The Israeli Taboo
Published in Süddeutsche Zeitung
(Germany) on 15 April 2010
by Peter Münch (link to original)
(Germany) on 15 April 2010
by Peter Münch (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by Jessica Boesl.
Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal is President Obama’s Achilles' heel in his fight against Iran’s nuclear program. Why should Jerusalem be allowed to have what is forbidden to Iran?
A taboo is a bid for secrecy that carries with it the threat of serious consequences for those who break it. At least, that’s how civilized people understand it in this day and age.
But even in the higher realm of global politics, where those involved hold little sacred, there are taboos: dangerous things best left undisturbed. One such taboo — at least for Israel and its Western allies — is the subject of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Everyone knows there is one, but no one is allowed to say so. Not even the most powerful man in the world.
Obama’s Doing It Almost the Same as Bush
Obama didn’t exactly cut a dashing figure at the close of his anti-nuclear consecration festival in Washington when he was asked the unaskable by a journalist concerning Israel’s nuclear program. “Let me talk about the United States.... As far as Israel goes, I’m not going to comment on their program.”
Slam the doors, the doors slam shut — that’s the way it was with Obama’s predecessors, too. But at the conclusion of his ceterum censeo presentation on America’s nuclear reduction obligations, Obama did indeed voluntarily take up the subject of Israel once more.
He called on the Israeli government to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and he mentioned Israel in the same breath as those other nuclear weapons latecomers: India, Pakistan and North Korea — all of whom proudly display their atomic bombs but still refuse to sign the treaty.
From that, one might conclude that this president is different from his predecessors. Could be. But above all, the times are different; that means that Obama can no longer get by without breaking the taboo.
Ironically, it was the United States and Israel who put the nuclear issue back into the spotlight by way of a detour via Iran: Israel’s bomb is the Achilles' heel in both nations' fight against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
A Deep Chasm Between Vision and Reality
The more pressure put on President Ahmadinejad, the louder the question is asked, "Why is Jerusalem allowed to do those things forbidden to Tehran?"
The question is obvious, but up to now, neither the Israelis nor the Americans have answered it. That’s because the answer leads deep within the contradictions of global politics and clearly shows how deep the chasm is between the American president’s visionary postulates and the actual harsh reality.
Israel and Its Solemn Nuclear Pledge
Obama promises the people a nuclear weapons-free world and that would naturally mean a nuclear-free Middle East. Not only would Iran forgo developing a nuclear arsenal; Israel would have to destroy theirs.
That sounds good, but it’s totally unrealistic at present. First because Israel won’t give up its nuclear arsenal anytime soon, and secondly, doing so wouldn’t be in America’s best interest because it would drastically shift the balance of Middle Eastern power to Israel's enemies, which would in turn further burden Israel's allies.
The bottom line is that the call for Israel to sign the NPT is nothing more than Obama’s attempt to finagle a way out of an unmistakable credibility gap. He wants to decrease the pressure in the boiler.
But the contradiction remains, and it isn’t lessened by drawing comparisons between Jerusalem and Tehran. Because, simply put, all atomic bombs aren’t necessarily equal.
Learning to Live with the Bomb
Israel’s nuclear warheads, the existence of which eventual Nobel Peace Prize winner and current Israeli President Shimon Peres is largely responsible for, have belonged to Middle Eastern reality since the 1960s.
Whatever criticisms might be levied against Israel since that time, the fact remains that the nation that hasn’t been defeated in four decades of conflicts and has never employed its ultimate weapon.
A tyrant like Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who notoriously threatened Israel with annihilation, may not be likely to behave similarly.
Israel and the Middle East have learned to live with the bomb.
In a country founded 62 years ago that exists permanently surrounded by enemies, the nuclear program has become a national insurance policy; six million Jews live today with the memory of six million Jews who were once exterminated.
Because the psychological is superimposed on the political, the Israelis will never be satisfied with guarantees of American support such as those Germany enjoyed during the Cold War. If Tehran is successful in obtaining nuclear weapons, Israel wants to have the capability of creating its own deterrent at a minimum.
That may not be a rosy perspective, but it is a realistic one.
The vision of a world free of nuclear weapons can only be advocated in the Middle East when Israel’s right to exist is recognized by all its neighbors and Israel no longer sees those neighbors as enemies.
A taboo is a bid for secrecy that carries with it the threat of serious consequences for those who break it. At least, that’s how civilized people understand it in this day and age.
But even in the higher realm of global politics, where those involved hold little sacred, there are taboos: dangerous things best left undisturbed. One such taboo — at least for Israel and its Western allies — is the subject of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Everyone knows there is one, but no one is allowed to say so. Not even the most powerful man in the world.
Obama’s Doing It Almost the Same as Bush
Obama didn’t exactly cut a dashing figure at the close of his anti-nuclear consecration festival in Washington when he was asked the unaskable by a journalist concerning Israel’s nuclear program. “Let me talk about the United States.... As far as Israel goes, I’m not going to comment on their program.”
Slam the doors, the doors slam shut — that’s the way it was with Obama’s predecessors, too. But at the conclusion of his ceterum censeo presentation on America’s nuclear reduction obligations, Obama did indeed voluntarily take up the subject of Israel once more.
He called on the Israeli government to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and he mentioned Israel in the same breath as those other nuclear weapons latecomers: India, Pakistan and North Korea — all of whom proudly display their atomic bombs but still refuse to sign the treaty.
From that, one might conclude that this president is different from his predecessors. Could be. But above all, the times are different; that means that Obama can no longer get by without breaking the taboo.
Ironically, it was the United States and Israel who put the nuclear issue back into the spotlight by way of a detour via Iran: Israel’s bomb is the Achilles' heel in both nations' fight against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
A Deep Chasm Between Vision and Reality
The more pressure put on President Ahmadinejad, the louder the question is asked, "Why is Jerusalem allowed to do those things forbidden to Tehran?"
The question is obvious, but up to now, neither the Israelis nor the Americans have answered it. That’s because the answer leads deep within the contradictions of global politics and clearly shows how deep the chasm is between the American president’s visionary postulates and the actual harsh reality.
Israel and Its Solemn Nuclear Pledge
Obama promises the people a nuclear weapons-free world and that would naturally mean a nuclear-free Middle East. Not only would Iran forgo developing a nuclear arsenal; Israel would have to destroy theirs.
That sounds good, but it’s totally unrealistic at present. First because Israel won’t give up its nuclear arsenal anytime soon, and secondly, doing so wouldn’t be in America’s best interest because it would drastically shift the balance of Middle Eastern power to Israel's enemies, which would in turn further burden Israel's allies.
The bottom line is that the call for Israel to sign the NPT is nothing more than Obama’s attempt to finagle a way out of an unmistakable credibility gap. He wants to decrease the pressure in the boiler.
But the contradiction remains, and it isn’t lessened by drawing comparisons between Jerusalem and Tehran. Because, simply put, all atomic bombs aren’t necessarily equal.
Learning to Live with the Bomb
Israel’s nuclear warheads, the existence of which eventual Nobel Peace Prize winner and current Israeli President Shimon Peres is largely responsible for, have belonged to Middle Eastern reality since the 1960s.
Whatever criticisms might be levied against Israel since that time, the fact remains that the nation that hasn’t been defeated in four decades of conflicts and has never employed its ultimate weapon.
A tyrant like Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who notoriously threatened Israel with annihilation, may not be likely to behave similarly.
Israel and the Middle East have learned to live with the bomb.
In a country founded 62 years ago that exists permanently surrounded by enemies, the nuclear program has become a national insurance policy; six million Jews live today with the memory of six million Jews who were once exterminated.
Because the psychological is superimposed on the political, the Israelis will never be satisfied with guarantees of American support such as those Germany enjoyed during the Cold War. If Tehran is successful in obtaining nuclear weapons, Israel wants to have the capability of creating its own deterrent at a minimum.
That may not be a rosy perspective, but it is a realistic one.
The vision of a world free of nuclear weapons can only be advocated in the Middle East when Israel’s right to exist is recognized by all its neighbors and Israel no longer sees those neighbors as enemies.
Previous article![]( "U-Turn in Sino-U.S. Relations")
