War and Peace in the Nuclear Age; Interview with Yitzhak Rabin, 1987

Can you state the official Israeli policy as a position of weapons, nuclear weapons by Israel or by others? Well, when it comes to Israel's position, our policy is not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, which the meaning of it is that Israel is not a nuclear country. Why? First we believe that the best way to Israel and to the other countries in the region is to have the Middle East free from any nuclear weapons. As you know, Israel took the initiative to have a regional agreement between the countries of the region to keep the Middle East free from nuclear weapons. This is a specific agreement that has to be signed between all the countries of the region, unfortunately most of the Arab countries, rejected the idea that such an agreement will be reached in the context of the bilateral or the multilateral relationship of the Middle Eastern countries.

We believe that basically Israel must have the capability to withstand, at a present and in the future, any coalition, war coalition of Arab countries that he really used their conventional weapons against Israel by Israel's conventional weapon. We don't believe that we can allow a situation to develop that Israel will not be able to defend itself against the threat of the Arab countries by conventional weapons, by something which is not conventional because I believe when Israel will reach the point that by its conventional weapon it hasn't got the solution to such eventuality that will be a question mark on the existence of Israel and its political viability. At the same time, and as a result of it, we don't want to see Arab countries trying to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East,

therefore our policy is on one hand not to be the first, second, trying politically to reach an agreement where it will keep the region free from nuclear weapons. Three, we know that without having the capability to defend ourselves by conventional weapons against conventional weapons of any Arab war coalition, we will be in a very poor shape. And therefore, for to prevent to the extent it is possible the introduction of nuclear weapons by any Arab country that it is at state of war with Israel. Do you envision or could you envision that in the future, whatever future makes, how long it takes, whatever it means?

There might be a situation of a mutual deterrence of the kind that exists between the US and the US and the US. Well, allow me to say there is a limitation to our capabilities to become profit, what will happen 10, 20, 30 is from now. The no doubt if there will be introduction of nuclear weapons to the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, both sides will be more nervous, less secure, and therefore the further we can prevent it, it is better to the region to all the countries of the region. You, you predecessors, you predecessors, they are at one time so that there might be a exchangeability between conventional and equality weapons. I don't remember what they answered, but I try to explain very clearly what I believe in.

And I believe that Israel must find to any foreseeable future, to any threat. That can be presented by the Arab countries, by their conventional weapons, a conventional weapon answer by Israel. I can't believe, to the extent that I can predict the future, that it is impossible to Israel to do it. I would not deny in a context of any political or peace negotiations, therefore one of my major considerations is to have a defensible boundaries, defensible boundaries that have to bear in mind the potential conventional weapon threat even after peace will be signed. This is why I opposed and continue to oppose in a context of peace treaty with our neighboring Arab countries to return to the basics they will aligns.

Can you give me the policy framework or the strategy framework that produces an attack on Iraq, on the Iraqi reactor? Well, I believe even though I was not in the government of Israel that took the decision, the purpose was to destroy the Iraqi potentialities to produce a nuclear weapons. This was the reasoning and no doubt it was successful and no doubt it postponed for a long period. Even they were thinking about capability that was translated into deeds by this strike on their center of nuclear development. Do you see an extension of such policy? Is that a standing policy? Can it be interpreted as something which one can foresee an additional usage as well?

As I said, I believe that the less or the longer it will take till nuclear weapons will be introduced to the region, to the better for all the people. What kind of means Israel will use? I don't believe it is advisable now to spell on. Thank you very much. There is one question which I was asking as to us, but if you want to answer it. The question is, can you foresee a certain sense in which Israel will join the NPT treaty? Well, the problem with the NPT, which we are basically for this purpose, as long as it will really commit all the countries of the region, depends on their readiness, the Middle Arab Middle Eastern countries that might be also the Islamic Middle Eastern country, not just to sign the NPT because any one of the Arab countries that signed the NPT had a clause, it is not related to Israel, therefore what is the meaning of signing the NPT?

Therefore we propose, instead of the NPT, a Middle Eastern multinational that one country, Israel with Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, you name it, will sign agreement in which they are committed one to another, not to develop nuclear weapons. And within this agreement to establish our means of supervision on which we will agree one about the other others, but they refuse to have such agreement. Therefore, the NPT has no meaning because, for example, Iraq is signed on the NPT, and Iraq developed whatever Iraq developed, which we destroyed in the past. Therefore, signing the NPT doesn't really mean very much.