Why Israel Should Rethink its Nuclear Policy

Why Israel Should Rethink its Nuclear Policy


Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity is hurting the country’s credibility with regards to foreign nuclear activity. I cringe every time I have to endure the words “It is often believed,” in the same sentence as, “Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons.” Instead of clarifying whether or not it possesses nuclear weapons, Israel has adopted a policy of simply refusing to comment on the issue. By not admitting that they possess these weapons of mass destruction, Israel has been able to escape the international obligations normally required of nuclear powers. Pro-Israeli lobbyists in the U.S.A. would have you believe that Iran is the real threat to peace and stability in the Mid-East, but is this really the case? How can Israel pretend to hold other nations to a standard to which it cannot hold itself? I am referring, of course, to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT. Israel is one of four countries (the others being North Korea, Pakistan, and India) that refuses to sign the NPT. Meanwhile, it is trying to use the NPT, and Iran’s perceived lack of compliance therewith, to lend legitimacy to Israel’s threat of war.


For the sake of peace, Israel should abandon its nuclear weapons stockpile. Aside from peace itself, the benefits to Israel would be twofold: reduced odds of a nuclear arms race in the Mid-East, and a much more respectable image for Israel on the international stage. By eliminating its nuclear arsenal, Israel’s prestige would be greatly enhanced: instead of being viewed as a hypocrite, Israel could finally be taken seriously when it talks about nuclear weapons in other countries. The most obvious case in point would be Iran; Israel has demanded that Iran stop uranium enrichment because it could lead to nuclear weapons someday. Meanwhile, with a hypothetical range of over 10 000 km, Israel’s Jericho missiles could easily deliver a mushroom cloud to my home in Japan. If Israel did not possess such far-reaching nuclear capabilities, their demands would seem more like a reasonable hope for peace, and less like hypocritical drum-beating.


A common argument against giving up the bomb, of course, is that it dissuades neighbours from attacking Israel. However, as history has shown us, nothing could be further from the truth. It is at least conceivable that, on the contrary, the perceived threat of a nuclear-armed Israel has contributed to the resentment and aggressive actions of its neighbours. Furthermore, with the United States as an ally, Israel has no real need to possess nuclear weapons. As Hillary Clinton famously mentioned in 2008, the U.S.A. could extend its nuclear umbrella to cover Israel and other allies in the Mid-East. This idea could easily be coordinated with the dismantling of Israeli nuclear weapons without any substantial change to the regional balance of power. Israel could create an atmosphere of peace by becoming a nuclear-free state under the protection of a nuclear-armed U.S.A., much like the arrangements of other peaceful states such as Canada or Japan.


Granted, by giving up its own nuclear arsenal, Israel would effectively be giving up the military option of a nuclear first-strike. However, Israel would still retain the option of a first-strike using non-nuclear warheads, so it’s ability to launch a pre-emptive attack would remain essentially unchanged. Whether Israel calls its missiles “defensive” or “offensive,” after all, is of no consequence to those at whom it is aimed. The only difference would be that the citizens of neighbouring countries would feel less threatened by the Jewish state. This is an olive branch that must be extended if Israel wishes to avoid being seen as the aggressor in a potential war with Iran or any other neighbour. Abandoning nuclear weapons would also give Israel some much-needed credibility and enhance its image in countries where issues such as “apartheid” and “illegal occupation” have negatively impacted its relationship with the public. The impact on regional stability would be enormous and in terms of peace in the Mid-East, such a move has the potential to be the greatest achievement in the past half-century.


Mike Eisler