For peace in the Middle East and the world apply pressure and sanctions on Israel
by Haluk Özdalga*

İstanbul will once more host the nuclear talks between the P5+1 group and Iran. The P5+1 group includes five big nuclear powers including the US, Russia, China, Britain and France, as well as Germany. These Western countries led by the US ask for strong supervision of the Iranian nuclear program, and transparency in the process and prevention of Iran’s nuclear weapon production. Western countries’ opposition to the Iranian nuclear program represents a rare hypocrisy and double standard.

Israel’s weapons of mass destruction

For 45 years Israel has been making nuclear weapons with plutonium, which is acquired by reprocessing the fuel rods used in the nuclear power plants. Israel created its first nuclear weapon shortly before the 1967 war, with plutonium acquired from the Dimona reactor, constructed in 1960s in the Negev Desert. The plutonium that has been produced in this facility since then serves as the main source for Israeli nuclear weapons-grade plutonium. But nobody knows the exact number of Israeli nuclear weapons because the official Israeli stance, known as “amimut” in Hebrew, does not permit disclosing this information. Amimut literally means opacity or ambiguity; in other words, it represents the opposite of transparency.

The Dimona Power station’s initial capacity was set to 24-26 megawatts but it has been gradually increased to 150 megawatts (and some even argue that its current capacity is 200 megawatts). For one single nuclear weapon, four to five kilograms of plutonium are needed. A one-megawatt power station generates 0.9-1 gram of plutonium in 24 hours. There have been no reports on the power at the Dimona station, when its capacity was increased, or to what amount. But simple assessments based on reasonable assumptions show that Dimona could have easily generated 2,000 kilograms of plutonium.

On the other hand, it is also known that Israel is able to make one nuclear warhead with 4.4 kilograms of plutonium. It is known that Israel has smuggled radioactive materials and substances suitable for making nuclear weapons, especially from Europe. And it is known that Israel has enriched uranium by both the centrifuge and laser methods. This proves that Israel currently has 400 nuclear warheads. Some experts even argue they could have more. Additionally, Israel has a hydrogen bomb (thermonuclear bomb), which is far more destructive than an atomic bomb, as well as other weapons of mass destruction including chemical and biological weapons which, as confirmed by the US Congress Office, are designed for offensive purposes.

A scary strategic outlook

The Israeli strategic outlook mainly consists of six points: non-transparency (amimut), prohibition of public control, avoiding the provision of correct information, the us of disproportionate force, a tendency to annihilate (the Samson Option) and remaining outside of the sphere of international law.

Non-transparency is not limited to technical information alone. More importantly, Israel has not drafted any doctrine or made any statement to explain when and how it would use nuclear weapons. Every country that possesses nuclear arms has announced a strategic doctrine. For instance, China, India and Pakistan have declared that they will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. Under its doctrine, the US has pledged not to use these weapons against non-nuclear countries and to rely on them as a deterrent against nuclear aggression from other countries. Britain has declared that it would use nuclear weapons only against countries that use weapons of mass destruction. But Israel has not declared it’s strategic doctrine. Instead, it seems to hold a “circumstantial doctrine.” This policy of Israel (amimut) refers to uncertainty and poses an alarming risk in the Middle East.

Israel’s prohibition of public scrutiny is a continuation of the policy of non-transparency. But it actually refers to a different situation. Any discussion of this matter by the Israeli public based on information acquired through different means is prohibited. The military board of censorship bans any discussion of Israel’s nuclear arms in the media. This is not something that can be observed in any democratic country. Due to this policy, the Israeli public opinion is unable to influence the administration and stage a democratic inspection of public policies.

Israeli statesmen and politicians rarely make statements on this matter and when they do, they do not tell the truth. The most visible example of this is a remark that many famous Israeli politicians, including current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have frequently made: Israel would not be the first country to introduce nuclear arms to the Middle East. Aside from the ambiguity in this statement, it is obviously not consistent with reality.

Israel has tended to use its weapons of mass destruction disproportionally to the actual danger posed; even in conflicts involving conventional weapons that pose no great risk for its security, Israel has deployed or used these weapons. In the 1967 war that broke out shortly after Israel manufactured its first nuclear weapons, they were loaded into the artillery batteries. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, at least 108 nuclear warheads were installed in Israel’s missiles; eight F4 warplanes equipped with nuclear warheads were kept in high alarm for a possible attack on Damascus and Cairo. In the 2008 Gaza offensive, chemical weapons were used despite the fact that there was no vital threat posed by the people of Gaza.

The well-known Israeli strategy for deterrence is collective destruction, referred to as the Samson Option to by prominent Israeli leaders including David Ben Gurion and Simon Peres. This doctrine was inspired by a story in the Torah about Samson, who killed those around him when he realized he would die. With this strategy, if Israel concludes that its existence is threatened, Israel will mobilize all military capabilities for complete destruction. This could involve attacking not only the source of the threat, but others as well. Martin van Creveld from Hebrew University comments on this sick approach in David Hirst’s “The Gun and the Olive Branch” (2003), saying:

“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”

Another interesting aspect of Israel’s stance is that it has not ratified any international convention on weapons of mass destruction. It is not party to the UN-brokered conventions on nuclear non-proliferation and chemical and biological weapons. In this way, Israel keeps itself out of international law.

Pressure should be exerted upon Israel as well

In terms of weapons of mass destruction, Israel is the biggest threat in the region. The primary reason for a probable nuclear race in the Middle East is not the Iranian nuclear program; the primary reason is Israeli nuclear weaponry, as well as the scary strategic stance summarized above. Unless Israel is stopped, the pursuit of nuclear weapons in the region will not cease. Western countries should stop overlooking Israeli policies and acting hypocritically. If pressure is to be exerted upon Iran, it must also be exerted upon Israel.

Germany’s sale of Dolphin submarines to Israel, which has improved this country’s capacity to destroy, is a striking example and a symbol of the irresponsible actions of Western states. This irresponsibility could open the gates to the hell and lead to the extermination of millions of people and unspeakable disasters in the region.

At this point, it should be noted that Turkey’s attitude on the Iranian nuclear program and Turkish-Iranian relations should be separated. Recent developments have shown that both states hold diverse visions for the Middle East. Every state considers its national interests in their foreign policies; in promoting its interests, a state seeks to rely on fundamental principles as much as possible. Where national interests and values conflict, each state must pursue its own vision.

Turkey’s vision for the Middle East requires that it support popular demand in the aftermath of Arab Spring for democracy and freedom. On the other hand, it must sustain its cooperation with other countries in the region regardless of their regimes. But exploiting sectarian differences that became more visible with the outcome of recent developments would be disruptive in the long run. In the end, Turkey cannot support the unilateral hegemony of any state in the region. Of course Iran’s ambition to become a regional power is legitimate. But as confirmed by recent events, it is obvious that Iran has a different vision for the Middle East.2

*Haluk Özdalga is an AK Party Ankara deputy. You can reach him at haluk.ozdalga@tbmm.gov.tr