Must Read

PrintPrint EmailEmail ShareShare CiteCite
Style:MLAAPAChicagoClose

loading...

Ynetnews: Should Israel end nuclear ambiguity?

Author: Aviel Magnezi
May 15, 2010

Share

Moments before the conclusion of the Washington nuclear security conference, US President Barack Obama stressed that every county in the world should sign the international Non-Proliferation Treaty, including Israel. Israel has signed the treaty, but its signature has yet to be ratified. But now, following Obama's remarks, should Israel put an end to its policy of ambiguity and unveil its nuclear reactors? Or is the demand for exposure actually a demand to strip Israel of its alleged nuclear weapons?

"I have been arguing adamantly for 10 years now that we should join the treaty," said former MK Professor Uzi Even, who conducted his military service as a nuclear scientist at the Dimona reactor. "If we had taken this step we may have avoided being dragged into it now, and we would have prevented much damage."

According to Even, the policy of ambiguity has turned the Dimona reactor into a danger. "The policy prevents the supply of necessary materials and goods for the development of our nuclear capabilities, and prevents the proper training of scientists. It prevents us from building a nuclear reactor in Israel instead of the one in Dimona, which has long ago passed the age in which it should have been shut down."

He added, "The fear of exposure stems from the fact that many in Israel think removing the ambiguity means disarming from what we allegedly have acquired, but this is not true. India and Pakistan, for example, started out with ambiguity like us, and they very quickly became recognized, and this did not stop them from continuing to develop."

Full Text of Document

More on This Topic

Op-Ed

The Real Nuclear Option

Author: Micah Zenko
ForeignPolicy.com

There is a "total omission of Israel's nuclear weapons in U.S. policy debates about confronting Iran," writes Micah Zenko. In his latest...