages U.N. standing in the region.
So what is the ultimate human right? And who possesses it? What price must be paid for the political and economic upper hand? Not withstanding the Bush administration’s claims of championing freedom, democracy and equality throughout the world and its purported desire to minimize the threat from nuclear weapons, it exercises a double standard and thereby demonstrates a Machiavellian quality that has little credibility in the post-Cold War era.
Natalie Mikhail (njmikhail@students.wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in journalism and international studies.
Anonymous (September 1, 2004 @ 5:40pm):
The second half of this article is a hateful and shameful critique of US support for Israel. You make several mistakes of both omission and commission in your report:
1) Israel is a small country the size of New Jersey with about 7 million people, surrounded by a series of countries that together comprise about 500 times the territory and 70 times the population. Those countries have historically dedicated themselves to the destruction of Israel and all its people. Many, including Lebanon, Syria, and Iran continue to do everything they can to contribute to murdering as many Israelis as they can. Why shouldn't Israel maintain secrecy over whether or not it has a nuclear arsenal? If it has nuclear weapons or can maintain the illusion of having them, these nations must restrain themselves at least somewhat from all-out murderous attacks.
2) Mordecai Vanunu is certifiably insane. In the same interview you discuss in this article, he blamed Israel for the Kennedy assassination. Anyone exercising common sense would have to conclude that Vanunu is not a reliable source.
3) The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan conducted its own tests and concluded that there was no danger to Jordanians from the Dimona reactor.
4) Israel typically takes protective actions on behalf of its citizens that far exceed the standard of care. The standard of care would dictate that residents of Dimona are perfectly safe without taking iodine tablets. In order to ensure that there is no doubt that these people will be as safe as possible, the Israeli government took a very honorable action in distributing the pills.
5) Your presentation of the unfounded suspicions that Israel has stolen nuclear materials from the US or from ships on the Mediterranean reveals your biases. There is no evidence to suggest that Israel ever stole nuclear material. The scenario you present is straight out of a novel by Ken Follett, titled Triple.
6) Unlike Iraq or North Korea, Israel has never supplied weapons, training, funding, or support for terrorist organizations. On the contrary, Israel has always been victimized by the terrorist organizations that received such support from Iraq, North Korea, and other countries. As such, countries like Iraq and North Korea, which have consistently demonstrated their lack of regard for human life, require extra scrutiny. Israel, which constantly demonstrates its regard for human life, requires no such scrutiny. That's not a double standard. It is fair play. The only double standard here is your insistence to demand more from Israel than from any other country on the planet.
Anonymous (September 19, 2004 @ 1:54am):
Whoever wrote this is a misguded anti-Semite and needs to be booted off campus for racist remarks..
