Israel, the only current and presumptive holder of a nuclear arsenal immediately and flatly declared that it would be a major non-participant in the festivities. In explanation of its move, the government of Israel (GOI) pointed to the biased and prejudicial nature of the UN declaration.
The characterization given by the GOI is dead on. Israel and Israel alone is named in the document. The naming of Israel was, as no doubt intended, pejorative and defamatory. Neither India nor Pakistan, both of which are in possession of nuclear weapons and non-members of the NPT, were named, even though Pakistan can be seen as an honorary member of the Mideast Club.
Nor is any mention made of the non-compliant Iranian elephant in the room. Indeed, it is the status of Iran as a signer of the NPT which has brought it into its current semi-pariah status.
The failure of the conferees to make a definite reference to Iran is particularly reprehensible and underscores the accuracy of GOI's description and the correctness of its decision regarding the demanded conference. The glaring omission of Iran is the basis for the remarkably strong defense of Israel's position offered by National Security Advisor James Jones. Jones is quoted as saying the US "deplores" the wording of the UN document.
Israel's overall position on the question of a nuclear free Middle East has been long established and is well known--even by the Arab and Muslim states which required both the conference and the naming of names, or, at least, one name. GOI is of the view that any agreement to remove nuclear weapons from the region (which implies Israel signing the NPT) must come after two other agreements.
One of the necessary precursor undertakings would eliminate all categories of weapons of mass destruction from the region. The other, the vastly more important and infinitely harder to achieve agreement, would be one which establishes a verifiable and enforceable comprehensive Mideast peace.
Given the ongoing superiority in manpower and potential conventional armed force in the possession of the several Arab "frontline" states and the even greater reserves within other Arab and Muslim countries, Israel must retain its nuclear option. It is the great equalizer as well as the best peacekeeper in the area. By rejecting membership in the NPT and adopting the policy of nuclear ambiguity GOI has kept the region free of conventional, high intensity war since the ending of the Yom Kippur War thirty-seven years ago.
True, this has not meant peace broke out or that hostilities have been absent, but it has meant that the severity and duration of war has been constrained significantly. For this, the Arab states should be as happy as the Israelis. Except for the poorly planned and worse executed adventure into Lebanon a few years back, the killing has been on the retail level rather than the wholesale bloodletting which would have occurred had Israel not possessed its ambiguous deterrent.
The problem, the ultimate challenge to a comprehensive peace treaty which,in the estimate not only of GOI but any objective observer, must precede any agreement to denuclearize the Mideast is the matter of how a comprehensive peace treaty would be both verified and enforced. If the years 1933-1945 taught Jews anything, it is simply this: When push comes to shove there is no one we can count on for our defense other than ourselves.
This reality, a reality which cannot be erased by the reassurances of an American president or his minions, governs all Israeli calculations as it must. Can any sane, prudent Israeli trust some other country, some international institution, when the existence of the Jewish state is threatened?
Considering the historical record right on down to the present day, the answer is both blunt and obvious: No. A hundred times, a thousand times, no!
The Jews of Germany and German dominated Europe were left out in the international cold in the years prior to the outbreak of war. To put it simply, no country--including the US--wanted to take in the threatened Jews. Not even the children.
In more recent times, the UN has been singularly insensitive to the unique position of Israel as a country threatened repeatedly with both attack and potential oblivion. The Arab states, with the cooperation of some Great Powers, have repeatedly hijacked the UN to serve their purposes and place Israel under one disadvantage after another.
Even though no country has been a more consistent supporter of Israel than the US following the Eisenhower administration, all US policy is subject to the winds of political change. The change in the direction and force of the political winds in the US has been made quite apparent to GOI in the past year and a half. So there is no good basis for a realistic belief within Israel that come what may Uncle Sam is there to help and protect.
The long and the short of reality is there is no mechanism for enforcing a comprehensive Mideast peace treaty, and, without such a credible mechanism, any hypothetical treaty is just so much ink on paper bound between fancy covers. Without the accomplishment of both comprehensive treaty and credible enforcement guarantees, there is no reason to think any GOI would be so eager for risk, so willing to embrace potential national suicide as to either join the NPT or abandon its nuclear arsenal.
(One caveat: It would be possible in principle but unlikely in practice given the current state of global political play for Israel to sign the NPT under terms and conditions identical to those agreed to by the original declared nuclear powers: the US, the USSR, the UK, Britain, France, and China. This would leave Israel with its bombs and bomb fabricating capability but commit it to the eventual removal of these.)
Israel may need to join the NPT so that it can acquire electrical power producing nuclear reactors, perhaps in conjunction with Jordan or Egypt. The need for more electricity without using more expensive fossil fuels may provide an impetus to accede to the treaty but only under terms such as those extended to the initial Big Six.
As a result, the only conclusion which can be offered regarding this latest UN exercise in the appealingly absurd call for a Make-the-Mideast-Nukeless in 2012 is that it is a call for way too much, way too soon. The Arab countries showing their usual maladroit practice of diplomacy made the decision to make propaganda hay while laying salt in the fields of true progress toward a desirable goal.
Mr Netanyahu, you are doing OK this time around. Even better, it looks as if for once President Obama is as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment