Does Israel possess nuclear weapons? It is a simple question indeed. Israel has never declared that it has nuclear weapons. But it is a well known fact worldwide that Israel possesses advanced nuclear weapons, but no one speaks about it. And if anyone does speak, Israel has never refuted the existence of her arsenal. It is generally estimated that Israel has between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system.
The Israeli nuclear program began in the late 1940s under the direction of Ernst David Bergmann, “the father of the Israeli bomb.” Ernst David Bergmann was born in Germany in a Zionist family. He earned the doctorate in 1927 under the supervision of Prof. W. Schlenk at the University of Berlin and continued on the staff. Subsequently he moved to Palestine and worked at the Sieff Institute until the period of World War II. He then participated in defense related projects in France, England and in the United States. Ben-Gurion, the charismatic leader, was supported by Bergmann. In August 1948 Ben-Gurion appointed Bergmann as the head of the scientific department of the newly founded Israel Defense Forces, and three years later he became the prime minister’s scientific advisor at the Ministry of Defense. He founded the Israel Atomic Energy Commission in 1952 and shaped its early activities.
It was not possible for Israel to pursue her nuclear objectives without foreign assistance. Major assistance was provided by France which helped Israel in the construction of Dimona, a heavy water moderated, natural uranium reactor and plutonium reprocessing factory situated near Bersheeba in the Negev Desert. Israel participated in the French nuclear programme right from the start. The collaboration continued when Israel launched her nuclear programme and French assistance was critical in the development of Israeli nuclear weapons. Dimona become operational in 1964 and plutonium reprocessing began shortly thereafter. In order to hide such activities from the inspectors, a fake wall was built which was designed to conceal the lifts leading to six floors underground where plutonium and spare parts for nuclear bombs were produced. In fact the concealment made the job of inspectors easier as they conveniently ignored the clandestine activity going on underground. Despite various Israeli claims that Dimona was “a manganese plant, or a textile factory,” the extreme security measures employed told a far different story. The high security can be judged from the fact that Israel downed one of its mirage fighter in 1967 and a Libyan civil aircraft in 1973 when they strayed over the facility. It is assumed that Israel exploded several nuclear devices in the Negev near the Israeli-Egyptian border in the mid 1960s and participated actively in French nuclear tests in Algeria. Israel is thought to have possessed several nuclear bombs when the “Yom Kippur War” broke out in 1973.
France was not alone in assisting Israel build nuclear weapons. According to an August 2005 Haaretz report, documents at the British National Archives dating back to the late 1950s show the United Kingdom sold Israel 20 tons of heavy water, a substance used to produce nuclear bombs, at a cost of around £1.5 million. The heavy water surplus from a consignment bought from Norway in 1956 was shipped from a British port to Israel. Officials presented it as a deal between Norway and Israel. Heavy water is used in the production of plutonium, a key step in the process of creating nuclear weapons.
While Israel continued to develop nuclear weapons with plutonium, she also strived to procure uranium. Israel had phosphate deposits in the Negev but they were insufficient for the programme. In the late 1960s, Israel solved the uranium problem by developing close ties with South Africa. Israel supplied nuclear technology and expertise for the “Apartheid Bomb,” while South Africa provided Israel with uranium.
South Africa also provided Israel with facilities to test her nuclear weapons. This was proved on 22 September 1979, when a US satellite detected an atmospheric test of a small thermonuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean off South Africa. But, because of Israel’s apparent involvement, the report was promptly concealed. Although the French and South Africans were primarily responsible for the Israeli nuclear program, the U.S. is not far behind. Mark Gaffney wrote (Gaffney, op. cit., 1989, p. 34), “The Israeli nuclear program was possible only because of calculated deception on the part of Israel and willing complicity on the part of the U.S.”
From the very beginning, the U.S. was heavily involved in the Israeli nuclear program, providing nuclear related technology such as a small research reactor in 1955 under the “Atoms for Peace Program.” Israeli scientists were largely trained at U.S. universities and were generally welcomed at the nuclear weapons labs. In the early 1960s, the controls for the Dimona reactor were obtained clandestinely from a company called Tracer Lab, the main supplier of U.S. military reactor control panels, purchased through a Belgian subsidiary, apparently with the acquiescence of the National Security Agency (NSA). In 1971, the Nixon administration approved the sale of hundreds of krytons (a type of high speed switch necessary to the development of sophisticated nuclear bombs) to Israel. And, in 1979, Carter provided ultra high resolution photos from a KH-11 spy satellite, used 2 years later to bomb the Iraqi Osirak Reactor. Throughout the Nixon and Carter administrations, and accelerating dramatically under Reagan, U.S. advanced technology transfers to Israel have continued unabated to the present.
Israel has never confirmed it has the capability to make nuclear weapons. What is known about the Israeli program comes, primarily, from two sources: a nuclear technician who leaked the existence of the program to the London Times in 1986 (which landed the 31-year-old in prison for 18 years) and the 1998 book “Israel and the Bomb” by Israeli scholar Avner Cohen. These two sources, coupled with piecemeal intelligence and reporting, outline a massive nuclear program that has developed some of the most sophisticated nuclear weapons, at par with France, Britain and China. In addition to the plutonium and uranium bombs, Israel also has neutron bombs. Theses are miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation. These bombs are to kill people while leaving property intact.
It is quite evident that it was not possible for Israel to build up a sophisticated nuclear arsenal without the assistance of France, South Africa, U.K., Norway and the United States. Should we call this nuclear proliferation? As far as the definition goes, nuclear proliferation is the spread from nation to nation of nuclear technology, including nuclear power plants but especially nuclear weapons.The primary focus of anti-proliferation efforts is to maintain control over the specialized materials necessary to build such devices because this is the most difficult and expensive part of a nuclear weapons program. Hence we can say ‘sans doute’ that these countries have grossly proliferated, and proliferation is not a new trend. It is manipulation of the media that blows up nuclear activities of some countries while it blankets the capabilities of others. The latest act of nuclear proliferation is again by the US and UK who have agreed to provide India with nuclear technology for civilian purposes. This is much the same as the explosion of a ‘peaceful nuclear device’ by India in 1974.
Hence non-proliferation may be considered more of a political tool than any other instrument. Because of Israel’s stance, it is never asked to sign the NPT. Israel is acknowledged as a nuclear weapon state but is never questioned on the issue. Israeli military authorities openly discuss the usage of its nuclear arsenal. And if Israel chooses to use its nuclear weapons, it would not be blamed as it would deny possession of such weapons. Whatever the case may be, one thing is for sure; Israel’s nuclear weapons are worthy to be dreaded and are no hoax but a reality, and a threat to world peace.

7th NFC Award — Not without consensus
Khalid Khokhar

The National Finance Commission (NFC) is a platform where Federal Government and four provinces agree on a formula to share federally collected financial resources between the federation and federating units; Punjab, NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan. The distribution of revenue amongst the centre and four provinces has always been a real problem in the resource-wise uneven provinces of Pakistan. The formula in vogue is based on the population figures of the four provinces, i.e., 57.88% of the total revenue goes to Punjab, 5.3% to Balochistan, 23.5% to Sindh and 13.54% to NWFP. Now, the provinces claim that the population figures have been distorted over the years, therefore, it should be based on a multi-factor formula involving population, poverty, revenue collection and inverse population density as parameters for sharing the resources. Apart from this, the provinces have also demanded that the federal government should increase provincial share of the divisible pool to 50 per cent from the existing 37.5 per cent, plus special grants and subvention pool. Therefore, the Commission is in a deadlock.
NFC award has become a serious political issue as provinces are not ready to agree due to vested political interests. The tenure of existing NFC had expired on July 21, 2005. After their failure to reach a consensus themselves, the provinces had authorized the President to present a solution to the NFC Award. Consequently, President General Pervez Musharraf had reconstituted the National Finance Commission (NFC) on July 22, 2005, under article 160(1) of the constitution. The new 10-member NFC, headed by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, who also holds the portfolio of finance minister, comprised four provincial finance ministers and adviser to the Prime Minister on finance Dr Salman Shah. The appointment of four private NFC members from the provinces has yet to be notified. The Terms Of Reference (TOR) for the commission include distribution among the federation and the provinces of net proceeds of the taxes on income, including corporate tax, but not including taxes on income consisting of remuneration paid out of the Federal Consolidated Fund; taxes on the sale and purchase of goods, imported, exported, produced, manufactured or consumed; sales tax on services (CE Mode); export duties on cotton; consider the inclusion of other federal taxes, including customs duties and federal excises, but not including taxes on income paid out of the Federal Consolidated Fund.
The Punjab government desires a population based formula, Sindh wants revenue generation to be the basis, Balochistan and NWFP desire area and level of development of the province to be the basis. Some of the differences projected by smaller provinces are: the share of small provinces be increased, the share of the federating units be increased at the price of federation that has comparatively more channels to generate revenues. Sharing of revenue be done under multiple criteria of different factors like population, poverty and backwardness of the province, area of the unit, revenue generation not collection and overall contribution of the province towards the national development. The NWFP government has been demanding 80 per cent weight for population, 19 per cent for backwardness and one per cent for Inverse Population Density (IPD), but no weightage to revenue generation. Balochistan province demands 100 per cent of the GDS because the resources are generated in Balochistan. On the division of vertical sharing of the resources, the Federal government is suggesting a structured and step by step approach to provinces to increase their share in the federal divisible pool to 50% in a phased manner under the 7th NFC Award. This means that provincial share of FDP would start from 48% or 48.5 % in the first year of new NFC. This would be increased every year reaching 50% in 2009-10 but the provinces say the formula simply offered an escalation cost and if the step by step approach to be adopted, it should be structured in a way that it starts with 50:50 percent in the first year and touches 52.5% for the provinces by 2009-10.
The stubbornness and lack of flexibility on the part of provinces has played a major role in not achieving the consensus on the seventh NFC due to be notified after July 21, 2005. The government is earnestly trying to resolve the grievances of the affected provinces and has decided to give a fresh and final opportunity to the provinces to reach consensus on National Finance Commission (NFC) Award. Now it requires subtle political strategy and management. The Federal Government has promised fair distribution of resources in the new National Finance Commission (NFC) Award due to be notified in September 2005. The prevailing economic situation of the country demands sacrifices for the sake of national integration and cohesion amongst centre and all the four provinces. It is high time that all the provinces set aside their idiosyncrasies and work out a consensus which suits all. There comes a time when we have to sacrifice personal gains for the sake of the country, and we must always keep in mind that ‘Pakistan comes first’.

Indian Christians
Amjed Jaaved

In his interview with India Today (April 4, 2005, Christian Missionaries are with Naxals, page 80-81), K. S. Sudersan (Rashtrya Swayem Sevak Sangh) says, ‘Naxals have a safe base in Andhra Pradesh because Christian missionaries are with them. They attack mandir and other Hindu institutions but never attack a Church. Because the Chief Minister is a Christian, he has given them abhaydaan (freedom from fear) and crowds of two lakh or more can gather’. Christians constitute about 0.3 per cent of India’s total population. Currently, they are about 2.5 per cent of India’s presently-estimated population of around 950 million.
The largest concentrations of them are in the State of Kerala in the South and in the States of Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya in the North-East. They are in a majority in the aforementioned three States of the North-East. Sizeable number of Christians (Catholics) also lives in Pondicherry and Goa. A much smaller number live scattered amongst the majority Hindu population in the rest of India. India is, constitutionally, a secular country. Despite guarantees for religious freedom, several states in India have passed anti-conversion bills forbidding Hindus to convert to other religions. The bills violate UN Charter of Human Rights which gives a person right to change his or her religion.
Any Hindu who converts to Christianity is socially boycotted and tortured in diverse ways. Six women at Kilipala village in Jagatsinghpur district (Orissa) converted to Christianity of their own free will. Their heads were tonsured by influential Hindus. Christian missionaries are harassed, and even killed Father Graham and his son were killed in cold blood. Christians’ houses in Gujarat were surveyed to be burnt at opportune time. The All-India Christian Council’s president, Joseph d’Souza, has alleged, “The State Government has been a passive spectator and often connives, by its deliberate inaction, in the violence against Christians’.
According to the Council, ‘Apart from ignoring the distress calls of the community, the Central Government nurtures a hate campaign against it. There should be a halt to the calumny unleashed by the Sangh Parivar leaders”. The Council regretted that the Indian constitution was secular only in name. In practices, the minorities’ life and prestige was at the mercy of the armed RSS gangs’ _ Four nuns and three Brothers belonging to the Missionaries of Charity were attacked by a 40-member gang chanting pro-RSS slogans at a Scheduled Caste colony in Nallalam near Kozhikode in north Kerala.
Narendra Modi’s government in Indian state of Gujarat harbours a xenophobic attitude not only towards the Muslims but also the Christians. He has conducted a secret survey of the Christians, living in districts of Ahmedabad, Sanaskantha, Jabarkantha and Kutch. The survey was completed despite protests inside and outside the state assembly. Lok Sabha member Jaipal Reddy and the state Assembly’s opposition leader Amarisinh Chaudhry has criticised Modi for having unleashed `terror’ on the minorities. The survey is akin to house-to-house surveys of Jewish localities in pre-World-War-II Germany. The analysts believe that the survey is a subtle message to the Christian community: `Desist from rioting or siding with the Muslims on communal issues’.
In Gujerat, the main targets of the fanatic Hindus are 42 Christian institutes, including Don Bosco School and Pushpanjali Society, in district Kheda. The Don Bosco is a secondary school run for poor students from nearby villages, with 150 boys staying in the boarding. Puspanjali is a medical centre with boarding capacity for 60 girls studying in the school. Similar surveys were conducted some year ago when Sangh Parivar stalwarts targeted Christian tribes in the Dangs area. Such surveys are akin to door-to-door survey of Jewish localities in pre-World-War-II Germany. The plight of the Christians in India is no better than those of other minorities. They have to reconcile with reality of having to live in a fearful environment.