Palestine and making the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction

Palestine and making the Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction

Omar Shaban*

Historical background:

In 1968 the United Nations adopted the agreement on preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, known as the “nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, NPT”, to serve as an international agreement aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and technology and promoting cooperation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. This treaty was opened for signature, and most of the world's countries signed and ratified it, including the five nuclear-weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China.

At the level of the Middle East region, the international efforts aimed at establishing a zone in the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and biological, began in 1974 when Egypt and Iran submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations a draft resolution to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region. According to the United Nations' definition of the Middle East region, being that region which includes all the Arab states, Iran and Israel, one single state in this region possesses a nuclear arsenal, namely Israel. There are also strong indications that some Middle Eastern states possess, manufacture or use other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons. While efforts continue in Asia and in the Middle East to reach similar agreements, these efforts have not so far succeeded in encouraging the countries of the Middle East region to make it a zone stripped of weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, and it appears that this goal is still out of reach if it has not grown more difficult, since the competition to possess this weapon is increasing because of the state of conflict the Middle East region is living through and the non-resolution of the Palestinian cause, and because Israel is the only state believed to possess nuclear capability according to many indications confirming this; likewise the aspiration of the Islamic Republic of Iran to possess nuclear capabilities is growing, as are the rudimentary efforts made in the past by Syria and Iraq. And while the Islamic Republic of Iran aspires to possess nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes, and Iran has declared several times that it seeks to possess nuclear capability for peaceful purposes, the international community has strong doubts that Iran may wish to use the same nuclear fuel cycle to go towards a military nuclear programme; there is nothing that clearly confirms or refutes this. On another level, there are many strong indications confirming Israel's possession of the nuclear weapon, among them the leaks of the Israeli expert Mordechai Vanunu, who worked at the Dimona reactor and was abducted and then imprisoned by the Israeli authorities because he divulged secrets and information about its nuclear capabilities. Taking into account that Israel has neither officially confirmed nor denied its possession of the nuclear weapon.

The Palestinian position:

Last week I took part in a conference organised by the United Nations Association of Britain, held inside the Scottish Parliament and in cooperation with it, in the capital of Scotland, the city of “Edinburgh”. The conference discussed the idea of making the Middle East region a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. The conference witnessed a heavy attendance of experts, academics, ministers and ambassadors of some Arab and Western countries, given the importance of the subject. I strove to present what the Palestinian position on this issue might be, despite my attempts to obtain the official position of the Palestinian Authority on the matter; therefore I stress that this position reflects my own point of view only:

• The Palestinian Authority is not a full member of the United Nations, and therefore it is not required of it, nor is it entitled, to sign the agreements on the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction.

• The Palestinian territories are still under Israeli occupation, which obliges the occupying state to protect the occupied people under its control, as stipulated by the Geneva Conventions and the resolutions of the United Nations. Israel is therefore obliged to protect the Palestinian people from any nuclear attack, and the duty falls upon it to take all necessary measures for that, for example but not limited to distributing masks protecting against lethal gases to the whole Palestinian people as it does with its own citizens, and building shelters for protection.

• Palestine, in its capacity as a member of the League of Arab States, will necessarily take the same position as the Arab states expressed by the Arab League, namely commitment to preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East region.

• The Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people are not part of the nuclear conflict taking place in the Middle East region, despite bearing its consequences on many occasions. The Palestinian people are therefore among the strongest supporters of halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction of all kinds.

• In all the peace talks with Israel the Palestinian leadership has affirmed its clear position that the Palestinians are struggling for an independent state possessing a very conventional measure of armament necessary to achieve security for its citizens.

• Palestinian society gives little attention to this important issue, which receives great attention at the international level, because Palestinian society is preoccupied with political, social and economic challenges, the most important of them deliverance from the occupation, building the institutions of the state and achieving sustainable development.

• Israel claims that it seeks to possess nuclear weapons with the aim of protecting itself from the hostile environment surrounding it, while other states such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and some Gulf states seek to possess nuclear capability in order to create a balance of power and strengthen deterrence in the face of external dangers, and some of them stress the peaceful nature of their nuclear ambition. The lessons of history have proved that agreements in themselves are not enough to preserve peace and stability; rather stability comes through removing the causes of conflict and treating the problems that push towards an arms race. It may therefore be unrealistic to seek to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East before peace is established in the region, the conflict is resolved and the Palestinians are given their right to freedom and an independent state

June 2012

Gaza

*Founder and director of Pal-Think for Strategic Studies in Gaza www.palthink.org omar@palthink.org