Posted on 01/13/2002 6:50:33 AM PST by veronica
Shortly after 5:30 p.m. on June 7, 1981, Israel saved the world from the threat of nuclear blackmail. In less than two minutes’ time, Israeli jets laid waste an atomic reactor on the outskirts of Baghdad, and so deprived a brutish dictator the potential for mass destruction.
The world was outraged.
Voices that had been silent for years, while Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein courted the feckless nations of the West in his quest for nuclear bombs, were suddenly raised in a chorus of indignation.
“We don’t think [Israel’s] action serves the cause of peace in the area,” sniffed French Foreign Minister Claude Cheysson, whose country had supplied Hussein the ill-fated reactor.
“Provocative, ill-timed and internationally illegal,” sobbed U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield.
“Armed attack in such circumstances cannot be justified; it represents a grave breach of international law,” scolded the usually sensible British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher,.
“Israel’s sneak attack...was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression,” snarled a New York Times editorial, written by editorial page editor Max Frankel.
“[The attack] did severe damage to the hope in which Israel’s true security must lie: the hope of realistic relations with all its neighbors,” sermonized New York Times paleoliberal columnist Anthony Lewis.
“[Israel has] vastly compounded the difficulties of procuring a peaceful settlement of the confrontations in the Middle East,” sniped Time magazine.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, it should be noted, expressed complete sympathy and solidarity with Iraq, and in fact helped push through a United Nations resolution condemning Israel for the attack on their good neighbor.
Innocent souls unschooled in the machinations of diplomatic flimflam were no doubt mystified by all the uproar.
After all, isn’t the act of separating a ruthless tyrant from a state-of-the-art nuclear arsenal a good thing?
Wasn’t Saddam Hussein, at the very time of the Israeli attack, a year into his bloody invasion of Iran?
And hadn’t Hussein worked long and hard to earn the nickname “Butcher of Baghdad”?
Certainly there was more than a touch of disingenuousness in the response to the destruction of the reactor — several countries had ties of their own to the Iraqi nuclear program, while some world leaders expressed approval of the Israeli action privately even as they denounced it publicly.
But how to explain the outcry from nations that had no stake in the success of Hussein’s nuclear development; nations that for the most part were located well beyond the bounds of Middle East double-talk?
And how to account for the negative reaction on the part of individuals and organizations usually given to shrill warnings about the dangers of nuclear proliferation?
The answer, it should be fairly obvious, lay with the source of the attack on the Iraqi reactor: Israel. More specifically still, the Israel of Menachem Begin.
From Underdog To Colossus
This widespread affinity for Israel crested with the 1967 Six-Day War. The media in the U.S. and Europe virtually celebrated Israel’s lightning victory, huge demonstrations on behalf of Israel were held in just about every Western capital and major city, and public figures from mayors to movie stars rushed to leap aboard the pro-Israel bandwagon.
But as Israel would find in the years to come, popular opinion is indeed as fickle a phenomenon as the cynics say it is. Israelis would also learn, rather quickly, that the media giveth and the media taketh away.
The portrayal of Israel in newsprint and on television, so positive in the years leading up to the Six-Day War, became increasingly negative thereafter. To many journalists, Israel was no longer an underdog deserving of support, but rather a military Colossus refusing to make peace with the weaker states in its neighborhood.
America’s prestige media (The New York Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and the three television networks) had, by the late 1960’s, joined other elements of the nation’s liberal establishment in appropriating a good deal of the language and attitudes of the countercultural New Left.
As they grew increasingly opposed to America’s role in Vietnam, liberals were fast losing faith in all the old certainties. Any nation or movement claiming victimization at the hands of the U.S. or the West (and Israel was considered very much a part of the West) was almost guaranteed to win a place in liberal hearts.
It was hardly surprising, then, that by the mid-1970’s the media’s stock descriptions of Israel were “militaristic” and “intransigent.” The “plight of the Palestinians” (another stock phrase of the era) was in; Israel was definitely out. Even the frequent terrorist operations mounted by the PLO and its offshoots did little to win back media support for Israel; the atrocities almost invariably were blamed on Israel’s so-called callous handling of the “Palestinian problem.”
Despite the media’s antagonism, however, polls continued to show that most Americans refused to be swayed and still favored Israel, by sizable margins, over its Arab enemies.
And, of course, Israel retained the near-unanimous support of American Jews and the various influential Jewish organizations.
Then came Begin.
The Quintessential Outsider
Even with all that as backdrop, however, the election that May of Menachem Begin as prime minister set off shockwaves, both within Israel and around the world.
The quintessential outsider in Israeli politics since his days as head of the underground Irgun in the 1940’s, Begin was a man reviled by the Labor-friendly Israeli media. And it wasn’t just Begin’s right-wing ideology that had made him a pariah in Israel’s proper circles; his formal dress and courtly demeanor set him apart from the brash and decidedly informal image cultivated by Israeli leaders of his generation.
Most of all, though, it was Begin’s rhetoric — his unabashed references to Jewish history and his unembarrassed affirmations of Jewish destiny — that not only discomfited his political opponents in Israel, but downright frightened Hadassah ladies at lunch in the U.S.
The reaction of the American and European media to Begin’s ascension was one of initial disbelief followed by unremitting hostility.
Not even the 1979 peace treaty signed by Israel and Egypt bought better press for Begin, who throughout the negotiations was derided as the “intransigent” (that word again) stumbling block in the way of Anwar Sadat’s noble quest for peace.
Iraq Looks For Nukes
Iraq had never been reticent in displaying its animosity toward the Jewish state. When the Arab League organized an “Inter-Arab Command” in the months before Israel’s birth, an Iraqi general was placed in charge, and at the conclusion of the first Arab-Israeli war, Iraq refused to sign an armistice — in stark contrast to the Arab front-line states of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
More recently, nine Jews were hanged in Baghdad in 1969 on trumped-up charges of spying for Israel.
Iraq’s interest in nuclear technology dated back to 1959, when the Soviet Union, looking to expand its influence in the region, agreed to provide Baghdad with a reactor, enriched uranium and a team of scientists and engineers. After several delays — the Iraqis accused the Russians of dragging their feet — the reactor finally went operational in 1968.
Though the Soviets upgraded the reactor’s output (from two to five megawatts) three years later, to their credit they steadfastly refused to supply the Iraqis with any material that could have been used in the manufacture of nuclear bombs.
Iraq in the early 1970’s had come under the de facto control of Saddam Hussein, though officially Hussein was second in command to General Ahmed Hassan-al-Bakr. Described by those who knew him as “power hungry to the point of insanity,” Hussein destroyed his political enemies, in the process raising the practice of torture to an art form. His stated goal was to take up the mantle of the late Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser as undisputed leader of the Arab world.
Possession of nuclear weapons was central to Hussein’s ambitions. But since the Soviets had unequivocally rejected the Iraqis’ requests on that score, the search was on for a country that might be more willing to deal. Fortunately for Hussein, his rap sheet of bloodshed and crazed megalomania meant nothing to the French, who loved to make new friends, particularly ones swimming in oil.
France Loves Saddam
Relations between Israel and France would grow even more strained under de Gaulle’s successors, Georges Pompidou and Valery Giscard d’Estang.
The mid-1970’s were notable for a flurry of diplomatic activity among French and Iraqi officials. In 1974 France’s foreign minister, Michel Jobert, went to Baghdad and pledged any assistance Iraq might need to build up its technological infrastructure.
“I am happy,” Jobert said in a toast to his Iraqi hosts, “that your great country will now have the means to restore its past glory.”
Not to be outdone by Jobert’s groveling, the French prime minister, Jaques Chirac, paid a call on Saddam Hussein the following year and proclaimed the Iraqi dictator a “great statesman whose qualities will lead his people toward progress and national prosperity.”
It wasn’t long after Chirac’s visit that France agreed to build an Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq — strictly for “research” purposes, both sides claimed.
“Research” was the last thing on Hussein’s agenda, and the Iraqi leader let it be known that he was in the market for a “hot cell” — a piece of equipment that would enable Iraq to develop weapons-grade plutonium. The government of Italy proved eager to sell Iraq its badly-needed hot cell, and at that stage only the blind or the French could fail to see what Hussein had in mind.
Diplomacy And Sabotage
As Israel’s diplomatic efforts foundered, pressure of a different sort was brought to bear on the Iraqis. In April 1979, just days before the French were scheduled to ship the nearly completed reactor to Iraq, saboteurs infiltrated a warehouse near the port of Toulon and attempted to blow up the reactor’s core. Damage, however, was relatively minimal.
Fourteen months later, the head of Iraq’s nuclear program was killed in his Paris hotel room.
Israeli agents were believed to be responsible for both incidents.
Sabotage and assassination notwithstanding, work continued as planned on the Osirak reactor. By the autumn of 1980, Menachem Begin had concluded that Israel would have to take direct military action. As his military strategists set to work on a plan to take out the reactor, Begin kept up the diplomatic entreaties, all to no avail. The French insisted that Iraq’s intentions were of a purely peaceful nature.
Time To Act
For his part, Begin expected a sharp reaction from Washington, perhaps even a U.S. vote to condemn Israel in the U.N. But, he thought, it would all be so much window-dressing. Ronald Reagan was the American president, not Jimmy Carter, and Begin regarded Reagan and his secretary of state, Alexander Haig, as warm friends of Israel.
It was now the spring of 1981, and as he braced himself for the final decision to strike at Iraq, Begin faced yet another obstacle. He had informed Labor party leader Shimon Peres of the plan to bomb the reactor, and Peres, predictably, was vigorously opposed to the idea. So Begin knew the operation would bring strong reaction not only from the outside world, but from within Israel as well.
Clouding the situation even further, Israelis would be heading to the polls in just a few weeks. Begin, up for reelection, was locked in an extremely tight race with Peres and feared he would be accused of staging the raid as an election ploy. But he had an even greater fear — one that convinced him of the need to act before the election and a possible Peres victory.
“He really believed that Peres would never have the guts to order the raid,” said a Begin aide. “And Begin couldn’t bear the thought of Israel living in terror of an Iraqi bomb.”
There would be no more postponements. In the early afternoon hours of Sunday, June 7 — the eve of the festival of Shavuot — Israeli pilots went through one last rehearsal.
A little after 4 p.m., the planes took off from an airbase in southern Israel. The flying armada consisted of eight F-16 fighter jets, each carrying two 2,000-pound bombs; six F-14’s forming a protective escort; and several F-15’s with oversize tanks to provide mid-air refueling.
Begin summoned his cabinet to his home in Jerusalem. “Welcome, my friends,” he greeted the assembled group. “At this very moment our planes are approaching Baghdad.”
About an hour and a half later, Begin received the message he’d been anxiously awaiting. The operation was a total success and the planes were on their way home. “Baruch Hashem (praise G-d),” Begin exclaimed. “What wonderful boys we have.”
Begin’s boys had flown undetected through hundreds of miles of Arab air space and dropped 16 tons of TNT, crushing the reactor’s dome and flattening the main building.
“The precision of the bombing,” marveled a French technician who viewed the wreckage, “was stupefying.”
‘Tell Anybody You Meet’
The U.S. reacted much the way Begin thought it would. The Reagan administration voted to condemn Israel in the U.N., and a few F-16’s scheduled for shipment to Israel were held back a few weeks. At the same time, President Reagan called Begin to assure him of his continued support.
“Technically,” Reagan would write years later, “Israel had violated an agreement not to use U.S.-made weapons for offensive purposes, and some cabinet members wanted me to lean hard on Israel because it had broken this pledge....but I sympathized with Begin’s motivations and privately believed we should give him the benefit of the doubt.”
Begin survived the international firestorm of criticism and went on to win reelection. His defense of the raid was blunt and emotional.
“The Iraqis were preparing atomic bombs to drop on the children of Israel,” he told a gathering of foreign correspondents in Jerusalem several days after the attack.
“Haven’t you heard of one-and-a-half million little Jewish children who were thrown into the gas chambers? Another Holocaust would have happened in the history of the Jewish people.
“Never again, never again. Tell your friends, tell anybody you meet, we shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal.”
Many of Begin’s critics in Israel would admit to having second thoughts in the weeks and months following the raid.
“Up to this point in time, the fact is that I was not right,” conceded Labor’s Mordechai Gur.
“It was a triumph, no diplomatic harm was caused and Israeli deterrence was reinforced,” said Abba Eban.
Moshe Dayan may have put it best: “Not one Arab would shed a tear were Israel to vanish off the face of the map....To me, the raid was a positive action. Iraq was producing nuclear weapons against Israel, and we were obliged to defend ourselves.”
One Man’s Courage
In 1981 the Soviet Union had characterized the attack on Saddam’s reactor as “an act of gangsterism”; nine years later the Soviet chief of staff called Israel’s action understandable.
In the fall of 1990, as an American-led coalition of nations prepared for war with Iraq, then-U.S. defense secretary Dick Cheney publicly thanked the Israelis for their action.
Sadly, any recounting of the destruction of the Iraqi reactor cannot end on an altogether happy note. Menachem Begin left office in 1983 a broken man, grieving over the death of his wife and haunted by the high number of casualties suffered by Israel in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon. He lived the last years of his life as a recluse, suffering a range of bodily ailments and rarely venturing out in public.
And yet, the story of the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor is, more than anything else, the story of Begin’s moral and political courage.
It is the story of a man who, as prime minister, disappointed many of his most fervent supporters by never quite living up to their expectations; a man who, in the estimation of many Israelis, would say all the right things before backing down to the likes of a Jimmy Carter or an Anwar Sadat.
But history shall forever show that when the choice came down to saving Jewish lives or avoiding worldwide condemnation, Menachem Begin rained fire from the skies of Baghdad — without apology.
Don't get him/her going on sources. We have already had that discussion on this thread.
Here is the homepage: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/
"THIRD WORLD TRAVELER puts up magazine articles and book excerpts that offer an alternative view to the corporate media about the state of democracy in America, and about the impact of the policies of the United States' government, transnational corporations, international trade and financial institutions, and the corporate press, on democracy, human rights and social and economic justice, in the Third World, and in the United States. "
Reads like a Ralph Nader speech.
The value of the terrorist's victims is immeasurable.
Neither the United States not the victims families would have needed to pay this cost if your friends the Saudis and others, did not breed, grow, educate, finance, indoctrinate, supply, applaud, .......Islamic terrorist murderers.
The funny/sad thing is... is that it is JUST that simple (above). Nevertheless thread after thread the anti-Israel crowd spews forth their propaganda. Unfortunately much of the world shares their same sentiments.
This illustrates a strategy that is most bothersome about Israel:
Once Israel perceives or has an enemy, it engages in pre-emptive actions against that enemy reinforcing a lack of parity between the two and perpetuating resentment and hatred.
It is like knocking someone down, then continually kicking them in the face whenever they attempt to get up then justifying your kicks to the world based on your opponents hatred of you.
That is not diplomacy, that is not honorable. It is dangerous. If America acted like that we would still be enemies with Japan and bombing them.
IRAQ declared war on Israel in 1948. That declaration has never been rescinded. In fact it is repeated daily.
Israel, therefore, can legitimately attack Iraq anytime. Around the clock if it wished.
Japan is still in some ways under American administration. For example, there's severe restrictions on what kind of military forces they can have. Don't imagine for a second that Japan was "off the hook" after the war was over.
Again, is it not in the interests of Israel to acheive peace? Either engage your enemy completely or refrain from face-kicking in a show of good will that is neccessary for any peace accord.
The central idea is to offer the olive branch in degrees and if your enemy goes back on his acceptance then you have moral justification, but this type of unending bar-fight has no legitimacy. Your asking the world to accept a 62 year old running war??!!
Time to call the cops.
You know, Iraq, the ones who announce everyday that they will destroy Israel. You know, Iraq, which unprovoked fired Scud missiles into Israel. Et al.
Think before you write. A Nobel Peace Prize is within your grasp.
Pray tell, what should Israel now do to Arafat?
They did exactly what you suggest. They allowed him to built a self governing entity. They withdrew from almost all of Gaza and much of the "West Bank". Barak offered him the rest.
All he had to do was renounce violence and promise minor things such as not to smuggle in heavy weapons.
So after this betrayal of Israel's trust and good will (or idiotic stupidity) what is Israel to do with its "moral justification"?
Israel should let UN peacekeepers handle whatever buffering between the two needs to go on before the road to peace can be embarked upon.
Now, why does Israel oppose that? The Palestinians don't.
Just a few posts ago you said that Israel may attack Iraq anytime it wants because Iraq never rescinded its declaration of war. So now Im supposed to believe that Iraqs declaration of war does NOT allow attack of Israel "anytime it wants" but justifies the opposite.
You want a declaration of war to mean "please attack me anytime and I will never attack you at my convenience".
Far out.
Foreign policy interests often present choices which are either 1 - not so good, or 2 - worse. Sometimes we have to take the not so good. That's the way of the world.
This is not true, however, there are a lot of Arabs living in Israel who enjoy its freedoms. Some are rabidly anti-Israel, others more neutral, but many fear the idea of life under a non-democratic Arab ruler, and fear the loss of prosperity. This does not even begin to count Christian Arabs around the world, many of whom support Israel.
Not one official in any Arab government, however, would shed a tear for Israel. Nor would any Arab generals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.