{"id":36282,"date":"2013-11-11T12:00:22","date_gmt":"2013-11-11T12:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=36282"},"modified":"2015-05-05T22:21:13","modified_gmt":"2015-05-05T21:21:13","slug":"israels-nuclear-ambiguity-prodded","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2013\/11\/israels-nuclear-ambiguity-prodded\/","title":{"rendered":"Israel\u2019s Nuclear Ambiguity Prodded"},"content":{"rendered":"

As Palestinian-Israeli peace talks and nuclear talks on Iran\u2019s disputed nuclear programme continue, a unique international conference, \u201cA Middle East without Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)\u201d, was held in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n

The topic is taboo because Israel maintains a veil of \u201cstudied ambiguity\u201d on its alleged nuclear arsenal.<\/p>\n

At the Notre Dame hotel in Jerusalem, the singular get-together took place: Ziad Abu Zayyad, former head of the Palestinian delegation to the Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) multilateral talks; Dan Kurtzer, former peace mediator and former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt; and young and veteran activists against the proliferation of WMDs.<\/p>\n

Mordechai Vanunu<\/a>, also present, is forbidden to speak to foreigners or leave Israel.<\/p>\n

Invoking his opposition to WMDs, the former nuclear technician revealed in 1986 details of his country\u2019s alleged nuclear weapons programme to the British Sunday Times. Abducted by Mossad intelligence agents, the Israeli whistleblower spent 18 years in an Israeli jail, including more than 11 in solitary confinement.<\/p>\n

\u201cTen years ago, we couldn\u2019t even have a conference disembodied from reality,\u201d notes an enthused Kurtzer.<\/p>\n

This is no longer pie in the sky, but a very public event on an issue forcibly kept out of the public eye in Israel.<\/p>\n

The conference was organised by the Palestine-Israel Journal <\/a>(PIJ), a joint civil society publication dedicated to the quest for peace in the region.<\/p>\n

\u201cTrack-Two diplomacy will have an effect on Track One, formal diplomacy,\u201d explains the diplomat who is now a professor of Middle East policy studies at Princeton University. \u201cIf not this year \u2013 next year or the year after.\u201d<\/p>\n

The conference was held just a few days prior to the start of Round Two on Thursday Nov. 7 between Iran and the P5+1<\/a> group of six major powers (Britain, China, France, Russia and the United State, plus and Germany). Round One ended on a positive note.<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding the persistent suspicion that Iran is racing towards nuclear arms, the only major player in the Middle East which, allegedly, possesses a nuclear arsenal is Israel.<\/p>\n

Allegedly, because reports on the issue \u2013 all from foreign sources \u2013 have neither been confirmed nor denied by Israel. Maintaining its veil of \u201cstudied ambiguity\u201d, Israel hasn\u2019t signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.<\/p>\n

Israel\u2019s nuclear policy is defined in one sentence: \u2018Israel won\u2019t be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cIf Israel won\u2019t be the first, it won\u2019t be the second either,\u201d quips Israeli non-conventional weapons expert Reuven Pedatzur.<\/p>\n

Vanunu knows well the consequences of breaking the strict censorship code on the issue. Public debate is nonexistent. \u201cThe nuclear issue is Israel\u2019s last taboo,\u201d says Pedatzur.<\/p>\n

A presentation on \u201cFissile Material Controls in the Middle East\u201d<\/a> by Princeton University\u2019s Senior Research Physicist Frank von Hippel proposes a ban on plutonium separation and use; an end to the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel; an end to enrichment of uranium above six percent; and no additional enrichment plants.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s only natural that Israel\u2019s nuclear programme would take centre stage. The Dimona nuclear plant is scrutinised. \u201cFreeze, declare, and then step-by-step reduction of Israel\u2019s stocks of plutonium and HEU,\u201d is what Israel must give in return for von Hippel\u2019s global proposal.<\/p>\n

Yet despite across-the-board harmony on the need to free the world\u2019s most volatile region from the most volatile weapon, the speakers failed to reach a consensus on the practicality of focusing on the region\u2019s one and only country believed to have nuclear arms.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis excellent proposal is premature,\u201d comments Pedatzur. \u201cDealing with Israel\u2019s nuclear programme is a non-starter. If the U.S. will exert pressure on Israel, maybe; unfortunately, I don\u2019t see any U.S. incentive.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kurtzer chimes in: \u201cThe U.S. is specifically interested in stopping nuclear weapons proliferation. Regarding Israel, we\u2019re back to the question of non-declared status, and the U.S.\u2019 strong bilateral relationship, a fact of life.\u201d<\/p>\n

Following the Madrid Peace Conference (1991), Israel participated in the ACRS multilateral talks.<\/p>\n

Israel focused on the regional security component; Arab states (led by Egypt) on the arms control component \u2013 that is, on controlling Israel\u2019s suspected nukes. The talks collapsed in 1995.<\/p>\n

Secure in its don\u2019t-talk-about-it comfort zone, Israel is ready to discuss a WMD-free zone and thus forgo the ultimate deterrent against its so-called eternal enemies, but only within a comprehensive peace settlement with all of its neighbours, including Palestine, Syria and Iran.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a state of affairs as hypothetical as it is improbable.<\/p>\n

\u201cIsrael wants the international community to agree de facto to its nuclear status,\u201d bemoans Abu Zayyad. \u201cAssuming it\u2019s out of it, Israel isn\u2019t against a nuclear-free Middle East. That\u2019s ridiculous.\u201d<\/p>\n

Abu Zayyad reflects the traditional Palestinian position. Both the nuclear weapons issue and the peace vision must be approached \u201ccorrelatively, not sequentially.\u201d<\/p>\n

Is there a linkage between or amongst these issues?<\/p>\n

\u201cThe formal answer of diplomats is \u2018No\u2019,\u201d says Kurtzer. \u201cBut surely, as the debate takes place in a civil society forum like this one without being cut off \u2013 here\u2019s the linkage.\u201d<\/p>\n

Israel rejects any linkage between its nuclear programme and the nascent regional d\u00e9tente.<\/p>\n

\u201cA Russian-American agreement to move the chemical weapons from Syria; Iranian and U.S. presidents speaking for the first time since 1979; Palestinian-Israeli negotiations,\u201d enumerates Hillel Schenker, PIJ co-editor with Abu Zayyad. \u201cThis creates a constructive background for moving forward toward a WMD-free Middle East,\u201d he concludes.<\/p>\n

Eager to pour cold water on the conference\u2019s optimism, Pedatzur enumerates inversely: \u201cChemical weapons use in Syria\u2019s civil war; failure till now to resolve Iran\u2019s nuclear crisis; Israel\u2019s continued possession of nuclear weapons and occupation of Palestine. A WMD-free Middle East can\u2019t be established any time soon.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kurtzer says \u201cTo the extent the U.S. is ready to exercise its influence and power, a regional security breakthrough can occur which will ease the way for us not only to have a discussion on the possibility of a WMD-free Middle East, but to actually start engaging on these issues.\u201d<\/p>\n

Abu Zayyad advocates a global arrangement. \u201cWhen you speak about Israel, Israel speaks about Iran; Iran about Pakistan; Pakistan about India, etc.\u201d \u2013 the nuclear chain.<\/p>\n

The conference may have succeeded in breaking through the censorship surrounding Israel\u2019s assumed nuclear weapons, but not the taboo on Israel effectively creating a WMD-free Middle East.<\/p>\n

Related IPS Articles<\/b><\/p>\n