n a recent article, Tom Anderson
argued that Israeli fears of a nuclear Iran
are not, contrary to what I had previously
written, based on the possible direct
existential threat Iran poses but rather on
the fact that it would trigger a nuclear arms
race in the region. Although I disagree that
the first factor plays no role in Israeli fears
(simply check the Israeli rhetoric and the
amount of times the Holocaust and Nazism
are mentioned), I do concede that the
second factor is prominent as well. But then
I ask: why do we criticise one country’’s
nuclear program and not another
country’’s actual possession of nuclear
weapons? And why do we think that one
country’’s nuclear program will lead to a
nuclear arms race and while another’s will
not? I am of course referring to Israel’’s
nuclear arsenal.
The double standards through which we
judge Iran and Israel’’s respective cases
take three distinct shapes. Firstly, Iran’’s
nuclear program is judged illegal since it
violates the International Atomic Energy
Agency’’s (IAEA) treaty which enables
inspectors to examine any premises
deemed suspect. It is quickly forgotten that
Israel also refused to open all of its facilities
to such inspections. This resulted not only
in the violation of IAEA regulations but also
of US domestic law. According to the 1976
Symington clause of the Foreign Assistance
Act, any US administration must cut off
economic and military aid to any country
which imports uranium enrichment
technology or materials without accepting
the safeguards of IAEA on its nuclear
facilities. Needless to say, all the US
administrations since the Act was passed
have continued to support Israel.
Furthermore, in 1985 an American was
indicted by the Los Angeles court for
transporting 800 high-speed electron
switches (known as krytons) used in
triggering mechanisms in atomic
weapons to Israel. Perhaps the most
famous case of illegal acquisition of nuclear
material was “Operation Plumbat” where
the Mossad, Israel’s secret service, hijacked
a German ship directed to the Italian port of
Genoa stealing 200 tons of yellowcake.
Secondly, Israel’’s nuclear program which
ultimately led to the acquisition of a nuclear
arsenal was undemocratic. Decisions were
undertaken by selected ministers behind
closed doors without the approval of the
whole Knesset which was kept in the dark.
In 1950, 310,000 Israelis, or 40% of the
population at the time, signed the
Stockholm Appeal initiated by the World
Peace Council demanding the outlawing of
nuclear weapons. Their appeal fell on deaf
ears. More interestingly, when Ben Gurion
was asked by the Eisenhower
administration about the Dimona nuclear
reactor, where the nuclear weapons
program was secretly being carried out, he
replied that it was a textile plant, effectively
lying to the US President and the
international community just like
Ahmadinejad is suspected of doing now.
Thirdly, Israel is reportedly the only country
in the Middle East to have ever officially
considered using nuclear weapons against
another country within the region, twice. In
1973, Golda Meir, the then Prime Minister,
gave Moshe Dayan permission to activate
nuclear weapons in case Egypt invaded
Israel. Her command was tainted with
religious talk since she expressed her fear
that Egypt might have ended “The Third
Temple”. Use of nuclear weapons justified
through religious analogies: sounds like
religious fundamentalism as defined by the
contemporary Israeli administration and its
supporters. The second time Israeli political
leaders thought of using their nuclear
arsenal against a country in the region was
in 1982 when Sharon proposed to attack
Syria using nuclear weapons.
Some argue that Israel is not violating any
international agreement by detaining a
nuclear arsenal because it did not sign the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This
is an immoral and unjust argument since by
the same standards we should also not be
allowed to hold accountable governments
committing crimes against humanity simply
because they have not signed treatises
where they explicitly promise not to do so.
Let alone that the mere fact of not being a
signatory of the NPT rouses serious
questions about Israel’’s ethical credibility
on international affairs.
The fact of the matter is that Western
governments and anyone who is
committed to their view of an
imminent “Iranian threat” is judging Iran
using double standards: Israel having a
nuclear arsenal is legitimate while Iran
trying to acquire one is not. More
importantly, what this view fails to
appreciate is that it is not Iran which is
going to spark the desire for nuclear
weapons within the Middle East. This desire
has already been sparked by Israel’s
acquisition of a nuclear arsenal, by its
repeatedly manifested belligerence and by
the warranted perception of Israel as a
country above the law. Indeed, in a
poll conducted in the first half of 2011 by
the Arab Centre for Research and Policy
Studies (ACRPS) where 16,731 individuals
from 12 Arab countries were interviewed,
55% of the respondents stated that Israel’s
possession of WMD justifies the possession
of WMD by other countries in the region
and 73% see Israel and the US as the
biggest threats. If Israel is seriously worried
about a nuclear arms race then it should
initiate open negotiations with other Middle
Eastern governments and aim for an
agreement promising the dismantlement of
its nuclear arsenal in return for nuclear
non-proliferation