Los Angeles Times Dishonest about Pentagon-Funded Report, Recommends Israel Disarm
The Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece this morning by George Bisharat, "a professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco [who] writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle East." The article is titled "Should Israel give up its nukes?", and it claims that a recently released Pentagon funded study recommended that Israel do exactly that:
In a sudden attack of common sense, a Pentagon-commissioned study... suggests an approach to nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East that might actually be accepted by the people of the region.... that U.S. policies begin not with a country that currently lacks nuclear weapons - Iran - but rather with the one that by virtually all accounts already has them - Israel. To avert Iran's apparent drive for nuclear weapons... , concludes Henry Sokolski, a co-editor of Israel should freeze and begin to dismantle its nuclear capability.
The report in question is the Strategic Studies Institute's downloadable "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran" and Bisharat is all but outright lying about the its recommendations. There are exactly 500 uses of the word "Israel" in the report, and not a single one of them is used to recommend that Israel publicly dismantle its nuclear bombs. In fact, it says that such a course would risk all out war in the Middle East. The actual recommendations are found in the summary on page 4:
Isolating Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials by encouraging Israel to take the first steps to freeze and dismantle such capabilities.
and the recommendation is on pages 16-17:
Encourage Israel to initiate a Middle East nuclear restraint effort that would help isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials. Israel should announce that it will unilaterally mothball (but not yet dismantle) Dimona, and place the reactor’s mothballing under IAEA monitoring. At the same time, Israel should announce that it is prepared to dismantle Dimona and place the special nuclear material it has produced in “escrow” in Israel with a third trusted declared nuclear state, e.g., the United States. It should make clear, however, that Israel will only take this additional step when at least two of three Middle Eastern nations (i.e., Algeria, Egypt, or Iran) follow Israel’s lead by mothballing their own declared nuclear facilities that are capable of producing at least one bomb’s worth of plutonium or highly enriched uranium in 1 to 3 years. Israel should further announce that it will take the additional step of handing over control of its weapons usable fissile material to the IAEA when... [a bunch of obligations are met by Arab and Muslim states]
The bolding is our own, and is meant to call attention to two things:
(1) The SSI report explicitly calls for Israel to "not yet dismantle" any nuclear capability, in direct and undeniable contrast to Bisharat's claim that it calls for Israel to "begin to dismantle its nuclear capability"
(2) The report deals only with Israel mothballing fissile material - not nuclear weapons. This is a critical distinction - it's the difference between Israel resting on its arsenal of 150-200 nuclear weapons in an otherwise de-nuclearized Middle East, and Israel weakening itself by dismantling its arsenal. The SSI report does not believe that Israel actually disarming would have any effect on Iranian motives for proliferation because Iran is not developing their arsenal for defensive purposes. They're developing it to destroy Israel:
Rafsanjani expanded on this doomsday calculus in a oft-cited Friday prayer sermon in Tehran on December 14, 2001, noting "the use of a [single] nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground" whereas an Israeli strike on Iran "will only damage the world of Islam"... Rafsanjani said that Israel would be "removed from the region and the world of Islam [as] 'extraneous matter'," and that "those who have gathered together in Israel would one day be dispersed again." This is not the language of mutually assured destruction or deterrence. This is the language of genocide.
The report recommends that Israel trade its ability to produce future bombs for Iran's ability to produce future bombs. Not only does it say the opposite of Israel should "begin to dismantle" anything, but when it refers to "nuclear capability" it is explicitly talking about fissile material and not nuclear bombs!
There's a very specific reason why the SSI authors do not recommend that Israel publicly dismantle its nuclear arsenal - because they think it would risk a regional nuclear war. Bisharat tries to use the report to argue the opposite - that the United States should restore its "international legitimacy" by pressuring Israel to admit and publicly dismantle its nuclear arsenal ("a reversal of our policy would be widely noted regionally" and help "avert Iran's apparent drive for nuclear weapons"). But the report says that such a course would trigger uncontrollable proliferation throughout the Middle East:
The awkwardness of current Middle Eastern arms control proposals [is] that [they] would have Israel... admit that it has nuclear weapons ― a declaration that would force Israel’s neighbors immediately to justify some security reaction including getting bombs of their own.
And even more strongly:
Once Israel admits it has weapons, many of its Muslim neighbors, who still do not recognize Israel, are likely to then use Israel’s admission to justify getting nuclear weapons themselves.
In answer to Bisharat's claim that the United States can solve Iran's incentive to proliferate by forcing Israel to begin publicly dismantling its nuclear weapons, the report asserts that:
(a) Iran will proliferate for reasons independent of Israel
(b) Israel shouldn't begin by dismantling anything
(c) Israeli should limit fissile production (it doesn't recommend dismantling nuclear weapons in any way)
(d) Israel should avoid publicly disclosing its nukes in any way
At this point, the only imaginable answer that Bisharat could make is that he didn't mean to imply that "nuclear capability" meant "nuclear bombs" or that "nuclear disarmament" meant "disarming nuclear weapons". In other words, he'd have to make the absurd claim that all of the times in his article when he says that the problem to be solved is Israeli possession of any nuclear weapons...
Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an ally are simply not an urgent concern. Yet this rationale neglects a fundamental law of arms proliferation. Nations seek WMD when their rivals already possess them.
... has nothing to do with the SSI report that the rest of his article is about - that is, about the ongoing Israeli production of new fissile material. He'd also have to claim that when he goes on and on about how "a Pentagon-commissioned study" made up of "experts" and "no enemies of Israel", after "two years of deliberations" - when he goes on and on about how qualified that study is, he'd have to claim that he wasn't trying to imply that they actually agree with any of his recommendations (let alone, you know, vehemently disagree with them). The entire article is a blatant and dishonest attempt to call upon the authority of military experts to endorse something that they think would be a disaster.
But even if he was willing to sink to admitting that he is an abysmally dishonest writer, it still wouldn't suffice to explain away the really egregious dishonesty in the article. The headline pretty much proves that the intent of the article was to deceive Los Angeles Times readers. The title - "should Israel give up its nukes" - is a question which Bisharat asserts that the SSI report answers in the affirmative (in "a sudden attack of common sense", no less!) But the report not only fails to makesuch a recommendation, it declares that such a course risks uncontrollable nuclear proliferation, with nuclear miscalculation and war not far behind. The Los Angeles Times should issue an apology to the SSI and to its readers for the absolutely surreal mendacity of this article.
In a sudden attack of common sense, a Pentagon-commissioned study... suggests an approach to nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East that might actually be accepted by the people of the region.... that U.S. policies begin not with a country that currently lacks nuclear weapons - Iran - but rather with the one that by virtually all accounts already has them - Israel. To avert Iran's apparent drive for nuclear weapons... , concludes Henry Sokolski, a co-editor of Israel should freeze and begin to dismantle its nuclear capability.
The report in question is the Strategic Studies Institute's downloadable "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran" and Bisharat is all but outright lying about the its recommendations. There are exactly 500 uses of the word "Israel" in the report, and not a single one of them is used to recommend that Israel publicly dismantle its nuclear bombs. In fact, it says that such a course would risk all out war in the Middle East. The actual recommendations are found in the summary on page 4:
Isolating Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials by encouraging Israel to take the first steps to freeze and dismantle such capabilities.
and the recommendation is on pages 16-17:
Encourage Israel to initiate a Middle East nuclear restraint effort that would help isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials. Israel should announce that it will unilaterally mothball (but not yet dismantle) Dimona, and place the reactor’s mothballing under IAEA monitoring. At the same time, Israel should announce that it is prepared to dismantle Dimona and place the special nuclear material it has produced in “escrow” in Israel with a third trusted declared nuclear state, e.g., the United States. It should make clear, however, that Israel will only take this additional step when at least two of three Middle Eastern nations (i.e., Algeria, Egypt, or Iran) follow Israel’s lead by mothballing their own declared nuclear facilities that are capable of producing at least one bomb’s worth of plutonium or highly enriched uranium in 1 to 3 years. Israel should further announce that it will take the additional step of handing over control of its weapons usable fissile material to the IAEA when... [a bunch of obligations are met by Arab and Muslim states]
The bolding is our own, and is meant to call attention to two things:
(1) The SSI report explicitly calls for Israel to "not yet dismantle" any nuclear capability, in direct and undeniable contrast to Bisharat's claim that it calls for Israel to "begin to dismantle its nuclear capability"
(2) The report deals only with Israel mothballing fissile material - not nuclear weapons. This is a critical distinction - it's the difference between Israel resting on its arsenal of 150-200 nuclear weapons in an otherwise de-nuclearized Middle East, and Israel weakening itself by dismantling its arsenal. The SSI report does not believe that Israel actually disarming would have any effect on Iranian motives for proliferation because Iran is not developing their arsenal for defensive purposes. They're developing it to destroy Israel:
Rafsanjani expanded on this doomsday calculus in a oft-cited Friday prayer sermon in Tehran on December 14, 2001, noting "the use of a [single] nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground" whereas an Israeli strike on Iran "will only damage the world of Islam"... Rafsanjani said that Israel would be "removed from the region and the world of Islam [as] 'extraneous matter'," and that "those who have gathered together in Israel would one day be dispersed again." This is not the language of mutually assured destruction or deterrence. This is the language of genocide.
The report recommends that Israel trade its ability to produce future bombs for Iran's ability to produce future bombs. Not only does it say the opposite of Israel should "begin to dismantle" anything, but when it refers to "nuclear capability" it is explicitly talking about fissile material and not nuclear bombs!
There's a very specific reason why the SSI authors do not recommend that Israel publicly dismantle its nuclear arsenal - because they think it would risk a regional nuclear war. Bisharat tries to use the report to argue the opposite - that the United States should restore its "international legitimacy" by pressuring Israel to admit and publicly dismantle its nuclear arsenal ("a reversal of our policy would be widely noted regionally" and help "avert Iran's apparent drive for nuclear weapons"). But the report says that such a course would trigger uncontrollable proliferation throughout the Middle East:
The awkwardness of current Middle Eastern arms control proposals [is] that [they] would have Israel... admit that it has nuclear weapons ― a declaration that would force Israel’s neighbors immediately to justify some security reaction including getting bombs of their own.
And even more strongly:
Once Israel admits it has weapons, many of its Muslim neighbors, who still do not recognize Israel, are likely to then use Israel’s admission to justify getting nuclear weapons themselves.
In answer to Bisharat's claim that the United States can solve Iran's incentive to proliferate by forcing Israel to begin publicly dismantling its nuclear weapons, the report asserts that:
(a) Iran will proliferate for reasons independent of Israel
(b) Israel shouldn't begin by dismantling anything
(c) Israeli should limit fissile production (it doesn't recommend dismantling nuclear weapons in any way)
(d) Israel should avoid publicly disclosing its nukes in any way
At this point, the only imaginable answer that Bisharat could make is that he didn't mean to imply that "nuclear capability" meant "nuclear bombs" or that "nuclear disarmament" meant "disarming nuclear weapons". In other words, he'd have to make the absurd claim that all of the times in his article when he says that the problem to be solved is Israeli possession of any nuclear weapons...
Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an ally are simply not an urgent concern. Yet this rationale neglects a fundamental law of arms proliferation. Nations seek WMD when their rivals already possess them.
... has nothing to do with the SSI report that the rest of his article is about - that is, about the ongoing Israeli production of new fissile material. He'd also have to claim that when he goes on and on about how "a Pentagon-commissioned study" made up of "experts" and "no enemies of Israel", after "two years of deliberations" - when he goes on and on about how qualified that study is, he'd have to claim that he wasn't trying to imply that they actually agree with any of his recommendations (let alone, you know, vehemently disagree with them). The entire article is a blatant and dishonest attempt to call upon the authority of military experts to endorse something that they think would be a disaster.
But even if he was willing to sink to admitting that he is an abysmally dishonest writer, it still wouldn't suffice to explain away the really egregious dishonesty in the article. The headline pretty much proves that the intent of the article was to deceive Los Angeles Times readers. The title - "should Israel give up its nukes" - is a question which Bisharat asserts that the SSI report answers in the affirmative (in "a sudden attack of common sense", no less!) But the report not only fails to makesuch a recommendation, it declares that such a course risks uncontrollable nuclear proliferation, with nuclear miscalculation and war not far behind. The Los Angeles Times should issue an apology to the SSI and to its readers for the absolutely surreal mendacity of this article.
