Behind the Headlines: Israelis Differ on How Much Nuclear Threat Faces Israel

Israelis generally agree that one or more of their neighbors in the region will become a nuclear power in the near future. But they clash along ideological lines over how to confront the potential threat.

Shimon Peres, chairman of the Labor Party, believes the best way is to come to terms with the Arab states, which he says can be achieved only through territorial compromise.

Peres, a former prime minister and ex-minister of defense who is considered the father of Israel’s nuclear program, reasoned that in the age of long-range missiles, territorial buffers have become meaningless.

Missiles “nullified” the importance of borders, time and distance, Peres said. “Non-conventional weapons diminished the importance of conventional military forces.”

Yuval Ne’eman, leader of the ultranationalist Tehiya party, called that approach “nonsense” at a recent conference at Tel Aviv University.

According to Ne’eman, who is minister of science and energy in the Likud-led coalition government, only countries that have never been invaded and occupied — such as Australia, Britain and the United States — can dismiss the importance of territorial depth.

“A nation in danger of being occupied and slaughtered shouldn’t worry about missiles” because it has bigger problems, Ne’eman said.

He rejected Peres’ argument that Israel must make peace to avert nuclear war. “If Iran will have a nuclear bomb and an opportunity to attack Israel, it will do so whether or not Israel agrees to the creation of a Palestinian state,” Ne’eman said.

Israel’s answer to the nuclear threat must be “different,” he added without elaboration.

Israel is widely believed to have a substantial stockpile of nuclear weapons in its own arsenal, though it has never confirmed or denied such reports.

IDF IS KEEPING CLOSE WATCH

But it is increasingly aware of the potential nuclear threat from its neighbors. Defense Minister Moshe Arens discussed the danger of nuclear proliferation in the region last week at a meeting of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

“We have to prepare with the assumption that the Middle East is nuclearizing and at the same time, we have to make our contribution to stopping the process,” Arens said.

Gen. Amnon Shahak, the Israel Defense Force deputy chief of staff, told military correspondents last week that the IDF is considering the threat of nuclear attack.

It is not imminent, “certainly not in 1992,” Shahak said. But it might develop later and the IDF is duty-bound to draw up contingency plans, he said.

It is keeping a close watch and has received additional funds to conduct “long-term intelligence planning and operations,” the general disclosed.

He explained that this included a close watch on the effects of the breakup of the Soviet Union and the possibility that Soviet nuclear scientists and engineers will find themselves jobless and will seek employment for their know-how in Arab or other countries.

Reserve Maj. Gen. Ya’akov Lapidot, director general of the Police Ministry and a former adviser to the Defense Ministry, told the Tel Aviv University conference that it would be foolhardy not to take seriously the ability of Iraq or Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

According to Arens, between 10,000 and 20,000 people in Iraq are working in the nuclear field. Despite U.N. inspection teams, the Iraqis manage to conceal part of their activities, he said.

The defense minister said that while China has still not signed an agreement for the sale of a nuclear reactor to Syria, the Syrians are continuing their efforts to acquire a stockpile of nuclear weapons, and Iran is building up a reserve of long-range missiles.

The Tel Aviv University conference was organized by its geography department to mark the 700th anniversary of the establishment of the Swiss Confederation.

Professor Yoram Dinstein, president of the university, said he was surprised that no one ever proposed that Israel become a confederation. “Why not have 10 cantons, six of which will have a Jewish majority and four an Arab majority?” he asked.

Ne’eman promptly threw cold water on that idea. He pointed to the upheavals in federated states like Yugoslavia and the breakup of the Soviet Union along ethnic and nationalist lines to make the point that “1991 is not a good year” to propose a federal system.