For a number of years the
mainstream media and politicians have been in an uproar about Iran’s
nuclear program, alleging that the Islamic state is developing a nuclear
weapons program, or at least the capability of developing nuclear weapons,
and thus threatening the peace of the world. But no reputable source
claims that Iran actually possesses a nuclear weapons arsenal. In 2009,
the then-dean of the Washington White House Correspondents, Helen Thomas,
was so intrepid as to ask President Obama in his inaugural press conference
if there were any Middle Eastern countries that currently possessed
nuclear weapons. President Obama was caught flat-footed, uttering that
he did not want to “speculate” (somehow America’s varied claims about
Iran’s nuclear program do not count as speculation), and then, resorting
to the verbal gymnastics common to American politicians, dodged the
question as best he could. (A little over a year later, Thomas would
be hounded out of journalism for what were widely regarded as anti-Semitic
remarks about Israel, which were made in private but were video-recorded
by an individual unknown to Thomas who turned out to be a an ardently
pro-Israel rabbi, and then publicized by the major media.)
On August 31, the Washington Post’s ombudsman, Patrick B. Pexton, dared
to touch on the taboo subject of Israel's nuclear-weapons program in
a piece titled “What about Israel’s nuclear weapons?” The Post’s ombudsman
is supposed to deal with complaints about the newspaper and he began
by noting: “Readers periodically ask me some variation on this question:
‘Why does the press follow every jot and tittle of Iran’s nuclear program,
but we never see any stories about Israel’s nuclear weapons capability?’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-what-about-israels-nuclear-weapons/2012/08/31/390e486a-f389-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_story.html
http://wapo.st/OzRZvs
Pexton then offered some ostensible reasons for such a state of affairs.
He wrote: “First, Israel refuses to acknowledge publicly that it has
nuclear weapons. [Israel’s policy is known as “nuclear ambiguity.”]
The U.S. government also officially does not acknowledge the existence
of such a program.” But the very purpose of a purportedly free media
is to ferret out and mention things that governments don’t acknowledge.
And the fact that Iran actually denies trying to develop nuclear weapons
does not prevent the U.S. media from charging it with that very activity.
Then Pexton glommed onto the idea that since Israel has not signed the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) its nuclear weapons are not ipso
facto illegal and that it is under no legal obligation to have them
inspected, whereas since Iran did sign that treaty it is not allowed
to develop nuclear weapons and must allow for full inspections of all
of its nuclear facilities. Pexton maintains that “the core of the current
dispute is that Tehran is not letting them [International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) weapons inspectors] have unfettered access to all of the
country’s nuclear installations.” It is not apparent that the NPT actually
allows inspectors to have “unfettered access” to go wherever they want.
And while the IAEA has found some faults with Iran’s adherence to the
NPT, Israel and the United States go beyond the letter of the Treaty
in demanding that Iran be prohibited from developing a “nuclear weapons
capability” or engaging in the enrichment of uranium to high levels
that could lead to nuclear weapons. Such demands would inhibit the promotion
and sharing of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, which is one
of the fundamental “pillars” of the NPT and a significant reason why
countries lacking nuclear weapons would be motivated to become Treaty
members. Iran thus has some justification in claiming that its treaty
rights in this area have been violated by existing sanctions.
Furthermore, the NPT does not give the United States the right to enforce
its provisions—even if they were being violated—by attacking Iran, and
still more outrageous would be the claim that it would be legal for
Israel to enforce a treaty to which it is not a party.
And, finally, Iran could withdraw from the NPT, which it could legally
do according to Article X of the Treaty, which allows such a move if
“extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty,
have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.” To do so, Iran
would simply be required to give the reasons for leaving and three months’
notice. In sum, the clear-cut legal distinction between Israel and Iran
on the nuclear weapons issue made by Pexton does not actually seem to
exist.
Next, Pexton points out that Israel “has military censors that can and
do prevent publication of material on Israel’s nuclear forces.” But
is Iran without such censorship? If this were the case, then all the
charges that the Islamic Republic is an oppressive government, which
is the fundamental argument for “regime change,” would have to be abandoned.
And if Iran does have censorship, then its existence cannot be a reason
for the failure to discuss Israel’s nuclear program.
Then Pexton attributes the failure to discuss Israel’s nuclear program
to the fact that Israel and the United States “are allies and friends.”
This explanation obviously contains much truth, but it is insufficient.
It is not the whole truth and is certainly not a justification for the
existing situation. It is an admission of bias, while most people, even
government leaders and media officials, profess to believe in truth.
An obvious question would be: why can’t the light of truth shine through
on this issue?
This same critique could also apply to Pexton’s next exculpatory explanation:
“not being open about Israel’s nuclear weapons serves both U.S. and
Israeli interests.” More than this, while it obviously serves Israel’s
interests, to be seen as biased in favor of Israel does not benefit
U.S. interests in regard to the rest of the Middle East or, for that
matter, the rest of the world. This has been a concern of U.S. diplomatic
officials from the time of the creation of Israel.
Then Pexton tells an obvious, but rarely mentioned, truth: criticizing
Israel “can hurt your career.” He quotes George Perkovich, director
of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace: “It’s like all things having to do with Israel and the United
States. If you want to get ahead, you don’t talk about it; you don’t
criticize Israel, you protect Israel.”
But Pexton ends up his article by trying to show that he really identifies
with the best interests of Israel, and thus implies a benign intent,
and even justification, for the current blackout and double standard
on Israel’s nukes, while simultaneously chiding the lack of press coverage
of the subject. In exonerating Israel, he avers: “I don’t think many
people fault Israel for having nuclear weapons. If I were a child of
the Holocaust, I, too, would want such a deterrent to annihilation.
But that doesn’t mean the media shouldn’t write about how Israel’s doomsday
weapons affect the Middle East equation. Just because a story is hard
to do doesn’t mean The Post, and the U.S. press more generally, shouldn’t
do it.” Note that in his effort to show his identification with Jewish
suffering, Pexton plays the obligatory, and often debate-ending, Holocaust
card.
The problem with what Pexton asserts is that the Jews of Israel are
not facing annihilation, whereas, as a result of Israel’s nukes, its
neighbors do confront such a possibility. And it is quite understandable
that they do not like that situation and there is no moral reason why
they should have to face annihilation any more than the Israeli Jews.
Moreover, contrary to what Pexton claims in his above statement, many
people around the world do fault Israel for having nuclear weapons.
For example, the 120-nation Nonaligned Movement in its 16th global summit
recently voted for global nuclear disarmament, with no exception for
Israel. And the Arab states for a number of years have advocated that
the Middle East become a nuclear weapons-free zone. Even a majority
of Israeli Jews in a November 2011 poll favored the idea of a nuclear
weapons-free zone, though it was made known to them that this would
entail Israel giving up its nuclear arsenal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_nuclear_weapon_free_zone
http://bit.ly/PP6NW6
Finally, many Americans might oppose the nuclear double standard, too,
if its stark reality were often thrust before them in the same way that
the alleged misdeeds of Iran are placed in the media’s spotlight. It
is quite understandable that an issue ignored by the mainstream media
would not attract widespread public attention.
What Pexton leaves out in his discussion of Israel’s nuclear arsenal
is also of the utmost significance. First, while Pexton invokes legalistic
arguments in his quasi-apologetic for the status quo, it is not apparent
that the United States government is following federal law on this issue.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended by the Symington Amendment
of 1976 and the Glenn Amendment of 1977 prohibits U.S. military assistance
to countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology
when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. For the
United States to provide aid in such cases requires a special waiver
from the office of the President, and it has issued such a waiver for
Pakistan, another non-signatory of the NPT with nuclear weapons. But,
in line with Israel’s wishes, the United States government does not
want to publicly recognize Israel’s nuclear weapons, and thus eschews
this approach. Hence, it directly violates federal law in its provision
of aid to Israel, America’s foremost foreign aid recipient.
United States actions regarding Israel’s nuclear weapons program may
also run afoul of the NPT. There is considerable evidence that Israel
has relied on material and technology from the United States in order
to develop its nuclear weapons arsenal. Grant Smith, who has been studying
recently declassified U.S. government documents on Israel’s nuclear
weapons program, wrote in response to Pexton’s article: “The ongoing
clandestine movement of material and technology out of the U.S. may
mean America has violated Article 1 of the NNPT, since according to
the GAO it has never apparently taken successful efforts to stem the
flow.”
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/israels-nuclear-arsenal-is-used-to-coerce-the-us-on-middle-east-policy.html
http://bit.ly/PW5n0s
Moreover, it is not apparent that Israel would only resort to nuclear
weapons to prevent the annihilation of its populace; rather, it might
use its weaponry to prevent any type of significant defeat. The Prime
Minister of Israel, Golda Meir, revealed this mindset in an interview
with British commentator Alan Hart in April 1971 for the BBC's Panorama
program. Hart queried Meir: “Prime Minister, I want to be sure that
I understand what you are saying . . . . You are saying that if ever
Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would
be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it?” And
Meir replied: “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.” (Alan Hart, “Zionism
The Real Enemy of the Jews,” volume 2, 2005, p. xii)
http://www.palint.org/article.php?articleid=60
http://bit.ly/R4OS0K
In the Yom Kippur War of 1973, it has been argued by analysts such as
Seymour Hersh that Israel used the threat of launching nuclear missiles
to blackmail the United States to begin an immediate and massive resupply
of the Israeli military. It was correctly perceived in Israel that American
strategy intended to delay any resupply in an attempt to let the Arabs
achieve some territorial gains and thus force Israel to be more pliable
and trade the occupied land for peace.
Grant Smith pointed out in his response to Pexton that blackmail of
the United States government was not simply restricted to the Yom Kippur
War of 1973, but has been a major purpose of Israel’s nuclear weapons
program. “As understood by the CIA back in the early 1960s,” Smith stated,
“Israel’s nuclear arsenal is primarily used to coerce the United States
to provide enough benefits that they will never have to be used.”
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/israels-nuclear-arsenal-is-used-to-coerce-the-us-on-middle-east-policy.html
http://bit.ly/PW5n0s
Since the United States government has given in to this blackmail it
would seem that it believes that Israel is not simply bluffing.
In sum, Pexton offers a rather tepid and incomplete account of Israel’s
nuclear program and its ramifications, one that often verges on the
apologetic. Still, given the limited parameters of permissibility in
the American mainstream on anything concerning Israel, even broaching
this subject is courting danger, and for this Pexton has been lauded
by Phil Weiss as having “some spine,” especially for noting that to
give Israel negative publicity on its illegal settlements can lead to
the destruction of one’s career.
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/wapo-on-dc-career-game-if-you-want-to-get-ahead-you-protect-israel-you-dont-talk-about-illegal-settlements.html
http://bit.ly/T6mA6L
And that fact underscores how unfree American society is on the whole
subject of Israel. Grant Smith, however, after pointing out the shortcomings
of Pexton’s article, writes: “The Washington Post in particular seems
to want to play a role in shoring up the decrepit policy of ‘strategic
ambiguity’ [rather] than enlighten readers about the true role of Israel’s
arsenal in US and Iranian relations.” It is apparent that in the mainstream
the full truth about Israel’s nuclear weapons remains strictly verboten.
Best,
Stephen Sniegoski
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/
|