COULD YOU JUST GIVE ME YOUR CREDENTIALS FIRST?

Well I'm a member of Knesset representing the Progressive List for Peace. I'm also a professor of Arabic studies at the University of Tel Aviv. I'm a retired general of the Israeli forces. I retired already long time ago, some ten years ago.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, WOULD BE THE DESIRABLE NUCLEAR STRATEGY FOR ISRAEL TO FOLLOW?

Yes. Well I think that Israel should have signed the non-pro... proliferation treaty a long time ago. And support the policy of then nuclearization or non-nuclearization of the Middle East. I think this is the most reasonable and the most secure policy for Israel to pursue.

WHAT ABOUT THE FEELING THAT A NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS NECESSARY FOR ISRAEL BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS BY THE OTHER SIDE? HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

Well of course those who support the policy of nuclearization for Israel bring forward all kinds of arguments but I'm sure that as of today there is no nuclear arms in the Middle East in possession of any of the local countries. It is well known that there is six fleet in the Mediterranean and the Soviet fleet are carrying nuclear weapons. But they are to be considered outside the... in a sense. The Arab countries in the Middle East certainly do not have any nuclear weapons. And I think that it is in Israel's best interest to try and kick that situation permanently. The difficulty is that everybody suspects Israel to be arming itself with nuclear weapons. And therefore we see a great interest in some of the Arab countries in the possibility of getting themselves nuclearized. I think it is not yet too late to stop this very dangerous development. And I'm sure that if Israel would change its policy and declare its willingness to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and open its nuclear plants for international inspection this will immediately bring about a similar response or an equal development in the Arab countries who would also would join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and open their installations for inspections. Otherwise I think within a few years we will probably see in the Middle East nuclearized to a very dangerous degree.

I'M TOLD THAT THE ISRAELI ATTITUDE TOWARD THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY IS DEFINED BY THE ATTITUDE OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO ISRAEL. IS THAT ACCURATE?

I don't see what United Nations has got to do with it. The United Nations has not taken any formal position on the question of the Middle East in terms of the nuclearization of its armed forces. I think that what is important and must take, be taken as the most important factor is that, as I said, today no Arab government has yet developed any nuclear capability. And the only motive for some of the Arab countries, like Syria for example, or Iraq trying to develop the nuclear capability the only motive is the suspicion that Israel has already done it. And therefore they must somehow be put in a position to of equality. I don't think that there is any other consideration which affects or should affect our position on that question.

WE JUST HEARD FROM...THAT THE REASON ARAB COUNTRIES MIGHT BE ARMING THEMSELVES IS NOT THE EXISTENCE OF NUCLEAR ARMS IN ISRAELI HANDS, BUT IN FACT THE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL ITSELF. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION THE CENTRAL OBSERVATION...

Yes. Well I know that some people would adhere to the idea that the Arabs want to eliminate Israel and they will go on adhering to that at all costs, even if it costs Israel the very great danger of possessing nuclear armaments. I think that the Arab world as a political entity has indicated more than once that provided an acceptable solution to the conflict can be reached peace will be preferable to all of them or at least most of them. I don't take for example, Libya as a possible candidate for that, such a movement. But certainly Syria, Iraq, Jordan Egypt already is in peace with Israel. So I don't think that the, this motive of annihilating Israel is an active motive in the Arab political thinking. I think what is a very serious motive, and this has been stated very often by Arab leaders is the fear that Israel is becoming so overwhelmingly powerful and with the possession of nuclear armaments it will become such a threat to the Arab security that they must compete in order to keep themselves on a certain parallel level. I think this is the basic consideration which should take which we should face.

CAN YOU COMMENT AS AN EX-MILITARY PERSON ABOUT DAYAN'S THEORY THAT ISRAEL HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO GO TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS BECAUSE THE NOTION OF MAINTAINING THAT SIZE OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS IS PROHIBITIVE AT SOME STAGES.

Yes. Well I think Dayan was mistaken on two counts. In the first place he never envisaged peace with Israel and the Arabs as a possibility. And therefore he had all the time to worry conventional armament against nuclear armament. The idea of peace did not play any role in his, in his thinking. The second mistake is that when he spoke of nuclear armament, he thought very simplistically only of possessing the bomb. He never understood the whole complexity of nuclear warfare. He never thought of the fact that if you possess the bomb, you should also possess a very highly sophisticated warning system against other nations, launching their weapons nuclear weapons against Israel. He never thought of the need for building shelters, anti-nuclear shelters. Now the whole complexity is such that Israel cannot cope with it. It cannot cope with financially and it cannot cope with it technically. It is simply beyond the capabilities of Israel. So if Israel will find itself one day in possession of a bomb it will mean that it is inviting a nuclear attack without having the slightest possibility of countering such a measure. And I don't think that Dayan ever intellectually ever could ever grasp the whole picture. And therefore very simplistically said, "Well we have either to have a conventional army or a nuclearized army and I opt... for nuclearized army", which of course is, in my opinion, absurd.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC HOW THE DETERRENT SITUATION POTENTIALLY BETWEEN ISRAEL AND ARAB COUNTRIES IS DIFFERENT FROM THE DETERRENCE CONDITION EXISTING BETWEEN US AND USSR?

Well in the first place, let me say I don't believe that Israel has a deterrent policy although deterrence is a factor. I think the presumption of borrowing these terms from the relationship between the two superpowers is unjustified. Th-there's no such thing in the relations and between us and the Arab countries, there's no such thing as deterrence.

WHY?

Why? Because when the Arabs feel that they can go to war with Israel they go to war with Israel. And if Israel feels that it can go to war against the Arabs, it goes to war against the Arabs. You have never seen that such decisions were affected by the consideration of deterrence. It is simply a misplaced term in terms of our own local situation. When it comes to the super power relations, of course there we know that each side possesses the capability of annihilating completely the other. And therefore, each side is in possession of a very sophisticated warning system. And a defensive system like anti-ballistic missile, miss-missiles against ballistic missiles. And shelters and what have you. And, and putting all together, they are probably investing billions of dollars every year just to keep their deterrence alive. Now how on earth can anyone imagine Israel adopting this kind of thinking with all the consequences entailed. So I think it is, it is more than childish to try and picture our relations here between Israel and the Arabs along the lines that we know are existing between the two superpowers.

WHAT ABOUT ISRAELI POLICY WITH DENIALS...OF WEAPONS TO THE OTHER SIDE? I'M THINKING ABOUT SUCH A THING AS ATTACKING THE IRAQI REACTOR...

Yes, well this I think only shows how dangerous the policy of...

FULL SENTENCE.

Yes, I feel that the attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant only shows the danger the dangers are awaiting us if you allow the nuclearization of the Middle East to continue. Because certainly by attacking the Iraqi plant is that in fact gave permission to every Arab country to do the same against Israel. Israel won't be able to claim that it has been wronged if one day we hear that our nuclear plant in Dimona for example, has been bombed by Libya or Syria or Iraq or any other one any other country. We have simply allowed this to happen and I don't think we need any greater or any... clearer indication of the danger involved in such a policy. I would prefer to see, if indeed the Iraqis had in mind a nuclear plant for the purpose of producing arms, to urge everybody to join the non-proliferation treaty, open all these plants to international inspection and thereby guarantee a non-nuclearization of the Middle East. What we have done, went in the opposite direction and I believe that since then Israel is facing a very serious danger of some kind of retaliation which may happen any day and with no early wa... early with no, with no warning.

WHAT ABOUT THE THEORY THAT AN OPEN NUCLEAR PRESENCE WOULD PERMIT ISRAEL TO GIVE CONCESSIONS AND POSSIBLY ACHIEVE PEACE?

Well, I think this is a most insincere...

START WITH A FULL SENTENCE.

Yes. Regarding the theory that the possession of nuclear arms would allow Israel to make concessions regarding to occupy territories, I think this is a very insincere argument. With fully armed nuclear, nuclearized army I think that the desire to maintain the territories will be even stronger. I can't see those who are now claiming Israel's rights to be in possession of the occupied territories and mellowing or softening just because we will have the atomic weapon. On the contrary. In any case the atomic problem or the nuclear problem is much bigger than that. If we think in terms of a nuclear warfare, it must be realized that Israel probably has not more than one or two major targets which have to be hit in order to eliminate Israel altogether. So the question of the maintaining the occupied territories becomes irrelevant under such circumstances. And I would be opposed to the nuclearization of the Middle East even if as a reward I can get a promise that Israel might then consider withdrawing from the occupied territories.

WHAT DO YOU THINK TRIGGERED THE INITIAL ISRAEL INTEREST IN DEVELOPING THE POTENTIAL...?

I think that early in the sixties when everybody in the Israeli government could not even imagine in their wildest dreams a change in the Arab policy, hostile policy against Israel. They saw that well, maybe the developing the capability might be a good insurance, but even then it was quite clear that this meant rejecting the Non-Proliferation Treaty and starting an operation which eventually brought Israel into many unpleasant international situations. Stealing uranium for instance, or developing unnecessary ties with South Africa and all those things which are so well known today just because of the desire to maintain this kind of capability. I think it was a mistake then, but fortunately, I think it is a mistake that can be corrected even now.

ONE MORE WHICH WE DIDN'T COVER BEFORE: SOUTH AFRICA. TALK TO ME ABOUT THE PROBLEM TO THE ALLIANCE THAT THEIR WEAPONS CREATE... CREATE.

Well as our all these things of course are not a hundred percent supported by official information but my impression is that Israel and South Africa are cooperating today in the, in the military field in developing weapons. And the most important in developing the nuclear weapons. Of course South Africa can offer Israel the spaces which Israel doesn't have which are needed in second phases of developing nuclear weapons. And I think that the reciprocity here is to be found in the fact South Africa not only allows Israel certain activities, but is also buying a lot of arms from Israel which makes the whole relationship very lucrative.

HOW COME THERE IS NO DEBATE IN THIS HOUSE ON THIS ISSUE?

Well according to our system, the government can prevent any debate, any general debate in the Knesset and any issue unless it comes out of a vote of no confidence. In that case the government is not obliged to provide the Knesset with that information. So we can discuss the whole day without having the slightest bit of a, of official information to support each other's each other's position. And in this sense of course the government is all-powerful and the Knesset is very impotent.