Israelis support nuclear-free Mideast: poll

<snip>

"A strong majority of Israeli Jews support a Middle East where neither Iran nor Israel nor any other country has nuclear weapons, according to a poll published on Thursday.

"By a ratio of two to one, Israelis support an agreement that would make the Middle East a nuclear weapon free zone, including Iran and Israel," said the poll published by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

They advocated "a system of full inspections of all facilities where nuclear components are built or stored," according to the poll carried out by the center at the Brookings Institution think tank.

"Given a choice of two options, one where both Israel and Iran have nuclear weapons and one where neither has them, 65 percent of Israeli Jews support the latter while only 19 percent support the former," it added.

It also said that 90 percent of Israeli Jews believe that Iran will eventually build atomic weapons."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiACT__oXa27Xi2e7uzW3OJrBh8A?docId=CNG.309349e8719ae5116610155a1dcd9e69.211

It seems to have left out important questions. One is, "Would you rather have a nuclear free middle east or one where only Israel had nuclear weapons?" Another is, "Assuming Iran gains a nuclear capability, would you want Israel to dismantle all of its nuclear weapons without positive confirmation that Iran had dismantled all of its weapons?" And, "Do you believe that it is possible to obtain positive confirmation that Iran has dismantled its nuclear capabilities?"

The poll as posted answers the question of what Israelis would want in a perfect world. However, if we had a perfect world, then there wouldn't be nuclear weapons in the middle east in the first place.

"As long as Israel possesses nuclear weapons, do you think it is inevitable that other countries in the region will seek to have them also?"

or,

"Israel has a larger nuclear weapons program than India, Pakistan and North Korea combined. Do you think that Israel spends too much money on nuclear weapons and not enough on social programs?"

or,

"Do you think that Israel's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty makes it more difficult for Israel to demand that other countries comply with it?"

All good questions I think.

"As long as Israel possesses nuclear weapons, do you think it is inevitable that other countries in the region will seek to have them also?"

The problem with this question is that it assumes that the only reason that a nuclear middle east is inevitable is that Israel already has those weapons. That simply isn't true. The situation is much more complex than that. The drive for nuclear weapons is driven by, among other things, internal considerations of the various dictatorships; the existence of Israel and Pakistan as nuclear armed states, the conflict with Israel, inter-Arab conflict, the need of states in the region to show how modern and advanced they are, and the need to stick one in the fact of the colonial powers. So it isn't a fair question, because a nuclear Mideast is likely inevitable even if Israel had no nuclear weapons.

"Israel has a larger nuclear weapons program than India, Pakistan and North Korea combined. Do you think that Israel spends too much money on nuclear weapons and not enough on social programs?"

If you had left off, "and not enough on social programs," I would have said this was a good question. However, there simply isn't an either/or relationship between military and domestic spending. Israel could spend too much on nuclear weapons and just enough on social programs. It could spend not enough on both. It could spend too much on both.

"Do you think that Israel's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty makes it more difficult for Israel to demand that other countries comply with it?"

This might be a decent question, but the thoughtful answer would have to be "no." States comply with treaties for a variety of reasons having to do with what is in their interests. Whether Israel is a signatory to the NPT doesn't seem like it would impact the interests of other states in the slightest. I could see a state making the case that they should be able to sell nuclear fuel in violation of the NPT because Israel is doing it, and those states don't want to lose out on sales. But that isn't what is happening. As far as I know, Israel isn't selling nuclear fuel and taking sales away from other countries. What's happening is that states are trying to obtain nuclear weapons. As I discuss above, they do that for a lot of reasons having nothing to do with Israel's adherence to the NPT.

"The problem with this question is that it assumes that the only reason that a nuclear middle east is inevitable is that Israel already has those weapons."

No it does not. It does not in fact assume that the only reason for middle Eastern states wanting nuclear weapons is because Israel has them. Consider for example the following question:-

"As long as corner shops are permitted to sell alcohol until 6am in the morning, it is inevitable that there will be street violence and violence towards women."

The above question does not assume that the only reason for violence towards women is that corner shops are allowed to sell alcohol. There might also be a panoply of other reasons for violence towards women. Some men might be violent to women even in the absence of alcohol. However, the fact that alcohol is freely available at all hours of the night means that street and domestic violence is pretty much a given, irrespective of all those other considerations. Similarly, the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons makes in inevitable that their strategic rivals will also want them, irrespective of whether they may have wanted them anyway.

"This might be a decent question, but the thoughtful answer would have to be "no." States comply with treaties for a variety of reasons having to do with what is in their interests. Whether Israel is a signatory to the NPT doesn't seem like it would impact the interests of other states in the slightest."

I take that as a tacit admission that the question is in fact a decent one, but one which you are reluctant to concede. Obviously, Israel's anti-nuclear credibility is harmed because (a) it has nuclear weapons, (b) it acquired them in large part by deceiving the American weapons inspectors that were sent to monitor its nuclear sites and (c) it is not a signatory to the NPT.

The main rhetorical problem for Israel is justifying its own possession of nuclear weapons while maintaining that other states in the region should not be accorded that privilege. Traditionally, you could point to the fact that the Arab states were dictatorships and that Israel was a democracy, but the rise of democracy and the Arab world and its relative decline in Israel in recent times makes that a bit more of a difficult proposition.

I think the questions that were asked in the poll were good ones, and it's heartening to see that such a large number of those polled preferred to see a region with no nuclear weapons and/or a system of full inspections for those who possess them.