The Political Repercussions of the Israeli Raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor Author(s): Ghassan Bishara Source: Journal

of Palestine Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Spring, 1982), pp. 58-76 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies Stable 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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Institute for Palestine Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Palestine Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

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

The Political Repercussions o? the Israeli Raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor
GHASSAN BISHARA* ally of the United States and a In August 1974, Turkey,a long-time weaponsto the USSR, used American-supplied memberof NATO bordering there. In "invade" Cyprus in order to "protect" the Turkishcommunity weapons, flew over June 1981, Israel, also employingAmerican-supplied and Saudi territory to bomb and "serious(ly) and basic(ally)"' Jordanian just outsideof Baghdad.BothTurkey destroy Iraq's Tammuznuclearreactor under and Israel by theiruse of Americanweaponryviolated agreements to whichtheyhad been obtainedfrom the UnitedStates.Whiletheresponse military the Turkish action in Cyprus was a complete US government Israelgot away withonlya mildreprimand. on Turkey, suppliesembargo Iraq's NuclearFacility IsraelDestroys An examinationof whetherIsrael violated the termsunder which it is suppliedwith US arms need not have waiteduntilJune1981, when Israel the in the Arabworld,although the mostadvancednuclearreactor destroyed of the act itself, was carried out in and the factthatthe bombing magnitude a countrywith which it sharesno borders, made this case unique. In fact, weapons had this question of the use made by Israelof American-supplied of 1978, whenthe IsraeliarmyinvadedLebanon, alreadyarisenin the spring a sovereigncountrywith definedborders,occupied a part of Lebanese
of the PalestinianEnglish-language Ghassan Bisharais Washington correspondent weekly,al-Fajr (Jerusalem). I ABC News, "Issues and Answers,"Sunday,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

THE ISRAELI RAID ON IRAQ

59

onlyin name,leaving and laterwithdrew south of the Litani River, territory behind the puppet [renegadeLebanese ArmyMajor] Saad Haddad to fulfil there. Israel'sobjectives at the timeto Israel's move againstLebanon with US armswas thought Cyrus have been in violation of Americanlaw. In a reportto Congress, of the US arms thata violation Congress informed Vance's StateDepartment was the with Israelhad possiblyoccurred.That, however, sales agreements extentof US reaction.Both beforethatdate and since,Israelhas constantly and massively violated Lebanese sovereigntyusing American-supplied weapons. Although a good argumentcould be put forwardthat full by IsraelagainstLebanonshouldhavetaken of theseviolations investigations fromthese incursions the loss of liferesulting place, especiallyconsidering none evermaterialized. nature, repetitious and their a firm stand It seems reasonableto assumethat had the US maintained againstBaghdad's of itslaws," the strike withIsraelto "uphold the sanctity nuclearfacilityand the subsequentstrike5 weeks lateragainstapartment in Beirutmay not have occurredat all. It is logical to conclude buildings to these Israeli the mild reactionof the US government that, considering in Arab states acts, both the natureand numberof Israeliraidson targets willescalate. Babylon: F15's and F16's Operation to flyfrom It took 90 minutes forthe world'smostadvancedwarplanes their destination to Saudi territory and in Israel over Jordanian somewhere eightF16's dropped16 tonsof TNT on thereactor, where,in two minutes, it into a pile of rubble. Iraq's $215 millionTammuzreactorceased turning a Frenchman, were to be, and an undisclosednumberof people, including of the strike:world criticism were revealedfollowing killed.Some surprises the mild and the act forthe precedent it set, Iraq's lack of any realreaction, of the UnitedStates. response to convinceArab statesof the The United States, hard at work trying of theSovietthreat to their interests, wastakenabackbytheIsraeli seriousness informed by Israel of the strikethree attack. Althoughit was ostensibly hoursafterits occurrence, the UnitedStateswaited formorethan12 hours of releasedby the Department to revealthe newsto its media.The statement Stateon June8 read as follows:
condemns the reportedIsraeliair strikeon the Iraqi The United States government add to nuclear facility, the unprecedentedcharacterof which cannot but seriously the already tense situation in the area. Available evidence suggestsUS-provided equipment was employed in possible violation of the applicable agreementunder which it was sold to Israel, and a report to this effect is being prepared for US statute. submission to the US Congressinaccordancewiththerelevant

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

60 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

The obvious violation by Israel of the US arms agreementwas an to the UnitedStates. It was no secretthat at the timeboth embarrassment their improving the United States and Iraq were seriouslyconsidering Saudi mediation.2OperationBabylonthusappearedto following relations, to closerArab-USties. have the potentialof causinga set-back withregard impliedthatthe UnitedStates senior officials Some Americangovernment condemnthe action forfearof losingcredibility mustdo morethan merely that of with the Arab states, but once Arab reaction,and particularly Baghdadbecame clear,theyhad to retreat. the UnitedStates,Reagan Israelreceivedfrom Besidesthe condemnation of fourF16's due in the delivery of on June10 also orderedthe suspension if a violation to determine of a review completion Israelon June12, pending of Whilesuspension on armssales had occurred. of the US-Israeliagreement to State Departof the four F16's was in effect, Israel,according delivery items.It also soon continuedto receiveall othermilitary mentspokesmen, any was not contemplating became clear that the Reagan administration action against Israel. These views were being expressedby various further and were likewise expressedat Conspokesmen of the administration, Israeli action. concerning the hearings gressional clearthatthe "law On June15, the StateDepartment was alreadymaking Israelhad violated that is, whether does not requiresuch determination,"3 official, This reporter asked a State Department the armssales agreements. how then will it be judged "If you are not makingany determination, whetheror not Israel violated the arms sales agreement?" The official fromthe replied,"Let's wait untilthe reviewis complete." Similarreports of the fourF16's was WhiteHouse also hintedthatsuspensionof delivery reactionto the possible Israeliviolationof the limitof the administration's to of the administration Americanlaw. In fact, a campaignby members President Reagan rationalize the Israeli action had begun. On June 16, questions about Israel's move, said, "Israel may have answering himself, one." Otherauthoritative sincerely believedthat its move was a defensive was to be expected. also indicatedthatno actionbeyondsuspension reports Sales Act Is Amended Military The Foreign of the ArmsExportControlAct (AECA), as amended Under provisions Sales Act,the Military on June20, 1976 and formerly knownas the Foreign of or not a violation whether executivebranchis not requiredto determine

2 New York

3 US Department of State Daily Briefing, June15, 1981.

Times,June9, 1981, p. 1.

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

THE ISRAELI RAID ON IRAQ 61

the AECA has occurred.4 The law, which was amended by legislation sponsored by threeof Israel'sbest friends in the US Senate - SenatorsJavit and Case (Republicans of New York and New Jerseyrespectively), and Humphrey(Democrat-Minnesota) now merely requires the President promptly to reportto Congressif a violation"may have occurred."The originalreadingof the AECA in Section 3c had been that a country found "in substantial violation"of the agreement "shallbe immediately ineligible" forarmspurchases or deliveries.5 A determination as to whether a violation had occurredwas requiredby the President, as was thereport of his findings to Congress. Fearfulof possiblecomplication forIsraelunderthe terms of the original text of the law, SenatorsJavits, Case and Humphrey proposedan amendmentwhichin factexemptedIsraelfromany possibleviolationof the law. The wording proposedby the Senators makesautomatic enforcement of the law difficultat best, and rendersit subject to the recipientcountry's The new law also givesthe President interpretations. and/orCongressthe prerogative to determine whether or not a substantial violation has occurred. In the case of Israel, verygood reasonswere to be found to justifythe absence of a determination by the Presidentor Congress,without any In accordancewiththe amendedlaw, Secretary Haig on June10 sent a letter to House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neil (D-Massachusetts) about the Israeli raid on the Osirak plant. In this letter,SecretaryHaig officially notified Congress of the raid, adding that the Israeli Air Force was "reportedly equipped withdefensearticlesthathad been furnished to Israel by the UnitedStates underthe foreign military sales program." These arms sales, Haigwrote, are "governed by a MutualDefenseAssistance Agreement" dated July23, 1952 (TIAS 2675), assuring the US government that such equipment, material or services"are requiredforand will be used solelyto maintain its internal security, its legitimate self-defense of the area of which it is a part....""On behalfof the President," that Haig added, "I mustreport a substantial violation of the 1952 agreement mayhaveoccurred."6 Secretary Haig also explained in his letterthat a "reviewof this entire matter"would be conducted,takinginto account Israel's contention that atomic weapons to use againstit. Haig Iraq was intenton manufacturing elaboratedthatthe UnitedStateswould makeveryclearits desireto see that countries foreign receiving US defencearticles"scrupulously"observethe
4 Committeeon Foreign Relations, CurrentLegislation and Related Exec. Orders(Washington, Office,1980), pp. 279-81. Printing D.C.: US Government S Ibid. 6 New York Times,June11, 1981.

effectiveopposition.

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

62 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

conditionsand termsunder which these articlesare supplied them. The Congressof Reagan's suspension,"for the time Secretaryalso informed being,"of the fourF16's.7 underthe amendedlaw werethusmetby The administration's obligations mayhave occurred."As thata "possibleviolation Congress simplynotifying in this letter of any at all was no mention can be observed, there Israelhad the reviewas to whether following determination, administration law or not. violatedAmerican that"no credits Section 3 (C) (I) (A) of the AECA in partstillstipulates country may be extendedforany foreign may be issuedand no guarantees uses" such articlessuppliedby the United underthis act... if such country to enteredinto pursuant violationof any agreement States "in substantial underSection4. (Section4 not authorized any such act,"8 and forpurposes provisionswere specifiedabove.) Also, because the AECA does not, in selfSection 4, define termssuch as "internalsecurity"and "legitimate define and and Congress to interpret defense",it was left to the President wereto thesetermsand their to any givencase. Ifthe President applicability and so inform in writing, was foundin that a country Congress determine, for would become ineligible violationof AECA's terms,then that country further receiptof armsunderthatact. Congresscan also legislateto impose sanctionson a violatorcountry. it should be stated,would be subject to the presidential Such legislation, of a US embargoon armsto Israelwas never veto process. The possibility had a say in it. In addition,Israelhas never likely,especiallywhen Congress been known to hesitateto conduct any action it claims necessaryfor its in the US securitybased on potential Americanreaction. Nevertheless, as well as membersof the Senate ForeignRelationsCommittee, Congress, those of the House ForeignAffairs expressedmore disapproval Committee, operation. of theraidon Iraq's reactor thanof any otherIsraelimilitary Case BeforetheSenate ForeignRelationsCommittee about The unprecedented of Congress angerexpressedby some members the Osirak raid in which, by Israel's own admission,American-supplied context. weapons were employed,should be looked at in itstotal Israeli-US The main question of relevanceto Congresswas whetherthe attack was that Iraq was about to manubased only on Israel's argument justifiable, it an atomicbomb targeted for Israel,as Beginclaimed,or whether facture This was unjustifiable, based on all other sources' counter-arguments.
7 Ibid. 8 Israel's Raid into Iraq, Issues Brief No. IB81103, CongressionalResearch Service, Libraryof June18, 1981 to July28, 1981, pp. 10-11. Congress,

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

THE ISRAELI RAID ON IRAQ 63

atomicweapons,and would was that Iraq was not manufacturing viewpoint for years. some havebeen unableto do so public The text of an Israeli statement"to explain (and) enlighten opinion" about the raid on Osirakalso claimed"the goal forthesebombs... to attributed statement was explicitly statedby the Iraqiruler."This official Saddam Husseina quote froman addressto the IraniangovernPresident mentthat "it was pointless"forthemto damagethe plant "because it was added thata bomb being built against Israel alone." The Israelistatement to the one droppedby the producedby thisreactorwould havebeen similar of the reactor, in 1945. Dates forcompletion United States on Hiroshima 1981. of Julyor September were the beginning to thisstatement, according the to made, according to be reactor had the Thus the decisionto bomb of of the residents contamination forfearthat radioactive Israelistatement, had Baghdadwould be riskedif such an attacktook place once the reactor The date of the attackwas set been allowedto become "hot" or operational. would at thereactor employees because foreign fora Sunday,it was claimed, All of the statement.9 to hurt", according "no expert was foreign be off, and these points were shownto be false,not only by Iraq but by otherparties the United Nations and US sources, such as the French government, sources. Congressional including the reactor, law in bombing international The Israelidecisionto supersede and of the act shockedmanypolitical,military and the Israelijustification New of the Reston wrote James time," is the first "This specialists. nuclear of atomicweaponsthata statehas insisted York Times,"since the invention thatit in another to destroy country any atomicfacility thatit had the right Reston suspectsmay be developingnuclearweapons for its destruction." "the larger questionof whatwould happen to consider called on Washington to bombany other if all nationsthought, like Israel,thattheyhad theright nuclearweaponsthatcould be used against nationthat might be developing them."'0 of State Was Iraq really buildinga nuclear weapon? Under-Secretary of the Non-Proliferation WalterJ. Stoessel pointed to Iraq's ratification uranium that "Iraq's reactorand supplyof enriched and mentioned Treaty, Atomic EnergyAgency controls." Stoessel were subject to International whichcould wenton to express"concern" about the Iraqi nuclearfacility, "if otherelements wereadded."" giveIraq a nuclearcapability totallyrejected France,which was buildingthe reactorunder contract, Israel's contentions that Iraq would have been capable of manufacturing
9 New York Times, June 9, 1981, p. 8. 10 Ibid.

1 Statement June18, 1981. Stoessel,Senate ForeignRelationsCommittee, By Walter

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

64 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

"the right nuclearweaponsat Osirak.Underthe contract, Francemaintained said to inspect the facilityin Iraq through1989," Francois Mitterrand later.'2 French government officialsargued that France would not have the reactor allowed Iraq to developa nuclearcapability, and thattechnically of the plant was not equipped forsuch tasks. France called the destruction Minister Claude "unacceptable"and "a breachof international law." Foreign in hisgovernment's in Paris,also to the IsraeliAmbassador Cheysson, protest noted that the "Atomic EnergyAgency (AEA) inspectedthe reactorin and foundno evidence"to supportIsrael'sclaim.'3 January Begin,however,went on to claim that France had helped Iraq build a nuclear secret undergroundtunnel for the purpose of manufacturing officials "a was calledby Frenchforeign ministry weapons. Begin'sargument fantasy."'4 The Israeligovernment latercompletely droppedthisargument. from to explainthe death of the Frenchtechnician resulting Also, in trying the raid, the Israeli government, throughan army chief of intelligence, Yehuda Saguy,explainedthat"perhapsthe failure was in France." A French officialcalled such remarks implying priorFrenchknowledgeof the raid "scandalous." In Vienna, the International Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA) Director General SigvardElund confirmed Iraq's claim that the Agency"has insnot in pected the Iraqi reactorand has not foundevidenceof any activities accordancewiththe Non-Proliferation to referred Treaty."'s The inspection in a was conductedin January1981. The Congressional ResearchService, study conducted on the Israeli raid also concluded that no weapons manufacture was possible at Osirakwithoutit being detectedby French technicians,'6and the same publication wenton to quote an IAEA report released on February27, 1981 confirming that "all nuclearmaterialwas accountedfor"at thatplant,and thata monthly would havebeen inspection l 7 "afterstart-up. instituted In fact,Haaretz,the independent IsraeliHebrewdaily,on July17, 1981, Germanand othernuclearscientists wrotethat American, arguedthatIraq's earliestpossible nuclearweapons manufacture would be six to sevenyears away and possiblynot beforethe end of the decade. AmongIsrael'snuclear scientist Haaretz continued,"not even one serious (responsible) scientists, arguedthat Iraq may producenuclearweapons before1984-1985.'"18 This
12 Israel's Raid into Iraq, Issues Brief No. IB81103,

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 Brief No. IB81103, 17 Ibid., p. 4. 18 Haaretz (Israel), July 17, 1981, p. 23.

p. 6.

p. 3.

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

THE ISRAELI RAID ON IRAQ 65

date, Haaretz says, was givenby those Israeliscientists most alarmedby Iraq's programme. The same paperwenton to quote an Israeliofficial study, "The Iraqi NuclearThreat", in whichthereis agreement withthat date as beingtheearliest possibleforIraqiexplosionof a nucleardevice.'9 Begin's argument, therefore, that Iraq was on the vergeof possessing thathad the nuclearcapabilityis altogether erroneous.So is his argument reactorbecome "hot", its destruction would have caused manycasualties. Again,Haaretz,in the articlequoted above,statesthatspecialists agreedthat at worst,even if the reactor radioactive was "hot" and a strong windcarried materialtowardspopulatedcentres, therewould have been a fewthousand affected, but not killed.Those who finally decided to go on withthe plan, the dailycontinues, werePrime Minister Begin, thethenAgriculture Minister ArielSharon, and Chiefof Staff RafaelEitan. The claim by Israeliintelligence that President Saddam Husseinof Iraq had stated that the nuclear bomb Iraq was buildingwas not to be used against Iran but against Israel20 as allegedlypublishedin al-Thawraand dailies on October4, 1980, was deniedeverto havebeen made al-Jumburiya neither of did the Americans findany confirmation by the Iraqi President; that statement on the date and in the source providedby PrimeMinister Begin. Under the title "Second Error in Begin's Reactor Report", the Jerusalem Post wrote that the Prime Minister's office admittedthat the quote in reference "did not exist.""21 In the Senate ForeignRelationsCommittee hearings on June18, 1981, Israel's case was more than ever before questioned and even attacked. Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio), a possible democraticcandidate for the presidency, was particularly critical of Israel.He referred to Israel'sattackon Osirakas "vigilante tactics,no one can denythat," and accusedthe Reagan administration and Carter'sbeforeit of doingnothing about suchviolations of international law. In 1978 and 1979, Glennsaid, the Senate "receiveda report thattheremayhavebeen a violation(in Lebanonby Israel)...nothing was everdone about it." He thentold Under-Secretary Stoessel"thisis not a littleborderviolationwe're talking about. Thisis 650 milesaway and across - sovereignnations." Senator Glenn then asked Stoessel two countries whether"the administration determined thatthe administration will make its own independent determination" if a violation by Israelhad takenplace. The Under-Secretary, speakingon behalfof the administration, replied"No, we have not made a decision on that." In anothersession,SenatorGlenn again questionedIsrael's attack on the reactorwith sharp sarcasm,saying
20 New York Times,June9, 1981. 21 Jerusalem Post (Israel), June15, 1981.
19 Ibid.

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

66 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

that he would like to know if Iran's nuclearreactorhad any uraniumor policytheyused plutonium, for Israelmight use "the same non-proliferation on Iraq." Senator Mathias (R-Maryland)was also criticalof Israeli actions and policy. The of such behaviouron US foreign concernedabout the effects out the fundamental questionof "the extentto Maryland Senatorbrought the policyof the UnitedStatesto be determined whichwe can permit by the with Israel,Mathiassaid, actions of another state." The US relationship withArab statesin the region.He "can't be exclusionary"of relationships then questioned whetherthe US could stand idly by while Begin takes law. rapprochement withinternational successiveactions which undermine in Mathiasasked Stoesselforthelocationsof the knownnuclearfacilities the Middle East, to whichStoesselrepliedat length, but in a barelyaudible Chairman SenatorPercyto repeat voice. Whenhe was asked by Committee his answers,the audience in the committeeroom respondedwith loud a list of countriesthat have nuclear applause. Stoessel then went through facilities includingIsrael,where "there is a naturaluraniumreactorand a research reactor." Mathiasthen asked whichof those facilities weresubjectto international whosefacilities thatthe onlytwo countries inspection; and Stoesselrevealed are not subjectto such inspection are Israeland Pakistan. In answer that Stoesseltold the Committee to SenatorMathias'questions, "The small researchreactorin Israel, I think,is of US origin.The natural uraniumreactor,I think,was built in cooperationwith France." Senator that Mathiasthen explainedthe purposebehindhis last question,implying some responsibility for the reactors and compliance with international whichsuppliessuch facilities. safeguards shouldbe laid on the country AnotherSenator who displayedsome irritation withthe Israeliact was between SenatorTsongas (D-Massachusetts) who said, "I...drawa distinction the state of Israeland Prime Minister MenachemBegin."He thenspeculated, with Israelifearsof an Iraqi nuclearcapability, thoughhe may sympathize "Were I in Israel's shoes would I have done the same thing? I am not with Sadat's positionof sure...." Senator Tsongas expressedhis sympathy havingmet with Beginjust threedays beforethe raid on Osirak.Begin,he and completely continued,"did not serve his nation by that intentional avoidableslap at President Sadat." issue whichhe SenatorDodd, (D-Connecticut) touched on an important in the MiddleEast,and wantedaddressed:"How do we defineUS interests and do our specifically with respect to Israel.... What are our priorities interests Senatorthenwent on to and priorities match?" The Connecticut asking whetherthese are only question Israel's interestsand priorities, as defined by Israelitself. He thenfollowed military, politicaland economic

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

THE ISRAELI RAID ON IRAQ 67

witha key questionwhichwas neveranswered. He wantedto "focuson the question...how our interests and priorities coincidewiththoseof Israeland how the Israeliattackon the Iraqinuclearfacility bearson our interests and on Israel...." Under-Secrectary Stoessel, listeningcarefully, only said, "We would prefer to have moretimeto answer yourquestions." Majorityleader Bakerand Chairman Percy,both Republicans, were also criticalof the Israeliraid. But stilltherewere those to whom Israelsimply can do no wrong. Senator Alan Cranston (D-California)is their new champion, who argued the case in defence of the Israeli raid in pieces published in the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.22 One of the CaliforniaSenator'smain points was that Iraq had embarkedupon "a course which could yield nuclearweapons" and that these weapons were destinedto be used againstIsrael.Based on assumptions he himselfadvanced with the help of an Americanaide to IAEA (later dismissedby that Agency), and with quotationsbroughtto lightby the the Israeliintelligence community (later found groundless by Israelitself), Senator concluded that the Israeli raid on the reactorwas in self-defence. Such an argument puts Israelin comfortable compliance withAmerican law Israeliuse of US suppliedweapons.The Senatoralso said thatthe governing US should be concernedabout nucleardevelopment as it relates"particularlyto unstablenationshostileto the US and its allies." If Israelor South the logic follows,are friendly Africa, to the UnitedStatesand appearto be stable, the Senatorthenwould not see anything "particularly" wrongwith their nuclear programme, even thoughtheir hostile intentions and past practices proveto be alarming. The Senatorpresented, in defenceof Israel's case, the same arguments givenby the Israelis, all of whichwerepreviously The hearings of the Senate ForeignRelationsCommittee lasted fortwo whichtimetempers daysduring cooled. Hearings werealso heldat the House ForeignAffairs Committee, wherecriticism of the Israeliraid was even less strong because the Democratically-controlled House is evenmorepro-Israeli than the Senate. Media commentators as well as government officials, consciousnow of the verymoderateArab reaction,eased theirattackson the Israelipositionand by that time, attention to the United was shifting Nations.
disproven.23

date. Record of the appropriate exchangecan be foundin the Congressional

22 New York Times, June10, 1981. 23 Testimonies and the Senate otherwitnesses officials, about the Israeli raid, fromadministration

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

68 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

The ArabsLose an Opportunity The mild Iraqi reaction to the Israeli raid on its nuclearfacility was surprising. That reaction, coupled withthe worldreaction in general, set the tone for the moderateresolutionat the United Nations Security Council. Americanpress commentators, misreading a possible harsh Iraqi reaction, had speculatedon likelyresponses ranging froma similar Iraqi or combined to an oil embargoagainstthe Arab attack againstIsraelinuclearfacilities, to Israel which had carriedout the US, which had supplied the fighters bombing,a possibilityespeciallylikely due to the lightreprimand Israel receivedfromits US backer. It was repeatedlysaid that the Arabs could extracta veryharshresolution againstIsrael- even its expulsionfromthe international body (ensuring a US veto at the SecurityCouncil), or they could accept a mildresolution condemning Israel,unanimously approvedby the Council'smembers. course. Iraq opted forthe latter The argumentusually suggestedin favour of a unanimous Security or a Council resolutionover a non-unanimous Security Council resolution, GeneralAssembly resolution is thatthe lattertwo typeshave no forceand thus are only resolutionson paper. However, the implicationthat a unanimousSecurityCouncil resolutionhas any force is false. Iraq's willingnessto extricatethe United States froma terribly embarrassing vote is againstthe rest of the Security Council members stilla puzzle to many. One can count many resolutionsunanimously adopted by the Security to Council whichremainonlythat.The Araband Iraqi decisionin particular be softwith Israelonly forthe purposeof having the UnitedStatesconcur withtherestof the Councilwas analysedas a not verysound one. JeaneJ. Kirkpatrick, US permanent to the UnitedNations, representative apparently with the personalsupportof President Reagan,made clear her to Israel,exactlyas Reaganhimself had in a press government's commitment a question about the conference at the White House. Reagan, answering reason for concernin view of the past history of Iraq... who doesn't even recognizethe existenceof Israel as a country."Mrs. Kirkpatrick repeated this statementin her speech at the United Nations' debate and added "Israelmight anotherof Reagan'sanswersfromthat same pressconference: move." havesincerely believed(its raidon Iraq's reactor)was a defensive Not forcing the US delegationto the United Nationsto cast a veto in defenceof an Israeliaction condemnedby the UnitedStates' closestallies of goodwill to be a gesture and by the UnitedStatesitselfwas interpreted from Iraq's Baath party to the new Reagan administration. The Iraqi it took into account morethanjust US embarrassment: goodwill,however, savedfaceforthe UnitedStates'Araballies.
Israeli raid said, "... I do think that one has to recognize that Israel has

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

THE ISRAELI RAID ON IRAQ 69

told its In her speech to the UN SecurityCouncil, Jeane Kirkpatrick Israel" and added, to of US ties and commitment members of "the strength and valued ally" of the UnitedStates. The raid on "Israel is an important of our commitment Osirak,she said, does not "in anyway alterthe strength her speech to or the warmthof our feelings..."towardsIsrael.Continuing would made clearthatthe US government the Councilmembers, Kirkpatrick or was unfairly approve no decision that harmedIsrael's "basic interests, Saadun Iraqiforeign minister VII of the UN Charter, Referring to Chapter adoptedby the Councilwas Hamadi impliedin hisspeechthatthe resolution VII of the indequate to deal with the subject under discussion.Chapter discusses"Action withrespectto Threatsto the Peace, Breachesof Charter the Peace and Acts of Aggression"and provides for installationof which may rangefrom"completeor partial sanctionsagainstan aggressor of economic relationsand of rail,sea, air, postal,telegraphic, interruption 41). Should that prove (Article radio and other means of communication" and even inadequate,the restof the chaptercalls forescalationof sanctions to compliancewith military blockade and action to induce the aggressor the to maintainpeace. MinisterHamadi attributed Charterrequirements to the US threatof veto. Hamadiexpressed Council'sinadequateresolution his government's with the resolutionand said that other dissatisfaction thatof the General including channels would be exploredby hisgovernment, Assembly, to pursuethismatter. The Security and securedno Council,havingdebated the Iraqi complaint conadopted a resolutionstrongly sanctions against Israel, unanimously fromany such demningthe Israeli attack and callingon Israel to refrain of Iraq rights fullythe inalienable future action. This resolution recognized of technologicaland nuclear and other states to establish programmes for peaceful purposes.The resolutionalso called on Israelto development and to compensateIraq forthe loss for IAEA inspections open its facilities of the facility.25 AmbassadorBlum of Israel told the Council that Israelbasicallyhas no He also made clear his in Non-Proliferation Treatysafeguards. confidence to the US vote of condemnation, since,he withregard "regret" government's The Ambassador rightto self-defense." said, Israel acted in its "legitimate the Council of his government's went on to inform rejectionof the two which Council resolution Security requestsexpressedin the newly-adopted to to Iraq and forIsraelto open itsnuclearfacilities called forcompensation
24 Statementby US Rep. to the UN, JeaneKirkpatrick beforethe Security Council,Current Policy No. 288 (US Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs), June19, 1981. 25 UN Security Council ResolutionNo. 487 (June19, 1981). punitive.....24

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

70 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

international inspection.26 its law concerning And so the UnitedStates,despiteits wish to preserve with Israel's and havingreasonto show disagreement foreign governments, misuseof Americanweapons in a regionalreadytense and declaredto be decided to minimizeits vital to the United States' best national interest, of the raid and the "suspensionforthe time responseto a condemnation of four F 16 fighters scheduledforthe same week. being" of the delivery groundsforcriticizing Israel found even the suspensionof thesewarplanes while the United States kept the US position,callingthe act unjustified, action and no further Israel that this suspensionwas temporary reassuring would be taken. on July17, when was to be lifted This temporary suspensionof deliveries sectionsof this time on densely-populated news of anotherIsraelistrike, West Beirut,shocked the world. Israel's"orgyof death," as it was dubbed It was announcedthat the embarrassed US officiais. by a Beirutmagazine, of fourF 16's would continue. suspension placed on delivery A month later, on August 17, Secretary of State Haig announcedthe President's decisionto liftthe suspensionof the by then 14 F16's and two "conductedan intensive F15's to Israel. Haig said that the administration with of the Israeliaction. Followingconsultation reviewof the implication has review,the President Congressand completionof the administration's of deliveries to Israel."21 aircraft lifted thesuspension military In Congress, by thistime,all of the apparentangervoiced about Israel's had even possible violationof Americanlaw had dissipated.No legislation brought up. This been proposed,nor was any hintof disciplinary measures case, and the bombing of civilian targetsin Beirut,Haig said in early duringBegin's September, were "behind us" and were not even mentioned visitto Washington. September Therewas no talkin Congress of to see thatthe sanctity of determination Americanweapons as Americanlaw be respectedby countriespurchasing continued to Congress therehad been in the Turkishcase. On the contrary, and economicaid to approving billionsof dollarsof military pass legislation Israel (See Table 1). This was at a time when the foreign aid programmes were cut by 26 percent, and domesticsocial programmes such as lunchfor American were beingslashedor schoolchildren and aid to Vietnamveterans eliminated. altogether This sizeable US aid to Israel obviously excludes American non26 The InternationalAtomic Energy Agency late in Septembervoted to expel Israel fromthe Agency unless it opened its nuclear facilitiesto international inspection.As expected, the United Statesvoted againstthe resolution- the only Western countryto do so. 27 New York Times,August18,1981.

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

THE ISRAELI RAID ON IRAQ 71

US Military and Economic Aid to Israel,1962-1980 (in millionsof US dollars)28

TABLE

EconomicAssistance Total EconomicAssistance Assistance Military Total Military Assistance Total Military and EconomicAssistance Total Military and EconomicAssistance
198230

Loans Grants Loans

Grants

$ $ $ $

1,856.7 3,113.0 4,969.7 7,661.6

$ 5,250.0

1981 29

$12,911.6 $ 2.2 billion

$ 2.1 & $ 600 billion(about halfin grants) Total US military and economicassistance to Israel1962-80= $23,440 million.

and non-Jewish, whichtotalin to Israel,Jewish contributions governmental the hundredsof millions,and does not include US guaranteesof interloans to Israel. It should also be said thatsince 1973, nationalorganization Israel had officially"been required to pay back only half the cost of from the UnitedStates.' weaponspurchased A simple divisionof the approximately $23.5 billion over the average threemillionpopulationof Israel between 1962-1982 revealsthat,in this period,everyIsraeli citizenreceiveda littleless than $8,000 fromthe US. it means that every Since about 50 percentof this total aid is in grants, Israelicitizenreceivedabout $4,000 in grantsfromthe US in the period mentioned. to make some sense of this Justfor comparison'ssake, and in an effort massive aid programme to Israel, it can be contrastedwith the US aid of Africa, to Jordanand the whole continent programme excludingEgypt. and economicassistanceto Jordanwitha populaThe total US military
28 US OverseasLoans, Grantsand AssistancefromInternational Organizations (Officeof Planning September 30, 1981. and Budgeting, Agencyof International Development), 29 Congressional Record,June17, 1981. 30 A.I.D. PressOffice. 31 The Middle East, U.S. Policy, Israel, Oil, and the Arabs, fourth edition (Congressional Quarterly) Washington, D.C., 1979, p. 45.

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

72 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

and Economic Aid to Jordan,1962-1980 US Military (in millionsof US dollars)

TABLE 2

EconomicAssistance Assistance Military

Loans Grants Total Loans Grants Total

$ 295.2 $ 844.6 $1,139.8 $ 444.5 $ 534.7 $ 979.2

tion of about threemillionbetween1962-1980 was $2,119 million.32 That to Israelwitha populationof some threemillion was $23,440 million. In this same period (1962-1980), and again, to make these numbers relevantto Israel, the total US aid to the whole continentof AfricaexcludingEgypt- witha populationof 446 million, was $8,601.5 million. and $3,269.3 was in payableloans. Of this,$5,332.2 million was in grants the to Israelis the largest It can thusbe seen thatthe US aid programme all to any singlecountry, thanthatto all of Africa, and greater US provides of Latin America(US $12,978.7 from1962-1980), and evengreater (at least in numberof total US dollars) than economic and military aid to Europe during the Marshall Plan Period from 1949-1952 which totalled $21,469.4 million.33
3 and Economic Aid to Africa,ExcludingEgypt,1962-1980 US Military (in millionsof US dollars)
TABLE

EconomicAssistance Assistance Military

Loans Grants Total Loans Grants Total

$2,546.1 $4,971.7 $7,517.8 $ 723.2 $ 360.5 $1,083.7

32 US OverseasLoans, Grants and Budgeting)1980. and Assistance(Officeof Planning 33 Ibid.

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

THE ISRAELI RAID ON IRAQ 73

An ally of Israel such as the United States can - and even shouldlevel of cooperationand respectableinternaexpect of Israel a minimum withdiverseinterests tional behaviour.The United States,a superpower in varying areas of the world,and whose declaredinterest in the maintenance of peace is well-known, is risking theseinterests and worldpeace if it failsto exertsome restraints on such an ally as Israel.This is so even thoughIsrael accuses the whole region- or the whole world - of hostility to it. Israel's in theMiddleEast, Southern behaviour Africa, and LatinAmericain support of racist,right-wing is becomingan enigmaof world and apartheid regimes In politicsand a frequent source of embarrassment to the US government. the Middle East in particular,where the US has a vested interestin maintaining the status quo, Israelkeeps the regiontense and vulnerable to outbreaks of violence and hostilityto the United States, its mentor. Consideringthe leveragethe United States has over Israel, throughits financial, military and diplomaticbacking,it is logicalto expectAmerica to bring thisinfluence to bear. The majorityof the Americanpublic is not much concernedwith the Arab-Israeli conflict.This apathy and the lack of public interestin the Middle East and in foreign policy in generalwork in favourof pro-Israeli opinionmakers, policymakers and lawmakers who, in reacting to the small but intense pro-Israeli minority, makean initiative in Israel'sfavour safe. In a Gallup opinion index (May 1975), American respondents answered the questionregarding theirsympathies as follows:
SYMPATHY FOR ISRAEL SYMPATHY forTHE ARAB STATES NEITHER
(/)

(%)

(%)

NO OPINION

(%)

April1975 January 1975 December1975 October1973 (late) October1973 (early) February 1970 February 1969

37 44 54 48 47 44 50

8 8 8 6 6 3 5

24 22 24 21 22 32 28

31 26 14 25 25 21 17

In a Louis Harrispoll (of September1980, commissioned by the World Jewish Congress), underthe title"A Studyof the Attitudes of the American people and the American Jewish Communitytoward the Arab-Israeli in the Middle East," Harrisproposed,"If it looked as thoughIsrael Conflict

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

74 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

was goingto be overrun by the Arabs in anotherwar, the US should be to send troopsto supportIsrael." The American this publicrejected willing proposition by 48 percent to 36 percent. Concerningan independent feltthat the Palestinian state, 71 percentto 12 percentof the respondents "Palestinianpeople are now homelessand deservetheirown independent state,just as much as the Jewsdeserveda homelandafterWorldWarII." Americanpublic supportfor Israel is thus not a factto whichpolicy-and alike a vehicleused by conservatives and liberals law-makers react,but rather and electoralreward, and forideologicaljustification for personalfinancial fortheirsupportof Israel. Naturally,it would not be sound to conclude that, if and when the of Americans stateactively lobby for a Palestinian majority who now favour statewillbe established. it,a Palestinian There are those who argue that Americansupportfor Israel has to do interests, and thatthe Israelilobby does not only withAmerican imperialist A seriousconsideration. have much to do with it. This argument deserves young State Departmentideologue once said to me in responseto the "imperialist" argument:If the Arabs only testedtheirgreatleverageon us (and I am paraphrasing him), we would only have two choices: eitherto occupy the oil wells of Arabia or simplyto givein. The UnitedStateshas a in the area of the Middle East and has, as well, a diversity of greatinterest interests there. Many Palestinian,Arab and American social scientistssee more to relations than favourable US-Israeli pressand a powerfully organizedIsraeli powerwhichsupports lobby. These critics arguethatthe US is an imperialist Israelin the Middle East as a stepping of the region. stone to the resources role thus as interests, does Israel's to US regionaland strategic far, relating it. not negatethatassessment, but seemsto confirm The US, because of its global financial is almost and economicinterests, dollar corporatestructureto follow a obliged by its giant multi-billion the riskto these interests, even if in doingso policywhichwould minimize otherpeoples' interests rights are shelved. It is a policy dictatedby more and than powerful pressat timesexercises lobbies,and eventhe "free"American self-control in defenceof thoseinterests. It is interesting to draw an analogy between the reaction of the US to two similar to actionsby "friendly" foreign powersthought government be in violationof US laws. The act committed valuable by Turkey(a highly which alliance),during ally, not only to the US but to all of the Western weapons, was not considered acceptable Turkey use American-supplied by whichTurkeyreceivesarmsfromthe underthe termsof the agreement US. The Turkishmilitary it was move againstthe islandnationof Cyprus, community arguedby Turkey, was one aimed at the defenceof the Turkish

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

THE ISRAELI RAID ON IRAQ 75

in Cyprus, threatened, according to some reports, withdestruction. In reactionto the Turkishmilitary movethe US Congress placed an arms the whole NATO embargo on Turkey, weakeningit and thus affecting The main reasonforthe US retaliation it was argued, against Turkey, was to see to it thattheterms of American law are fully Congress'determination adheredto, even if in so doingUS nationalinterests maybe risked. Another factor, thoughless important, but whichneedsto be touchedupon,was the of the Greeklobby,whichpushedhardwithCongress involvement to have Turkey punished for its act.34 Turkey doesn't have a sizeable national in the US and therefore community therewas no balance to the organized and cohesiveGreeklobby. Israel's lobby was one componentwhich eventually contributed to the in an articlein of the armsembargoagainstTurkey.SenatorMathias, lifting confirms ForeignAffairs, thatinvolvement.35 Israel,he says,"was in favour of liftingthe arms embargoto Turkeybecause of its relianceon the US listeningpost in Turkey."36 The role of the Israeli lobby was again manifestedand successfully helped achieve a goal which was in Israel's favour. in efforts to enact the terms it had set forthe sale of American Congress, weapons to other countries,supplied evidence that Turkey had used its military American-supplied weapons during campaignon Cyprus.It also became clear to most membersof Congressthat Turkey's use of these assertions to the contrary. weapons was not in self-defence, despiteTurkey's of such information Availability was the justification upon whichCongress appliedtheterms called forby thelaw: an armsembargo. In the case of Israel,therewas no doubt, not even to Congress, thatthe planes Israel used to destroyIraq's nuclearreactorwere American-supplied F 15's and F 16's. Israel confirmed that fact, and never denied it. The would undernormalcircumstances have whichifconfirmed missing element, resultedin an arms embargoagainstIsrael,was the unanswered question whether Israel'sactionwas in self-defence or an act of outright aggression. In cases where Israel is the subject, matters are never"undernormalcircumstances";in otherwords,thereis nothing normalabout the US treatment of ones (such as Israel'suse of American Israel.This case,like previous weapons as othersuchviolations. againstLebanon),was not treated
34 It is estimated that there are in the US about three million US citizens of Greek descent, (AHI). organizedin what is knownas the AmericanHellenicInstitute 35 CharlesMcC. Mathias,Jr.,"Ethnic Groupsand ForeignPolicy," ForeignAffairs, Vol. 59, No. 5, p. 993. 36 Ibid.

militaryconjunction.

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

76 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

the approvalby the Congressof the AWACS More recently, following deal to Saudi Arabia,the Israelilobby came veryclose to scoring another victory. The pressure on some members of Congress was very great. a democratfromIllinois,and chairperson of the powerful Rostenkowski, to approve said thathe knewit was right House Waysand MeansCommittee, it because he didn't the sale of AWACSto Saudi Arabia,but he votedagainst wanttheJewscoming down on him.The Israelilobby,then,musthavesome on policy-making and executive branches of the effect both in thelegislative US government on issuesrelating to Israel. Otherfactorsmentionedearliershouldn'tbe excluded eitheras having impacton US-Israeli relations. The weaknessof the Arabpresentation of its side, its unfamiliarity with the Americanpoliticalsystem, its inability and even unwillingness to use internationally accepted methodsto promotethe Arab national interestare also contributing factors in the favourable treatment Israelreceives from the US. The lost opportunity the Arabswere handedby Israelto take advantage of the international condemnation of Israelforits double military attackon Osirakand Beirut is a starkexample of Arab impotence.Israel'slastact of violence,like manyotherspreceding it, gave Israelanothervictory and the Arabs anotherdefeat.Therewere Arab threats and verbalattackson Israel and the US, but neither was "punished"fortheir partin the aggression. and Arab weakness in the US, The combination of Israel's strength coupled with other elementsdetailed above, could be blamed for the US inconsistencyin failing to deal equally with two identical situations. Turkey'sviolationof the termsunderwhichit purchased armsfrom the US an armsembargo act in violation of the brought upon it,whileIsrael'ssimilar termsof the ArmsExportControlAct was not evenpursued to the pointof a determination whethera violation had occurredat all. The US, unwillingness to findout whether an Israeliviolation of American law had in fact occurredis thought to havebeen due to the factthat,in accordancewiththe law, an arms embargocould be the only outcome: the possibility of a US armsembargoagainstIsrael,thoughlongjustified by that country's actions in violation of American laws,is almostnon-existent.

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