The big five powers on the United Nations Security Council have committed themselves, in an official statement released the other day, to full implementation of the decision to make the Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone. This is a fundamentally important development in international policy toward the region. When it is time, and conditions permit, the declaration permits the holding of Israel accountable for its nuclear arsenal for the first time on the international level. This follows years of international, and particularly American, accountability for Iran over its nuclear program, in a way that appeared flagrantly biased, due to the double standards involved. Irrespective of the linkage between Iran's nuclear program and regional policies, which are rejected by the west as well as Arab and Muslim states that consider this program a platform for Tehran's acquiring regional bargaining chips and intervening in the region's countries, Israel for decades has used “nuclear ambiguity” to enjoy regional superiority and deterrence in order to pursue policies that are the most hateful and harmful for the region. These include occupation, mistreatment, and the attempt to erase the identity of an entire people, the Palestinians, not to mention submitting all Arab countries to its will, in all areas, such as politics, the economy and security. The west has declined to raise the issue of Israel's nuclear program over the decades, while employing many pretexts. These include an understanding of the Jewish state's possessing nuclear weapons as a deterrent force for a people that experienced the Holocaust, as well as the argument that the matter involves the identity of the nuclear state in question: the argument is that Israel is a democracy resembling western countries, meaning that its decision-making mechanisms do not permit the random use of nuclear weapons, such as in the case of dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. This pretext was cooked up by the neoconservatives in America before they took office in 2000, and they have continued to repeat it after their decline in the middle of the last decade, followed by their defeat by Barack Obama at the end of 2008. Although this pretext is invalid, politically and morally, bearing in mind the ugly massacres committed by Israel against the Palestinians over the last decades, a question does arise: If Israel has committed crimes against humanity, which the famous Goldstone report on Gaza revealed, not to speak of other crimes and massacres, using the traditional weapons it has, then these acts reveal that Israel's leaders are the type that would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons. Has the west truly begun to discover this, not just in media terms, but through the commitment by the five powers to make the Middle East an area free of nuclear weapons? One might say that this commitment was directed primarily at Iran. The logical approach indicates that Tehran's progress in obtaining nuclear technology has been an incentive for the big powers to take a stance that could lead to holding Israel accountable for its nuclear program. However, the facts require us to note also that there has been firm insistence by Arab and Muslim countries to raise the issue of Israel's having nuclear weapons decades ago (in cooperation with the Non-Aligned Nations). We should also take note of the changes in international public opinion when it comes to Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people and its huge sacrifices in terms of blood, lives and property, which cannot be compared to any other sacrifices. These have served as key factors in prompting the international change in terms of the possibility of approaching the issue of Israel's nuclear arsenal. In addition, Obama announced his nuclear doctrine a month ago, one that is based on not resorting to nuclear weapons only in the event of extreme necessity, and also excludes countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Although this exception does not immediately cover its Israeli ally, it puts on the table the issue of (Israel's) signing the NPT, which includes inspections and end to the policy of nuclear ambiguity, which the west has flagrantly put up with. Without engaging in self-delusion about whether the five permanent members of the Security Council will knock on Israel's door right away, the development indicates a new international trend and poses the question: will the Obama administration go as far as waving this card at Israel, as part of the tug-of-war between it and the Jewish state with regard to pursuing a peaceful solution to the Palestinian issue? If the above is a legitimate question, then how will Arab states take advantage of this commitment and play their role in the international arena, by rendering it a source of permanent pressure on Israel, as one way to force Israel to enter a settlement that favors Palestinian rights? There is another aspect to this commitment. If it is true that the west is hinting that it might move toward holding Israel accountable for its nuclear ambiguity, will the west boost its position in terms of escalating the demand for holding Iran accountable, and thus strengthen the move toward sanctions by the big powers? This assumes that Tehran undertake a different policy that will not benefit from the arrogance of calling on the great powers to include it as a partner in “ruling the world.”
