the political repercussions of the israeli raid on the iraqi nuclear reactor

8/13/2019 The Political Repercussions of the Israeli Raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor

1/20

The Political Repercussions of the Israeli Raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor

Author(s): Ghassan BisharaSource: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Spring, 1982), pp. 58-76Published by: University of California Presson behalf of the Institute for Palestine StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2536073.

Accessed: 12/12/2013 13:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California PressandInstitute for Palestine Studiesare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toJournal of Palestine Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 37.142.120.22 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:20:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=palstudhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2536073?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2536073?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=palstudhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal


2/20

The Political Repercussionso? the Israeli Raid onthe Iraqi Nuclear ReactorGHASSAN BISHARA*

In August1974, Turkey, long-time lly of the UnitedStates and amember f NATO borderinghe USSR, usedAmerican-suppliedeaponstoinvade Cyprus n orderto protect the Turkish ommunityhere. nJune 1981, Israel, also employingAmerican-suppliedeapons,flew overJordanian nd Saudi territoryo bomb and serious(ly)and basic(ally) 'destroy raq'sTammuznuclear eactor ustoutsideof Baghdad.BothTurkeyand Israel by theiruse of Americanweaponryviolatedagreements nderwhichtheyhad beenobtainedfrom he United tates.While he response othe Turkishaction in Cypruswas a completeUS governmentmilitarysupplies mbargo n Turkey,sraelgot awaywith nlya mildreprimand.

IsraelDestroysraq's NuclearFacilityAn examination f whether srael violated the termsunder which t issupplied withUS armsneed not have waiteduntilJune1981, when Israeldestroyedhemost dvancednuclear eactorn the Arabworld, lthough hemagnitudef the act itself, nd the fact hat he bombingwas carried utina countrywith which t sharesno borders,made this case unique. In fact,thisquestionof the use madeby Israel ofAmerican-supplied eapons hadalready risen n thespring f 1978, when he Israeli rmynvadedLebanon,a sovereign ountrywith defined borders,occupied a part of Lebanese

* GhassanBishara s Washington orrespondent f the Palestinian nglish-language eekly, l-Fajr(J rusalem).I ABC News, Issues and Answers, unday,June28, 1981.

This content downloaded from 37.142.120.22 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:20:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/20

THE ISRAELI RAID ON IRAQ 59

territoryouthof the LitaniRiver, nd laterwithdrewnly nname, eavingbehindthe puppet [renegadeLebaneseArmyMajor] Saad Haddad to fulfilIsrael's bjectives here.Israel's move againstLebanonwith US armswas thought t the timetohave been in violationof American aw. In a report o Congress, yrusVance's StateDepartmentnformedongresshat violation f the US armssales agreements ith Israelhad possibly ccurred.That, however,was theextent f US reaction.Bothbefore hatdateand since, sraelhasconstantlyand massivelyviolated Lebanese sovereignty sing American-suppliedweapons. Althougha good argumentcould be put forward hat fullinvestigationsftheseviolations y Israel gainst ebanonshouldhavetakenplace, especiallyconsidering he loss of liferesultingrom hese ncursionsandtheir epetitious ature, one evermaterialized.It seemsreasonable o assumethat had the US maintained firm tandwith sraelto upholdthesanctity f its aws, the strikegainstBaghdad'snuclearfacility nd the subsequent trike5 weeks lateragainst partmentbuildingsn Beirutmaynot have occurred t all. It is logicalto concludethat,consideringhe mild reactionof the US governmento these Israeliacts, both the natureand number f Israeliraids on targets nArab stateswillescalate.Operation abylon: F15's and F16's

It took 90 minutes ortheworld'smost advancedwarplanes o flyfromsomewheren Israelover Jordanian nd Saudi territoryo theirdestinationwhere,n twominutes, ightF16's dropped16 tonsof TNT on thereactor,turningt intoa pile of rubble. raq's $215 millionTammuzreactor easedto be, and an undisclosednumber f people, ncluding Frenchman, erekilled.Some surprises ererevealedfollowinghe strike:worldcriticismfthe act fortheprecedentt set, raq's ack of anyrealreaction,ndthe mildresponse ftheUnitedStates.The United States,hard at work trying o convinceArab statesoftheseriousnessf theSoviet hreat o their nterests, astaken backbythe sraeliattack.Although t was ostensiblynformed y Israelof the strike hreehours fter tsoccurrence,he UnitedStateswaitedformore han12 hoursto reveal henewsto its media.Thestatementeleased ytheDepartmentfStateonJune readas follows:The United States governmentondemnsthe reported sraeli ir strike n the Iraqinuclearfacility, he unprecedented haracter f whichcannotbutseriously dd tothe already tense situation in the area. Available evidencesuggestsUS-providedequipmentwas employed in possible violationof the applicable agreement nderwhich it was sold to Israel, and a report to this effect s being preparedforsubmission othe US Congress n accordancewith he relevantUS statute.




4/20

60 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

The obvious violationby Israel of the US arms agreementwas anembarrassmento theUnited States. t was no secret hatat the timeboththe United States and Iraq were seriouslyconsideringmproving heirrelations, ollowing audi mediation.2OperationBabylonthus appearedtohave thepotential f causing set-backwithregard o closerArab-US ies.Some Americangovernmenteniorofficialsmplied hatthe United Statesmustdo morethanmerely ondemn he actionforfear f osing redibilitywith the Arab states,but once Arab reaction, nd particularlyhat ofBaghdadbecame clear, heyhadto retreat.Besidesthe condemnation sraelreceived rom heUnited tates,Reaganon June10 also ordered he suspension f the deliveryf fourF16's due inIsraelon June12, pending ompletion f a review o determinef a violationoftheUS-Israeli greementn arms ales had occurred.While uspension fdelivery f the fourF16's was in effect,srael, ccording o State Depart-ment pokesmen, ontinued o receive ll othermilitarytems. t also soonbecame clear that the Reagan administration as not contemplatingnyfurtherction against srael. These viewswere beingexpressedby variousspokesmenof the administration,nd were likewiseexpressedat Con-gressional earingsoncerningheIsraeli ction.On June15,the StateDepartment asalreadymaking lear hat he lawdoes not require uch determination, 3hat s, whethersraelhad violatedthe arms salesagreements. hisreporterskeda State Department fficial,If you are not makingany determination,ow then will it be judgedwhetheror not Israel violatedthe arms sales agreement? The officialreplied, Let's waituntilthe review s complete. Similar eports rom heWhiteHouse also hintedthatsuspension f delivery fthefourF16's wasthe limitof theadministration'seaction o thepossible sraeliviolation fAmerican aw. In fact,a campaignby members f the administrationorationalizethe Israeli action had begun. On June 16, PresidentReaganhimself, nswering uestionsabout Israel'smove,said, Israel mayhavesincerely elieved that its movewas a defensive ne. Other uthoritativereports lso indicated hatno actionbeyond uspensionwasto be expected.The ForeignMilitaryalesAct Is Amended

Underprovisions f the ArmsExportControlAct (AECA), as amendedon June20, 1976 and formerlynown s the ForeignMilitaryalesAct,theexecutive ranch s not required o determine hether r nota violation f

2 New York Times,June9, 1981, p. 1.3 US Department f StateDailyBriefing, une15, 1981.




5/20


the AECA has occurred.4The law, which was amendedby legislationsponsored y three f Israel'sbest friendsnthe US Senate SenatorsJavitand Case (Republicansof New York and New Jersey espectively), ndHumphrey Democrat-Minnesota) now merely requires the Presidentpromptly o report to Congress f a violation may have occurred. Theoriginal eading f theAECA in Section3c had been that a country oundin substantial iolation of theagreement shallbe immediatelyneligiblefor rmspurchases r deliveries.5 determinations towhether violationhad occurredwas requiredby thePresident,s was thereport fhisfindingsto Congress.Fearful f possiblecomplication or sraelunder he terms f the originaltextof the law, SenatorsJavits, ase and Humphrey roposed n amend-mentwhich n factexempted sraelfrom ny possibleviolation f the law.The wording roposedby the Senatorsmakes utomatic nforcementf thelaw difficult t best, and renders t subject to the recipient ountry'sinterpretations.he new law also gives the President nd/orCongress heprerogativeo determine hether r not a substantial iolation as occurred.In the case of Israel,verygood reasonswere to be foundto justify heabsence of a determination y the President r Congress,without anyeffective pposition.

In accordancewiththe amended aw,SecretaryHaigon June10 sentaletterto House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neil (D-Massachusetts) bout theIsraeli raid on the Osirak plant. In this letter,SecretaryHaig officiallynotified Congress of the raid, adding that the Israeli Air Force wasreportedly quippedwithdefense rticles hat had beenfurnishedo IsraelbytheUnitedStates under he foreignmilitary ales program. hesearmssales, Haig wrote, re governed y a MutualDefenseAssistanceAgreementdatedJuly23, 1952 (TIAS 2675), assuring he US governmenthatsuchequipment,material r services are required orand will be used solelytomaintaints internal ecurity,ts legitimateelf-defensef thearea ofwhichit is a part.... On behalf fthe President, aig added, I must eport hata substantial iolation f the 1952 agreementmayhaveoccurred. 6SecretaryHaig also explained n his letter hat a review f thisentirematter would be conducted, aking nto account Israel's contentionhatIraq was intent n manufacturingtomicweaponsto use against t. Haigelaborated hat heUnitedStateswouldmakevery lear ts desire o see thatforeign ountries eceivingUS defencearticles scrupulously bserve he

4 Committeeon ForeignRelations,CurrentLegislationand Related Exec. Orders Washington,D.C.: US Governmentrinting ffice, 980), pp. 279-81.S Ibid.6 New York Times,June11, 1981.




6/20

62 JOURNALOF PALESTINE STUDIES

conditions nd termsunderwhich these articlesare supplied them.TheSecretary lso informedCongressof Reagan's suspension, for the timebeing, fthe fourF16's.7The administration'sbligations nder he amended aw were husmetbysimplynotifyingongress hat a possibleviolationmayhave occurred. Ascan be observed,there was no mention at all in this letterof anyadministrationetermination,ollowinghe review s to whethersraelhadviolatedAmerican aw or not.Section 3 (C) (I) (A) of the AECA in part till tipulateshat no creditsmay be issued and no guaranteesmaybe extendedforany foreign ountryunder thisact... if suchcountry ses such articles uppliedby theUnitedStates in substantial iolationof any agreement ntered nto pursuant oanysuch act, 8 andforpurposes otauthorized nder ection4. (Section4provisionswere specified bove.) Also, because the AECA does not, inSection 4, define termssuch as internal ecurity and legitimate elf-defense , t was left to thePresidentnd Congress o interpretnd definetheseterms nd their pplicabilityo any given ase. Ifthe President ere odetermine,nd so inform ongressnwriting,hata countrywas found nviolationof AECA's terms, hen thatcountrywouldbecomeineligible orfurthereceipt f armsunder hat ct.Congresscan also legislateto imposesanctionson a violatorcountry.Such legislation,t shouldbe stated,would be subjectto the presidentialveto process.The possibility f a US embargo n arms o Israelwas neverlikely, speciallywhen Congress ad a say in it. In addition, sraelhasneverbeen known to hesitate o conductany action it claims necessary or tssecuritybased on potentialAmericanreaction. Nevertheless,n the USCongress,members f the Senate ForeignRelationsCommittee,s wellasthose of theHouse ForeignAffairs ommittee,xpressedmoredisapprovalofthe raid on Iraq's reactor hanof anyother sraelimilitary peration.CaseBefore heSenateForeignRelationsCommittee

The unprecedented nger xpressed y some members f Congressboutthe Osirak raid in which,by Israel's own admission,American-suppliedweaponswereemployed, hould be looked at inits total sraeli-US ontext.The main question of relevance o Congresswas whether he attackwasjustifiable, ased only on Israel's argumenthat Iraq was about to manu-facturen atomic bombtargeted or srael, s Beginclaimed,orwhether twas unjustifiable, ased on all other sources' counter-arguments.his7 Ibid.8 Israel's Raid into Iraq, Issues BriefNo. IB81103, CongressionalResearchService,LibraryofCongress, une18, 1981 to July 8, 1981, pp. 10-11.




7/20


viewpointwas that raqwas not manufacturingtomicweapons, ndwouldhavebeenunableto do so for omeyears.The text of an Israeli statement to explain (and) enlighten ublicopinion about the raidon Osirak lso claimed thegoal for hesebombs...was explicitlytatedby the Iraqi ruler. Thisofficial tatementttributedoPresident addam Husseina quote from n addressto the Iraniangovern-ment hat it was pointless forthemto damagetheplant because itwasbeingbuilt against srael alone. The Israeli tatementdded that a bombproducedby thisreactorwould havebeen similar o theone droppedbytheUnited Stateson Hiroshiman 1945. Dates for completion f the reactor,accordingo thisstatement, ere thebeginningf July r September 981.Thusthedecision o bombthereactorhad to be made, ccordingo theIsraeli tatement, orfear hat radioactive ontaminationf theresidentsfBaghdadwouldbe risked f such an attacktook place once thereactor adbeenallowedto become hot oroperational. he dateof the attackwassetfor Sunday, twas claimed, ecauseforeignmployees t thereactorwouldbe off, nd no foreignxpertwashurt , ccordingothe statement.9 llofthesepoints wereshownto be false,not only by Iraqbut by otherpartiessuch as the French government,he United Nations and US sources,including ongressionalources.The Israelidecision o supersedenternationalaw inbombinghe reactor,and the Israeli ustificationf theact shockedmanypolitical,militaryndnuclear pecialists. This is the first ime, wroteJamesRestonof theNewYorkTimes, since the nventionf atomicweapons hat statehas insistedthat t had therighto destroynanother ountry nyatomicfacilityhat tsuspectsmay be developingnuclearweaponsfor ts destruction. Restoncalledon Washingtono consider the arger uestion fwhatwould happenif all nations hought,ike Israel, hattheyhad therighto bombanyothernation hat might e developing uclearweaponsthatcould be usedagainst

them. '0Was Iraq reallybuilding nuclearweapon? Under-Secretaryf StateWalterJ. Stoesselpointedto Iraq's ratificationf the Non-ProliferationTreaty, ndmentioned hat Iraq's reactor nd supplyof enriched raniumwere subjectto InternationalAtomic EnergyAgencycontrols. Stoesselwenton to express concern about the Iraqinuclearfacility, hichcouldgive raq a nuclear apability ifother lementswere dded.France,which was building he reactorundercontract,otally ejectedIsrael'scontentions hat Iraq would have been capable of manufacturing9 New York Times, June 9, 1981, p. 8.10 Ibid.1 Statement y Walter toessel,Senate ForeignRelationsCommittee,June18, 1981.




8/20


nuclearweapons t Osirak.Under he contract, rancemaintainedthe rightto inspect the facility n Iraq through1989, FrancoisMitterrand aidlater.'2 French government fficials rgued that Francewould not haveallowed Iraq to develop nuclear apability, nd that echnicallyhe reactorwas not equippedfor uchtasks. Francecalledthedestructionf theplantunacceptable nd a breachof nternationalaw. ForeignMinister laudeCheysson,n hisgovernment'srotest o the sraeliAmbassadornParis, lsonoted that the Atomic EnergyAgency AEA) inspectedthe reactor nJanuaryndfoundno evidence o support srael's laim.'3Begin,however,went on to claim that France had helped Iraq build asecret underground unnel for the purpose of manufacturinguclearweapons. Begin's rgument as calledbyFrench oreignministryfficialsafantasy. '4The Israeligovernmentater ompletely ropped his rgument.Also,in tryingo explainthedeath of the French echnicianesultingromthe raid, the Israeligovernment,hrough n armychief of intelligence,Yehuda Saguy, xplained hat perhaps he failurewas inFrance. A Frenchofficial alled such remarks mplying rior French knowledge f the raidscandalous.In Vienna, the International tomic EnergyAgency IAEA) DirectorGeneralSigvard Elund confirmed raq's claim that the Agency has ins-pected the Iraqi reactor nd has not foundevidence f any activities ot naccordancewith heNon-Proliferationreaty. 's The inspection eferredowas conducted n January 981. The Congressional esearchService,n astudy conducted on the Israeli raid also concluded that no weaponsmanufacturewas possible at Osirakwithout t beingdetectedby Frenchtechnicians,'6and thesame publicationwenton to quote an IAEA reportreleasedon February27, 1981 confirminghat all nuclearmaterialwasaccountedfor at thatplant, nd that monthlynspectionwouldhavebeeninstitutedafter tart-up. 7

In fact,Haaretz,the independentsraeliHebrewdaily, nJuly 7, 1981,wrotethatAmerican,German nd othernuclear cientistsrgued hat raq'searliestpossiblenuclearweaponsmanufacture ouldbe six to sevenyearsawayand possiblynot before he end ofthe decade. Among srael'snuclearscientists, aaretz continued, not even one serious responsible) cientistarguedthat raq may producenuclearweaponsbefore1984-1985.' 18 This12 Israel's Raid into Iraq, Issues BriefNo. IB81103, p. 6.13 New York Times, June 16, 1981.14 Los Angeles Times, June 14, 1981.15 Wasbington Post, June 10, 1981.16 Israel's Raid into Iraq, Issues BriefNo. IB81103, p. 3.17 Ibid., p. 4.18 Haaretz (Israel), July 17, 1981, p. 23.




9/20


date, Haaretz says, was givenby those Israeli scientistsmost alarmedbyIraq's programme. he same paperwenton to quote an Israeli fficialtudy,The Iraqi Nuclear Threat , n which here s agreement iththat date asbeing heearliest ossiblefor raqi explosion f a nucleardevice.'9Begin's argument, herefore, hat Iraq was on the vergeof possessingnuclearcapability s altogether rroneous. o is hisargumenthat had thereactorbecome hot , its destructionwould havecaused manycasualties.Again,Haaretz, nthe article uoted above, tates hat pecialists greed hatat worst, ven fthe reactorwas hot and a strongwindcarried adioactivematerial owardspopulatedcentres, herewould have been a fewthousandaffected, ut not killed.Those who finally ecided to go on withtheplan,thedaily ontinues, erePrimeMinister egin, he thenAgriculture inisterAriel haron, nd Chief f StaffRafael Eitan.The claim by Israeli ntelligence hat President addam Husseinof Iraqhad stated that the nuclear bomb Iraq was buildingwas not to be usedagainst ran but against srael20 as allegedlypublished n al-Thawra ndal-Jumburiyaailies on October , 1980, was denied ver o havebeen madeby the Iraqi President; either id the Americans ind nyconfirmationfthatstatement n the date and in the source providedby PrimeMinisterBegin. Under the title Second Error n Begin's Reactor Report , theJerusalem ost wrote that the Prime Minister's ffice admitted hatthequote nreferencedid notexist. 21In the Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee earings n June 18, 1981,Israel's case was more than ever before questioned and even attacked.SenatorJohn Glenn (D-Ohio), a possible democratic andidatefor thepresidency, as particularlyritical f Israel.He referredo Israel's ttackonOsirak s vigilante actics,no one can deny that, and accused the Reaganadministrationnd Carter's efore t of doing nothing bout such violationsof internationalaw. In 1978 and 1979, Glennsaid, the Senate receivedreport hat theremay havebeen a violation in Lebanon by Israel)...nothingwas everdoneabout t. He then old Under-Secretarytoessel this s notalittleborderviolationwe're talking bout.This s 650 miles wayandacrosstwo countries sovereignnations. Senator Glenn then asked Stoesselwhether the administrationetermined hat the administration ill makeitsown independent etermination f a violation y Israelhad takenplace.The Under-Secretary,peaking n behalf f the administration,eplied No,we havenot made a decision on that. In another ession,SenatorGlennagain questioned srael's attack on the reactorwith sharp sarcasm, aying

19 Ibid.20 New York Times,June , 1981.21 Jerusalem ost (Israel), June15, 1981.




10/20


that he would like to know if Iran's nuclear reactorhad any uranium rplutonium, or sraelmight se the same non-proliferationolicy heyusedon Iraq.Senator Mathias (R-Maryland)was also criticalof Israeliactions andconcerned bout the effects f such behaviour n US foreign olicy.TheMaryland enatorbrought ut thefundamentaluestionof the extent owhichwe canpermithepolicyof theUnited tates o be determinedy theactions of another state. The US relationshipwith Israel,Mathiassaid,can't be exclusionary frelationships ith Arab states n theregion.Hethen questionedwhether he US could stand idly by while Begintakessuccessive ctions which undermine approchement ith nternationalaw.Mathias sked Stoesselforthe ocations f the knownnuclear acilitiesntheMiddle East,to which Stoesselreplied t length, ut in a barely udiblevoice. Whenhe was asked byCommittee hairman enatorPercy o repeathis answers,the audience in the committee oom respondedwith loudapplause. Stoessel then wentthrough list of countries hathave nuclearfacilities ncluding srael,where there s a naturaluranium eactor nd aresearch eactor.Mathias hen asked whichof those facilities ere ubject o internationalinspection; nd Stoesselrevealed hat he onlytwo countrieswhosefacilitiesarenot subject o such nspectionre Israel nd Pakistan.Inanswer o SenatorMathias' uestions, toessel old theCommittee hatThe small research eactor n Israel, think, s of US origin.The naturaluraniumreactor, think,was built in cooperationwithFrance. SenatorMathiasthen explained hepurposebehindhis last question, mplyinghatsome responsibility or the reactors and compliance with internationalsafeguardshouldbe laid on thecountrywhich upplies uchfacilities.AnotherSenatorwho displayed ome irritation iththe Israeli ct wasSenatorTsongas D-Massachusetts) ho said, I...drawa distinctionetweenthestate of Israel nd PrimeMinisterMenachemBegin. He then peculated,thoughhe may sympathizewith sraelifears f an Iraqinuclear apability,Were I in Israel's shoes would I have done the same thing? I am notsure.... Senator Tsongas expressedhis sympathywith Sadat's positionofhavingmet with Begin ust threedays before he raid on Osirak.Begin,hecontinued, did not servehis nation by that intentionalnd completelyavoidable lapat President adat.SenatorDodd, (D-Connecticut) ouchedon an importantssuewhichhewanted ddressed: How do we defineUS interestsn the MiddleEast,andspecificallywith respect to Israel.... What are our priorities nd do ourinterestsnd prioritiesmatch? The Connecticut enatorthenwent on toquestion Israel's interests nd priorities, sking whetherthese are onlymilitary, olitical nd economicas defined y Israel tself.He thenfollowed




11/20


witha key questionwhichwas never nswered.Hewanted o focus onthequestion...how our interests nd priorities oincidewith hoseof Israel ndhow the Israeli ttackon the raqi nuclear acility earson our nterestsndon Israel....Under-Secrectary toessel, listening arefully, nly said, We wouldprefer o have more ime o answeryourquestions.Majority eader Bakerand Chairman ercy, oth Republicans,were alsocritical f the Israeliraid. But stilltherewere those to whom sraelsimplycan do no wrong. Senator Alan Cranston D-California) s their newchampion, who argued the case in defence of the Israeli raid in piecespublished in the New York Times, Washington ost and Los AngelesTimes.22 One of the California enator's main points was that Iraq hadembarkedupon a course which could yield nuclearweapons and thattheseweapons were destined o be used against srael.Basedon assumptionshe himself dvanced with the help of an American ide to IAEA (laterdismissedby that Agency), and with quotationsbrought o lightby theIsraeli ntelligence ommunitylater found groundless y Israel tself), heSenatorconcludedthat the Israeliraid on the reactorwas in self-defence.Suchan argument uts Israel n comfortableompliancewithAmericanawgoverningsraeliuse of US suppliedweapons.The Senator lso said that heUS should be concerned bout nucleardevelopments it relates particu-larly o unstablenationshostile o the US and its allies. If Israelor SouthAfrica, helogic follows, re friendly o the United States and appearto bestable, the Senator hen would not see anything particularly rongwiththeir nuclear programme, ven though their hostile intentions nd pastpractices roveto be alarming. he Senatorpresented,n defence f Israel'scase, the same arguments ivenby the Israelis, ll of whichwerepreviouslydisproven.23The hearings f the Senate ForeignRelationsCommitteeastedfortwodays duringwhich ime empers ooled. Hearingswere lso heldattheHouseForeignAffairs ommittee,wherecriticism f the Israeliraid was even essstrong ecause the Democratically-controlledouse is evenmorepro-Israelithan the Senate. Media commentators s well as government fficials,conscious now of the very moderateArab reaction, ased their ttacksonthe Israeliposition and by that time, attentionwas shiftingo the UnitedNations.

22 New York Times, June10, 1981.23 Testimonies bout the Israeliraid,from dministrationfficials, therwitnessesnd theSenateexchange anbe found ntheCongressionalRecordof the appropriate ate.




12/20


The Arabs Lose an OpportunityThe mild Iraqi reaction to the Israeli raid on its nuclear facilitywassurprising.hat reaction, oupled withthe worldreaction n general, et thetone for the moderateresolution t the United Nations Security ouncil.Americanpress commentators, isreading possible harsh raqi reaction,had speculated n likelyresponses anging rom similar raqi or combinedArab attackagainst sraelinuclearfacilities,o an oil embargo gainst heUS, which had suppliedthe fighterso Israelwhich had carriedout thebombing, possibility specially ikely due to the lightreprimand sraelreceived from ts US backer. It was repeatedly aid that the Arabs could

extract veryharsh esolution gainst srael even ts expulsionfrom heinternational ody (ensuring US veto at the SecurityCouncil), or theycould accept a mildresolution ondemningsrael, nanimouslypproved ytheCouncil'smembers.raq opted for he atter ourse.The argumentusually suggested n favourof a unanimous SecurityCouncilresolution vera non-unanimousecurity ouncil resolution,r aGeneralAssembly esolution s that the latter wo typeshaveno force ndthus are only resolutions on paper. However, the implication hat aunanimousSecurityCouncil resolutionhas any force is false. Iraq's wil-lingness o extricate he United States from terribly mbarrassingoteagainst he rest of the Security ouncil memberss stilla puzzle to many.One can count many resolutionsunanimously dopted by the SecurityCouncilwhichremain nly hat.TheAraband Iraqidecisionnparticularobe softwith sraelonly forthe purposeofhaving heUnitedStatesconcurwith herest ftheCouncilwasanalysed s a notvery oundone.US permanent epresentativeo theUnitedNations,JeaneJ. Kirkpatrick,apparentlywiththe personal upportof PresidentReagan,madeclear hergovernment'sommitmento Israel, xactly s Reaganhimself adina pressconference t the WhiteHouse. Reagan, answering questionabout theIsraeli raid said, ... I do think that one has to recognize that Israel hasreason for concern n viewof the past history f Iraq... who doesn'tevenrecognize he existenceof Israel as a country. Mrs. Kirkpatrickepeatedthis statement n her speech at the United Nations' debate and addedanother f Reagan's answers rom hatsamepress onference:Israelmighthave incerelyelieved itsraidon Iraq's reactor)wasa defensivemove.Not forcing he US delegation o the United Nationsto cast a vetoindefenceof an Israeliaction condemned y theUnitedStates'closest lliesand by the UnitedStates tselfwas interpretedo be a gesture fgoodwillfrom Iraq's Baath party to the new Reagan administration.he Iraqigoodwill,however, ook into accountmorethan ust US embarrassment:tsavedfacefor he United tates'Araballies.




13/20


In her speech to the UN SecurityCouncil,Jeane Kirkpatrickold itsmembers f the strength f US ties and commitmento Israel nd added,Israel is an important nd valued ally of theUnitedStates. The raid onOsirak, he said,does not in any way alter he strengthf ourcommitmentor the warmth f our feelings... owards srael.Continuing er speech totheCouncilmembers, irkpatrick ade clear hat he US governmentouldapproveno decisionthatharmed srael's basic interests,r was unfairlypunitive.....24Referringo ChapterVII of theUN Charter,raqi foreignministeraadunHamadi mpliedn hisspeech hat he resolutiondoptedby the Councilwasindequate to deal withthe subject underdiscussion.ChapterVII of theCharter iscusses Actionwithrespect o Threats o the Peace, Breaches fthe Peace and Acts of Aggression and provides for installationofsanctions gainst n aggressorwhich may rangefrom completeor partialinterruptionf economic relations nd of rail, ea, air, postal,telegraphic,radio and othermeans of communication Article 1). Should thatproveinadequate, herestof thechapter alls for scalation f sanctions nd evenmilitary lockade and action to induce the aggressoro compliancewithCharterrequirementso maintainpeace. MinisterHamadi attributed heCouncil's nadequateresolution o theUS threat fveto. Hamadiexpressedhis government's issatisfactionwith the resolution nd said that otherchannelswouldbe exploredbyhis government,ncludinghatof theGeneralAssembly, o pursue hismatter.The SecurityCouncil,having ebated the raqicomplaint ndsecurednosanctions against Israel, unanimously dopted a resolution trongly on-demning he Israeliattackand callingon Israelto refrain rom ny suchfuture ction. This resolution ecognized ully heinalienable ights f Iraqand other states to establishprogrammes f technological nd nucleardevelopment orpeaceful purposes.The resolution lso calledon Israeltoopen its facilities or AEA inspectionsnd to compensate raq forthe ossofthefacility.25AmbassadorBlum of Israel told theCouncilthat sraelbasicallyhas noconfidencen Non-Proliferationreaty afeguards.He also made clearhisgovernment'sregretwithregardo the US voteofcondemnation,ince,hesaid, Israel acted in its legitimate ight o self-defense. he Ambassadorwent on to inform he Councilof his government'sejectionof the tworequests xpressed n the newly-adoptedecurity ouncilresolutionwhichcalledforcompensation o Iraqandfor srael o openits nuclear acilitieso

24 Statement y US Rep. to the UN, JeaneKirkpatrick efore he Security ouncil,Current olicyNo. 288 (US Department f State, Bureau of Public Affairs), une19, 1981.25 UN Security ouncilResolutionNo. 487 (June 19, 1981).




14/20


internationalnspection.26Andso the UnitedStates,despite tswishto preservets aw concerningforeign overnments,nd having easonto showdisagreementwith srael'smisuseof Americanweapons in a region lreadytenseand declared o bevitalto the UnitedStates' best national nterest, ecidedto minimize tsresponse o a condemnation f the raid and the suspension orthe timebeing of the delivery f fourF 16 fighterscheduledforthe sameweek.Israel foundeventhe suspension f thesewarplanes rounds orcriticizingthe US position,callingthe act unjustified, hilethe UnitedStateskeptreassuringsrael that this suspensionwas temporarynd no furtherctionwouldbe taken.

Thistemporaryuspension fdeliveries asto be lifted n July17, whennews of another sraelistrike, histime on densely-populatedectionsofWest Beirut, hockedthe world. srael's orgy of death, as it was dubbedby a Beirutmagazine, mbarrassed S officiais. t was announced hatthesuspension lacedondeliveryf fourF 16's wouldcontinue.A month ater,on August 17, Secretary f State Haig announcedthePresident's ecision o lift hesuspension f the by then14 F16's and twoF15's to Israel.Haig said that the administrationconducted an intensivereviewof the implication f the Israeli ction. Following onsultationwithCongress nd completion f the administration'seview, he President aslifted he suspensionf militaryircraft eliveries o Israel. 21In Congress, y this time, ll of theapparent ngervoicedabout Israel'spossibleviolationof American aw had dissipated.No legislation ad evenbeen proposed,norwas any hintof disciplinarymeasures rought p. Thiscase, and the bombing of civiliantargets n Beirut,Haig said in earlySeptember,were behind us andwere not even mentioned uringBegin'sSeptember isit o Washington.Therewas no talk nCongress fdeterminationo see that he sanctity fAmerican aw be respectedby countries urchasingAmericanweapons astherehad been in the Turkish ase. On the contrary, ongress ontinued opass legislationpproving illionsof dollarsof militarynd economic id toIsrael See Table 1). This was at a time when the foreign id programmeswere cutby 26 percent, nd domestic ocial programmesuch as lunchforAmericanchoolchildrennd aid to Vietnamveteranswerebeing lashedoraltogetherliminated.This sizeable US aid to Israel obviously excludes American non-

26 The InternationalAtomic Energy Agency ate in Septembervoted to expel Israel from theAgencyunless it opened its nuclearfacilities o internationalnspection. As expected, the UnitedStatesvotedagainst he resolution the only Western ountry o do so.27 New York Times,August18,1981.




15/20


TABLE 1US Military nd Economic Aid to Israel, 1962-1980(in millionsof US dollars)28EconomicAssistance Loans $ 1,856.7Grants $ 3,113.0Total EconomicAssistance $ 4,969.7Military ssistance Loans $ 7,661.6Grants $ 5,250.0TotalMilitary ssistance $12,911.61981 29TotalMilitaryndEconomicAssistance $ 2.2 billion198230TotalMilitaryndEconomicAssistance $ 2.1 & $ 600billion about half ngrants)TotalUS militarynd economic ssistance o Israel1962-80= $23,440 million.

governmentalontributionso Israel,Jewishnd non-Jewish,hich otal nthe hundredsof millions, nd does not include US guarantees f inter-nationalorganizationoans to Israel. t shouldalso be said that since1973,Israel had officially been requiredto pay back only half the cost ofweaponspurchased rom he United tates.'A simpledivisionof the approximately 23.5 billionover the averagethreemillionpopulationof Israelbetween 1962-1982 revealsthat, n thisperiod,every sraeli citizen received little ess than$8,000 from heUS.Since about 50 percentof this total aid is in grants,t meansthateveryIsraelicitizenreceived bout $4,000 in grants rom he US in the periodmentioned.Justfor comparison's ake,and in an effort o makesome sense of thismassiveaid programmeo Israel, t can be contrastedwiththe US aidprogrammeo Jordan nd the wholecontinent fAfrica, xcluding gypt.The totalUS militarynd economicassistance o Jordanwith popula-28 US OverseasLoans, Grants nd Assistancefrom nternational rganizationsOffice f Planning

and Budgeting, gency f nternational evelopment), eptember 0, 1981.29 Congressional ecord,June17, 1981.30 A.I.D. PressOffice.31 The Middle East, U.S. Policy, Israel, Oil, and the Arabs, fourth edition (CongressionalQuarterly)Washington, .C., 1979, p. 45.




16/20


TABLE 2US Militarynd Economic Aid to Jordan, 962-1980(in millions f US dollars)

EconomicAssistance Loans $ 295.2Grants $ 844.6Total $1,139.8Military ssistance Loans $ 444.5Grants $ 534.7Total $ 979.2

tionof about threemillionbetween1962-1980 was $2,119 million.32 hatto Israelwith population f some threemillionwas $23,440 million.In this same period (1962-1980), and again, to make these numbersrelevant o Israel, the total US aid to the whole continent f AfricaexcludingEgypt with populationof 446 million,was $8,601.5 million.Ofthis, 5,332.2millionwas ingrantsnd $3,269.3 wasinpayable oans.It can thus be seenthat the US aid programmeo Israel sthe argestheUS provides o any single ountry,ndgreater han that o all ofAfrica,llof LatinAmerica US $12,978.7 from 962-1980), andevengreaterat leastin number f total US dollars) than economic and militaryid to Europeduring the Marshall Plan Period from 1949-1952 which totalled$21,469.4 million.33TABLE 3US Militarynd EconomicAid to Africa, xcludingEgypt,1962-1980(inmillions fUS dollars)

EconomicAssistance Loans $2,546.1Grants $4,971.7Total $7,517.8Military ssistance Loans $ 723.2Grants $ 360.5Total $1,083.7

32 US Overseas oans,Grants nd AssistanceOffice fPlanning nd Budgeting) 980.33 Ibid.




17/20


An ally of Israel such as the UnitedStatescan - and even shouldexpect of Israel a minimum evel of cooperation nd respectablenterna-tionalbehaviour.The UnitedStates, superpowerwithdiverse nterestsnvarying reas of the world, nd whose declared nterest n the maintenanceofpeace is well-known,srisking hese nterestsnd worldpeace if tfails oexert ome restraintsn such an ally as Israel.This is so eventhoughsraelaccuses the whole region or thewhole world ofhostilityo it. Israel'sbehaviournthe MiddleEast, SouthernAfrica, nd LatinAmericansupportof racist,right-wingnd apartheid egimess becoming n enigma fworldpoliticsand a frequentource of embarrassmento the US government.nthe Middle East in particular,where the US has a vested interest nmaintaining he statusquo, Israel keeps the region ense and vulnerableooutbreaks of violence and hostility o the United States, its mentor.Considering he leveragethe United States has over Israel,through tsfinancial,military nd diplomatic acking, t is logical o expect America obring his nfluenceo bear.The majority f the Americanpublic is not muchconcernedwith theArab-Israeli onflict.This apathy and the lack of public interest n theMiddle East and in foreign olicy in generalwork in favour f pro-Israeliopinionmakers,olicymakers nd lawmakerswho, in reacting o the smallbut ntense ro-Israeliminority, ake an initiativen Israel'sfavour afe.In a Gallup opinion ndex May 1975), American espondentsnsweredthe question egardingheir ympathiess follows:SYMPATHY SYMPATHYFOR forTHEISRAEL ARAB STATES NEITHER NO OPINION(%) (/) (%) (%)April1975 37 8 24 31

January 975 44 8 22 26December1975 54 8 24 14October1973 48 6 21 25(late)October1973 47 6 22 25(early)February 970 44 3 32 21February 969 50 5 28 17In a Louis Harris oll (of September 980, commissioned y theWorldJewish ongress), nderthe title A Studyof the Attitudes ftheAmericanpeople and the AmericanJewish Communitytoward the Arab-IsraeliConflictn theMiddleEast, Harris roposed, If it ooked as though srael




18/20


was goingto be overrun y the Arabsin anotherwar,the US shouldbewilling o sendtroopsto support srael. The American ublicrejected hisproposition by 48 percentto 36 percent. Concerning n independentPalestinian tate,71 percent o 12 percent f therespondents elt hatthePalestinianpeople are now homelessand deserve heirown independentstate, ust as much as the Jewsdeserved homeland afterWorldWar I.Americanpublic supportfor Israel s thus not a fact to whichpolicy- ndlaw-makers eact,butrather vehicle sedby conservativesndliberals likeforpersonalfinancial nd electoral eward, nd for deological ustificationfor heir upport f Israel.Naturally,t would not be sound to conclude that, if and whenthemajority fAmericanswhonow favour Palestinian tate ctively obbyforit,a Palestinian tatewillbe established.There are those who arguethat American upportfor Israelhas to doonly withAmericanmperialistnterests,nd that he sraeli obby doesnothavemuchto do with t. This argument eserves eriousconsideration.young State Department deologue once said to me in responseto theimperialist rgument: f the Arabsonlytestedtheirgreat everage n us(and I am paraphrasing im),we would onlyhave two choices: either ooccupy the oil wells of Arabiaor simply o give n. TheUnitedStateshasagreat nterestn the area of theMiddle East and has, as well, a diversity finterestshere.Many Palestinian,Arab and Americansocial scientists ee more toUS-Israeli elations hanfavourable ress nd a powerfully rganized sraelilobby. These critics rgue hat he US is an imperialist owerwhich upportsIsrael n theMiddleEast as a stepping tone to the resources f the region.Israel'srole thusfar, s relating o US regional nd strategicnterests, oesnot negate hat ssessment, utseems o confirmt.The US, because of itsglobalfinancial nd economic nterests,s almostobliged by its giantmulti-billion ollar corporate tructure to follow apolicy whichwould minimize he risk o these nterests,ven f in doing ootherpeoples' interestsndrights re shelved. t is a policydictated ymorethanpowerful obbies, nd eventhe free American ress t times xercisesself-controln defence f those nterests.It is interestingo draw an analogy between the reactionof the USgovernmento two similar ctions by friendly oreign owersthought obe inviolation f US laws.The act committed y Turkey a highly aluableally,not only to the US but to all of the Western lliance),duringwhichTurkeyuse American-supplied eapons, was not consideredacceptableundertheterms f the agreementy whichTurkeyreceives rmsfrom heUS. The Turkishmilitarymove against he island nation of Cyprus,t wasarguedby Turkey,was one aimedat the defence f the Turkish ommunity




19/20


inCyprus, hreatened,ccording o somereports, ithdestruction.In reaction o the Turkishmilitarymovethe US Congress lacedan armsembargo on Turkey,weakening t and thus affecting he whole NATOmilitary onjunction.The mainreason for the US retaliation gainst urkey,twas argued,wasCongress' eterminationo see to it that heterms f Americanawarefullyadhered o, even f in so doingUS national nterestsmaybe risked.Anotherfactor, hough ess important, ut whichneedsto be touchedupon, was theinvolvementf the Greek obby,whichpushed hard with Congress o haveTurkey punished for its act.34 Turkey doesn't have a sizeable nationalcommunityn the US and therefore herewas no balance to the organizedandcohesiveGreek obby.Israel's obby was one componentwhich eventually ontributed o theliftingf thearms mbargo gainstTurkey. enatorMathias,nanarticle nForeignAffairs,onfirmshat nvolvement.35srael,he says, was infavourof lifting he armsembargo o Turkeybecause of its relianceon the USlisteningpost in Turkey. 36 The role of the Israeli lobby was againmanifested nd successfully elped achieve a goal which was in Israel'sfavour.Congress,n effortso enact the terms t hadsetfor he saleofAmericanweapons to other countries,supplied evidence that Turkeyhad usedAmerican-supplied eaponsduringtsmilitary ampaign n Cyprus. t alsobecame clear to most membersof Congress hat Turkey'suse of theseweaponswas not inself-defence,espiteTurkey's ssertions o thecontrary.Availabilityf suchinformation as the ustification pon whichCongressappliedtheterms alledforbythe aw: an arms mbargo.In the case of Israel, herewas no doubt, not even to Congress, hat heplanes Israelusedto destroyraq's nuclearreactorwereAmerican-suppliedF 15's and F 16's. Israel confirmed hat fact, and never denied it. Themissing lement,which fconfirmed ouldundernormal ircumstancesaveresulted n an armsembargo gainst srael,was the unanswered uestionwhether srael's ctionwasinself-defenceran actofoutrightggression.ncases where srael s the subject, matters re never under normal ircum-stances ; n otherwords, here snothing ormal bout the US treatment fIsrael.Thiscase, ikeprevious nes (suchas Israel'suse ofAmericanweaponsagainst ebanon),wasnot treated s other uchviolations.

34 It is estimatedthat there are in the US about threemillion US citizensof Greekdescent,organizedn what s known s the AmericanHellenic nstituteAHI).35 CharlesMcC. Mathias,Jr., Ethnic Groups nd Foreign olicy, ForeignAffairs, ol. 59, No. 5,p. 993.36 Ibid.




20/20


More recently, ollowing he approvalby the Congress f the AWACSdeal to Saudi Arabia,the Israeli obby camevery lose to scoring nothervictory. The pressureon some membersof Congresswas very great.Rostenkowski, democratfrom llinois, nd chairpersonf the powerfulHouse Ways nd MeansCommittee,aid thatheknew twasrighto approvethe saleofAWACSto SaudiArabia,but he votedagainstt becausehedidn'twant heJews oming ownonhim.The Israeli obby, hen,musthave omeeffect n policy-makingothinthe egislativend executive ranches ftheUS governmentn issuesrelating o Israel.Otherfactorsmentioned arlier houldn'tbe excludedeither s havingimpacton US-Israeli elations. he weakness f the Arab presentationf tsside, its unfamiliarity ith the Americanpolitical ystem, ts inability ndeven unwillingnesso use internationallyccepted methods o promote heArab national interest are also contributing actors n the favourabletreatmentsrael eceives rom he US.The lost opportunityhe Arabs were handed by Israelto take advantageofthe nternationalondemnation f Israelfor ts double militaryttackonOsirak nd Beirut is a stark xample of Arab mpotence. srael's ast act ofviolence, ike manyotherspreceding t, gave Israelanother ictory nd theArabs anotherdefeat.There were Arab threats nd verbal ttackson Israeland the US, but neitherwas punished for heir art n the aggression.The combinationof Israel's strength nd Arab weakness n the US,coupled with other elementsdetailed above, could be blamed for the USinconsistencyn failing to deal equally with two identical situations.Turkey's iolation f the terms nderwhich t purchased rms rom he USbroughtn arms mbargo pon t,while srael's imilar ct in violation f theterms f theArmsExportControlAct was not evenpursued o the pointofa determination hether violation had occurred t all. The US, unwil-lingness o findout whether n Israeliviolation f Americanaw had in factoccurredsthoughto havebeen dueto the fact hat, naccordancewith helaw, an arms embargo ould be the only outcome: the possibility f a USarms mbargo gainst srael, hough ong ustified y that country's ctionsinviolation f Americanaws, s almostnon-existent.

the political repercussions of the israeli raid on the iraqi nuclear reactor

Documents