AVNER COHEN
Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons:
History, Deterrence, and Arms Control
 AVNER COHEN1
Dr. Avner Cohen is Senior Fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland, as well as the Program on Security and Disarmament, at the University of Maryland. He is the author of Israel and the Bomb (New York Columbia University Press, 1998).
In April 1948, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding	Klingberg espionage case, as well as the 1991 Gulf War father and first prime minister, wrote a letter to Ehud and the subsequent revelations about Iraq’s chemical and
Avriel, one of the Jewish Agency’s operatives in Eu-	biological programs, have aroused public curiosity and rope, ordering him to seek out and recruit East European speculation regarding Israel’s capabilities in the CBW field. Jewish scientists who could “either increase the capacity	Yet details about these programs—their history, strategic to kill masses or to cure masses; both are important.” 2	rationale, and technical capabilities—remain shrouded in One of the scientists Avriel recruited was a 30-year old	secrecy. epidemiologist and colonel in the Red Army named
A comparison with Israel’s nuclear weapons (NW) pro-Avraham Marcus Klingberg. In time, Klingberg became gram highlights this point. Although Israel has not acknowl-one of Israel’s leading scientists in the area of chemical edged possessing NW and has declared that it “will not and biological weapons (CBW). He was among the found-be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle ing members and, subsequently, the deputy director of
East,” the existence of the Israeli bomb has been the the Israel Institute of Biological Research (IIBR) in Ness world’s worst kept secret since about 1970. 4 That is not Ziona, a dozen miles southeast of Tel Aviv. the case, however, for Israel’s other potential non-con-
Decades later in 1983, Professor Klingberg was secretly	ventional capabilities, especially biological weapons (BW). arrested, tried, and convicted as a Soviet spy. It took an- To this day, the Israeli government has issued no policy other decade until the espionage case at IIBR—one of	statement on biological arms control, and it has neither Israel’s most sensitive defense research facilities—was	signed nor ratified the 1972 Biological Weapons Conven-publicized. To this day, the Israeli security establishment tion (BWC). treats all details of the Klingberg case as highly classified.3
This paper is an effort to penetrate the “black box” of Until the news of Klingberg’s arrest and imprisonment was the Israeli CBW programs. The first part provides a brief published, there was almost no public reference to Israel’s overview of the evolution of Israeli attitudes and percep-CBW programs. The limited disclosures about the
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	27
AVNER COHEN
tions on non-conventional weaponry. The second part perior to us in intellectual prowess.” 5 As Shimon Peres attempts to trace, decode, and interpret Israeli history,	put it, “Ben-Gurion believed that science could compen-attitudes, and current capabilities in the area of CBW, es- sate for what Nature has denied us.” 6 pecially BW. The third part places the CBW issue in the broader context of Israeli defense policy, deterrence, and Historical memories arms control, both vis-à-vis Iraq and other hostile states
The state of Israel was born in the shadow of two trau-in the region. Finally, the paper reviews and examines matic historical experiences: the Nazi Holocaust and the Israel’s approach to CBW arms control and disarmament,
1948 War of Independence. The memory of these events and how accession to the BWC and the Chemical Weap-provided the subtext for Ben-Gurion’s pursuit of non-con-ons Convention (CWC) would affect Israeli security and ventional weaponry (in particular, the nuclear project). As economic interests. All of the research for this paper was a student in Istanbul, Ben-Gurion witnessed the genocide conducted exclusively with open sources. of the Armenian minority in Turkey during World War I.
This horrifying experience gave him an early lesson that
ISRAEL AND NON-CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS ethnic minorities that could not protect themselves in a
Ben-Gurion’s desire to seek out scientists who could	hostile environment faced the real threat of genocide. The “either increase the capacity to kill masses or to cure	subsequent Nazi Holocaust and the failure of the world masses” implied—in the 1948 context—an interest in bio-	to save the Jews from Hitler forced Ben-Gurion to recog-logical warfare, but it also reflected a more general na- nize that his people were equally vulnerable. As the Nazis tional imperative. In its pursuit of national survival, Israel decimated the Jews of Europe, the leaders of the Yishuv, could not avoid developing indigenous non-conventional the Zionist community in Palestine under the British man-capabilities. Since then, this imperative has remained the date, felt utterly helpless. 7 The determination to prevent driving force behind Israel’s pursuit of non-conventional	a similar catastrophe from happening again strengthened weapons. To understand why Israel committed early on Ben-Gurion’s campaign for Jewish statehood after World to acquiring such weaponry, one must look beyond geo- War II. politics and state interests. Three factors were critical in
Imbued with the lessons of the Holocaust, Ben-Gurion shaping Israeli attitudes on matters of security and sur-was consumed by fears for Israel’s long-term security vival: (1) the Zionist ethos that led to the establishment of because of the geopolitical realities of the Arab-Israeli con-Israel as a nation-state; (2) the key historical memories flict.8 As the War of Independence concluded in 1949 with that shaped Israel’s approach to national security; (3) the an impressive Israeli victory, Ben-Gurion was already unique group of leaders who were committed to the pur-worried about Israel’s future. He became convinced that suit of non-conventional weapons. the cessation of hostilities would not lead to a lasting peace, but would be only a temporary pause before the next round
Zionist ethos of Arab-Israeli fighting.9 Two decades later, in a letter to
From its early days, the ethos of the Zionist movement U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Ben-Gurion stressed stressed the role of science and technology in advancing Israel’s “unique security problem.” Another Holocaust the dream of establishing a Jewish state. For Ben-Gurion, could happen to the Jewish people, he wrote, because of scientific and technological achievements were the hall-	the depth of Arab enmity towards Israel. “It is not our marks of the Zionist revolution, a secular manifestation democratic system, or our borders and independence alone of the notion of the Jews as the “chosen people.” For him,	which are threatened, but our very physical existence is science and technology had two key roles to play in the at stake. What was done to six million of our brethren realization of Zionism: (1) to advance the Jewish home- twenty years ago . . . could be done to the two million land intellectually and materially; and (2) to provide it a Jews of Israel, if, God forbid, the Israel Defense Forces better defense against its external enemies. This ethos high- are defeated.” 10 lighted the view that science and technology could com-	Ben-Gurion’s strategic pessimism regarding the Arab-pensate for Israel’s small population and lack of natural	Israeli conflict was rooted in three fundamental convic-resources. “We are inferior to other peoples in our num-	tions: bers, dispersion, and the characteristics of our political	(1) The Arab-Israeli conflict ran deep and was not ame-life,” Ben-Gurion remarked, “but no other people is su-	nable to a quick diplomatic solution. Only when the
28	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
Arabs were convinced that Israel could not be eradi-	It is important to recognize that as a matter of national cated by force and accepted their losses as final would	policy, Israel’s pursuit of the non-conventional option—lasting peace become possible.	in all three areas—has always been a somewhat reluctant (2) The conventionally armed Israel Defense Forces one. Although Ben-Gurion believed firmly that Israel must (IDF) would have great difficulty deterring a pan-Arab possess a non-conventional option for situations of last war coalition. Given the geopolitical asymmetries of the resort, he and other Israeli leaders also recognized that Arab-Israeli conflict, conventional weapons might not Israeli interests required that non-conventional weapons be sufficient to ensure victory.	not be introduced into the Arab-Israeli conflict. Because (3) After the Holocaust, the small Jewish community of Israel’s geopolitical predicament, it was more vulner-in the Middle East, lacking a formal alliance with an able to non-conventional weaponry than its larger Arab outside power, required an existential insurance policy enemies. If Israel’s own pursuit of these weapons led hos-for “a rainy day.” 11	tile Arab states to obtain them as well, the search for absolute security would become self-defeating. Israeli leaders Ben-Gurion’s conviction that the Holocaust might not have always been aware of this predicament, and the re-be a single and unique event in Jewish history but a result has been a determined but covert pursuit of a multi-curring threat became engraved in Israel’s collective psyche pronged non-conventional option. Even more than thirty and its concept of national security. Beginning in the early years after crossing the nuclear threshold, Israel has al-1950s, Israeli military planners considered a scenario in ways been extremely cautious to avoid any actions that which a pan-Arab military coalition would launch a war would confirm its nuclear capability. As a matter of state against Israel with the aim of liberating Palestine and de-policy, supported by a strong national consensus, Israel stroying the Jewish State. This worst-case contingency has made great efforts to keep its nuclear profile became known as mikre ha-kol, the “everything sce-
“opaque.” 13 Israel’ s policy on CBW is generally similar nario.” 12 Israel’ s pursuit of non-conventional weaponry to its opaque nuclear policy. Still, there are some impor-was a direct answer to Ben-Gurion’s fundamental anxi-tant differences in perceptions and policy between the two eties about national survival. Ensuring that the Holocaust areas, as well as between chemical weapons (CW) and would never happen again to the Jewish people meant that
BW. Israel must have the capability to deter such a calamity—if necessary by threatening to inflict a holocaust on its enemies. This conviction led the new state of Israel to ISRAEL’S EARLY CBW PROGRAMS build infrastructure and capabilities in all three areas of	To understand the direction of Israel’s early quest for non-conventional weaponry, notwithstanding the great	non-conventional weaponry, one must look at the scien-effort and cost involved.	tists who were close to Ben-Gurion in the 1940s. Prominent among them were Ernst David Bergmann (born Unique group of leaders	1903), the scientific director of the Sieff Institute in
Rehovot, and the Katachalsky brothers, Aharon (born A human alliance was indispensable for Israel’s deci-
1913) and Ephraim (born 1916).14 All were educated and sion to pursue non-conventional weaponry; without it, worked in the fields of chemistry and microbiology. These such a large-scale national commitment could not have scientists cultivated—perhaps even planted—in Ben-been set in motion. The alliance consisted initially of Prime
Gurion the view that Israel’s competitive edge in the Minister Ben-Gurion and his loyal scientific lieutenant, struggle for survival depended on investing in science and Professor Ernst David Bergmann. In the mid-1950s, the technology. young Shimon Peres, Ben-Gurion’s chief aide, joined them. This triumvirate was critical in achieving the vision	In the 1930s, the Katachalsky brothers were among the of a nuclear Israel. Less well known is the fact that the first to study chemistry at the Hebrew University, where three men also played a central role in Israel’s pursuit of	they completed both undergraduate and graduate univer-CBW capabilities. Despite the differences between Israel’s	sity work conducting molecular research that linked or-nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon programs, there ganic chemistry with microbiology. They both received a are intriguing historical and organizational parallels, link- Ph.D in macromolecular chemistry in 1941. Parallel to ages, and interactions among them.	their studies, they were also active members of the
Haganah, the Jewish paramilitary organization in Pales-
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	29
AVNER COHEN
tine. During the mid-1940s, before Bergmann returned to	The creation of HEMED BEIT was controversial from Palestine, Aharon Katachalsky was said to be the scien- the outset. In 1993, in an extraordinary, “reluctant” inter-tist closest to Ben-Gurion.15 In the mid-1940s, a small view with journalist Sara Leibovitz-Dar of the Israeli news-scientific department was founded within the Haganah.	paper Hadashot, Ephraim Katachalsky (who later took As a young lecturer at the Hebrew University in 1946-47, the Hebrew surname Katzir) and Alexander Keynan ex-Aharon recruited science students to form the first units plained the circumstances that led to the establishment of dedicated to experimenting with weaponry and explosives.	HEMED BEIT.21 Katachalsky stressed the historical con-Subsequently, in 1948, a Science Corps, known by its text. It was only two years after a group of Holocaust Hebrew acronym HEMED, was established within the survivors had sought his assistance to avenge the Nazi IDF.16 Ephraim Katachalsky was in the United States in	genocide of the Jews through a mass poisoning of reser-1947, studying with Edwin Cohen at Harvard University voirs in Germany’s largest cities. 22 Moreover, as a matter and with Herman Mark at the Brooklyn Polytechnic In- of historical context, every major combatant state in World stitute. When he returned to Israel in late May 1948, he War II had a BW program.23 Reflecting almost 45 years was appointed commander of HEMED.	later on the rationale behind the founding of HEMED
BEIT, Katzir noted the following: By 1948, Professor Bergmann was already a well-es-
I was involved in HEMED BEIT from the be-tablished organic chemist. Since the mid-1930s, he had ginning. We planned various activities, to get a been a protégé of Chaim Weizmann—an eminent Zionist sense what CBW is and how could we build a scientist and political rival of Ben-Gurion—but in the late potential [in this area] should there be a need 1940s became increasingly drawn to Ben-Gurion’s con-for such a potential. We needed to know how viction that science and technology were critical for Israel’s to defend [against such weapons]. . . . I thought future.17 Indeed, Bergmann fit Ben-Gurion’s ideal of a that we ought to know what was going on in scientist: one who did applied research in the service of this field. We knew that in the surrounding coun-the Zionist revolution.18 In August 1948 Ben-Gurion ap-tries others were also developing BW. [We be-pointed Bergmann as the head of the scientific depart-lieved that] scientists should contribute to the ment of the newly founded IDF, and three years later he strengthening of the State of Israel. 24 became the prime minister’s scientific advisor at the Ministry of Defense (MOD).19 Although Bergmann is best	In fact, this retrospective account is inaccurate and self-known today as the father of the Israeli nuclear program—	serving. No evidence suggests that in 1948 any of the sur-he founded the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) rounding Arab countries were developing BW, and in 1952 and shaped its early activities—his contribution	HEMED BEIT was probably not created for defensive to the establishment of Israel’s CBW capabilities was even	purposes. Moreover, there was a climate of deep ambiva-more crucial.	lence and even opposition within HEMED regarding the creation of HEMED BEIT and the whole issue of BW.
In early 1948, Alexander Keynan (born 1921), a Ph.D.
HEMED’s military commander, Colonel Shlomo Gur, was student in microbiology who headed a small group of stu-uncomfortable about the new biological unit under his dents at the pre-medical school of Hebrew University, command. “The initiative did not come from Ben-Gurion,” urged General Yigal Yadin, the Haganah operations chief,
Gur recalled in that 1993 interview, “but from the scien-and Prime Minister Ben-Gurion to establish a new unit tists themselves, although someone [General Yadin] cared within HEMED devoted to biological warfare. Yadin and to move them from Jerusalem and gave them a house in-Bergmann gave their blessing to the idea, and Ben-Gurion side the grove, where they did what they did.” 25 Over time, needed little persuasion to approve it. On February 18, according to Colonel Gur, the commanders of the bio-1948, by order of Yadin, Keynan left Jerusalem for Jaffa logical unit did not report about their operations to HEMED (a town adjacent to Tel Aviv), where he set up his new headquarters but rather directly to General Yadin.26 unit, named HEMED BEIT. The unit subsequently relocated to Abu Kabir, a former Arab village just few miles	Gur did not hide his personal ambivalence about bio-south of Tel Aviv. After the 1948 war, HEMED BEIT	logical warfare and elected to know as little as possible moved to its permanent location in a single building in a about “his” biological unit. “Physically, I sat at HEMED remote orange grove outside the town of Ness Ziona.20	headquarters in Tel Aviv, and in those days it was difficult to travel,” he explained. “I was also mentally remote
30	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
from them.” 27 Looking back, Gur said that his opposi-	of the captured Israelis, David Horin. He reportedly ad-tion to HEMED BEIT was based on an instinctive feeling mitted that their commander had given them a canteen that BW were “dirty” and that Israel had no need to re-	filled with dysentery and typhoid bacteria “to be thrown sort to them. When journalist Leibovitz-Dar asked Gur in	into the well to kill the Egyptian army.” 33 The four Israe-1993 whether his opposition had been motivated by con- lis were put on trial, convicted, and executed by hanging cern about harming civilian noncombatants, he responded three months later.34 that he might have had such thoughts, “but it becomes
Israel firmly denied the Egyptian allegations of bacte-articulated in such fashion only now when you ask me riological warfare, calling them a “wicked libel.” The Is-about this. In those days I did not think about those things, raeli government admitted only that the four soldiers were I simply had a mental opposition to it. I thought that our involved in an intelligence operation aimed at monitoring war effort had no need for that.” 28 military movements and assessing the morale of the Arab
Tight secrecy characterized all matters related to population. In 1993, when Leibovitz-Dar asked the com-HEMED BEIT, and the biological unit was insulated from mander of the Gaza operation whether the soldiers had all other HEMED units. To this day, there is no public	been sent to gather intelligence or to complete a BW mis-record of HEMED BEIT’s operations during the 1948	sion, he refused to respond. “You will not get answers on war—indeed, all archival material relating to the unit is	these questions,” he said angrily. “Not from me, and not classified and unavailable to scholars—and Israeli histori-	from anyone. . . .” 35 When Leibovitz-Dar asked former ans have not shown any great interest in exploring this	HEMED chief Colonel Shlomo Gur whether he was aware subject. Still, rumors about secret BW operations in Pal-	of HEMED BEIT’s secret operations during the 1948 War estinian villages and towns have persisted for years.29 Dr.	of Independence, he responded somewhat vaguely, “[w]e Uri Milstein, an iconoclastic Israeli military historian, main- heard about the typhoid epidemics in Acre and about the tains, “in many conquered Arab villages, the water sup-	Gaza operations. There were many rumors, but I did not ply was poisoned to prevent the inhabitants from coming know whether they were true or not.” 36 back.” 30
It seems that many people knew something about these It is believed that one of the largest operations in this	operations, but both the participants and later historians campaign was in the Arab coastal town of Acre, north of chose to avoid the issue, which gradually became a na-Haifa, shortly before it was conquered by the IDF on May tional taboo. Leibovitz-Dar, in her 1993 article, noted the 17, 1948. According to Milstein, the typhoid epidemic that great difficulties she faced in getting people to discuss the spread in Acre in the days before the town fell to the Is- history. “Everybody who had something to do with those raeli forces was not the result of wartime chaos but rather activities prefers today to keep silent,” she wrote. a deliberate covert action by the IDF—the contamination	What was done then, with deep conviction and of Acre’s water supply. Milstein even named the com-	zealotry, is nowadays concealed with shame. pany commander who was involved in the operation. When	Among the living, most preferred to keep silent, journalist Leibovitz-Dar found this individual in 1993, he	meetings were cancelled at the last moment, refused to talk. “Why do you look for troubles that took	phones were hung up when people understood place forty-five years ago?” he asked. “I know nothing	what was involved. “Not everything we did in about this. What would you gain by publishing it. . . .Why	those days requires discussion,” said Ephraim do you need to publish?” 31	Katzir.37
The success of the Acre operation may have persuaded	Despite the official silence, it appears there is little doubt Israeli decisionmakers to continue with these activities.32	now about the mission of the failed Gaza operation. Still, On May 23, 1948, Egyptian soldiers in the Gaza area unresolved questions remain about HEMED BEIT’s ac-caught four Israeli soldiers disguised as Arabs near water tivities during the 1948 war. For example, was the failed wells. A statement issued by the Egyptian Ministry of Gaza operation an isolated Israeli experiment with BW Defense on May 29 stated that four “Zionists” had been	that ended with that failure, or part of a larger campaign? caught trying to infect artesian wells in Gaza with “a liq-	If the latter is true, how widespread was the campaign, uid, which was discovered to contain the germs of dysen- and against whom was it directed? What was the strate-tery and typhoid.” According to the Egyptian statement,	gic rationale? Specifically, is Milstein correct in suggest-a confession had been obtained during interrogation of one ing that the purpose of the campaign to contaminate the
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	31
AVNER COHEN
water supplies of conquered Palestinian villages was to place only three years after the end of World War II, at a prevent the refugees from returning? If so, who autho- time when the Zionist movement had just begun to grapple rized the campaign? And how effective was it?	with the devastating blow the Jewish people had suffered in the Nazi Holocaust. One should also consider the mili-
The nearly complete absence of Israeli BW activities tary situation as seen by the Haganah leaders in early in the Palestinian narrative of the 1948 war (known to
1948, the time when HEMED BEIT was created. In re-the Palestinians as Al-Nakba or “cataclysm”) is both in-sponse to the imminent possibility of an invasion by the triguing and revealing. A scan of mainstream Internet sites
Arab states, the Haganah prepared a broad strategic plan, discussing the war, including that of the Center for Re-known as Plan D, to address such a contingency. This search and Documentation on Palestinian Society at Birzeit plan included provisions for the expulsion of hostile or University, turned up no references to Israeli use of bac-potentially hostile Palestinian villagers. During April-May teriological warfare, biological warfare, or well poisonings
1948, Haganah commanders implemented elements of during the war.38 This fact indicates that claims of Israeli
Plan D by clearing vital roads and Palestinian communi-BW are not central to the official Palestinian version of ties in border areas. In the words of historian Benny events. Nevertheless, rare mentions of “bacteriological
Morris, warfare” can be found in some Palestinian documents
There was never, during April-May, any na-from the time. For example, on July 22, 1948, the Palestional-political or General Staff decision to ex-tinian Arab Higher Committee submitted a 13-page memo-pel “the Arabs” from the Jewish state’s areas. randum to the United Nations accusing “Palestinian Jews”
There was no “plan” or policy decision. The of various war crimes, including “bacteriological war-matter was never discussed in the supreme po-fare.” 39 According to this document, “[f]or several years litical decision-making bodies; but it was under-the Zionists have planned and prepared for the use of stood by all concerned that, militarily, in the bacterial warfare. To that end, they set up laboratories in struggle to survive, the fewer Arabs remaining Palestine.” The memorandum stated there was “some” behind and along the front lines the better and, evidence, albeit inconclusive, that the Zionists were re-politically, the fewer Arabs remaining in the Jew-sponsible for an outbreak of cholera in Egypt in Novem-ish state, the better. At each level of command ber 1947, and in Syrian villages near the Palestine-Syrian and execution Haganah officers in those April-border in February 1948. The memorandum also refers
June days when the fate of the state hung in to the communiqué by the Egyptian Ministry of Defense the balance, simply “understood” what the mili-of May 28, 1948, regarding the capture of the four “Zi-tary and political exigencies of survival re-onists” in Gaza. 40 quired.42
In 1999, a Palestinian physician, Dr. Salman Abu Sitta,
One must also recall that until mid-1948, the creation speaking before the British House of Commons, claimed of a Jewish state was by no means a certain proposition: that in 1948, “even bacteriological warfare was used by the Yishuv leadership still feared the possibility of Zionist poisoning wells and infecting drinking water with malaria defeat and possibly even annihilation.43 Moreover, estab-and typhus. That was the case in Gaza in the summer of lishing a strong Jewish majority in the conquered territo-1948, as Ben-Gurion admitted in his diary.” 41 Interest-ries was seen as essential for the future Jewish state. The ingly, however, no known Palestinian sources allege that founders of HEMED BEIT shared this mindset: they were the epidemics in Acre resulted from Israeli sabotage. The committed to do whatever was necessary to create a Jew-absence of Arab reports on this incident may suggest ei-ish homeland in the land of Israel.44 They firmly believed ther that the “bacteriological warfare” campaign, if it oc-that, after the Holocaust, this sacred mission could not be curred, had limited results, or that in the chaos of war the derailed by the luxury of moral revulsion against “dirty Palestinian refugees were unaware of the campaign. Also, weapons.” If microbiology could help in providing the if the BW operations aimed primarily at preventing the means to establish the Jewish state, so be it. return of the Palestinian population to their deserted villages as Milstein claims, this could explain the relative lack
FROM HEMED BEIT TO IIBR of evidence of such operations.
Ultimately, the creation of HEMED BEIT must be un-	In 1949, after the War of Independence, a period of derstood—and judged—in the context of the time. It took	reorganization began both at the IDF and the civilian
32	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
MOD. The 90,000-strong wartime army was reduced to	One reason for this approach was the extremely limited about 35,000 recruits. There was also a need to restruc- research infrastructure left by the British mandate in ar-ture the entire defense establishment, both its civilian and eas such as public health and epidemiology. Bergmann uniformed components, to adjust to the postwar condi-	firmly believed that the Defense Ministry’s EMET was tions. HEMED was still part of the IDF, but the majority the only body in the new state of Israel capable of build-of HEMED’s 560 employees were civilians, and the mili-	ing a research infrastructure at the national level (as op-tary utility of the Science Corps was not clear to the su- posed to academic centers or other governmental agencies preme command. Each of the five research centers acted such as the Ministry of Health). As part of this organiza-as an autonomous unit, loosely administrated by the	tional restructuring, HEMED was converted into a group HEMED command. As the military budget shrank in	of MOD-sponsored civilian research centers called 1950-51, the IDF was determined to rid itself of the bur- “Machons.” With backing from Ben-Gurion but opposi-den of supporting HEMED.45	tion from some top defense bureaucrats and senior military officers, Bergmann established in 1952 both the IAEC
The reorganization at MOD coincided with some im-and IIBR.52 portant personnel changes. In mid-1951, the rift between the aging Chaim Weizmann, the founder of the Seiff In-	IIBR resulted from the merger of two Machons, one stitute (later renamed the Weizmann Institute of Science), of which was a continuation of HEMED BEIT. Accord-and his long-time protégé, Professor Bergmann, then the ingly, the initial IIBR laboratory was the building in the institute’s scientific director, reached a final showdown.	fenced orange grove outside Ness Ziona that had housed Their disagreement centered on the future of the HEMED BEIT. Among the founders of IIBR were Weizmann Institute and the role of the state in sponsoring Alexander Keynan, who was the head of HEMED BEIT scientific research. During the 1948 war, Bergmann had and had become the institute’s first director; Robert effectively turned the institute into a HEMED base and Goldwasser, who later directed the institute during the subordinated much of its research effort to the needs of 1960s; and Marcus Klingberg.53 For all practical purposes, the Haganah and, later, to those of MOD.46 After the	Bergmann was also one of the founding fathers of the war, Bergmann proposed “to convert the Weizmann In-	new institute. His name appeared as a joint author on many stitute into Israel’s national scientific research center, dedi-	of the scientific publications of IIBR during the 1950s, cated to both civilian and military tasks.” 47 This plan was especially in the chemical field. unacceptable to Weizmann, who had returned to the in-
From its inception, IIBR was given a “dual identity.” 54 stitute in 1949 while serving as Israel’s first president.
For security and bureaucratic purposes, it was regarded Weizmann adamantly opposed Bergmann’s concept of as a highly classified research center (“Machon 2”) oper-state-sponsored science.48 ated and funded by the MOD EMET. For representative
On July 15, 1951, Weizmann forced Bergmann to re- and scientific functions, however, it was named the Is-sign his post as scientific director and governor of the in- rael Institute for Biological Research, under the jurisdic-stitute.49 On that same day, Ben-Gurion appointed tion of the Prime Minister’s Office. 55 Bergmann to dual posts: scientific advisor to the prime
Given the climate of the times, it is doubtful that minister and chief of research at MOD. In effect,
Bergmann and his IIBR colleagues made a distinction Bergmann became the nation’s chief scientist, a position between defensive and offensive research and develop-that enabled him to pursue his grand vision of setting up ment (R&D). In those days, national CBW programs were government-sponsored research centers funded by MOD not illegal or even at odds with international norms. The and under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister’s Office. 50
1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of CBW The two main areas of government-sponsored research in warfare, was silent about developing, producing, and that Bergmann sought to establish under the rubric of “na-stockpiling such weapons. Moreover, many countries that tional science” were nuclear and chemical-biological. 51 ratified the Geneva Protocol did so with a reservation re-
The establishment of a civilian Division of Research serving the right to employ CBW for retaliation in kind (under the Hebrew acronym EMET) to coordinate all re- (Israel acceded to the Geneva Protocol only in February search at MOD required a transition from specific war- 1969).56 By the 1950s, all three major NATO powers—time projects to building a national research infrastructure the United States, the United Kingdom, and France—had and broad set of capabilities guided by long-term needs.
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	33
AVNER COHEN
significant offensive CBW capabilities. While Bergmann	In December 1957, for example, Bergmann was in-and Keynan were well aware of those CBW programs,	volved (along with Keynan and Klingberg) in the appoint-they sought a research mandate for the new institute that ment of Professor Ludwig Fleck as director of the section was much broader than merely satisfying the needs of the of experimental pathology at IIBR. Fleck was a promi-Israeli defense establishment.	nent microbiologist and philosopher of science who had immigrated to Israel from Poland just two months earlier.
Considerations of Israel’s long-term scientific infrastruc-
A former member of the presidium of the Polish Acad-ture needs guided the way Keynan (with Bergmann’s sup-emy of Sciences who had published some 130 scientific port) transformed HEMED BEIT into IIBR in the early papers, he brought to IIBR the kind of expertise (in the to mid-1950s. Keynan and Bergmann believed that basic area of diagnosis of contagious diseases) and international research provided an essential foundation for applied re-prestige that Bergmann considered essential for the sci-search, and they strongly advocated the role of the state, entific quality of the new institute.60 Also in line with in particular MOD, in sponsoring scientific research
Bergmann’s broad approach, throughout the mid-1950s projects relevant to the national interest.57 Their approach
IIBR was given the lead responsibility for a multi-year was that Israel should set up a national laboratory respon-national project to develop a vaccine against polio.61 sible for chemical and biological R&D. In contrast, senior bureaucrats at MOD, such as EMET chief Munya Mardor,	Notwithstanding Bergmann’s grand plans and ideas, believed that given Israel’s limited financial resources,	IIBR in its early years was, like the rest of Israel, a small MOD should invest in specific research projects only with and intimate place. In the fiscal year 1964-65, total fund-clear military purpose. Bergmann’s counter- argument was	ing for IIBR was about $1 million, of which more than that only after the creation of a national scientific infra- half came from the government and the rest from exter-structure would it be possible to conduct specific projects nal sources. The authorized budget was even smaller at effectively. It appears that both sides in the debate invoked about $600,000. About 70 percent went to salaries, 20 the issue of CBW to support their positions.58	percent to research proper, and the rest to administration.62
For comparative purposes, in 1966 Israel’s total govern-Bergmann and Keynan insisted that IIBR be set up with ment budget was about $1.6 billion, and the defense bud-a research mandate covering a broad spectrum of nation-get was nearly $400 million, of which about 10 percent ally significant scientific research projects, and not just a
($41 million) went to R&D.63 In all, IIBR’s budget ac-military CBW program. Furthermore, given the circum-counted for approximately 2 percent of the overall R&D stances under which Bergmann was forced to leave the budget of MOD.
Weizmann Institute, he was personally motivated to establish a system of state-sponsored research centers that
SECRECY, TABOO, AND AMBIVALENCE rivaled the Weizmann Institute in quality and prestige. In addition to these motivations, security and academic con-	To this day, Israel’s past and present activities in the siderations may have contributed to Bergmann’s (and	CBW field are treated as a national taboo—similar to, and Keynan’s) insistence on giving IIBR a civilian identity and	perhaps even stronger than, the nuclear taboo. The Is-a broad research mandate. From the outset, Bergmann	raeli security establishment considers the IIBR facility, like recognized the intrinsic civil-military ambiguity of CBW Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona, one of the nation’s most research, and he believed that giving the laboratory a broad secret defense installations. Over the years, the single research mandate would provide a legitimate cover for building hidden in an orange grove on the outskirts of Ness the scientists working there. His active involvement in hir- Ziona has grown into a multi-acre modern research coming top-quality scientific staff at both IAEC and IIBR plex, surrounded by a six-foot-high concrete wall topped seems to illustrate this point. By maintaining a broad civic	with electronic sensors that reveal the location of any in-organizational structure and rationale for IIBR, Bergmann truders. For security reasons, the Ness Ziona facility has sought to attract first-rate scientists by offering them the been deleted from aerial survey photographs and maps of kinds of intellectual and material benefits available at aca- the town, and orange groves inserted in its place.64 demic institutions: the freedom to publish research in sci-
Ever since the founding of IIBR, the secrecy surrounding entific journals, attend international conferences, take it has been reinforced by strict military censorship. As a sabbatical leaves, and so forth.59 matter of policy, IIBR employees, including the director-general, are strictly prohibited to speak with the media.
34	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
IIBR has no official spokesman, and the spokesman for While no specifics were made public, Klingberg is widely the Prime Minister’s Office is the only person authorized	believed to have been Israel’s most damaging espionage to respond to press queries about the institute.65 In the	case.67 Given his seniority at IIBR and his long and inti-early days, secrecy was so pervasive that IIBR’s exist-	mate acquaintance with Israel’s other defense establishence was hardly acknowledged, but this situation changed ments, one must assume that for decades, Klingberg gave in the early 1990s. A number of developments, both glo- Israel’s most sensitive military secrets to the Soviet bal and domestic, made this change inevitable. The 1991 Union—primarily in the CBW arena, but in other sensi-Gulf War, in particular, put the CBW issue at the top of tive domains as well. the international security agenda. Israeli experts and me-
The Israeli government never released any information dia closely followed CBW developments, especially those about Klingberg’s arrest, trial, and conviction as a Soviet related to Iraq. spy. Even Klingberg’s family was forced to be an accom-
During the 1990s, a number of developments in Israel plice in the efforts of the security authorities to conceal brought IIBR into the headlines and highlighted the ex-	his fate. Immediately after his arrest, security personnel traordinary secrecy surrounding its activities. First and removed all personal files relating to him from IIBR and foremost was the Klingberg espionage case, which became the School of Medicine at Tel Aviv University. People who public in 1993. Press stories revealed that a decade ear- had known Klingberg in Israel were told—apparently as lier, Professor Avraham Marcus (Marek) Klingberg (born part of a cover story—that his disappearance was the re-1918), a world-renowned Israeli epidemiologist who had sult of a mental breakdown and hospitalization while trav-served as deputy director of IIBR for many years, had eling in Switzerland. Some who doubted this story been secretly arrested, tried, and convicted as a Soviet speculated that Klingberg might have defected to the So-spy.66	viet Union. The few who were aware of his true whereabouts, including his immediate family and close
Klingberg was born in Poland to an observant Jewish colleagues, were sworn to secrecy. Even in jail, Klingberg family. During World War II, in his early twenties, he fled was given a fictitious identity and spent much of his time to the Soviet Union. After graduating in medicine from in solitary confinement. the University of Minsk in 1941, he joined the medical corps of the Red Army as a military epidemiologist and	By sheer chance, a British investigative reporter named rose to the rank of colonel. Klingberg immigrated to Is- Peter Pringle “stumbled” onto Klingberg’s disappearance rael in 1948 and joined the IDF, where he served both in	in the summer of 1985. At that time, Pringle was investi-the Medical Corps and in HEMED BEIT. As noted ear- gating charges by the Reagan Administration that the So-lier, he was among the founding members of IIBR in 1952. viet Union had used a fungal poison known as “yellow During his thirty-year tenure, he held key positions as rain” as a BW agent in Afghanistan (U.S. and British sci-administrative director, director of the epidemiological di-	entists later refuted those claims). One of Pringle’s Brit-vision, and deputy director. At the time of his arrest,	ish sources suggested that he interview an Israeli Klingberg was also professor of epidemiology at Tel Aviv	epidemiologist named Marcus Klingberg. As a young epi-University School of Medicine. (Since 1967, many se- demiologist with the Red Army Medical Corps during nior scientists at IIBR have had academic appointments World War II, Klingberg had been involved in studying a at that institution.)	mysterious outbreak of poisoning in the Russian town of
Orenburg (north of Kazakhstan) that killed thousands of Nearly all details of the Klingberg espionage case are peasants. He and his colleagues were able to identify the still treated by the Israeli security establishment as classi-cause of the outbreak: a fungus that infected stored grain fied, including the circumstances that led to Kingberg’s and produced a powerful toxin. capture and the secrets he divulged to the Soviets. No official account of the case has ever been released by the	In the fall of 1985, Pringle traveled to Israel to try to Israeli government. It is believed that Klingberg was ar- interview Klingberg, hoping to shed light on the “yellow rested at Ben-Gurion Airport in January 1983 on his way rain” controversy. Instead, he accidentally stumbled into to a conference in Europe. He was secretly tried in the the even bigger mystery regarding the whereabouts of his Tel Aviv District Court and sentenced in June 1983 to an source. Pringle wrote: “[e]ach time I mentioned 18-year prison term—the same jail term that Mordechai	[Klingberg’s] name to his Israeli colleagues, they said his Vanunu, Israel’s nuclear whistleblower, received in 1986.	disappearance was ‘hush-hush,’ but they did not believe
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	35
AVNER COHEN
the official explanation that he had fallen [mentally] ill in	legal battle, was Klingberg released from jail and placed Switzerland and disappeared.” 68 While searching for ar- under strict house arrest. The security establishment still chival materials on Klingberg, Pringle found only a short treats him as a major security risk, and the terms of his feature in the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv dated October	release deny him any contact with the outside world. The 24, 1983, in which the author noted: “Nobody knows	extraordinary secrecy measures that the Israeli security where the head of the department of preventive medicine authorities imposed for years on the Klingberg case, some at Tel Aviv University disappeared nine months ago.” When	of which remain in effect to this day, indicate the extreme Pringle called up the reporter who had written the story,	sensitivity with which Israel views the activities of IIBR.70 the man was evasive, hesitant, and reluctant to cooper-
In another development, residents of the town of Ness ate.
Ziona, after decades of anxious silence, have begun to The mystery deepened further when Pringle visited	voice concerns about the potential impact of IIBR on their
Klingberg’s wife Wanda (a microbiologist at Ness Ziona	lives. To be sure, the residents’ protests are not about Is-who died in 1990) in her Tel Aviv apartment. It became raeli CBW policy, but whether Ness Ziona should be the evident that she knew the whereabouts of her husband site for such activities. As the town’s attorney, Shay Segal, but could not talk about it. Pringle suspected that Klingberg put it: no one disputes that Israel needs such a research had defected to Russia, but the more he looked into the center, “but far away from here—not in a residential area disappearance, the stranger it became. At one point dur- where people live.” 71 Grass-roots activity in Ness Ziona ing his inquiries, Pringle wrote,	intensified in 1998 when it became known that IIBR
I took time off to visit a crusader castle at	planned to expand its perimeter by 12.5 additional acres. Ashkelon. My car was broken into and my	In an unprecedented move, the mayor of the town insti-briefcase, containing papers about Klingberg and	tuted legal proceedings to prevent the institute’s expan-my passport, was stolen. . . . A few months later,	sion on environmental and safety grounds. Confronted the police returned the briefcase and my pass-	with the lawsuit, the Israeli government temporarily port, but some papers and photocopies of news-	dropped its expansion plans and promised to conduct an papers articles from Tel Aviv archives were	environmental impact study before any decision was made. missing.69	It was clear that the Israeli government wanted to avoid a high-profile legal battle with the town.72
When Pringle’s article about Klingberg’s mysterious disappearance was published in England in 1985, the Is-	In August 1998, Yediot Ahronot, Israel’s leading news-raeli military censor took an unprecedented measure and paper published a long exposé on IIBR, referring to it as banned the Israeli media from reporting the story; jour- “metropolitan Tel Aviv’s most severe environmental haz-nalists were not even allowed to mention Klingberg’s	ard” and raising questions about the “conspiracy of si-name. In early 1988, Yisrael Shelanu, a small Hebrew lence” surrounding its activities. 73 Drawing on a hearing weekly magazine for Israeli expatriates published in New by the Knesset Science Committee, the article revealed York, revealed that Klingberg was being secretly held in	that four serious accidents had occurred at IIBR over the Israeli jail on the charge of spying for the Soviet Union, previous 15 years, resulting in three fatalities and 22 inju-and that he might be released as part of a three-country ries. No details were given about the nature of the acci-spy exchange. Israeli officials refused to comment on that dents, but the British Foreign Report, citing unnamed report or even to acknowledge it. In August 1993, a de- Israeli sources, claimed that one accident was so serious cade after Klingberg’s disappearance, Israel’s Supreme	that authorities were on the verge of evacuating the entire Court accepted a petition from Schocken Media Group town of Ness Ziona before IIBR scientists concluded that and forced the Israeli military censor to partially lift the the threat had passed.74 secrecy surrounding the Klingberg case. In effect, it was
The next revelation came in October 1998, when Is-the first admission by the Israeli government that espio-rael finally confirmed that an El Al Boeing 747 cargo air-nage had occurred at the highest levels of IIBR. craft that crashed near Schipol Airport in Amsterdam in
The Israeli security establishment and the judiciary	October 1992 had been carrying a shipment destined for firmly opposed numerous humanitarian requests for	Ness Ziona that contained DMMP, a dual-use chemical Klingberg’s early release on the grounds of his age and	used as an ingredient in the manufacture of sarin nerve deteriorating health. Only in September 1998, after a long gas.75 In the months and years after the El Al crash, hun-
36	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
dreds of people living near the crash site and rescue work-	IIBR—specializes in applied research, developers developed inexplicable illnesses ranging from breath-	ment and production in the fields of biology, ing problems to skin rashes, nervous disorders, and cancer.	chemistry, ecology and public health, in addi-It was suspected that the illnesses stemmed from expo-	tion to basic research studies emanating from sure to toxic compounds carried by the Israeli aircraft,	IIBR’s applied projects. 78 which burned after the crash. The confirmation that
According to the website, IIBR is organized into three DMMP had been on board was provided, only after six scientific divisions—Biology, Medicinal Chemistry, and years in which Israel had refused to provide a full account-
Environmental Sciences—that “cooperate in a synergis-ing of what the plane was carrying, admitting only that it tic relationship, enabling the formation of optimum inter-had was “commercial cargo.” The contents of the 20 tons disciplinary teams tailored to the needs of each individual of cargo, some or all of it apparently shipped by the Is-project.” 79 The Institute’s staff comprises approximately raeli Defense Ministry, have yet to be fully identified. El
300 employees, 120 of them scientists holding Ph.Ds in Al’s lawyer in The Hague, Robert Polak, told the Dutch biology, biochemistry, biotechnology, chemistry, math-government that the details would never be forthcoming ematics, pharmacology, physics, and environmental sci-because of what he termed “state security reasons.” 76 In ences. IIBR’s technical staff consists of 100 certified any event, if Israel had hoped to shield the involvement technicians, representing a broad spectrum of capabilities. of IIBR, the cover-up had the opposite effect. The mystery over the shipment drew new attention to the top-se-	The website also describes IIBR’s three scientific divi-cret facility in Ness Ziona.	sions. The Division of Biology conducts research in the areas of recombinant DNA technology, engineering of pro-
Israeli attitudes towards IIBR are characterized by an teins and enzymes, fermentation biotechnology, fuel and aura of secrecy, ambivalence, and taboo. Although Israeli environmental biotechnology, mechanisms of viral and citizens have recently become more willing to ask tough bacterial pathogenesis, and diagnosis of infectious diseases. questions about the potential environmental and safety
With respect to research on pathogenesis, the website hazards posed by IIBR, most prefer not to know too much states: about what goes on behind the high walls of the institute.
IIBR is investigating viral and bacterial patho-The issue is also taboo for Israeli-based think-tank and genesis mechanisms in an attempt to design new academic analysts. Although there has been some public strategies for vaccine development. The IIBR discussion of CW recently by defense journalists and aca-approach is based on development of various demic strategists in the context of the debate over whether strains of pathogens, which differ in their viru-Israel should ratify the CWC, there has been virtually no lence. The comparison of the different variants academic discussion of the BW issue. The most that Is-is then used to elucidate the genetic determi-raeli analysts are willing to say publicly regarding Ness nants responsible for virulent traits. This leads Ziona is that the critical issue for deterrence is that the to the determination of the biological pathways Arabs believe that Israel has all weapons of mass destruc-in which virulence is exhibited and has the potion (WMD), including BW.77 tential of being used as a guideline in the design of attenuated vaccines.80
ASSESSING IIBR
The site also states that IIBR has a Center for the Di-Today, almost five decades after IIBR was founded, it	agnosis of Infectious Diseases “engaged in the develop-is remarkable to realize how much of Bergmann’s found-	ment of novel diagnostic assays, the production of ing concept has survived the passage of time and changes reagents, the determination of antibodies in serum and the in Israeli science and politics. The current public mission diagnosis of clinical specimens.” Specifically, the Center statement of IIBR, as it appears on the institute’s elabo-	“produces antigens, antibodies and conjugates for the di-rate website, still reflects the broad scientific mandate ad- agnosis of viral, rickettsial, and leptospiral diseases; per-vocated by Bergmann back in the 1950s. In accordance forms serological diagnostic tests, isolation of the agents, with this philosophy, the IIBR mission is described in he and offers diagnostic consultation to hospitals and clinics following way:	in Israel.” 81
Backed by close to five decades of experience, the Israel Institute of Biological Research—
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	37
AVNER COHEN
IIBR’s Division of Medicinal Chemistry conducts re-	publications written by some 140 scientists affiliated with search on the synthesis of fine chemicals and drugs, envi-	IIBR over nearly 50 years. Aided by eminent authorities ronmental and biopharmaceutical analysis, pharmacology	on CBW, such as the British expert Julian Perry Robinson, and behavior assessment, and Alzheimer’s disease and	Knip has reconstructed a rough history of the type of CBW related disorders. Many of these capabilities are relevant research conducted at Ness Ziona.83 to both defensive and offensive CBW. The Division of
On the chemical side, according to Knip’s analysis, IIBR Environmental Sciences does research in the fields of at-was involved in an extensive effort to identify practical mospheric optics, air pollution meteorology and risk as-methods of synthesis for nerve gases (such as tabun, sarin, sessment, physical surface chemistry, and detectors and and VX) and other organophosphorus and fluorine com-biosensors. With respect to biosensor development, IIBR pounds.84 Knip’s findings are consistent with other indi-has interdisciplinary capabilities including the chemistry cations that Israel initiated a CW program in the of detectors (i.e., reagents, shelf life), mechanics, elec-mid-1950s. IIBR also carried out studies of chemical in-tronics, and air sampling. capacitating agents, which are designed not to kill but rather
Presumably, the IIBR website was carefully designed to incapacitate an adversary for a certain amount of time. to present its defensive CBW mission as well as its civil-	Before 1970, the U.S. CW program experimented with ian and unclassified side as a top-quality national research numerous chemical incapacitants, including psychotropic institute. By and large, IIBR presents broad technical ca- drugs such as LSD, although the only incapacitating CW pabilities that could be used for both defensive and offen- stockpiled by the United States was “BZ,” which was sive purposes, specific civilian projects such as research phased out in the early 1960s.85 on Alzheimer’s disease, as well as research areas and
On the biological side, Knip’s survey identified several projects with a clear defensive orientation. IIBR national types of disease agents, toxins, and incapacitants studied capabilities and expertise are clearly consistent with the at IIBR. In the early to mid-1950s, much of the research full array of activities associated with a strong CBW deactivity focused on the causative agents of plague (Yersinia fense program, but they could also support an offensive pestis), typhus, and rabies, followed subsequently by stud-orientation. Although the IIBR website carefully avoids ies on breeding insects that transmit those diseases, such discussing the motivation and intent behind the institute’s as mosquitoes, fleas, and ticks. Until the 1960s, insect research, it may serve a deterrent function. Without stat-and arthropod vectors provided the primary means of ing anything explicitly, the IIBR website demonstrates that delivery for the U.S. and British BW programs.86 Also Israel has powerful capabilities in the CBW area. during the 1950s, a significant number of studies at IIBR
In the early 1990s, IIBR underwent a major financial focused on anti-livestock agents, following the path of and organizational reform. According to the new arrange- other national BW programs at the time. ment, the Israeli government agreed to fund the portion
Another central area of study at IIBR since the 1950s of the institute’s staff and activities defined as “preserva-has been research on toxins: non-living poisons derived tion of an essential field of knowledge for the national in-from plants, animals, and bacteria. According to Knip’s terest.” The rest of IIBR supports itself by selling research bibliographical review, IIBR has done research on at least and development services through contracts with outside
15 different toxins, some of which may have been intended clients, both in Israel and abroad. As is the case with the for use in special covert operations. One toxin on the list Soreq and Dimona nuclear research centers under the is Staphylococcus enterotoxin B (SEB), a potent incapaci-auspices of the IAEC, the IIBR budget is entirely classi-tating toxin produced by the bacterium Staphylococcus fied.82 aureus. SEB was one of the toxin agents weaponized by
In the absence of almost any public historical informa- the U.S. offensive BW program. tion about IIBR, sensationalist rumors and speculation
Knip’s overall conclusion is that IIBR, since its estab-abound, along with a few more cautious inferences. Given lishment in the early 1950s, has been involved in a di-the Israeli taboo on the subject, a foreign journalist—verse array of research activities that, as a whole, imply Dutch reporter Karel Knip—has conducted the most ex-the possibility of offensive CBW research.87 In Knip’s tensive investigation into IIBR history and research words, “[t]he many hundreds of articles prove beyond activities. By searching Internet-based databases of the doubt that the IIBR is Israel’s main center for research medical literature, Knip turned up hundreds of scientific
38	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
into both chemical and biological weapons. The research has not even bothered to characterize the research con-conducted at the Institute consists of a bizarre combina- ducted at IIBR as “defensive,” and hence legitimate. 92 tion of activities that acquire significance within one spe- Finally, unlike the case of Israel’s nuclear program, of cific context, that of chemical and biological warfare.” 88	which Mordechai Vanunu revealed some of the technical capabilities to the London Sunday Times, there has never
Although a survey of published scientific literature is a been a comparable whistleblower at IIBR. This last issue useful tool for reconstructing the research interests at IIBR, perhaps explains why the Israeli security apparatus acted it is important to recognize its limitations. Bibliographical so harshly to protect the secrets of Ness Ziona in the analysis can suggest institutional trends, but it cannot in-
Klingberg case. dicate by itself whether Israel has offensive BW or CW programs. Medical and agricultural research institutions	Another difference between the two cases highlights this worldwide conduct extensive basic research on disease- point. In 1999, in a response to a petition submitted to causing microorganisms. For this reason, Israel’s motiva-	the court by Yediot Ahronot, the Israeli security authoritions in the CBW fields, defensive or offensive, cannot ties preempted a decision by the Supreme Court and re-be inferred merely from the existence of research activi-	leased over a thousand pages of court documents related ties involving potential CBW agents. To do so would be to the Vanunu trial, about 40 percent of the trial docu-an unjustified leap. If additional relevant information is	ments. The daily Ha’aretz submitted a similar petition on available regarding weaponization or large-scale agent pro- the Klingberg case to the Supreme Court in 1999. In conduction, however, it could alter the significance of the basic	trast to the Vanunu petition, the Israel security authorities research.	firmly opposed any release of documents relating to the
Klingberg case. In August 2001, the Israeli Supreme Court The fact that many research findings by IIBR scien-accepted the position of the security authorities and de-tists have been published in scientific journals—meaning nied the petition. that Israeli security officials consider them unclassified—highlights the intrinsic ambiguity that characterizes basic	Lacking hard information, foreign-based publications research on dangerous pathogens. Such research may be have made all kinds of claims about Israel’s BW capabili-relevant to offensive BW but also have “legitimate” ap-	ties, from the mundane to the fantastic.93 As a matter of plications in medicine and agriculture. With respect to stud- policy, the Israeli government has always refused to com-ies of bacterial or viral pathogenesis, it can be difficult to ment on these reports. For this reason, any assessment of determine whether the intent of a particular research	Israel’s BW program and capabilities is inevitably tenta-project is to create a “defensive” capability (e.g., vaccine	tive and speculative. A near-consensus exists among ex-development) or an “offensive” one (e.g., engineering more	perts—based on anecdotal evidence and intelligence virulent strains). Because of this intrinsic ambiguity, Ar- leaks—that Israel developed, produced, stockpiled, and ticle I of the BWC does not ban basic research. Although	perhaps even deployed CW at some point in its history. development directly related to weaponization is prohib- In 1974, U.S. senior military officials testified in Congress ited, such activities would be classified and hence diffi-	that they knew, from conversations with their Israeli coun-cult to trace through open scientific publications.89	terparts, that Israel had an offensive CW capability. When asked about Israel’s BW capability, however, the Ameri-
Knip’s bibliographical survey confirms what many have cans professed ignorance.94 Although most analysts be-presumed and what IIBR seems to imply through its own lieve that Israel has maintained some offensive BW website: that Israel has substantial research capabilities capabilities, it is difficult to characterize exactly what those relevant to both defensive and offensive CBW. Still, to capabilities are and their current status.95 make judgments about Israeli intentions, motivations, and strategy with regard to CBW—especially regarding	The U.S. government has never included Israel in its weaponization—one needs to know much more. The in-	public list of states with an offensive BW capability, al-disputable facts are as follows. IIBR is one of Israel’s most	though some have argued that Israel is one of two un-secretive and guarded scientific installations. Israel signed named states in the list of 12 assessed to have an offensive the CWC but has not ratified it.90 Israel has refused to program.96 The 1993 report on weapons proliferation by sign the BWC and has never issued a public policy state- the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service included an am-ment on the issue of BW.91 Unlike other Western states	biguous characterization of Israel’s BW capability: that openly acknowledge a defensive BW program, Israel
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	39
AVNER COHEN
There is no direct evidence of the presence of	fundamental features: visibility, predictability, and imme-biological weapons in Israel. At the same time,	diacy. No other non-conventional weapon can produce according to various indications, a ramified pro-	as visible, predictable, and rapid destructive effects as NW. gram of biological research of a general nature,	These characteristics make the atomic bomb the most in which elements of a military-applied purpose	effective means of deterrence. BW, on the other hand, is are present, is being implemented in Israel. Spe-	distinguished by a lack of transparency: the effects of BW cifically, Israeli research centers are cooperat-	are invisible, uncertain, and delayed. BW agents can be ing closely with the American military labor-	released covertly, and lethality is contingent on weather atories within the framework of a U.S. Defense	conditions and the mode of dispersal. In fact, because it Department program for protection against bio-	can be difficult to distinguish a biological attack from a logical weapons. As a whole, Israel possesses a	natural outbreak of disease, uncertainty may exist as to strong civilian biotechnology base, which, if	whether biological agents were actually used, and if so, necessary, could be redirected fairly easily to	by whom. The drawbacks of BW for deterrence purposes the production of biological weapons.” 97	would become advantages, however, in the case of clandestine use.99
The four elements considered necessary for the weaponization of biological agents are research, develop-	All indications are that from early on, Ben-Gurion and ment, testing, and evaluation. It would be logical—given	Bergmann viewed the atom bomb—not BW—as the an-the BW threat from Iraq—that Israel has acquired exper-	swer to Israel’s strategic predicament. In the early to mid-tise in most aspects of weaponization, with the possible	1950s, however, an operational Israeli nuclear capability exception of testing.98 Although it is highly probable that was still far off in the future, and CBW may have been Israel has maintained some sort of production capability,	seen as a way to fill the gap. According to persistent ru-it is doubtful that Israel engages in the ongoing produc- mors, in 1954 Israeli Defense Minister Pinchas Lavon tion or stockpiling of BW agents.	proposed using BW for some special operations. These proposals apparently stirred up a great deal of controversy STRATEGY, DETERRENCE, AND POLICY:	among the handful of officials who knew about them, in-BW, CW, AND NW	cluding Prime Minister Moshe Sharett. Veiled references to such “crazy” proposals can be found in Sharett’s dia-
To reconstruct the development of Israeli strategic perries.100 ceptions and attitudes toward BW, one must go beyond assessing the technical capabilities of IIBR and look at	When Ben-Gurion returned to power in 1955, he im-the issue in a broader strategic-historic context, including mediately initiated parallel efforts—near- and long-term—strategic linkages between BW and the two other catego- to provide Israel with options of last resort.101 In the spring ries of non-conventional weaponry: chemical and nuclear.	of 1955, he launched a crash project to develop “a cheap non-conventional capability.” Convinced that war with
Ben-Gurion firmly supported the establishment of IIBR
Egypt was inevitable, Ben-Gurion was determined to “set in 1952 and monitored the institute’s development up another line of defense, beyond the conventional means throughout his time in office. His daughter, Dr. Renana of the IDF, in case the enemy [Egypt] would use non-Leshem, worked as a microbiologist at IIBR for about 20 conventional weapons on the battlefield or against the ci-years. Even so, it is doubtful that Ben-Gurion ever con-vilian population.” He ordered that this non-conventional sidered BW as Israel’s ultimate strategic deterrent. It is capability be operationalized—i.e., weaponized and stock-not known if, and to what extent, Ben-Gurion, Bergmann, piled—as soon as possible and before a war with Egypt and Peres weighed the BW option against the nuclear broke out. The “cheap non-conventional capability” that option during the 1950s. But a variety of practical and preceded the nuclear option was CW, not BW. 102 military considerations, as well as diplomatic and moral considerations, made BW the weapon of mass destruc-	In his book RAFAEL, Munya Mardor, the founder of tion least suited for deterrence.	Israel’s Weapons Development Authority (RAFAEL), refers obliquely to the “crash project” and reveals that Ben-
One can make the case against BW and in favor of the
Gurion monitored it closely. The prime minister asked nuclear option in the following way. The awesome de-detailed questions about the pace of production, “evidently structive power of the atomic bomb is associated with three concerned that we would not meet the deadline he had
40	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
set, worrying that the enemy would have such capability	Two Egyptian chemical attacks inflicted hundreds of and we would have nothing to deter or retaliate.”103	casualties. In the first attack on January 5, 1967, nine Mardor hints that the emergency transition from research Egyptian bombers dropped 27 chemical bombs on the to crash development and then production of the “final	village of Kitaf. According to eyewitness accounts, some products” posed extraordinary challenges for the project	95 percent of the people occupying the area up to 2 km managers. The program involved a crushing timetable, downwind were seriously or fatally gassed. A quarter of procurement of equipment and material from overseas,	the population was apparently killed, and another quarter and the conversion of research facilities—as well as com-	severely injured (250-300 casualties), all apparently suf-mercial plants—to production. 104	fering from lung injuries.108 The second chemical attack in Yemen occurred on May 10, 1967, just four days be-
To address Israel’s long-term security needs, Ben-fore Egypt started to mass troops near the Sinai for what
Gurion also launched a NW program. By 1955-56, MOD was to be the Six-Day War against Israel. Some analysts director-general Shimon Peres and Bergmann explored have suggested that the Yemen civil war provided Egypt whether and how it would be possible for Israel to build with an opportunity to test its CW arsenal. 109 the technological infrastructure to pursue the nuclear option. By mid-1956, France was Israel’s first choice as the	In 1959 or 1960, Egypt also initiated a secret program foreign supplier, but the French government hesitated as to develop and produce ballistic missiles with the aid of to the extent of the nuclear cooperation it was prepared German scientists who had worked on the V-2 rocket to offer. A year later, in the wake of the alliance between during World War II. By late 1961, this program had pro-the two countries during the Suez crisis, those hesitations duced two prototype missiles, the Al-Zapher (with a range faded. In October 1957, Israel signed a secret agreement of 350 km) and the Al-Kaher (with a range of 600 km). for nuclear cooperation with France, and a few months In July 1962, the 10th anniversary of the Egyptian revo-later, construction began on the nuclear facility at lution, Egypt test-launched four of the prototype missiles Dimona.105	and displayed 20 of them in a parade in Cairo. Israel was stunned when it learned of the German-assisted Egyptian
Still, the nuclear program did not lessen Israel’s inter-missile program, not realizing initially that the prototypes est in CBW. Bergmann’s old arguments that led to the had no electronic guidance systems. Initial Israeli concerns establishment of the Ness Ziona facility in 1952 were even were heightened by reports that Egypt was developing, more applicable in the early to mid-1960s. The timeline with the aid of German scientists, radiological or chemi-of the Dimona project remained uncertain; in the mean-cal warheads for the missiles. Even when it became evi-time, Israel had to counter Egypt’s growing non-conven-dent in the mid-1960s that Egypt had difficulty developing tional capabilities. Dimona was never meant to be a reliable missile guidance systems, there were still indica-substitute for Ness Ziona, but rather complementary. tions that Cairo was planning to build an arsenal of about
Egypt was the first Arab country to develop, produce, 1,000 missiles.110 deploy, and use CW. The Egyptian CW program began
Some evidence suggests that Israel upgraded its own in the early 1960s. Its main production facility at Abu offensive chemical capability in the early to mid-1960s to Za’abal, 10 kilometers (km) northeast of Cairo, produced counter the growing Egyptian CW arsenal. Reportedly, and stockpiled various chemical agents including tear gas,
Israel collaborated with France around 1960 on chemical mustard, and possibly nerve gas.106 Egypt used CW sev-matters, including visits by Israeli scientists to the French eral times during its military intervention in the Yemen civil
CW testing range at Beni Ounif in the Algerian Sahara.111 war (1963-67). The first Egyptian CW attack took place
As Julian Perry Robinson pointed out, an IIBR publica-in June 1963 at Al Kawama, a remote village in North tion in 1963 disclosed “all but the last step” in the synthe-Yemen, and can be characterized as primitive. Some British sis of the VX nerve gas. Because the chemical structure officials who examined fragments from the chemical of VX was not then known outside the United States, this bombs concluded that they had been improvised from tear observation suggests that IIBR scientists were engaged in gas grenades abandoned by British forces when they with-developing VX-related nerve gases.112 drew from Egypt.107 On several occasions from January to July 1967, however, Egypt engaged in extensive and	Given the information about Egypt’s use of CW in effective use of CW against civilian populations in Yemen. Yemen in 1967, Israeli officials were deeply concerned on the eve of Six-Day War about the possibility that Egypt
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	41
AVNER COHEN
might resort to CW, either as a battlefield weapon or	nuclear capability operational and put it on alert.117 By against the Israeli civilian population. In response to these 1970, Israel’s status as a nuclear weapon-capable state concerns, Israel purchased tens of thousands of mask gas was generally accepted.118 Since then, all Israeli govern-in Europe (primarily West Germany) just days before the ments have reaffirmed the commitment to maintain, pre-war began. Some evidence also suggests that Israel made serve, and modernize the country’s nuclear option. its CW capability battle-ready.113 According to an Israeli
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, both Israel and Egypt analyst, “Egypt did not resort to chemical warfare because possessed some non-conventional weapons to be used as it feared Israeli retaliation in kind.” 114 a last resort. Although it has been reported (but never con-
Senior Israeli military officers viewed CW and BW quite firmed) that Israel armed its NW, it is less well known differently during the 1960s, although the 1925 Geneva that Egypt apparently prepared CW for launch in the event Protocol prohibited the use of both types of weapons. As	that Israel continued its military offensive and reversed mentioned above, Israel did not accede to the 1925 Geneva Egypt’s early gains in the war. 119 In 1975, still under the Protocol until February 20, 1969. CW were considered veneer of ambiguity, Egypt Chief of Staff General “nasty” but probably legitimate retaliatory weapons, es-	Mohammed El-Gamasi warned publicly that Egypt would pecially after it was known that Egypt had employed them employ its own non-conventional arsenal if Israel resorted in Yemen. Moreover, the United States and some NATO to the nuclear option.120 countries stockpiled chemical munitions at that time for
Nevertheless, the two-decade period from 1970 to deterrence purposes. Although the United States also had about 1990 was the golden age of nuclear opacity. Israe-an offensive BW program until 1970, the Israeli military lis came to view the policy as a success, because it pro-perceived BW quite differently. The handful of senior vided the benefits of existential deterrence at a low political military officers familiar with the effects of BW consid-cost. Furthermore, many Israelis came to believe that the ered them morally repugnant and militarily unusable. The low-profile nuclear deterrent played a constructive role case against BW was formulated more in military terms both in making peace (in the case of Egypt) and in deter-than in moral ones: because wars in the Middle East tended ring regional war (in the case of Iraq). After the 1973 war, to be short-lived and decisive—terminated within days—
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat recognized that the Arab-no military use could be found for unreliable weapons with
Israeli conflict could not be settled militarily, which led a long incubation period. Israeli military planners con-him to the search for peace. This all occurred, however, cluded that BW lacked both the political credibility required in the shadow of the Israeli bomb. In 1981, when Israel for strategic deterrence and the military utility needed for successfully bombed the Iraqi Osiraq nuclear reactor, Iraq situations of last resort.115 At best, BW might be suitable did not retaliate—both because it lacked long-range air-for special covert operations. Given these views on the craft or missiles, and because it was presumably deterred part of the Israeli military, it seems unlikely that Israel by Israel’s nuclear capability. 121 stockpiled operational BW on the eve of the 1967 War.
During the 1970s, Egypt supplied Syria with CW agents; As the development of NW approached completion in and in the 1980s, after signing the peace treaty with Is-the mid- to late 1960s, Israeli strategists began to articu-rael, Egypt cooperated closely in the CW area with Iraq late a more systematic rationale for the nuclear program. during the latter’s war with Iran. 122 At the same time, the They conceived various “last resort” situations that could
Arabs began to promote the idea that CBW might become trigger the demonstration or employment of NW. their strategic weapon base—the so-called “poor man’s
Each of these scenarios was defined as a threat to the atom bomb”—to offset Israel’s nuclear capability. Even very existence of the state of Israel, against which the after Iraq employed CW during the Iran-Iraq War, Israel nation could defend itself by no other means than the use did not view CW as an existential threat to its security. of atomic weapons. One contingency involved enemy	Nevertheless, Israel’s high-profile participation in the Paris chemical or biological attacks against Israeli population cen- conference on CW in 1989 demonstrated that Israeli inters.116 A conceptual linkage was drawn between a mas- terests had converged with those of the international com-sive CBW attack and a nuclear reprisal. This scenario was munity in strengthening the international norm against probably in the minds of the small group of Israeli chemical warfare. There was a growing perception in the decisionmakers who, on the eve of the Six-Day War, took Israeli strategic community that participation in the emerg-emergency steps to make the country’s rudimentary	ing CWC would be in Israel’s interests. With respect to
42	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
BW, however, the Israeli government maintained its total at least a shield for Iraq’s nuclear program through this silence on the subject.	vulnerable period. Israel took Saddam’s deterrent threat seriously, concluding that an attack on Iraq’s nuclear pro-NUCLEAR VS. CBW DETERRENCE: THE	gram would trigger an all-out war that could easily esca-UNCERTAIN LESSONS OF IRAQ	late to the non-conventional level. As a result, the 1981
Israeli strike on Osiraq could not be repeated in the new The 1991 Gulf War shattered Israel’s sense of strate-strategic environment. gic complacency. More than any other country, Iraq elevated the value of CBW as a counterweight to NW. Iraq’s	Iraq’s chemically armed ballistic missiles also became extensive use of CW in the Iran-Iran War revitalized the the central pillar of its deterrence strategy towards the old Soviet term “weapons of mass destruction,” which	United States and Israel after the invasion of Kuwait.127 combined the three types of non-conventional weapons Both the United States and Israel lacked detailed infor-into one ambiguous category. Saddam Hussein’s acquisi-	mation about the Iraqi BW program, but they took tion of a massive CBW arsenal and long-range delivery Saddam’s CW threats seriously. Without neglecting de-systems also spawned an intricate web of possible link- fensive measures, both nations issued stern counter-ages among the three types of non-conventional weapons threats. Secretary of State James Baker warned Iraqi in the context of deterrence, use as a last resort, and arms Deputy Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that any Iraqi resort control. Ultimately, the 1995 revelations regarding the to non-conventional weapons would be unacceptable to nature, scope, and rationale of the Iraqi BW program led the American people and would provoke devastating re-some analysts to revisit the role of BW as a strategic de- taliation. Baker’s carefully worded message avoided stat-terrent, especially against the use of NW. Conversely, the ing explicitly what the U.S. response might be, but it did Iraqi case led to a reexamination of the effectiveness of not rule out anything, including nuclear reprisals.128 Mean-NW as a deterrent against the use of BW. These issues while, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir pushed the have since become central to the Israeli strategic predica- policy of nuclear opacity to its limits when he issued a ment.	solemn warning to Iraq promising to inflict “terrible and awful” pain on Iraq, without ever using the “n-word.” 129
During the final stages of the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam
Hussein employed CW both as a tactical weapon of ter-	By the end of the Gulf War, Iraq had fired some 40 ror and as a strategic deterrent.123 On April 1, 1990, four Scud missiles at Israel, most of them aimed at Israeli popu-months before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Saddam el-	lation centers. Given that Iraq did not launch a CBW at-evated the strategic role of CW even further by threaten- tack at Israel, many Israelis believe that the opaque nuclear ing “to make fire burn half of Israel” by using what he	deterrent was effective in deterring Saddam’s use of non-called “the binary chemical weapon,” should Israel strike	conventional weapons.130 This assertion may be true, but “at some Iraqi industrial installation.” 124 This threat sig-	it is only one of several explanations. It also leaves many naled Saddam’s interest in projecting a new deterrence	open and nagging questions. Can NW effectively deter posture vis-à-vis Israel. Iraq’s large arsenal of advanced	the use of lower-level WMD? Under what circumstances CW, along with ballistic missile delivery systems that could	is such deterrence posture likely to be effective? Are there now reach Israeli territory, implied (from an Iraqi perspec- situations in which NW simply cannot deter a non-nuclear tive) that Iraq had now achieved strategic parity, estab- adversary equipped with CBW? It is possible—and con-lishing a “balance of terror” between the two states. 125	sistent with what has been learned about Iraq’s BW pro-Ballistic missiles with chemical warheads were portrayed gram—that Saddam’s strategic CBW assets were held in as providing Iraq with the military means to confront a reserve, for use only in extreme and desperate situations nuclear-armed Israel.	of last resort? One can only guess as to their ultimate purpose, but it may have been more for revenge than for
The specific context and purpose of Saddam’s threat traditional deterrence.131 was to deter Israel from launching a military strike against
Iraq’s nuclear installations. It implied that an Israeli at-	Had Iraq escalated its Scud attacks to the non-conven-tempt to destroy Iraq’s nuclear installations, similar to the	tional level, Israel would have found itself in an extremely 1981 attack on the Osiraq reactor, would be considered a	difficult dilemma. Facing the specter of Iraqi CBW at-causus belli and lead to severe retaliation.126 In so doing,	tacks, Israeli leaders and strategists could not fail to rec-Saddam raised CW to the level of a strategic deterrent, or ognize the profound limitations of NW vis-à-vis CBW.
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	43
AVNER COHEN
After all, under almost any circumstances, Israel could	heads with BW agents. These warheads were then stored not use its NW in retaliation for Iraqi CBW attack. To at remote airfields, from which they were to be fired at employ NW legitimately, Israel must face a true last-re- targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia if the Coalition forces sort situation, in which its national survival is at risk. It is	marched on Baghdad and the regime fell.133 unlikely, however, that CW attacks would ever pose an
Iraq invoked the specter of the Israeli bomb to justify existential threat to Israel. Could Israel then use NW in its secret BW program, explaining it as “a viable deterrent retaliation for a CW attack? If not, could Israel make a in answer to the possible attack by Israel using nuclear demonstration nuclear use over Iraq’s unpopulated terri-weapons.” 134 Although this linkage of the Iraqi BW pro-tory (e.g., desert) as a final act of deterrence? gram to the Israeli nuclear program was politically self-
Both before and during the Gulf War, Israeli military serving and historically inaccurate, it sheds light on the planners worried about Saddam launching a limited CW motivation and the strategy that guided Iraq’s BW pro-strike against Israeli territory in a deliberate effort either gram. Avigdor Haselkorn suggests, ironically perhaps, that to call Israel’s bluff and demonstrate the emptiness of its	Saddam’s “germ in the basement” posture mirrored nuclear deterrent threat, or to provoke an Israeli nuclear Israel’s opaque nuclear posture: Iraq established a secret response. Some analysts even worried that Saddam might arsenal of weaponized BW for situations of last resort, attempt to trap Israel into some kind of nuclear demon- while using ambiguity to invoke deterrence. Nevertheless, stration. Such an action by Saddam could have been taken the unpredictability, invisibility, and belatedness of germ to break up the U.S.-led coalition, end the war, and por- weapons make them less of a deterrent and more the ulti-tray Israel—not Iraq—as the real nuclear threat to the	mate terrorist weapon.135 region. Apparently concerned about escalation that could
The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) potentially invoke an unjustifiable nuclear use, Israeli Min-and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in-ister of Science Yuval Ne’eman openly suggested in July vestigated Iraq’s WMD programs beginning in April 1991. 1990 that if Iraq used CW against Israel, Israel should
But it was only in the period 1995-98—after the defec-retaliate “with the same merchandise.” 132 Ne’eman also tion of Hussein Kamel—that UNSCOM analysts were able proposed to the Israeli Cabinet that in facing the threat of to identify, clarify, and assess many aspects of Iraq’s vast Iraq’s CW, Israel should issue a credible chemical threat
BW program. In the wake of the defection, Iraq with-of its own. In this way, Israel would not be compelled to drew its third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure (FFCD) cross the nuclear threshold in response to an Iraqi CW on the BW program and admitted a far more extensive attack. Although Ne’eman made his proposal public, it was effort, including weaponization and testing of biological not endorsed officially. Apparently, there was no great munitions. In the spring of 1998, UNSCOM experts con-desire to qualify or diminish Israel’s nuclear deterrent by cluded that Iraq’s latest FFCD was deficient in all areas stating in advance that the Iraqi use of CW would not related to the BW program, including history, organiza-invoke an Israeli nuclear response. tion, acquisition of raw materials, research and develop-
Although the atomic bomb was undoubtedly Saddam’s	ment, agent production, weaponization, and deployment. most sought-after non-conventional weapon, his second
The post-war discoveries about Iraq’s BW capabilities choice was BW (not CW). The Iraqi BW program was allow us to revisit the Gulf War. By Iraq’s admission, in shrouded in secrecy, however. Only in August 1995, af-desperate situations where Saddam’s own survival was in ter the defection to Jordan of General Hussein Kamel, danger, it is likely that he would have resorted to the use did Iraq admit to having had an offensive BW program. of non-conventional weapons if only as a means of re-According to Iraq’s own disclosures, which were still self-venge.136 A threat of nuclear reprisal, even one perceived serving, after the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Baghdad as credible, might not have been effective in deterring such had initiated a crash effort to weaponize its BW program use. Thus, in situations of last resort, an Iraqi BW capa-and render it operational for military use. Saddam regarded bility could provide a more effective deterrent than an Is-BW as the ultimate strategic weapon, to be used in situa-raeli (or U.S.) nuclear counter-deterrent. Iraq would not tions of “last resort.” In the wake of the United Nations even need fully operational BW systems to produce de-Security Council (UNSC) vote on November 29, 1990, terrent effects; the very uncertainty of the Iraqi response authorizing war against Iraq if it did not withdraw from would give rise to deterrence.
Kuwait, Iraq reportedly filled and armed 25 Scud war-
44	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
Iraq’s interactions with UNSCOM regarding its BW	a posture of “biological ambiguity” by remaining silent on program during 1995-98 have aroused additional concerns.	the BW issue.
Even though the BW program would be the easiest of
Such lessons, however, are dangerously misleading. Iraq’s WMD programs to reconstitute, Iraq is suspected
Israel should maintain a strong infrastructure in the CBW to have kept a substantial portion of its BW stockpile hid-fields oriented for defensive needs, but this is not equiva-den from UNSCOM, while claiming to have destroyed it. lent to the endorsement of the notion of “biological ambi-It would have been easy for Iraq to turn over most of its guity” (or “chemical ambiguity”) as a legitimate strategic BW stocks to UNSCOM while retaining the seed cultures, concept. Based on both strategic and moral considerations, and then insist that it no longer had a BW program. But
Israel should make clear that it does not consider CBW Iraq chose not to follow this path. According to some ana-to be legitimate. I will elaborate on these considerations lysts, a possible explanation for Iraq’s behavior may have in the last section of the paper. been the desire to retain a future option for state-sponsored bioterrorism whose source could not be traced fo-
ISRAEL AND CBW ARMS CONTROL rensically. The argument is this: bioengineered pathogens can be traced by their DNA signatures. If Western au-	Over the past four decades, the international commu-thorities had samples of the seed stocks from which the nity has negotiated three separate treaty regimes covering BW agents were derived, they might be able to use an nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. During the Cold agent’s DNA signature to determine who was behind a	War, nuclear proliferation was the paramount topic of bioterrorist attack. Without samples of the original stocks,	concern for international security, so the first control re-however, such forensic analysis would be very difficult.137	gime focused on NW. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was opened for signature
Decades ago, Israeli leaders made the fateful choice for in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. As of today, ad-existential nuclear deterrence. They concluded that acquir-herence to the NPT has reached a near-universal level; ing nuclear capability would allow Israel to ensure its sur-the treaty has 187 parties, and only four states remain vival by establishing a stable deterrence relationship with outside (Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan). its Arab neighbors. They also hoped that this situation would eventually force the Arabs to recognize the futility	The CW control regime is much younger, but more of war and bring the conflict to an end. Israel’s opaque	sweeping in its disarmament objectives. Although the in-nuclear posture was designed to project deterrence and ternational legal norm against the use of CBW in warfare yet be as unprovocative as possible. With the adoption of dates back to the Geneva Protocol of 1925, it took seven nuclear deterrence, Israel cut back its CBW programs and more decades to negotiate a global ban on development, maintained a national infrastructure primarily suited for production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of CW. Opened defensive research.	for signature in January 1993, the CWC entered into force in April 1997. The CWC requires all parties to destroy
The lessons of Iraq’s CBW programs appear to have any CW stockpiles and production facilities within ten cast some doubt on this old Israeli strategic calculation. years after its entry into force. It also has a stringent veri-The U.S. government believes that, in addition to Iraq, fication regime that commits its members to a high level Egypt, Iran, Libya, and Syria have secret offensive CBW of transparency and subjects all declared CW-related fa-programs.138 Recall Yuval Ne’eman’ s “private” comment cilities (including certain commercial industry facilities) to prior to the Gulf War that Israel should retaliate in kind if a system of routine inspections. These inspections are attacked by Iraq with CW. After the Gulf War, some Is-augmented with the right of any member country to re-raeli strategists argued that NW might not provide the most quest a short-notice challenge inspection of any suspect effective deterrent against state-sponsored bioterrorism, facility, declared or undeclared, on the territory of another especially if the attack leaves no return address. Such les-member. As of this writing, 143 countries have ratified sons may strengthen those who argue that Israel should the CWC. maintain some form of “biological option” (or “chemical option”) as a deterrent in the event of use of BW or CW	The weakest WMD disarmament regime involves BW. against Israel by Iraq or some other country. 139 At the The BWC, which was opened for signature in 1972 and least, those who hold this view contend that “the lessons	entered into force in 1975, prohibits the development, of Iraq” provide a rationale for Israel to continue keeping	production, stockpiling, acquisition, and transfer of patho-
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	45
AVNER COHEN
gens or toxins “in types and quantities that have no justi-	fidence-building and security cooperation among the coun-fication for prophylactic, protective and other peaceful tries of the region, in parallel to the peace process. The purposes.” The BWC does not include monitoring or en-	conclusion of the CWC in late 1992 led Israeli forcement mechanisms to ensure compliance, and it ex-	policymakers to reconsider, however. Despite the fact that plicitly permits research and development for defensive the CWC challenge-inspection provisions posed a poten-purposes. As of this writing, the BWC has 143 state par- tial threat to the secrecy of the Dimona facility, Israeli lead-ties and 18 additional signatories. Multilateral efforts to ers concluded that CW was the best issue on which they negotiate an inspection protocol for the BWC have so far could demonstrate a more open-minded attitude towards proved unsuccessful.	arms control. Given Israel’s uncompromising position on the NPT, signing the international treaty to ban CW was
Traditionally, Israel has always taken a skeptical view seen as preferable to remaining outside, whether or not of global arms control and disarmament treaties. The rea-the Arab states followed suit. sons are intimately tied with Israel’s geopolitical predicament vis-à-vis the Arabs. As long as the Arab-Israeli	In 1992-93, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin considered conflict has not come to closure, and Israel’s Arab neigh-	the CWC a “net benefit” for Israel. Given its nuclear ca-bors have not accepted its legitimacy as a state, Israel must pability, Israel had a clear strategic preference for a Middle maintain the deterrent capabilities needed to assure its sur- East in which no country had CW, and a CWC that was vival. For this reason, the Israeli government has gener- universally respected would offer the best chance to elimi-ally been reluctant to join global disarmament and arms nate CW from the region. Even if major Arab states re-control regimes. Instead, Israel has advocated a regional fused to join the CWC, an Israeli decision to sign would approach; namely, that progress on the control and elimi-	probably improve its position in ACRS, perhaps even eas-nation of WMD in the Middle East must be made by link- ing the pressure on the nuclear issue. The Rabin governing the political issues of recognition, legitimacy, and peace ment also recognized that signing the treaty, while an to measures for arms control and disarmament.	important symbolic act, was not the final word; only ratification would make the commitment final. Guided by
In 1968, the year the NPT was opened for signature, these considerations and pressured by the United States,
Israel resisted strong U.S. political pressure to join the
Israel signed the CWC on January 13, 1993, the first day treaty, explaining that given its security predicament—in-it was open for signature.142 cluding the Soviet threat—it simply could not renounce its nuclear option.140 Unlike other advanced states in the	As a signatory-state, Israel was entitled to participate nuclear field, such as West Germany and Italy, Israel had in the CWC Preparatory Commission in The Hague, which no formal security commitment from the United States to refined the verification procedures of the treaty in prepa-protect it from Soviet nuclear blackmail or attack. During ration for its entry into force. Israel was particularly en-the War of Attrition (1969-70), for example, Israeli and gaged on the issue of “managed access,” with an eye to Soviet pilots engaged in direct aerial engagements over minimizing the security risks posed to it by challenge in-the Suez Canal, alarming Israeli decisionmakers such as spections. At the same time, Israel postponed a decision Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan. In 1969, Israeli Prime on CWC ratification for further review. As long as the Minister Golda Meir explained to U.S. President Richard U.S. Senate put off consideration of the treaty, it was con-Nixon why Israel had developed NW, why it could not venient for Israel to delay as well. The United States fi-sign the NPT, and why a low-profile posture of nuclear nally ratified the CWC in April 1997, and following the “opacity” would serve the interests of both countries. Is-	treaty’s entry into force a few days later, the issue of Is-rael pledged not to test NW or to admit publicly to pos- raeli ratification resurfaced as a priority policy issue. sessing them. The United States, aware that the Israeli
A high-level ad hoc ministerial committee, headed by bomb was a fait accompli, stopped pressuring Israel to
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, was formed to resign the NPT.141 This arrangement became the basis for examine Israel’s position on the CWC. This committee the Israeli posture of nuclear opacity. included Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai, Commerce
The creation of the Arms Control and Regional Secu- Minister Natan Sharansky, and National Infrastructure rity (ACRS) working group in 1991-92 was consistent with Minister Ariel Sharon.143 After a series of meetings, the Israel’s regional approach. Israeli officials hoped that the	committee decided to take a “wait and see” attitude, that creation of ACRS could establish new measures for con- is, not to submit the CWC to the Israeli parliament for
46	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
ratification in the immediate future but to keep the issue the view that Israel must retain some ambiguity about its open pending a future review. As Minister Mordechai put CW capabilities for purposes of deterrence is now firmly it:	held by the Israeli defense establishment.147
I think that we have to wait and see how things
Concerns about security and secrecy have always undevelop. The problem is that some of the states derlined Israel’s skeptical view of arms control and disar-in the region are not signing, and there is no way mament agreements. In 1993, however, Prime Minister of inspecting those who are [not signing]. We
Rabin overruled senior defense bureaucrats and decided had discussion in the cabinet, and we decided that Israel should sign the CWC. He believed that Israel to postpone a decision for a certain period. We could live with the security risks entailed by the verifica-will discuss it again.144 tion system of the CWC. By the late 1990s, however, the
As of this writing, the Israeli government has not for- death of Rabin and the transformation of the regional se-mally reexamined the issue of CWC ratification. Infor- curity situation caused the old concerns of the defense mally, however, it is evident that Israeli thinking about the establishment to resurface and prevail. One specific con-CWC has changed profoundly in recent years. The treaty cern is that the CWC challenge-inspection provision could is no longer seen as a “net benefit” to Israel. A series of	be abused to infringe on the sanctity of Dimona.148 Equally external developments in recent years related to WMD important (and more likely) is the concern—never stated have raised serious concerns and doubts regarding CWC in public by Israeli strategists—that the CWC verification ratification. Here is a quick list.145 First, the ACRS pro- process might infringe on the sanctity of Ness Ziona.149 cess reached an impasse in the mid-1990s and entered
Not all Israeli officials and agencies agree with defense into complete freeze. Second, most of the major Arab establishment’s opposition to the CWC. The Ministry of states with CW capabilities, including Egypt, Iraq, Syria,
Industry and Trade, concerned about potential economic and Libya, have not signed the CWC. (Syria is believed harm to the Israeli chemical industry resulting from man-to have the largest and most sophisticated stockpile of CW datory trade restrictions on non-member states, has lob-in the region, as well as missile delivery systems.) Third, bied for ratification.150 Yossi Beilin, former Minister of even under the relatively intrusive UNSCOM inspection
Justice (under Prime Minister Barak) and the Labor Party’s regime, Iraq was able to hide important elements of its most prominent dove, has called openly for Israeli ratifi-CBW programs; since December 1998, Iraq is no longer cation of the CWC. Alluding to the defense establishment’s under inspection and is believed to be reconstituting these fears about revealing past secrets, Beilin noted: “We can’t capabilities. Fourth, Iran, which did sign and ratify the be stuck in the mud forever, only because of things that CWC and even declared some past CW-related activities, were or were not done in the past.” 151 By September is believed to be still producing and stockpiling CW in vio-
2000, officials at both the Foreign Ministry and the Min-lation of the treaty. istry of Industry and Trade called for a new governmen-
These developments have returned Israel to its tradi-	tal review of the 1997 decision not to ratify the CWC. tional cautious attitude on issues of arms control and dis-
That very month, however, the second Palestinian armament. Two related areas of concern have emerged intifada began, renewing fears of escalation to regional as the focus of the defense establishment’s opposition to war. Under these circumstances, the defense establish-CWC ratification: deterrence and security. With respect ment faced no challenge to its firm position opposing CWC to deterrence, in 1993 Prime Minister Rabin concluded ratification. Senior defense officials insisted that even an that the political-diplomatic benefits of joining the global annual economic loss of hundreds of millions of dollars effort to eliminate CW outweighed the benefits of pro-could be justified in order to preserve Israel’s posture of jecting “chemical ambiguity” as a deterrent. This view no
“chemical ambiguity.” 152 longer prevails. A senior Israeli defense official recently expressed the current Israeli thinking on CW in the fol-	Finally, there is the never-discussed issue of the BWC, lowing way: “We believe that chemical weapons should	which Israel has neither signed nor ratified. As noted ear-be taken off arsenals all over the world. But as long as lier, Israel has never publicly explained its policy on BW, this is far from reality, we have to contend with the threats keeping silent not only about its activities and capabilities surrounding us. These weapons do have some deterrent in this field but also about its diplomacy. 153 One can only value, and we see certain advantage in it.” 146 Evidently,	assume that the reasons mentioned earlier for why Israel
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	47
AVNER COHEN
should not ratify the CWC are also applicable to the BWC,	mizing CBW and therefore has good reasons not to rebut probably compounded. The issue of BW is more po- taliate in kind. The most effective and credible way for litically sensitive than CW, not only because BW are far Israel to deter the use of CBW by its enemies is not by more lethal, but also because Israel has presumably em- retaining a residual CBW option, but rather by making ployed biological or toxin weapons for special operations.154	explicit that Israeli retaliation would be certain and many times more damaging than the effects of the CBW attack POLICY ISSUES	itself. The bottom line is that a nuclear-armed Israel, like the United States, has no strategic need to maintain a pos-
Given the current cycle of violence in the Middle East, ture of “CBW ambiguity” on top of its nuclear posture.
Israeli ratification of the CWC appears to be a dead issue.
Only in the extreme case of a devastating CBW attack Nevertheless, at some time in the future, when the vio-would Israel consider launching a nuclear reprisal, yet lence subsides and the region returns to the path of arms from the Arab perspective such an option exists and must control and peacemaking, Israel will have to rethink its be considered. present policies on CBW. Relevant to this future policy review is a cluster of considerations: strategic-military,
Diplomacy and arms control diplomatic, economic, and democratic.
Given its history and geopolitics, Israel is committed to Deterrence and strategy	retain its nuclear capability as a national insurance policy even after the establishment of formal regional peace. Is-
While it is true that nuclear deterrence does not and raeli strategists are firmly convinced—perhaps now more cannot provide fail-safe deterrence for all non-conventional than ever—that Israel’s nuclear posture has been a stabi-threat scenarios, it would be a mistake to conclude that lizing factor in convincing Arab leaders, such as Egyptian Israel must retain a CBW option. Israel has good reasons
President Hosni Mubarak, of the futility of a regional war. to keep a strong national infrastructure for CBW defense,
Israel has proven itself a responsible de facto member of but this need should not be confused with the endorse-the nuclear club.155 Although Israel has yet to find ways ment of a “chemical option” or a “biological option” as to state this reality, by now most of the world has come valid strategic concepts. Compared with NW, CW is too to terms with and accepted it. Indeed, it is the certainty limited in its effects, and BW is too uncertain, to serve as of Israel’s nuclear capability—not its ambiguity—that effective strategic deterrents. In any event, both types of makes it a credible deterrent for situations of true last re-weapons have come to be seen as morally repugnant. The sort.
Arabs have acquired these weapons not because they consider them an optimal deterrent, but because they have	Given the singular importance of its nuclear deterrent, nothing better to counter Israel’s NW.	Israel has an interest in designing a policy on CBW that would be supportive of its nuclear posture. In particular,
Those Israeli strategists who suggest that Israeli NW
Israel should ratify the CWC as part of an active Israeli do not provide a credible means to deter the first use of arms control agenda, with the ultimate aim of helping to CBW by an Arab state—let alone by a sub-national ter-legitimize its nuclear deterrent. Contrary to those Arab rorist group—could well be proven correct. Still, that does states that have conditioned joining the CWC on Israel’s not mean that an Israeli CBW capability for retaliation in participation in the NPT, Israel’s interest is to de-link the kind would provide a credible deterrent either. Thus, it is
CBW issue from the nuclear one. By ratifying and join-not accurate to argue that if Israel abandoned its posture ing the CWC, regardless of the actions of the Arab states, of CBW ambiguity, it would lose a genuine deterrent
Israel would join the Western consensus that CBW are against CBW attack. The reality is that even under the immoral and illegal weapons that should be banned from current posture, it is highly doubtful that Israel would re-the face of the earth. By the same token, for Israel to taliate in kind if it were attacked with CBW. insist on retaining a posture of CBW ambiguity could un-
This assertion is based on two considerations. First,	dermine the singular importance of Israel’s nuclear pos-Israel has powerful conventional military capabilities that ture, both with respect to its deterrence effects and its would enable it to retaliate harshly against nearly all CBW political legitimacy. attacks without the need to resort to non-conventional weaponry. Second, Israel has no political interest in legiti-
48	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
Economics and CWC sanctions	Defense officials claimed that many of the arguments against CWC ratification were too sensitive to be shared
Thus far, Israel has paid only a small economic price even with their bureaucratic counterparts in other agen-for its decision not to ratify the CWC.156 If restrictions cies. Lacking access to information, the Israeli general on trade in Schedule 3 chemicals with CWC non-parties public was completely excluded from the policy debate. go into effect, however, the economic consequences could be significant.157 Although it is too early to predict with	Finally, the combination of official secrecy and societal any precision what the financial cost of Israel’s decision	taboo makes it easy for the Israeli defense establishment to stay outside the CWC might be,158 the question before to conceal or cover-up safety hazards, accidents, program Israeli decisionmakers is whether the security benefit of mismanagement, and environmental damage associated retaining some residual “CBW ambiguity” is worth the	with CBW activities.159 economic cost.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Transparency, secrecy, and democratic oversight
The following policy proposals, while unrealistic given Finally, Israeli ratification of the CWC has implications the current political situation in the Middle East, should for the health of the country’s democracy, an issue that	be carefully considered for the longer-term. Israel should has hardly ever been discussed in this context. As already seek the politically appropriate moment to convey a new noted, Israel has employed extraordinary secrecy mea- and clear message regarding its CBW posture. Such a sures to protect its activities and policies in the CBW field. message would in effect involve partially abandoning the The Israeli government has never issued an official state- current policy of total secrecy and silence and would there-ment to the citizenry describing its CBW activities. Even fore require substantial diplomatic preparation. A new Is-the early history of the Israeli CBW program remains clas- raeli policy on CBW should also be an integral component sified and thus off-limits to critical study.	of a larger regional arms control initiative.
From the normative perspective of democratic gover-	A new Israeli policy on CBW should have three basic nance, a situation of total secrecy reinforced by a societal elements. First, as a matter of principle, Israel should taboo is disturbing. That the citizens of a democratic coun- state—somewhat akin to President Nixon’s statement on try have been denied the right to know about their	BW in 1969160 —that it does not view CBW as legitimate government’s choices in a critical area of national policy,	weapons or instruments of deterrence and thus has no and to debate them freely, is detrimental to the spirit of need to retain offensive CBW programs of its own. In democracy. The total lack of transparency in the CBW line with this message, Israel would ratify the CWC, re-area has had many harmful effects, including a lack of gardless of its neighbors’ actions. If the Israeli govern-democratic oversight, a lack of informed public debate, ment concludes that the Iraqi threat precludes it from and concerns over possible harm to public health and the acceding to the BWC for the time being, it should at least environment.	issue a policy statement explaining its position. These steps would also create new and beneficial norms for Israeli
In the BW field, more than any other area of non-con-society with respect to transparency and democratic over-ventional weaponry, secrecy can be easily abused to sight. weaken democratic oversight. Because of the inherent ambiguity between defensive and offensive BW activi-	Second, Israel should continue to retain a strong scien-ties, which are distinguished largely by intent, secrecy tific and technological infrastructure in the CBW area, could allow an ostensibly defensive BW program to “drift”	devoted solely to defensive purposes. As an important into the offensive mode. In the Israeli context, when the function of its defensive mandate, such infrastructure Knesset has virtually no independent means of parliamen- should include the national body in charge of scientific tary oversight and is fully dependent on information from monitoring, analyzing, and assessing of intelligence relat-the executive branch, the lack of democratic oversight over ing to CBW programs in hostile countries, as well as new CBW activities is particularly serious. During the recent threats of bioterrorism.
Israeli inter-governmental debate over ratification of the
Third, Israel should make publicly clear that it has the CWC, excessive secrecy reportedly prevented informed means and the will to retaliate in the most devastating way discussion even within the closed walls of officialdom. against any CBW attack.
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	49
AVNER COHEN
1 This paper was born of an earlier and much shorter piece written for a forth- From the start, a visionary alliance was forged between them over science, coming volume, The Biological Warfare Question: A Reappraisal for the 21st	defense, and politics that marked some of the most fateful moves of the State Century, edited by Susan Wright. I am thankful to Susan for her well-informed	of Israel.” “An Israeli Man of Distinction,” Jerusalem, Israel, comments deliv-comments on the original paper. My colleague Milton Leitenberg encouraged	ered by Shimon Peres at the funeral of Ernst David Bergmann, April 7, 1975. me to continue and expand the earlier research. I am deeply indebted to him for Peres’ comments were also published in a booklet by the MOD (courtesy of his helpful comments, suggestions, and wisdom. I am also grateful to Jonathan	Hani Bergmann and translated into English by the author); cf. Shimon Peres, B. Tucker for his assistance in polishing the paper and to Assaf Moghadam From These Men (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense Publishing House, 1975), for research support. Special thanks goes to Ronen Bergman for sharing with	p. 186. me some of his archival research. This paper was researched, written, and	20 Veterans of HEMED BEIT, interviews with author. See also Sara Leibovitz-edited prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent	Dar, “Haydakim Besherut Hamedinah” [Microbes in State Service], Hadashot, bioterrorism events in the United States.	August 13, 1993, pp. 6-10.
2 Ben-Gurion’s letter to Avriel, dated March 4, 1948, is cited in Michael Keren,	21 Ibid., p. 6.
Ben-Gurion and the Intellectuals (Sdeh Boker: The Ben-Gurion Research	22 These large-scale poisoning operations did not actually materialize. See Center Press, 1988 [in Hebrew]), p. 32.	Ehud Sprinzak and Idith Zertal, “Avenging Israel’s Blood (1946),” in Jonathan 3 For more details on the Klingberg case as well as bibliographical references, B. Tucker, ed., Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biologi-see footnote 66.	cal Weapons (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000), pp. 17-41.
4 This euphemistic phrase along with another somewhat contradictory one,	23 The following states that participated in World War II and had BW pro-“the bomb that never is,” both appeared as headlines in two subsequent	grams, in one form or another, were: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the issues of The Economist (October 19, 1991 and October 26, 1991).	Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. See Milton
5 David Ben-Gurion, Be-mah Nekabel Pnei Habaot [With What Will We Face Leitenberg, “Biological Weapons in the Twentieth Century: Review and Analy-the Future] (Tel Aviv: Merkaz Mifleget Po’alei Eretz Israel, November 1948),	sis,” paper prepared for 7th International Symposium on Protection against pp. 35-36; also cited in Ephraim Katzir, “The Beginning of Defense Research:	Chemical and Biological Warfare, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2001, <http:// Ben-Gurion and the HEMED,” in David Ben-Gurion and the Development of www.fas.org/bwc/papers/bw20th.htm>.
Science in Israel, pp. 26-27; and excerpted in David Ben-Gurion, Be-hilahem	24 Sara Leibovitz-Dar, “Haydakim Besherut Hamedinah.”
Israel [When Israel Fights] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1950), p. 236. The author did	25 Ibid., p. 6. Colonel Gur told the author similar things in a long interview on the English translation.	July 20, 1992. However, some HEMED BEIT veterans insisted that they do not 6 Shimon Peres, Battling for Peace: A Memoir (London: Weidenfeld & recall even a single occasion when Gur expressed such reservations at the Nicolson, 1995), p. 132.	time. In fact, they recall that he was always present as HEMED commander 7 Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust (New York: when high officials, such as Ben-Gurion, visited the unit at its Abu Kabir Hill and Wang, 1993), p. 82.	facility. Veterans of HEMED BEIT.
8 In a letter to a noted Israeli scientist, Ben-Gurion wrote, “There is a saying,	26 Colonel Shlomo Gur, July 7, 1992. ‘the dead will not praise God,’ and if we face the threat of destruction—and	27 Ibid. unfortunately we do, and Hitler’s Holocaust was only the most extensive and	28 Ibid. terrible of the attempts to destroy us during our history—to a certain extent	29 Ibid. this is the most fateful of our existence.” David Ben-Gurion to Professor Shmuel	30 Ibid.
Sambursky, March 17, 1963, David Ben-Gurion Archive, Letters;citedinAvner	31 Ibid. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998),	32 Ibid. p. 358.	33 Thomas J. Hamilton, “Arab Assails the Idea of Minority Shifts,” New York 9 David Ben-Gurion, War Diaries, 1948-1949 (in Hebrew), vol. 3 (Tel Aviv: Times, July 24, 1948; Leibovitz-Dar, “Haydakim Besherut Hamedinah.” Misrad Habitachon, 1982), pp. 852-53.	34 The first reference to the capture of the Israeli soldiers appeared in Israel on
10 Ben-Gurion to U.S. President John F. Kennedy, June 24, 1962, John F.	May 28, 1948, when the daily newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, cited a Reuters item Kennedy Presidential Library, Boston, MA.	from Cairo that reported the capturing of the two Israelis and their confession.
11 Ben-Gurion, War Diaries, entries of April 26, 1949, and October 23, 1950. For Leibovitz-Dar, “Haydakim Besherut Hamedinah.” a detailed analysis of Ben-Gurion’s views, see Zaki Shalom, David Ben-Gurion:	35 Ibid.
The State of Israel and the Arab World 1949-1956 (in Hebrew) (Sdeh Boker:	36 Ibid. When the author interviewed Colonel Shlomo Gur in July 1992, he Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1995).	acknowledged that he had been aware of HEMED BEIT activities during the
12 Professor Yuval Ne’eman, Head of the Planning Division of the IDF in 1953-	1948 war but stressed that he had not been part of the chain of command, and 54, personal communication with author, May 1997.	that he maintained serious reservations about the need for such operations. In
13	 Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, pp. 339-49.	the interview, Gur did not specify what the operations were, nor did the author
14 Aharon Katachalsky [Katzir] was probably the Israeli native-trained scien- press him on that. HEMED BEIT was a peripheral issue in that interview. tist that Ben-Gurion admired most. Aharon reportedly had open access to	37 Ibid.
Ben-Gurion. At times, after discussing executive matters, Ben-Gurion engaged	38 See, for example: <http://www.alnakba.org>, maintained by the Khalil Sakakini Aharon in philosophical discussions about the end and limits of scientific	Cultural Center, as well as the website of the Center for Research and Docu-inquiry. Colonel Shlomo Gur, Tel Aviv, Israel, interview by author, July 7, 1992. mentation on Palestinian Society at Birzeit University, <http://www.birzeit.edu/
15	 Aharon Katachalsky [Katzir] was the first to discuss the bombing of crdps/>.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki with Ben-Gurion. Renana Leshem, Tel Aviv, Israel,	39 Hamilton, “Arab Assails the Idea of Minority Shifts.” interview by author, 1996.	40 On the cholera outbreaks in Egypt and Syria in 1947, see W. Seth Carus,
16 Ephraim Katzir, “The Beginning of Defense Research: Ben-Gurion and the	Bioterrorism and Biocrimes: The Illicit Use of Biological Agents Since 1900, HEMED” (in Hebrew), David Ben-Gurion and the Development of Science in	Working Paper (Washington DC: Center for Counterproliferation Research, Israel (Jerusalem: Israel National Academy of Science, 1989), pp. 25-42; Munya February 2001), pp. 87-88.
Mardor, RAFAEL (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense Publishing House, 1981),	41 Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, speech delivered to U.K. House of Commons, Lon-pp. 70-72.	don, November 24, 1999, <http://www.prc.org.uk/webpages/announcements/
17	 Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, pp. 14-17.	lectures/lect-rr.html>. The author was unable to verify any admission regard-
18	 Peres, Battling for Peace, p. 134.	ing the use of BW in those portions of Ben-Gurion’s diaries that are available
19 In his eulogy for Bergmann, Shimon Peres described the extraordinary alli-	to researchers. ance between Ben-Gurion and Bergmann: “Bergmann’s scientific vision was	42 Benny Morris, “The Origins of the Palestinian Refugee Problem,” in Laurence attracted to Ben-Gurion’s statesmanlike vision, and the plowman met the sower.	J. Silberstein, ed., New Perspectives on Israeli History (New York: New York
50	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
University Press, 1991), pp. 46-47.	Not Growing,” Yediot Ahronot, August 14, 1998, pp. 16-20.
43 Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict	65 Ibid. Recently it became known that the Israeli State Comptroller criticized (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999), p. 217.	the government for unnecessary efforts to keep the issue of the BW threat
44	 Sara Leibovitz-Dar, “Haydakim Besherut Hamedinah,” pp. 6-7.	outside the public debate. This policy illustrates how sensitive and secretive
45	 Mardor, RAFAEL, pp. 53-66, 78-79, 104-6; Shlomo Gur, interview by author,	the BW issue is in the eyes of governmental officials.
Tel Aviv, June 1993.	66 On the Klingberg case, see the following items: Peter Pringle, “Israel Germ
46	 Mardor, RAFAEL, pp. 69-75; Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, pp. 27-31.	Expert Feared in Soviet Union,” Observer, September 8, 1985; Ian Black, “Israel
47	Mardor, RAFAEL, p. 75.	Holds Scientist for Spying,” Guardian (London), February 26, 1988; Michael
48 Norman Rose, Chaim Weizmann: A Biography (New York: Viking, 1986), Binyon, “ Riddle of three-way Spy Swap Report,” Times (London), February pp. 453-54. On Weizmann’s strong resentment of the changes at the Sieff	27, 1988; Peter Pringle, “‘Missing’ Israeli Scientist Was Jailed as Spy,” Inde-Institute, see Mivhar Igrot [Selected Letters] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1988); and pendent (London), August 4, 1993, p. 12; Alex Fishman, et al.,“Prof.Klingberg Mardor, RAFAEL, p. 75.	Passed on the KGB Secrets of Biological Warfare,” Hadashot (in Hebrew),
49 Aaron Klieman, ed., “Chaim Weizmann to Ernst Bergmann,” July 2, 1951,	August 3, 1993, pp. 4-5; Yossi Melman, “The Soviet Spy Marcus Klingberg cited in Barnet Litvinoff, ed., The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann, Submitted Pardon Request on Health Grounds,” Ha’aretz (in Hebrew), Au-August 1947-June 1952, vol. 23, series A (New York: Rutgers University, gust 4, 1993; Michael Rotem, “Klingberg Was to be Part of 3-Way Spy Swap,” 1980), p. 304.	Jerusalem Post, August 6, 1993; “L’espion qui venait du Yiddishland,” Nouvel
50 Bergmann wrote Ben-Gurion on July 1, 1951, “The establishment of an	Observateur, January 6, 1994, pp. 60-64; Clyde Haberman, “Israel Lifts Secrecy authorized organ for research, especially when the research is military, as a Veil from Spy Convictions,” New York Times, May 4, 1995, A3; Batsheva Tsur, division at the Ministry of Defense under your sponsorship would be like a	“Court Orders Klingberg Free,” Jerusalem Post, September 4, 1998; P. R. declaration that the government and the state consider science one of the	Kumaraswamy, “An Embarrassment of Spies,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scien-pillars of the nation’s building.” Mardor, RAFAEL, p. 80.	tists (March-April 1999), pp. 14-15, 61.
51	 On the parallel establishment of the nuclear research center, see Cohen,	67 Melman, “The Soviet Spy Marcus Klingberg.”
Israel and the Bomb, 25-97.	68 Pringle, “‘Missing’ Israeli Scientist Was Jailed as Spy,” p. 12.
52	 Anonymous former senior Israeli officials, interviews by author.	69 Pringle, “’Missing’ Israeli Scientist Was Jailed as Spy”; Aharon Priel, “No-
53	 Mardor, RAFAEL, pp. 92-93.	body Knows,” Ma’ariv, October 24, 1983; Fishman et al., “Prof. Klingberg
54	 The author coined this phrase; it is not Bergmann’s.	Passed on the KGB Secrets of Biological Warfare.”
55 Bergmann designed and implemented a similar organizational arrangement	70 Pringle, “‘Missing’ Israeli Scientist Was Jailed as Spy”; Fishman et al., for HEMED GIMMEL, the historical predecessor of Israel’s nuclear program.	“Prof. Klingberg Passed on the KGB Secrets of Biological Warfare”; Melman, In 1951-52, HEMED GIMMEL was transferred from the military to become a “The Soviet Spy Marcus Klingberg Submitted Pardon Request on Health state-sponsored nuclear research center. The new entity also had a double	Grounds”; Rotem, “Klingberg Was to be Part of 3-Way Spy Swap”; Haberman, identity: it was a classified research institute within the MOD (Machon 4) and, “Israeli Lifts Secrecy Veil from Spy Convictions.” primarily for public and international convenience, also a laboratory of the	71 “Israel Town Assails Bio Building,” Associated Press, October 8, 1998. IAEC (the predecessor of the Soreq nuclear research center). See Cohen,	72 Mark Lavie, “Rumors Abound About Israeli Center,” Associated Press, Israel and the Bomb, chap. 2-3.	October 24, 1998.
56 For the historical context see: Barton Bernstein, “Origins of Biological War-	73 Abramovitz and Allon, “The Place Where Oranges are Not Growing,” pp. fare Programs,” in Susan Wright, ed., Preventing a Biological Arms Race	16-20; Peter Hirschberg, “Inside the Low White Buildings,” Jerusalem Re-(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990), pp. 9-26; Susan Wright, “Evolution of Biologi-	port, December 21, 1998, p. 18; Aliza Marcus, “In Israeli Town, Rare Challenge cal Warfare Policy, 1945-1990,” in Wright, ed., Preventing a Biological Arms	to Arms Plant,” Boston Globe, November 24, 1998, p. A1; “Israelis Play Dice Race, pp. 26-68; Brian Balmer, “The Drift of Biological Weapons Policy in the	with Danger at Germ Warfare Plant,” Guardian, October 12, 1998, p.10. Due to UK, 1945-1965,” Journal of Strategic Studies, (December 1997), pp. 115-45;	the Israeli societal taboo and military censorship, there is almost no Israeli-Leitenberg, “Biological Weapons in the Twentieth Century.”	based material about IIBR; references to CBW activity are based on “foreign
57	 Bergmann to David Ben-Gurion, December 5, 1952, in Mardor, RAFAEL, pp. sources.”
94-95; Cf. Bergmann to Ben-Gurion, May 4, 1955, in Igeret, Israeli Academy of	74 “Israel’s Secret Institute,” Foreign Report, August 20, 1998.
Sciences, November 2000, p. 30. Mardor, EMET’s administrator, wrote the	75 Peter Hirschberg, “Inside the Low White Buildings,” Jerusalem Report, following about Bergmann: “While it was natural to me that a prominent scien-	December 21, 1998, p. 18. tist as Professor Bergmann would seek to expand pure [basic] science, and not	76 Peter Hirschberg, Harms van den Berg, and Herman Stall, “The Fatal Fallout solely for defense needs, I could not always identify with such a trend, which	from El Al Flight 1862,” Jerusalem Report, December 21, 1998, pp. 16-21. was a violation of EMET’s objectives.” See Mardor, RAFAEL, p. 95.	77 See, for example, Aluf Benn, “Chemical Weapons Convention: Israel’s Deci-
58	 Anonymous former senior Israeli officials.	sion Time,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 57 (March-April 2001), pp. 22-24.
59 Anonymous close associates of Bergmann, interviews by author, Israel,	78 For a description of the activities and management, including the mission 1992-96.	statement, of IIBR, see <http://www.iibr.gov.il/profile.htm>.
60 More than forty years after his death, Ludwig Fleck’s writings remain promi-	79 Ibid. nent among historians and philosophers of science. His book, Genesis and	80 IIBR, “Mechanisms of Viral and Bacterial Pathogenesis,” October 25, 2001, Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), <http://www.iibr.gov.il/mechan.htm>. is regarded as a classic. David Bergmann to the Commissioner of Civil Service,	81 IIBR, “Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases,” October 25, 2001, <http:// “The Late Professor Ludwig Fleck,” June 16, 1961, Box 6313/Gimmel, Israel	www.iibr.gov.il/diagnos.htm>. It appears that the IIBR mission includes some State Archive.	epidemiological functions analogous to those of the federal Centers for Dis-
61	 Anonymous former senior researchers at IIBR, interviews by author.	ease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States.
62 These figures (in Israeli currency) are found in an attachment to a letter,	82 Aluf Benn, “IIBR in Ness Ziona—Center of Essential Knowledge that Em-dated May 12, 1966, from IIBR administrator, M. Danai, to the Deputy Director ploys 320 Personnel,” Ha’aretz , August 4, 1993, p. 2.
General of the Prime Minister’s Office, Amior Kamir. M. Danai to Amior Kamir,	83 Karel Knip, “Biologie in Ness Ziona,” NRC Handelsband (Rotterdam), Feb-May 12, 1966, Box 6313/Gimmel, Israel State Archive.	ruary 27, 1999. The detailed expose in Dutch can be found on the NRC website
63 Yitzhak Greenberg, Defense Budgets and Military Power: The Case of Is-	at the following address: <www.nrc.nl/w2/Lab/Ziona/>. Karel Knip generously rael (Tel Aviv: Misrad Habitachon, 1997), p. 177. These figures illustrate the	provided the author a nine-page English translation of his article under the claim that CBW matters played a very limited role in Israel’s overall defense	title “Biology in Ness Ziona.” All of the quotes that appear here are from the posture.	English document that Knip provided to the author.
64	 Shlomo Abramovitz and Mordechai Allon, “The Place Where Oranges are	84 Ibid.
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	51
AVNER COHEN
85 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), The Problem of	106 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksel, 1971), Chemical and Biological Weapons, vol. 1, The Rise of CB Weapons (New Vol. I, pp. 75-78; Vol. II, pp. 35-36.	York: Humanities Press, 1971), pp. 86-87, 159-61, 336-41.
86	 Wright, “Evolution of Biological Warfare Policy,” p. 35.	107 SIPRI, The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare, vol. 5 (New York:
87	 Interestingly, Knip found almost no IIBR publications about the standard	Humanities Press, 1971), p. 227.
BW that Iraq produced, such as anthrax and botulinum toxin, even though it is	108 Ibid., pp. 228-37.
“inconceivable” (in Knip’s words) that IIBR has not conducted research into	109 W. Andrew Terril, “The Chemical Warfare Legacy of the Yemen War,” these areas.	Comparative Strategy, 10:2 (1991), pp. 109-119; Dany Shoham, “Chemical and
88	 Ibid.	Biological Weapons in Egypt,” Nonproliferation Review 5 (Spring-Summer
89	 On these intrinsic ambiguities, see Susan Wright and Stuart Ketcham, “The	1998), pp. 48-58.
Problem of Interpreting the U.S. Biological Defense Research Program,” in	110 The story of the Egyptian missile program has not yet been fully told. For Wright, pp. 169-196; and Marc Lappe, “Ethics in Biological Warfare Research,”	a partial account, see M. Navias, “Ballistic Missile Proliferation in the Middle in Wright, 78-99.	East,” Survival (May/June 1989); Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, Every Spy a
90	 Benn, “Chemical Weapons Convention: Israel’s Decision Time.”	Prince (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1990); Meir Amit, Rosh Be-Rosh [Head
91	 Aluf Benn, “Israel Reviews Decision not to Sign BW Pact,” Ha’aretz (Online On] (Tel Aviv: Hed Artzi, 1999), pp. 101-125.
Edition), January 2, 2001.	111 Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option (New York; Random House, 1991),
92	 Peter Hirschberg, “Inside the Low White Buildings,” Jerusalem Report, pp. 63-64.
December 21, 1998, p. 18.	112 Julian Perry Robinson, “Behind the VX Disclosure,” New Scientist, Janu-
93	 Many of these sensationalist stories appeared in the LondonSunday Times. ary 9, 1975, p. 50. The 1963 scientific paper that Robinson refers to was: Z.
One such report cites a biologist who allegedly once held a senior post in the	Pelchowicz and H. Leader, “Organophosphorous Compounds, Part V,” Jour-Israeli intelligence: “there is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemi-	nal of Chemical Society (1962), pp. 3320-23. Professor Zvi Pelach (Pelchowicz) cal or biological weapon which is not manufactured at the Institute.” Uzi	was himself a student of Bergmann and the head of the chemistry division at Mahnaimi, “Israeli Jets Equipped for Chemical Warfare,” Sunday Times (Lon- IIBR for may years. When Munya Mardor wrote about the mysterious “crash don), October 4, 1998. See also, “Israel’s Secret Institute,” Foreign Report, program” of 1955 (that this author, following journalist Aluf Benn, interprets August 20, 1998; “Israel’s Nes Ziona Mystery,” Foreign Report, February 5,	as a CW production program), he identified Dr. Zvi P. as one of the key figures 1998.	in that operation. See Mardor, RAFAEL, p. 128.
94 See remarks by General Almquist in response to questioning by Senator	113 Anonymous former senior American and Israeli officials, interviews by Sam Nunn, U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, FY1975 Department of author.
Defense Authorization Hearings, Part 5 (R&D), March 7, 1974, p. 4290.	114 Shoham, “Chemical and Biological Weapons in Egypt,” p. 49.
95 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Proliferation of Weap-	115 Anonymous former senior Israeli officials. ons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risk, OTA-ISC-559 (Washington DC:	116 Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, chap. 12.
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993), pp. 65, 80. This report cites 11 public	117 Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, chap. 13. See also Yuval Ne’eman, “Israel in sources (government and NGO arms control experts as well as media) on the	the Nuclear Weapons Age” (in Hebrew), Nativ 8 (September 1995), p. 38. CW issue. All 11 sources refer to Israel as “having undeclared offensive chemi-	118 Hedrick Smith, “U.S. Assumes the Israelis Have A-Bomb or Its Parts,” New cal warfare capabilities” (Table 2-A-1, p. 80). As to the BW issue, the report	York Times, 18 July 1970, p. 1. cites six public sources, of which four refer to Israel as “having undeclared	119 President Sadat and Defense Minister Gamasi hinted this after the war. See offensive biological warfare programs” (Table 2-B-1, p. 82).	Shoham, “Chemical and Biological Weapons in Egypt,” p. 49
96 Milton Leitenberg, “An Assessment of the Biological Weapons Threat to	120 Cairo Radio, July 5, 1975, in Shoham, “Chemical and Biological Weapons in the United States,” White Paper prepared for Conference on Emerging Threats	Egypt,” p. 50.
Assessment, Institute for Security Technology Studies, Dartmouth College,	121 It is worth recalling how little attention Israeli strategists gave to the CBW July 7-9, 2000. See also, Milton Leitenberg, “Biological Weapons, Interna-	issue when discussing nuclear issues until the 1991 Gulf War. See, for example, tional Sanctions and Proliferation,” Asian Perspective (Winter 1997), p. 11.	Shai Feldman, Israeli Nuclear Deterrence (New York: Columbia University
97 Russian Federation Foreign Intelligence Service, at the Hearing Before the	Press, 1981) and Yair Evron, Israeli Nuclear Dilemma (Ithaca: Cornell Univer-Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, “A New Challenge	sity Press, 1994).
After the Cold War: Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Prolifera-	122 Shoham, “Chemical and Biological Weapons in Egypt,” p. 51. tion Threats of the 1990’s, 103rd Congress, First Session, 24 February 1993	123 Thomas McNaugher, “Ballistic Missiles and Chemical Weapons: The Legacy (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1993).	of the Iran-Iraq War,” International Security 15 (Fall 1990), pp. 5-34.
98 In the wake of the revelations regarding Iraq’s BW program, Israel has	124 “President Warns Israel, Criticizes U.S.,” Iraqi News Agency, April 1, 1990, presumably made efforts to “mimic” the Iraqi BW weaponization work. One	in FBIS-NES-90-064 (April 3, 1990), p. 32; see also Alan Cowell, “Iraqi Chief, would not be surprised if Israel made, and possibly even tested, models of Boasting of Poison Gas, Warns of Destruction if Israel Strikes,” New York Iraqi-designed weapons. Recently, it was revealed that the United States con- Times, April 3, 1990; Karen Eliot House, “Iraqi President Hussein Sees New ducted similar research that appeared to test the limits of the BWC, if not	Mideast War Unless America Acts,” Wall Street Journal, June 28, 1990, p. 1. In actually violate it. See, Judith Miller et al., “U.S. Germ Warfare Research Pushes	fact, Iraq had crude binary CW that had to be mixed by hand.
Treaty Limits,” New York Times, February 4, 2001, p A1; Judith Miller, “When	125 “Arab Power for Regional Peace,” Iraqi News Agency, April 17, 1990, in Is a Bomb not a Bomb?” New York Times, February 5, 2001; Barbara H.	FBIS-NES-90-108 (June 5, 1990). In his address to the Islamic conference in Rosenberg and Milton Leitenberg, “Who’s Afraid of a Germ Warfare Treaty?”	Baghdad on June 18, 1990, Saddam explained that his threat to burn half of Los Angeles Times, September 6, 2001; and Elisa D. Harris, “Research Not to	Israel was just a way to signal deterrence, and not a reflection of intent to Be Hidden,” New York Times, September 6, 2001, A27.	strike first. See “Saddam Husayn Addresses Islamic Conference,” Baghdad
99	 Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, chap. 2-3.	Domestic Service (radio), in FBIS-90-118 (June 19, 1990), p. 21.
100 Anonymous former senior officials, interviews with author.	126 For more analysis of the Israeli-Iraqi deterrence “dialogue” over the nuclear 101 There is evidence to suggest that, in late 1954, Ben-Gurion was preoccu- issue, see Avner Cohen and Marvin Miller, “Nuclear Shadow in the Middle pied with the nuclear project. See Israel and the Bomb, chap. 3.	East,” Security Studies 1 (Autumn 1991), pp. 54-77. For somewhat different 102 Aluf Benn, “The Project that Preceded the Nuclear Option,” Ha’aretz , readings, see Shai Feldman, “Israeli Deterrence and the Gulf War,” in Joseph March 2, 1995.	Alpher, ed., War in the Gulf: Implications for Israel (Boulder: Westview Press, 103 Mardor, RAFAEL, p. 128.	1992), pp. 184-208; Amatzia Baram, “Israeli Deterrence, Iraqi Responses,” Orbis 104 Ibid., pp. 128-29.	36 (Summer 1992), pp. 397-209.
105 Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, chap. 3-4.	127 Avigdor Haselkorn, The Continuing Storm (New Haven: Yale University
52	The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001
AVNER COHEN
Press, 1999), chap. 3-4.	August 15, 1997, p. 10; David Makovsky, “Israel Must Ratify Chemical Treaty,” 128 James A. Baker III, The Politics of Diplomacy (New York: J.P. Putnam Sons, Ha’aretz (Online Edition), January 8, 1998, <http://www.haaretz.co.il>; Benn, 1995), pp. 359-60.	“Chemical Weapons Convention: Israel’s Decision Time.” 129 Avner Cohen, “The Israeli Press Covers, and Then Covers Up, the Bomb,”	144 Ze’ev Schiff, “An interview with Yitzhak Mordechai,” Ha’aretz , April 16, Deadline 6 (Summer 1991), pp. 17-19; Shai Feldman, “Israeli Deterrence and	1998, p. 10. See also Steinberg, “Israeli Policy on the CWC.” the Gulf War”; Haselkorn, The Continuing Storm.	145 Aluf Benn, “A Difficult Choice: The Chemical Weapons Convention,” 130 Gerald M. Steinberg, “Parameters of Stable Deterrence in a Proliferated	Ha’aretz (Online edition), November 29, 2000, < http://www.haaretz.co.il>; Middle East: Lessons from the 1991 Gulf War,” Nonproliferation Review 7 Benn, “Chemical Weapons Convention: Israel’s Decision Time,” pp. 22-24. (Fall-Winter, 2000), pp. 43-60; Shai Feldman, “Israeli Deterrence and the Gulf	146 Benn, “Chemical Weapons Convention: Israel’s Decision Time,” p. 22. War”; David A. Welch, The Politics and Psychology of Restraint: Israeli Deci-	147 Ibid., p. 23; see also Steinberg, “Israeli Policy on the CWC,” p. 31. sion-Making in the Gulf War,” International Security 57 (Spring 1992),	148 Benn, “A Difficult Choice: The Chemical Weapons Convention”; see also pp. 328-69.	Benn, “Chemical Weapons Convention: Israel’s Decision Time,” p. 23.
131 Haselkorn, “Wartime Strategic Deterrence, ” chap. 4 in The Continuing	149 Benn cites senior defense officials who expressed strong opposition to the Storm.	transparency provisions under the CWC, in particular the requirement to re-132 “Israelis See Chemical Option Against Iraq,” New York Times, July 28, 1990. veal all past activities and facilities related to the development, production, 133 For a comprehensive account of the Iraqi BW program including reference	and stockpiling of CW. Benn, “A Difficult Choice: The Chemical Weapons to UNSCOM reports, see Raymond A. Zilinskas, “Iraq’s Biological Warfare	Convention.” Program: The Past as Future?” in Joshua Lederberg, ed., Biological Weapons:	150 Ibid.
Limiting the Threat, BCSIA Studies in International Security (Cambridge: MIT	151 Ibid.
Press, 1999), pp. 137-58; Timothy V. McCarthy and Jonathan B. Tucker,	152 Ibid. Benn summarizes the current view in the Israeli defense establishment “Saddam’s Toxic Arsenal: Chemical and Biological Weapons in the Gulf Wars,”	as follows: “As long as our neighbors see their CW as their deterrent against in Peter Lavoy, et al., eds., Planning the Unthinkable: How New Powers Will	us, there is no point in talking about us joining the CWC.” Use Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons (Ithaca: Cornell University	153 Benn, “Israel Reviews Decision Not to Sign BW Pact.” Press, 2000), pp. 47-78; Milton Leitenberg, “Deadly Unknown About Iraq’s	154 Since World War II, poison weapons have been mostly associated with Biological Weapons Program,” Asian Perspective 24, No. 1 (2000), pp. 217- special operations by intelligence services. It is widely believed that in 1997, 223; Stephen Black, “Investigating Iraq’s Biological Weapons Program,” in	Mossad attempted to assassinate Khaled Mishal, the head of the political Lederberg, Biological Weapons: Limiting the Threat, pp. 158-64; and Richard	bureau of Hamas in Jordan, by using a lethal dose of the synthetic opiate Butler, “Inspecting Iraq,” in Joseph Cirincione, ed., Repairing the Regime	Fentony. Jean Pascal Zanders, “Assessing the Risk of Chemical and Biologi-(New York: Routledge, 2000), 175-84. For an UNSCOM chronology of the Iraqi cal Weapons Proliferation to Terrorists,” Nonproliferation Review 6 (Fall 1999), BW program, see UNSC Document No S/1995/864, October 11, 1995; see also p. 19; Allan Cowell, “The Daring Attack that Blew Up in Israel’s Face,” New R. Jeffrey Smith, “Iraq’s Drive for a Biological Arsenal,” Washington Post, York Times, October 15, 1997, p. A8.
November 21, 1997, p. 1.	155 Avner Cohen, “Nuclear Arms in Crisis Under Secrecy: Israel and the Les-134 In a lecture in Israel on July 17, 2000, Former UNSCOM executive director sons of the 1967 and 1973 Wars,” in Lavoy et al., Planning the Unthinkable, Richard Butler revealed that Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told him pp. 104-24. that Iraq had BW “to deal with the ‘Zionist entity.’” Etgar Lefkovits, “Iraq	156 In the year 2000, when the control mechanisms regarding the treaty’s Sched-Brags of Biological Weapons to ‘Deal with Zionist Entity,’” Jerusalem Post, ule 2 items went into effect, it applied only to one relevant item used by a July 18, 2000, p. 1.	single Israeli company. As journalist Benn notes, “the company somehow 135 Haselkorn, The Continuing Storm, chap. 4.	found a way around the problem.” Aluf Benn, “ A Difficult Choice: The Chemi-136 Haselkorn suggests that the last Scud Iraq launched at Israel on February	cal Weapons Convention”; Cf., Benn, “Chemical Weapons Convention: Israel’s 25, 1991, which was tipped with a concrete warhead, was intended to be a BW	Decision Time,” pp. 22-24. warning aimed to deter the United States and Israel from attacking Baghdad.	157 Israeli industries import about 5,000 tons of Schedule 3 items a year, prima-137 Seth Carus and Laurie Mylroie, personal communication with author, Wash- rily from CWC member-countries such as Germany, Switzerland, the United ington, DC, August 2001.	States, and China. These imported chemicals are used in the manufacturing of 138 U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, drugs, detergents, and various electronic components. Benn notes, “[w]ithout Proliferation:Threat and Response (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of them, industries will have to shut down assembly lines—or transfer their Defense, April 1996); Defense Nuclear Agency, “Biological Weapons Prolif-	production facilities and R&D labs abroad.” Benn, “Chemical Weapons Con-eration” (Ft. Detrick, MD: U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious	vention: Israel’s Decision Time,” pp. 22-24.
Diseases, April 1994), p. 49; Rear Adm. Lowell Jacoby, Director of Intelligence,	158 Ibid. The Israeli defense establishment estimates that if the Schedule 3 Joint Staff, “Anthrax Biological Warfare Threat,” statement before the U.S.	sanctions apply in full, the penalty to Israel could reach $100-200 million. Senate Committee on Armed Services, April 13, 2000.	159 Eileen Choffnes, “Germs on the Loose,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 139 In the CW context, senior Israeli defense officials now openly voice this	57 (March-April 2001), pp. 57-61. argument. Benn, “Chemical Weapons Convention: Israel’s Decision Time,”	160 For the historical context of President Nixon’s decision to end U.S. offen-pp. 22-24.	sive biological and chemical warfare programs, see Robert A. Wampler, ed., 140 Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, pp. 287-89, 326-27.	“The Nixon Administrations’s Decision to End U.S. Biological Warfare Pro-141 Ibid., chap. 17.	grams,” The September 11th Sourcebooks, Vol. III: Biowar, National Security 142 Gerald Steinberg, “Israeli Policy on the CWC,” OPCW Synthesis, Novem-	Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 58, October 25, 2001, <http:// ber 2000, pp. 9-13.	www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB58/>.
143 Steve Rodan, “Bitter Choices: Israel’s Chemical Dilemma,” Jerusalem Post,
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001	53