Israel: Nuclear Implications of Corruption?
December 13, 2008 by Tony Smith, Senior Writer |
The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increasing risk of global catastrophe have been on the minds of all western nations since the end of the Cold War. Nuclear weapons were falsely used as justification for the invasion of Iraq, and they are currently used as justification for harsher sanctions against Iran. Two of the U.S allies in the Sub-Continent of India possess nuclear weapons along with sophisticated delivery systems, and China and North Korea are also members of the nuclear club. All of these countries developed them, despite being party to agreements not to do so. However, why do most of the western world seem to ignore the nation with the largest number of unofficial nukes, all illegal by international convention?
Israel started to develop nuclear technology in the 1950s and had a bomb by 1968. The Wisconsin Project which monitors nuclear weapons around the world has for many years placed that arsenal as between 100 and 200 warheads. Israel itself maintains a policy of refusing to confirm or deny its stockpile of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them anywhere in the Middle East or Europe.
One of the reasons to ignore Israel’s alleged breach of non-nuclear proliferation agreements may have been our assumption that society in Israel is somehow more stable and less corrupt than other nations. However, a quick look under the surface shows that is not necessarily the case. Because of a lack of transparency, we can not assume that the finger on Israel’s nuclear button will necessarily be rational or that Israel has the proper protocols for nuclear detonation.
Ms. Livni was expected to become Prime Minister, but failed to muster up a coalition.
Israel’s parliamentary leaders have faced much recent controversy. Three recent premiers, Ehud Olmert, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ariel Sharon have all been subjected to allegations of fraud. It was the recent resignation over fraud allegations of Ehud Olmert that has resulted in a stalemate in government. Tzipi Livni, his successor, has been unable to form a successful coalition with the other parties, and it is unlikely that the situation will be resolved before spring. The President was also being investigated for allegations of rape and sexual assault and has resigned. This is only at the top–some other ministers and MPs have been also been subjected to allegations of fraud and/or resigned. In 2008, Israel placed 33rd in the World Corruption Index, tied with the West Indies and the Commonwealth of Dominica. This ranking was the lowest of any developed nation. Israel scored especially low on the transparency sub index. According to recent public polling in Israel, 72% of Israelis rate the corruption as high to very high, and nearly 50% of all young people would like to leave Israel if they could. The main reason given is government corruption followed by poor educational availability and fears over security. Seven thousand more people left Israel permanently in 2007 than entered.
The Nuclear Hotline, via Dr. Strangelove
Given such an epidemic of alleged corruption among Israeli leaders, the real question then is, “Whose finger is on the nuclear button, or may be on that button, and what controls are there on that person’s unilateral ability to press such a button”? In most of the world, there are many strict controls placed on a President or Prime Minister before the option to use nuclear weapons would even be considered. If that stage is ever reached, there are codes to be entered keys, held by separate officials and a multitude of complex procedures before they can be mobilized. For example, India and Pakistan have their own systems of multiple protocols as a condition of acceptance into the nuclear club. The leaders of these two countries have put in hotlines with direct access to each other and have established other protocols in the event of a crisis that could lead to nuclear confrontation. Given that Israel does not even admit to having nuclear weapons, we have no idea if such protocols exist. There are many national security reasons that could explain why Israel is less than fully transparent about their nuclear program. However, considering the recent alleged corruption of its leaders, the time is ripe for more transparency.
In this I must disagree, or at least ask for clarification. Why would corruption which mostly is dealing in the matters of finance be a reason to lift the lid off of Israel’s strongest deterrent? Exposing what may or may not be for the entire world, and most importantly its hyper-aggressive neighbor’s. In a country such as our own; are we really qualified to debate a foreign states ability to defend themselves based on charges or allegations of corruption? I think not.
For a minute ask yourself how many plots of attack have been thwarted simply because of the uncertainty to whether or not Israel is a nuclear power?
Also, you site Pakistan as an example of stability? Pakistan? What protocols have they?
If in fact Israel does have nuclear capabilities, and as it is their choice not to share this with the entire world; how do you know that they don’t have protocols that are on par with those of the US? It would not make very much sense to neither confirm nor deny the existence of nuclear weapons and then go about informing everyone their protocols should they happen to exist, now would it?
You also state that there has been corruption linked to 3 out of 4 past PM’s. Ariel Sharon is not coming back, neither is Ehud Olmert. I hardly think Bibi would of been the Finance Minister if his allegations of corruption held any water. Livni is of the same party of Olmert and Sharon. It would be a better campaign ad against her becoming PM than it is arguing their ability to handle matters of national security.
From its inception Israel has been the focus of regional terror and attacks from foreign armies. I don’t see how accusations of corruption involving matters of finance or sexual assault in any way, shape, or form can be construed as just reason to demand jeopardizing Israel’s already tenuous ability to deter aggression.
Would you want thieves or rapists teaching in our schools? Of course not. Using this same logic, do we want such characters controlling a nuclear arsenal which could destroy the world as we know it?
Do we know that there are thieves and rapists that are not teaching in our schools? As history has shown, there most certainly has been. What however has this to do with matters of national security and the deterrence of foreign aggression?
Did I miss the part where these allegations of corruption and sexual assault have been proven?
If you are worried about characters of devious intent, you must look to many, many other countries before you can point your moral cross hairs on to Israel. JFK, Nixon, Reagan, both Bush’s, and Clinton all have been wrapped up in scandal of financial or sexual criminality.
Is it by your own criteria then your presumption that we should lift the lid off of the United States’ ability to defend herself and deter foreign aggression? I hardly think it would be justified.
I again state; Rumors of impropriety in the realms of finance or sexual behavior do not have any bearing on whether or not a country needs to divulge secrets of State.
Tony;
I tend to agree with Mr. Costas on most points. Personally, I would enjoy the world a lot more if all nuclear weapons were abandoned, but the nature of our world demands small steps. I am not necessarily a friend of Israel, but they do live in a pretty rough neighborhood. As of today, their conventional arsenal has been sufficient to defend the nation. However, considering what could be massed against them, the mystery of ‘if’ and ‘how many’ is a pretty substantial deterrent. We know about the value of deterrents. We invented them.
As for disclosure — won’t happen. As for corruption or sexual pandering being a cause for concern. I find that somewhat laughable considering the antics of our own government.
However, as Mr. Costas pointed out, Pakistan is a concern. This is not the same Pakistan that was around even five years ago. India and Pakistan have a history, but they know the limits of their disagreements. Pakistan’s chief issue in dealing with its own internal affairs has to do with the fact that most of the US Army is within shouting distance of their capitol. That issue and Pakistan’s sort of tacit approval is what poses a potential compromise of its nuclear security. And lastly, I would not hold any great expectations of Israel changing its insular approach toward the rest of the world. The pogrom against European Jews in World War II cemented in every Iraelis mind the notion that they would never again be a nation without a state. Any consideration of Israeli policy must travel through that filter.
And as aside, George Bush gave Israel the green light to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities almost four months ago. At their discretion of course. Sometimes the real news in on the fourth page next to a pizza ad.
Andy Juell
Andy, you bring up some good points, especially in your second paragraph. I do have a question about your source on the last point? I saw recently that Bush actually rejected Israeli’s plan to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/11/content_10642112.htm
I did see elsewhere that the U.S. independently carried out some covert missions, but I hadn’t seen anything to indicate they OK’ed Israel. Let me know if that fourth page article is online somewhere. If so, that’s a real smoking gun that should be getting much more attention. (Although the U.S. press seems to be relatively ignoring Israel overall considering what’s going on there.)
Obama will certainly be inheriting a mess over there.