A Research Of The Evolution Of Israel’s Nuclear Program

Executive Summary

Israel’s nuclear capabilities is multifaceted international security threat, which threatens the possibility of conditions which give rise an escalation which results in war. Chapter One gives an overview of the establishment of the independent Jewish state the states consolidation of political power domestically, which was ensured through homogeny and within the Middle East has created the conditions for formation of the radical militant movement Hamas. The United States diplomatic relationship with Israel has contributed to the discontent of Israel, the United States Foreign Policy is directly linked to their electoral dynamics and has therefore allowed Israel’ to peruse its Zionist ideological ‘right’ of land. The theory of Realism contributed to a deeper understanding of the International Security threat and the role of the theory in reconciling the issue. Chapter two examines the past, present and future of the relationship between Israel and Iran and discusses the state’s growth of political power in the region, which correlates with the states increased military presence and power, which is defined through the state’s nuclear capabilities. Realism depicts the current political climate of the issue and also establishes the means of resolve the relationship between Israel and Iran. The development of the report is cemented through the use of Qualitative analysis of the perspectives of scholars, which will deepen the link between Realism and The Evolution of Israel’s Nuclear Program and the ramifications to international security.

Introduction

The Palestine and Israeli Conflict was a catalyst of the Zionist movement and the establishment of the independent Jewish state which was secured by the League of Nations and subsequently facilitated by the British following WWI, with the ambition of inaugurating a national land for the Jewish people. WWI depicted the Zionist movement shift in priority, focusing on encouraging the creation of a Jewish state and constructing it as ‘the main centre of Zionism’ (Fieldhouse, 2006). However, the anti-Semitism in Europe and the atrocities of the Holocaust committed by Nazi German determined a dramatic population increase. On 29 November 1947, the United Nations publicized the partition plan proposing the independent Jewish state, with a two-state solution. On May 14, 1948, the Jewish people proclaimed the State of Israel, which was immediately recognized by most of the international community including the United States and the Soviet Union. May 15th, 1948, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded the newly established state, subsequently instigating war which lasted a year before a ceasefire was conducted and a border was recognized. The Palestinian exodus, Nakba 1948, followed the establishment of the state of Israel whereby the ethnic cleansing and the dispossession of the Palestine homeland, and therefore resulted in the demolition of Palestinian society. The ramifications of this event today are the continuation of the entrenchment of the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian land, and the expansion of its settler-colonial enterprise which substantively altered the demographic and structural ethos of Palestinians whilst also disregarding their consensus. Thus, Nakba ensured the absolute political power of the Israel state and undermined the prospects for Palestinian self-determination through the disguise of the faulty two-state solution.

Background

The continuation of Jewish colonization in Palestine is congruent with the post-colonial theory, whereby, hegemony has established and cultivated the conditions of a distinct power imbalance between the two nations. This correlates with the theory of realism in which it is essential to explore human nature as it directly affects the government of the state and the laws which stem from human identity (Quester, 1983). At its core, the conflict demonstrates the ramifications of the distinct cultural identity, religious and ideological differentiation between the two sides which is concurrent with the land. The current a stalemate which can be defined by both committing segregation, violent uprisings and radical groups. This has ensured the conditions whereby Israel has obtained nuclear weapons despite which was confirmed by the CIA in the 1960s’s, and by 1968, the CIA publicly estimated that Israel had 10-20 nuclear weapons despite The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

The Consolidation of Hamas

Traditional security threats are constituted through threats against the political and religious ideologies of the state, territorial integrity and political sovereignty. Israel has instigated its security threat through the continued occupation of Palestinian territories; as such Israel’s nuclear weapons proficiency along with a sizeable militaristic force provides insurance to its expansionist policies which coincides with the states religious beliefs of the maintained “holy land” (Quester, 1983). Israel’s nuclear ambitions are immune from condemnation, therefore, encouraging other regional states to contemplate the nuclear option. This is due to Israel being tied to United States electoral dynamics. Israel’ ability to peruse its Zionist ideological ‘right’ of land is secured through the United States electoral dynamics. Israel’s nuclear obtainment instigates a multifaceted international and domestic security threat, exacerbating the conflict along sectarian lines.

The Rise of Hamas

These conditions have given rise to the radical group Hamas which is highly present in Israel and continuously innovates new means of violence, as it is clear that the nuclear and militarist actions of the Israeli government which has instigated the support of Hamas who oppose the Oslo Accords two-state solution and subsequent Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Thus, it is the actions of the Israeli government which has permeated the support of Hamas. The Oslo Accords 1933 was the first attempt at distilling conflict and promoting peace. The Accords created the catalyst of distinctive hegemony displayed by the Israelis which only exacerbated pre-existing issues and prompted a neo-colonial dependency through Israel’s settlement and division of occupied Palestinians territories, allowing a significant political control over the Palestinians, despite the religious and national connection to the land. This correlates with political realism theory; in which the government and the law stem from human identity. The tension between the two sides is not just about geography, but is a conflict of religious differentiation, and at its core is the distinct cultural identity between the two sides which is concurrent with both sides (Morgenthau, 1978). The destructive nature of Hamas to the Israeli government ensures its conflict with the West which is consistent to the Realism theory which depicts the inevitability of war and also creates international security dilemmas as the stability of a state’s security is dependent upon the insurance of accumulating military and economic power. War is seen as a means to an end, the conflict will reach a boiling point whereby war will be initiated to ensure the determination of Israel’s political power. However, the Nuclear program of Israel has deterred future conflict with Hamas as evidenced through Khaled Masha, the leader of Hamas stating “It's in no one’s interest. We cannot prevail in a confrontation against a nuclear power”. Therefore, Israel has established its regional dominance and deterred the immediate threat of war, however, it has not stilled the cause of Hamas and their destructive nature.

The Relationship Between Israel and Iran

Traditional security is also depicted through the diplomatic revenue of alliances aimed at establishing relations between states which satisfy both states security. The propagation of nuclear technology in the politically volatile Middle East significantly increases the probability of a catastrophic nuclear war. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran which was determined in July 1968 as Iran signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1968. Iran’s Nuclear obtainment is considered a direct threat to Israel, but it is Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons that depicts the United States distinct double standards. Israel has conducted military strikes against Iranian nuclear installations and vehemently opposes the Joint Comprehensive lan of Action (JCPOA) alongside Saudi Arabia and both share apprehensions over Iran’s nuclear expertise and ineffectual consequences of sanctions imposed on Iranian nuclear program. Iran has supported pro-Palestinian groups and militant groups to intensify its capabilities of influence against Israel. The UNs ineffectiveness is profoundly demonstrated through the continuation of the strikes and the unsettled relationship between Israel and Iran as it is there international jurisdiction which can halt the threat of nuclear warfare. Both Israel and Iran are exercising regional dominance whilst also utilizing its existing nuclear proficiency to strategically uphold strong economic and political deals without conducting nuclear warfare.

Recommendations

According to the Realism Theory, the grounds for the construction of a society or state is individual self-interest as the state is a means to an end. The Israeli-Palestine Conflict at its core is defined by Religion and culture. From a systemic standpoint, referring to the arrangement of power, it is obvious that Israel has consolidated and obtained absolute power, which is due to the highly apparent economic and militaristic power of the state, this coincides with the realist theory and as per the theory it is the obtainment of power which provokes other states to counter this is because powerful states have both the capability and incentive to act accordingly. An initial agreement that negotiations will persist until the milestone is reached must be included into the prior policy, which will be signed by both countries, holding them legally viable, as it will demonstrate the recognition of both states sovereignty and will ensure the legal obligations of fairness and peace of both states. Therefore, if a peaceful conclusion to the conflict Is made by ensuring an absolute two-state solution then the threat of Hamas to the Israeli government will be eliminated. The eliminating the United States in all negotiations will benefit both Israel and Palestine as it clear that their influence is purely self-serving. In accordance to the Israel and Iran relationship. Realism illustrates that international relations and diplomacy which is determined by the momentum that anarchy creates (Waltz, 1989). States are exposed to security devastations which is a result of the ineffective nature of the UN. When applying the Realism to resolve the relationship between Israel and Iran it is clear that the United States possesses the ability to entail a steady diplomatic process and prevent war. Iran society has evolved drastically and through the support of the US through developing appropriate sanctions which create a ‘win’ ‘win’ situation for both Israel and Iran which could facilitate the emergence of a more democratic Iran. This can be ensured through facilitating a policy that prevent nuclear weaponization which will satisfy Israel, however through lifting the nuclear power program research and uranium sanctions which will aid Iran’s economy.

Conclusion

The Evolution of Israel’s Nuclear Program is multifaceted international security threat to the international community as it has created a politically volatile Middle East however it is the aid of the United States through sanctions and diplomatic negotiations that safeguard the threat of war. The establishment of the independent Jewish state the states consolidation of political power domestically, which was certified through homogeny has created the conditions for formation of the radical militant movement Hamas. A Peaceful conclusion to the conflict Is made by ensuring an absolute two-state solution and the banning the United States in negotiations.

Bibliography

1. Anon, 1998. The Avalon Project: Hamas Covenant 1988. [online] Avalon.law.yale.edu. Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
2. Anon, 2014. [online] Eajournals.org. Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
3. Anon, 2019. Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ‘Locked in a Dangerous Paralysis’, Under-Secretary-General Warns Security Council, Urging Political Will, Leadership to Change Course | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases. [online] Un.org. Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
4. Anon, 2019. Jewish & Non-Jewish Population of Israel/Palestine (1517-Present). [online] Jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
5. Anon, 2019. The “Deal of the Century” for IsraelPalestine. [online] Swp-berlin.org. Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
6. Anon, 2019. The rise of Hamas through Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [online] The rise of Hamas through Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
7. Armscontrol.org. (2019). The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) at a Glance | Arms Control Association. [online] Available at: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/JCPOA-at-a-glance [Accessed 20 Sep. 2019].
8. Bell, W. (2013). Nuclear war between Israel and Iran: Lethality beyond the pale. [online] research gate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236689331_Nuclear_war_between_Israel_and_Iran_Lethality_beyond_the_pale [Accessed 20 Sep. 2019].
9. CNN. (2019). Iran's Nuclear Capabilities Fast Facts. [online] Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/07/world/meast/irans-nuclear-capabilities-fast-facts/index.html [Accessed 20 Sep. 2019].
10. Fieldhouse, D., 2006. Western Imperialism in the Middle East 1914-1958 by D. K. Fieldhouse, 2006 | Online Research Library: Questia. [online] Questia.com. Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
11. Frisch, H. (2019). Why Israel Must Tolerate Hamas for the Time Being. [online] Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. Available at: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-tolerate-hamas/ [Accessed 15 Sep. 2019].
12. Gilbert, H. and Topkins, J., 1996. Post-colonial Drama: Theory, Practice, Politics. [online] Journals.lib.unb.ca. Available at: [Accessed 8 Sep. 2019].
13. Halbfinger, D. (2019). The Israel-Iran Shadow War Escalates and Breaks Into the Open. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/world/middleeast/israel-iran-shadow-war.html [Accessed 20 Sep. 2019].
14. Hasan Al-Saidi, A., 2014. Post-colonialism Literature the Concept of self and the other in Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians: An Analytical Approach. [online] Academypublication.com. Available at: [Accessed 4 Sep. 2019].
15. H. Quester, G. (1983). Israel And Nuclear Proliferation In The Middle East | Middle East Policy Council. [online] Mepc.org. Available at: https://www.mepc.org/journal/israel-and-nuclear-proliferation-middle-east [Accessed 18 Sep. 2019].
16. Kaye, D. (2016). Israel’s Iran Policies After the Nuclear Deal. [online] Rand.org. Available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE200/PE207/RAND_PE207.pdf [Accessed 14 Sep. 2019].
17. Kuperwasser, Y. (2015). Israel’s Role in the Struggle over the Iranian Nuclear Project. [online] Besacenter.org. Available at: https://besacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/MSPS114web.pdf [Accessed 13 Sep. 2019].
18. Lerner, D. (2018). 'We can’t prevail against a nuclear power': Hamas' Gaza chief says he doesn't want war with Israel. [online] haaretz.com. Available at: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/hamas-chief-in-gaza-says-he-doesn-t-want-war-with-israel-1.6529656 [Accessed 18 Sep. 2019].
19. Malmvig, H., 2011. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the need for an international solution. [online] Pure.diis.dk. Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
20. Manuel, K., 2015. Isreal and Palestines Conflict. [online] Sciencespo.fr. Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
21. Mearsheimer, J., 2006. THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. [online] Mearsheimer.uchicago.edu. Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
22. Morgenthau, H., 1978. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
23. Muslih, M. (1999). The Foreign Policy of Hamas. [online] Cfr.org. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Muslih2.pdf [Accessed 11 Sep. 2019].
24. Satloff, R., 2014. Hamas Policy, Ideology and Tactics. [online] Washingtoninstitute.org. Available at: [Accessed 9 Sep. 2019].
25. Srikanth, D. (2013). NON-TRADITIONAL SECURITY THREATS IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A REVIEW. [online] Ijdc.org.in. Available at: http://www.ijdc.org.in/uploads/1/7/5/7/17570463/2014junearticle4.pdf [Accessed 15 Sep. 2019].
26. Waltz, K. (1989). Structural Realism after the Cold War. [online] Columbia.edu. Available at: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/U6800/readings-sm/Waltz_Structural%20Realism.pdf [Accessed 21 Sep. 2019].