http://www.iht.com/articles/541294.html

JERUSALEM For a number of years, I took part in talks involving Israelis and Egyptians on measures toward a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. Many meetings were in a seminar room in Cairo with a huge satellite image of the Middle East behind the conference table. And after the Egyptians demanded that Israel end its “special status” and join the rest of the world (except India and Pakistan) by signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, I would refer to this image.

Egypt was in the center, filling over half the wall. On its eastern border, Israel occupied a sliver of land tucked in between Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Yes, I agreed -there is a double standard. You have a huge territory, a population 10 times that of Israel, no threats to your national survival and many Arab allies.

In contrast, when my children look at an atlas, they need a magnifying glass to find “Isr.,” and find no friendly neighbors to come to our aid when we’re attacked. I then proposed a trade: Egypt’s territorial and other assets for Israel’s nuclear-deterrent option. But there were no takers.

Now, we hear similar words from Iran -albeit indirectly, since the officials in Tehran refuse to sit at the same table with members of the hated Zionist entity. In UN speeches and op-ed articles, the United States and Israel are again being accused of “double standards” by denying the Iranian regime the “right” to produce nuclear weapons.

In the routine version of this claim, nuclear weapons stand alone and entirely separate from any other factor. The huge differences between Iran and Israel are simply erased from reality ­without mention of the major imbalances that have convinced most Israelis to view nuclear deterrence as a successful policy that has insured national survival for almost four decades.

Beyond the imbalances in territory and population, the most important differences are related to core values and objectives. The leaders of Iran’s Islamic Republic (including the unelected “supreme leader”) routinely deny the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty and threaten genocide, but there is no Israeli equivalent.

Iran parades Shahab missiles with signs saying “Wipe Israel Off the Map,” and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani speaks about the destruction of Israel. In this closed and radical environment, international commitment and treaty pledges are meaningless and readily ignored.

Iranian words of mass destruction are accompanied by actions and policies that are also without an Israeli equivalent. The Karine A weapons ship caught in January 2002 carrying tons of explosives and shoulder-launched missiles toward Gaza came from Iran. Hezbollah, the terror group based in Lebanon that continues to attack Israelis, is led, financed and trained by Iran. Iran and Hezbollah also work closely with Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups, preparing and dispatching suicide bombers. The attempt to blow up a chemical plant in the Israeli port of Ashdod, which could have produced a mega-terror attack with thousands of deaths, was led by Hezbollah.

In this dimension, there is also no Israeli equivalent in terms of sending terrorists to blow up buses in Tehran, Shiraz or Qum. And the involvement of Iran’s radical Islamic regime in terror does not only focus on Israelis, but has been traced to many other targets, including Americans (still “the great Satan”). In the murky hell of Iraq’s car bombs and other mass attacks, evidence of Iranian involvement is becoming stronger. The dangers from the Iranian regime’s revolutionary foreign policy would be far greater when backed by nuclear weapons.

Thus, when the comparison between Israel and Iran is extended beyond the single nuclear dimension, the situation is quite reversed. The double standard comes from attempts to justify Iran’s nonproliferation violations and to explain away missiles on parade accompanied by genocidal slogans.

Demands that Israel immediately relinquish its “weapon of last resort” would leave the extremists in Iran and elsewhere with the ability to escalate attacks on “the Zionist enemy” without fear of massive response. And calls for instant creation of regional treaties, without the underlying foundation of mutual acceptance, are misplaced myths.

In this environment, combined international pressure is necessary to force Iran to halt its drive toward a nuclear arsenal. Perhaps future Iranian leaders will follow Anwar Sadat’s example, end support for terror and hatred, and invite us to Tehran to talk about history and how this part of the world looks from space. At that point, instead of the polemics of “double standards,” we can resume discussions toward a regional nuclear-free zone that might actually succeed.

Gerald Steinberg is Director of the Department of Conflict Resolution at Bar-Ilan University and a member of SPME Board of Directors.