Research Paper by Beatrice Sclapari at Boston University

1. Bea Sclapari
Professor Hare
Arms Control
Research Paper
Israel’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: Justified or a violation of International Law?
In a modernized world, where technology has the ability to singlehandedly end
mankind, one must believe in the good nature of man. However, wishful thinking does
not suffice and international law must follow. Arms Control is this centuries’ major
effort to preserve international peace and security through the control or limit of
weapons. Two different means to achieve this goal have been disarmament and arms
control with disarmament, focusing on the reduction of the number of weapons and
troops maintained by a state while arms control refers to treaties made between
potential adversaries that reduce the likelihood and scope of war, usually imposing
limitations on military capability (thefreedictionary.com). Although disarmament
always involves the reduction of military forces or weapons, arms control agreements
sometimes allows for the increase of weapons by one or more parties to a treaty if it will
create more universal stability in that moment (Thefreedictionary.com). There is
immense pressure that lies within international organizations to monitor global peace.
Although those organizations have largely allowed the world in a better place, many
undermine the great achievements of Arms Controllers because it is extremely difficult
to hold all countries accountable to the treaties they are signed to, and even harder to get
all global powers on the same page. Others problems arise with limited transparency, as

2. it leads lead to the monopolization of power by the most powerful nations and its allies.
When it comes to nuclear weapons, especially, the whole world is a victim to a nation
who has these unparalleled powers. Israel is one nation who, because of its history of
persecution, and its unconditional financial and military backing by the United States,
has gained impunity and special treatment with their unofficial Nuclear Weapons
Program that evades international law carefully crafter by Arms Controllers.
The Modern State of Israel only dates back to 1948, and its creation has been the
first time a whole nation is dedicated to the Jewish people, after facing centuries of
oppression. Israel has resorted to weapons of mass destruction to take back power that
was so long denied from the Jewish people around the globe and through many phases
of history. To fully understand where we stand today, Clyde R. Mark, an analyst in
Middle Eastern Affairs wrote, in 1969, a report that demonstrates the initial phases of
Israel’s nuclear power development. It is important, despite its potential American bias,
because it sets up perspective on the matter before the Non Proliferation Treaty, which
was passed a year later. Marl starts off by making the assertion that “the nations of the
Middle East are, for the most part, underdeveloped and in need of industrialization and
modernization”(Mark, “Israel and the Treaty of Nonproliferation”). Although Tel Aviv
is very modern, many part of the country remain less developed. Nuclear power is
deemed to give any country international leverage and the Middle East is no different.
Many countries in that region of the world also seek to develop methods of mass
destruction to gain power over the West, who has always dominated and now has
several countries such as France and the United Kingdom that possess weapons of mass
destruction. In a world where Western countries have always had power over the East,

3. and exploited smaller, less powerful nations for their natural resources, those countries
need to understand how to maximize their own resources.
The Middle East, not excluding Israel, has large amounts of inexpensive
electrical power that would aid in the development of industries, which would help to
alleviate unemployment and overall raise the standards of living for the masses who live
at substandard levels (Mark, “Israel and the Treaty of Nonproliferation”). Although
Israel has a small population, only a bit over 8 million people, it is highly populated and,
to compete with its neighboring states, and the rest of the world, its military and
weaponry remains a central source to their Another area of motivation is that nuclear
energy may also aid in a country's’ medical and health fields and may revolutionize the
growing and preserving of food (Mark, “Israel and the Treaty of Nonproliferation”).
According to the reports, nuclear explosives might also allow for the creation of a new
Suez Canal, which would redirect rivers towards more productive areas and creat new
channels to produce harnessable flow of water (Mark, “Israel and the Treaty of
Nonproliferation”). This would create significant revenue and boost the small nations’
influence by optimizing their geographical circumstances. Thing have certainly changed
since this document, written in 1969. Israel was already a member of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), joining in 1957, showing no real signs of resistance
against arms control yet. Ever since, a strong hypocrisy has permeated Israel’s
involvement in Arms Control. The IAEA, also more commonly known as the “Atoms
for Peace” organization, organized through the United Nations, is the international
center for cooperation in the nuclear field working with its Member States to promote
“safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies” (iaea.org).

4. The annual conferences of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has
tried to launch productive dialogue and ultimately reform in Israel’s secretive nuclear
capabilities, but has given the nation a lot of slack in avoiding its responsibilities as a
Member of the Party. If Israel can avoid responsibilities of the IAEA, which it is signed
to, by neglecting to declare their nuclear weapons program, why should any other
nation? Accusations, relating to weapons of mass destruction, are central to US
justification for invading both Iraq and Iran, which are two nations facing criticism and
pressure over similar claims (antiwar.com). This double standard can also be seen with
Israel refusing to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) yet allowing itself to
speak out against the alleged ambitions of others, who happen to be their rivals and
enemies (antiwar.com). Not only is Israel selectively choosing which parties to be a part
of when it comes to Nuclear anti-proliferation, it has been leading demands for the
IAEA to ‘get tough’ with Iran (antiwar.com). It should bother Israel, and the rest of the
world, that it is a not signatory to the NPT, while the heavily-criticized Iran is; and that
the Islamic Republic has been estimated to have zero nuclear weapons, while the Jewish
state is estimated by experts to possess over 200-300 warheads, and a wide range of air-,
land- and sea-based delivery systems (antiwar.com). The hypocrisy of Israeli policy and
rhetoric on this issue constitutes a major test for the IAEA, and needs to be met with
criticism rather than indifference as it becomes a cornerstone of modern diplomacy for
both arms control and collective security (antiwar.com). The entire power of
international treaties relies on the honesty of its signatories, and the Jewish State is
taking advantage of the loose enforcement. Israel has found itself comfortable enough
to do this only because of the U.S.’ backing, leading to most countries simply turning a

5. blind eye to the nations manipulative discourse. US law has made it clear that foreign
aid, especially aid that goes directly to a country’s weapons program, cannot go to a
country who does not abide to the NPT, yet over $3 billion in illegal funds are sent from
Washington to Israel every year with no resistance (antiwar.com). The United States is
failing to comply with its own laws, when it does not suit their own, and Israel’s
benefits, it sets a precedent to all other nations to stay true to agreed international
security arrangements (antiwar.com). Nations that hold more power in the international
diplomacy tend to abuse of their power in terms of not remaining faithful to the treaties,
yet preach against other nations who might be doing the same. The IAEA must be
willing to assert its independence, and enforce sanctions on its signatories that do not
comply with the treaties’ no matter their power, because global security needs to prevail
over special interests.
Israel, despite possessing nuclear weapons is one of the four nations in the entire
world to reject the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Arms (NPT). To
understand Israel's development of nuclear arms, it is crucial to contextualize it within
its geographical location and the development of arms in the rest of the Middle Eastern
states. Those nations have long been involved in international deliberations in regards to
nuclear energy and weapons with a strong push from the West, and international
organizations, to minimize those efforts. The Conference of Non-Nuclear Weapons
States, 1968, had a turnout from all major Middle Eastern States, excluding Cyprus and
Sudan and Saudi Arabia (Mark, “Israel and the Treaty of Nonproliferation”). Israel’s
participation in this conference did not set a precedent for its future involvement in
International Treaty regarding Arms Control. Despite the world seeing Israel as largely

6. less hostile than other Middle Eastern states, their participation and cooperation with
international organizations has been more difficult than its neighbors. Despite this
resistance, they have not been met with many consequences. The U.S. did not solely aid
Israel in their research for reactors, but also assisted Turkey and Iran in their projects
that they now reject because it is against their rhetoric (Mark, “Israel and the Treaty of
Nonproliferation”). On June 2, 1964, the United States and Israel made a pact for
nuclear desalting, promoting transparency on the matter, and encouraging reporting on
any information acquired to other states facing similar water problems (Mark, “Israel
and the Treaty of Nonproliferation”). Mark warns that the presence of a nuclear reactor
does not necessarily means that a nation has the capability to actually produce a nuclear
weapon but experts have shown that Israel not only has the capabilities but also the
weapons to go along with it (Mark, “Israel and the Treaty of Nonproliferation”). Nuclear
reactor demands only one technological performance, while the production of an atomic
bomb requires much more complex steps, and only Israel and the United Arab Republic
were reported to have enough capabilities to be potential weapon manufacturers (Mark,
“Israel and the Treaty of Nonproliferation”). Israel began their efforts of nuclear reactors
under the supervision of the Atomic Energy Commission, along with the National
Research and Development Council for scientific research and as an advisory agency to
the government on science policy matters (Mark, “Israel and the Treaty of
Nonproliferation”). Along with these diplomatic ways of illegally developing a nuclear
program, Israel’s desires were made possible by the financial backing of nations in the
West, such as France and the U.S.

7. When Israel successfully built their first nuclear facility, they also successfully
hid it from the rest of the world. Initially, Israel masked their massive facility, located in
the Negev Desert, as a textile factory (Cohen, Burr “How Israel Hid its Secret Nuclear
Program). At the end of President Dwight D. Eisenhower was informed, by US
intelligence and diplomats, about Israel’s nuclear reactor, through French aid (Cohen,
Burr “How Israel Hid its Secret Nuclear Program). This indicates that although the
United States have been closely working with Israel’s military and now nuclear
program, at the very beginning CIA Director Allen Duller admits that Israel was
deceitful and the U.S was unaware of their program (Cohen, Burr “How Israel Hid its
Secret Nuclear Program). Late 1959, and early 1960, the first real suspicions by
Americans unfolded about Israel’s truthfulness on their nuclear plans (Cohen, Burr
“How Israel Hid its Secret Nuclear Program). Recently U.S government documents,
explained in this article, show how long this Israeli cover story lasted. The Eisenhower
administration realized the power plant's real purpose over five years after its
construction and three years after Israel signed the secret comprehensive nuclear bargain
with France (Cohen, Burr “How Israel Hid its Secret Nuclear Program). The fact that
American intelligence was completely caught off guard by one of their own allies
proves a weakness on the side of the Americans but also an untruthful side to Israel’s
government. In 1955, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion launched a secret
initiative to determine if and how Israel could build a nuclear infrastructure while
Shimon Peres, a senior defense officer, took charge of the project (Cohen, Burr “How
Israel Hid its Secret Nuclear Program). In only three years, the Prime Minister
concretized his government’s strong desire to obtain a nuclear program (Cohen, Burr

8. “How Israel Hid its Secret Nuclear Program). In launching this project, Israel received
the financial backing of France. Although France openly has nuclear weapons, it is the
country that took the harshest stance on counter-proliferation when Iran helped lay the
foundations of Israel's nuclear weapons program, the European power had many reasons
to aid Israel with their first nuclear power plant (theguardian.com). An accumulation
guilt from the 1956 Suez conflict, excessive sympathy from French-Jewish scientists,
the need to collaborate on intelligence to gain leverage over Algeria and the overall
drive to sell French expertise and abroad pushed France towards the funding of Dimona
(theguardian.com). For its own interests, however, France has a big responsibility in
Israel’s nuclear capabilities to this day, creating a more dangerous global climate. A
very present movement of Westernization took over Israel by the end of the 1950s, with
around 2,500 French citizens living in Dimona, transforming it from a scarcely
populated village to a booming cosmopolitan town, with French schools and cars, but
official reports of the nuclear plans remained secret to the rest of the world
(theguardian.com).
The number of nuclear weapons Israel has remains a mystery to most because of
its rejection of international organization. Not only is Israel not a part of the NPT, but
the nation has also rejected the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and the
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) (nti.org). Furthermore, Israel has
not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC) (nti.org). However, Israel is considered a "unilateral
adherent" to the MTCR and has recently adopted national export control regulations on
chemical and biological materials consistent with Australia Group standards (nti.org). In

9. 1969, Jerusalem radio denied the NBC report that stating Israel has developed Weapons
of Mass Destruction, stating that Israel was not a nuclear state (Mark, “Israel and the
Treaty of Nonproliferation”). This pushed forward the illusion that the entirety of the
Middle East was free from Nuclear weapons and Israel would only launch their program
when they felt threatened (Mark, “Israel and the Treaty of Nonproliferation”). Despite
Israel insisting they would not be the first state in the Middle East to obtain nuclear
weapons, the reputable annual aviation publication Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft
estimated that Israel most likely had already built MD- 660 rockets, built by the French,
by the year 1970 (Mark, “Israel and the Treaty of Nonproliferation”). John K. Cooley, in
the Christian Science Monitor on April of 1968, estimated Israel to already have a
nuclear, which did not immediately spread to the rest of the Middle East because Israel’s
program was discounted as a lie and an intimidation strategy (Mark, “Israel and the
Treaty of Nonproliferation”). Israel’s continuous rhetoric of needing to defend itself
against other Middle Eastern states would posit differently. Israel’s military capabilities
indicate that Israel would be able to protect itself but in the uncertainty of other states
gaining possession of WMD, Israeli acquisition on nuclear weapons was arguably
unavoidable. Israel has kept its “‘option’ alive by not declaring [its] intentions her [its]
exact capacity to produce weapons, and uses that undefined status as a deterrent against
the Arab States” (Mark, “Israel and the Treaty of Nonproliferation”). However, this is
very problematic because it perpetuates other nations to remain secretive and feeds the
desire of nuclear capabilities.
The United States initially opposed Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, but a
secret understanding was reached in 1969 in which the United States agreed to protect is

10. Israel and their programs for nuclear weapons (armscontrol.org). Israel pledged not to
test or declare itself a nuclear-weapon state (armscontrol.org). This was to minimize any
possible waves in the international community regarding arms control. The United
States has undeniable pull in international affairs, and has had the ability to protect its
allies from laws and diplomatic affairs. The Israeli-U.S. ties were solidified during
Nixon’s presidency, with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, when they both viewed
the United States and Israel as strategic allies with a common attitude toward nuclear
weapons (armscontrol.org). The alliance with Israel was essential for U.S. security but
was also rationalized due to fear that their enemies in the Middle East could acquire
such nuclear capabilities. (armscontrol.org). The United States, along with the rest of the
West, has long had strong a prioris and tensions with Middle Eastern powers, so having
Israel on their side eased their fear. It is known in international diplomacy that both the
U.S and Israel possess sophisticated nuclear weapons capabilities and have strong
programs to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by their enemies, resorting to
violence if deemed necessary (armscontrol.org). Despite occasional attempts at
intervention by other world powers, Israel’s nuclear weapons are still shielded by the
1969 understanding (armscontrol.org). During the Bush and Clinton administrations the
U.S worked towards Israel signing a fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT), with
intentions of capping the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for
weapons (armscontrol.org). However, it might have been limited to diplomacy and an
attempt to clear American conscience because they did not propose the treaty with much
fervor and did not insist when Israel did not agree, which set a precedent for their
negotiations, almost giving Israel the upper hand. Although international organization

11. were hopeful, The Obama administration did not properly raise disarmament issues with
Israel, contenting itself with continuing the practice of previous administrations and
only pretending to work towards an eventual joining to the to the NPT
(armscontrol.org). Much power lays in the U.S. President’s hands and until there is a
leader who truly acknowledges the importance of holding Israel accountable for the
weapons it has developed, the situation will remain the same.
U.S. aid is the main driving factor for Israel’s success and ability to be immune
from international law. Israel is not economically self-sufficient, and relies on foreign
assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy (Mark, “U.S. Foreign Assistance”).
Since 1985, the United States has provided $3 billion in grants annually to Israel (Mark,
“U.S. Foreign Assistance”). Since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of
U.S. foreign assistance, and is the largest cumulative recipient since World War II
(Mark, “U.S. Foreign Assistance). In addition to U.S. assistance, it is estimated that
Israel receives about $1 billion annually through philanthropy, an equal amount through
short- and long- term commercial loans, and around $1 billion in Israel Bonds proceeds
(Mark, “U.S. Foreign Assistance”). Furthermore the United States dedicates an
abnormally large sum to fund Israel’s newest weapons, as $625 million was donated to
Israel to develop and deploy the Arrow antimissile missile, which is an ongoing project,
$200 million to develop the Merkava tank, and $130 million to develop the high energy
laser anti-missile system (Mark, “U.S. Foreign Assistance”). In 2000 the United States
provided Israel an additional $1.2 billion to fund the Wye agreement, and another $200
million in anti-terror assistance (Mark, “U.S. Foreign Assistance”).

12. The important question is whether this defense is truly necessary and legal. The
United States in a Member of the Treaty of Non Proliferation (NPT) while Israel is not.
That entails that although Israel has found a loophole and does not need to follow The
Non Proliferation treaty sets ups regulations that the United States is not following with
their relationship with Israel’s nuclear program. The NPT’s first article states that the
members to the treaty agreed could not transfer nuclear weapons, or any other nuclear
explosive devices nor assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to
manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. The United States, by providing
those large sums of money to Israel, puts this article into doubt. Although one can argue
that the money does not go towards a nuclear weapons program, it would be rather
naive, knowing that Israel has developed nuclear power. They could not have possibly
done so alone, as such a small and relatively young nation. Article III in the NPT also
states that members cannot provided source or special fissionable material, equipment,
use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State even
for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject
to the safeguards required by this Article. The United States not only is found providing
these provisions to the Israeli government for peaceful uses, but for known uses of war
and intimidation against both of their common enemies.
Israel is currently in a war with Palestine and has an unequally strong upper hand
in the conflict. U.S. assistance to Israel, whether ESF, FMF, housing loan guarantee,
refugee resettlement grants, or other forms of aid, under the executive branch, cannot be
used by Israel in the occupied territories (Mark, “U.S. Foreign Assistance”). Palestine,
however, is an occupied territory in which Israel is using U.S. aid to kill thousands of

13. unarmed Palestinian civilians. With the U.S.’ extremely generous donations to Israel,
and not one cent to Palestine, the conflict is surely at an unequal point. Although
statistics on overall population of Israeli’s vs. Palestinians remain difficult to categorize,
the approximations are important to look at to understand the gravity of his conflict, and
the magnitude it has gained due to U.S. aid. In the latest gathering of populations of
Jews vs. Arabs in Israel, in 2014, it was found that Israel is composed of 5,393,400
Jews, 1,413,300 Arabs (or Palestinians), making Jews almost 80% of the total
population (procon.org). However, the deaths and injuries from the conflict are far from
proportional. There have been 134 Israeli children killed by Palestinians and 2,146
Palestinian children killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000 (ifamericansknew.org).
For adults, the numbers are: 1,206 Israelis and at least 9,439 Palestinians since
September 29, 2000 (ifamericansknew.org). For injuries, 11,709 Israelis and 91,541
Palestinians have occurred (ifamericansknew.org). The difference lies in not only the
strength of both governments, and alliances, but the difference in weapons and
techniques used. Israel currently has 261 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on
confiscated Palestinian land while Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli
land (ifamericansknew.org) Lobbying, on behalf of the U.S. government leads to the
enormous funds flowing into the Israeli army and created an asymmetrical war, with
Israel’s weapons being at an overall much more sophisticated level than its opponents.
The underlying threat of nuclear warfare also gives Israel and unfair and cruel
advantage.
Palestine and Israel’s weapons capabilities are shockingly unequal and the
difference does nothing but grow larger. In their defense against Israeli forces, Hamas

14. along with other Palestinian groups along the Gaza Strip mainly rely on an arsenal of
basic rockets which over the years have steadily increased in range (Marcus, “What
Weapons are being used”). The level of sophistication and effectiveness of these rockets
are embarrassing in comparison to Israel’s weapons. Most of Palestinian rockets use
Soviet-era technology, which are designed for firing of large bombardments rather than
individual use (Marcus, “What Weapons are being used”). Because of there lack of
international support, they obtained the rockets by smuggling some through tunnels
from the Sinai, while some continue to be constructed in workshops in the Gaza Strip
and others parts have to be smuggled from Iran or Syria (Marcus, “What Weapons are
being used”). In response to these rather underdeveloped rockets, Israel has gone
beyond the defensive and into strong offensive tactics. Israeli air power relies on the
gradual increasing of a series of attacks against the rocket launch sites, weapons stores,
and the command elements of Hamas and other groups (Marcus, “What Weapons are
being used”) So far this has not stopped the Palestinians completely, but leads to many
deaths, including many civilians (Marcus, “What Weapons are being used”). Israel has
far more developed weapons that allow for the detection of their target, yet have proven,
despite the IDF’s rhetoric, to make no distinct effort in avoiding unarmed civilians. Of
course both sides must stop the fighting for real resolutions and peace to ensue,
however, Palestine is protecting the few land and people it has left, while Israel is in a
comfortable offensive. Palestine, nor the Gaza Strip nor the West Bank, is recognized as
an official country, while Israel is. The UN’s resolution to change this failed, which
continues to allow Israel to conduct military strikes against the Palestinian people with
the backing of its allies.

15. Moving forward, Israel claims that it will reduce its reliance on the United States
and follow more international regulations in regards to nuclear weapons, but it does not
seem promising. On July 10, 1996, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced to U.S.
Congress that in the next four years they would “begin the long-term process of
gradually reducing the level of your generous economic assistance to Israel” (Mark,
“U.S. Foreign Assistance”). Starting in 1999, Congress has reduced the amount of ESF
going to Israel by $120 million per year and increased the amount of FMF by $60
million per year (Mark, “U.S. Foreign Assistance”). The 'Exchange Stabilization Fund,
gives funds to the U.S. Treasury for foreign-exchange market to maintain currency
stability while FMF is Foreign Military Financing. Marks update report shows that on
April 20, 2005, Israeli and U.S. officials were discussing a $3 billion loan guarantee to
help Israel develop the Negev and Galilee regions (Mark, “U.S. Foreign Assistance”).
Other Israeli sources reported in late March that Israel would request $700 million in
additional grant aid to pay for redeploying troops, building new military bases, and
evacuating the settlers from Gaza (Mark, “U.S. Foreign Assistance”). The total cost of
the Gaza disengagement was estimated to be $1.6 billion. The President’s budget
request for 2006 included $240 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF), $2.28 billion
in Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and $40 million in refugee assistance for Israel.
With the U.S.- Iran nuclear deal made in 2015, it is time for Israel to come out and
accurately declare the nuclear capabilities that it has developed. The Iran Nuclear deal
cannot, on its own, except to prevent Iran from any nuclear capabilities and in the case
that Iran does break the deal, the retaliatory forces will need to know with certainty that
Israel would have the ability to retaliate (Beres, Edney “Take the Bomb out of the

16. Basement). If Israel remains secretive about its weapons of mass destruction it can
create problems for both its allies, as it creates possible mistrust and confusion, and its
enemies, creating more tension and inaccurate assumptions about Israeli stockpiles.
Israel, and its Jewish people, have a history of being victims of oppression,
giving them leverage when arguing for defense against other states who may persecute
them. Israel is the only country that houses a majority Jewish population, which
undoubtedly affects their government’s politics. Since the times of the Pharaohs of
Egypt, up until the relatively recent totalitarian regime of Hitler, Jews have been the
scapegoats and subject to much wrath. After the Holocaust, Europe shipped its Jewish
inhabitants off to a foreign land, with the intention of creating a free, safe space for them
but in the process, they have been committing a slow genocide against the people who
were already living on the land: the Palestinians and hoped that would make up for all of
the previous vices they had committed. The darkest moments of history should not be
allowed to repeat. It should be clear that Israel should only use its nuclear capabilities in
a mode of defense and not attack. If this were to be the case, Israel should be transparent
and abide to the regulations the rest of the world has to abide by. Misconceptions about
its neighboring states have been used as an excuse for Israel’s special treatment. The
West has long feared and acted in hostile manners against the Middle East,
misconstruing their rhetoric. For years, Israel, along with the United States, have pushed
the false rhetoric that Iran’s Ahmadinejad wants Israel “wiped off the map.” The
firestorm started when Nazila Fathi, then the Tehran correspondent of The New York
Times, reported a story almost six years ago that was headlined: “Wipe Israel ‘off the
map’ Iranian says” (Kessler, “Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’?). The article

17. attributed newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks to a report
by the ISNA press agency (Kessler, “Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’?). Then,
specialists, such as Juan Cole and Arash Norouzi of the Mossadegh Project, corrected
the misinterpretation of the original Persian statement, explaining that it did not say
Israel should be wiped from the map, but instead that it would collapse (Kessler, “Israel
should be ‘wiped off the map’?). This distinction is important and necessary to work
towards a less vilified Iranian nation. Despite corrections, Netanyahu has consistently
stated that the proposed diplomatic agreement with Iran will not prevent a nuclear
weapons capable Iran but rather put his people in a possible scenario of prospective
genocide (Beres, Edney “Take the Bomb out of the Basement). American leaders such
as George Bush, Barack Obama and Michelle Bachmann have perpetuated fear
revolving around the false statement, justifying their excessive financial aid towards
Israel’s unofficial nuclear program. Of course, it would not be accurate to dismiss
tensions between Israel and Iran, but it is not as extreme and one sided as it has been
portrayed. Saudi Arabia has a longstanding alliance with the United States but not have
official diplomatic relations with Israel. It has simply supported Palestinian right to
sovereignty, which is not enough to feel threatened as a nation. It does not have any
intentions of losing its alliance with the powerful U.S. to go against the state of Israel.
International efforts to hold Israel accountable have been present but not strong
enough as Israel continues to ignore sanctions and pressure tactics. In August 2016, a
lawsuit was filed to the federal court claiming that U.S. aid to Israel is illegal under a
law passed in the 1970s that prohibits providing assistance to nuclear powers that do not
sign the NPT. Grant F. Smith, Director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern

18. Policy filed the lawsuit against the U.S. government arguing that their plans of further
increasing aid up to 4-5 billion dollars per year violates the longstanding bans on aid to
non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) with nuclear weapons
programs” (mondoweiss.com). Senators Stuart Symington and John Glenn amended the
1961 Foreign Assistance Act to ban any aid to clandestine nuclear powers that were not
NPT signatories, with the intent that “…if you wish to take the dangerous and costly
steps necessary to achieve a nuclear weapons option, you cannot expect the United
States to help underwrite that effort indirectly or directly” (mondoweiss.com). The
lawsuit shines a light on the Obama administration as well, as it followed the Ford
administration’s precedent of ignoring internal agency and public domain information
(mondoweiss.com). Furthermore, the Department of Energy passed a secret law known
as the “Guidance on Release of Information relating to the Potential for an Israeli
Nuclear Capability” in 2012, promoting a “nuclear ambiguity” policy toward Israel
(mondoweiss.com). The primary purpose of this loose law is to unlawfully subvert
Symington & Glenn effort to hold the United States accountable for their violation of
the Non Proliferation Treaty. Israel is also at large fault for accepting the billions of
dollars each year for a nuclear program that is unofficial and unjustified. According to
the lawsuit, the Institute for Research in the Middle East won an unprecedented release
of a Pentagon report about Israel’s nuclear weapons program through a 2014 lawsuit
and in 2015 the IRmep lawsuit dislodged CIA files about the NUMEC diversion
(mondoweiss.com). More Americans must hold their government accountable for aiding
Israel’s disproportionately strong military and continuing to give Israel impunity in the
face of international law. The United Nations has struggled in holding Israel accountable

19. in its unequal war against the Palestinian people. Although targeting the nation over 77
times through UN resolutions, while the Palestinians have been targeted only once
(ifamericansknew.org). The United Nations must not be discouraged but needs the
backing of the United States for real change to ensue.
Unfortunately, it is not in the United States’ interest to significantly cut back on
its funding for Israeli weapons, because of its strong political ties to Israel. This is why
it continues to pour millions of dollars each week to fund Israel’s nuclear weapons,
knowing the dangers it entails. The Middle East has been a far away land in the eyes of
the West, full of mystery and misunderstanding. Israel has been a way for the U.S. to be
a bit closer and put a foot down in the lands of the East. For real change, unification of
these historically polarized worlds is necessary. Once the United States starts to
understand the Middle East and its variety of cultures, which mostly preach peaceful
philosophies, it will understand that nuclear weapons are not needed. In the short term,
however, sending large amounts of cash to fund Israel’s military needs to be largely
reduced and ultimately abolished if it is funding unjust wars and nuclear capabilities that
can end an entire planet. It is in the world’s advantage to live in a safe world, and a
world without nuclear weapons is certainly a safer one.
Works Cited

20. "Arms Control and Disarmament Legal Definition of Arms Control and
Disarmament." The Free Dictionary. Farlex, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
"If Israel Can Ignore the IAEA, Why Should Anyone Else Listen?" The Daily
Star Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
"Lawsuit Claims US Aid to Israel Violates Nuclear Pact." The Jewish Press: 14.
Aug 19 2016. ProQuest. Web. 29 Nov. 2016 .
“Lawsuit Aims to Block U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel as Clandestine Nuclear
Power.” Mondoweiss. N.p., 2016. Web. 29 Nov 2016.
Mark, Clyde R. "Israel and the Treaty on Non Nuclear Non Proliferation." N.p.,
6 Feb. 1969. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
Miller, Marvin, and Laurence Scheiman. "Arms Control Today." Israel, India,
and Pakistan: Engaging the Non-NPT States in the Nonproliferation Regime | Arms
Control Association. Arms Control Association, 1 Dec. 2001. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
United States. Congressional Research Service. Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance.
By Clyde R. Mark. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 1-17.
Print. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB85066.pdf
Rene Beres, Louis, and Louis Edney. "Take the Bomb Out of the Basement."
U.S. News & World Report. N.p., 6 May 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
Kessler, Glenn. "Did Ahmadinejad Really Say Israel Should Be 'wiped off the
Map'?" The Washington Post. WP Company, 5 Oct. 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.