Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: Israel

  • Lurching Toward Regional War in the Middle East

    Israeli moves toward all out war in Gaza and Lebanon seem linked to wider dangers of a regional war with severe global consequences. By interpreting these wider dangers it is not meant to minimize the human suffering and regressive political effects of current carnage in these two long tormented war zones. Looking at this bigger picture is crucial for its own sake, but also helps us understand the immediate crises more fully than if as officially presented by Israel, and unfortunately echoed by many governments around the world.

    Whatever else, this outbreak of major two-front violence is not about Israel’s right to defend it against an enemy that is seriously threatening its territorial integrity or political independence, the only grounds for justifiable war. To treat border incidents, involving a few casualties from rockets and the abduction of a single Israeli soldier by a Gazan militia and two by Hezbollah in south Lebanon, as if it were an occasion of war is a gross distortion of well-accepted international law and state practice. To justify legally a claim of self-defense requires a full-scale armed attack across Israeli borders. If every violent border incident or terrorist provocation were to be so regarded as an act of war, the world would be aflame. If India had responded to the recent Mumbai train explosions that killed some 200 Indian civilians as a Pakistani act of war, the result would have been a devastating regional war, quite possibly fought with nuclear weapons. There are many other flashpoints around the world that might justify police methods in reaction to provocations, and in extreme instances, specific military responses across borders. If such occasions were viewed as acts of war the consistent result would be catastrophe. Recent Hamas/Hezbollah provocations, even if interpreted through a self-serving Israeli lens, were not of a scale or threat that warranted large-scale military actions that are directed at a wide array of targets unrelated to the specific incidents and causing severe damage to civilians and the entire civilian infrastructure of society (water, electricity, roads, bridges).

    The exaggerated Israeli response, together with circumstantial evidence, suggests that Israel used the Hamas/Hezbollah incidents as pretexts to pursue a much wider and long-planned security agenda directed at Palestine and Lebanon and, beyond this, as an opportunity for a political restructuring of the entire region in partnership with the United States. In this regard, as George W. Bush’s comments at the St. Petersburg G-8 summit emphasized, the real responsibility for the anti-Israeli incidents should be associated with Syria and Iran given their support of Hamas and Hezbollah. It does require a deep reading of international relations to recall that both right wing Israeli opinion and the neoconservative worldview that has dominated American foreign policy during the Bush presidency advances a vision of world order based upon a comprehensive political restructuring of the Middle East, starting with “regime change” in Iraq.

    What Israel is undertaking is a change of tactics with respect to the pursuit of this regional vision. The initial plan seems to have been based on a decisive military and political victory in Iraq followed by an essentially diplomatic campaign to exert major pressure on other problematic governments in the region, relying on The Greater Middle East Project of “democratization” to do the heavy lifting without further military action. Instead, what has occurred has been failure and frustration in Iraq, which has turned into an American quagmire, but more seriously, a consistent set of electoral outcomes throughout the region that have discredited a political approach to the regional vision embraced by Washington and Tel Aviv with the goal of achieving compliant Arab governments that are passive with respect to Palestinian aspirations and accepting of American hegemony. These geopolitical disappointments began to be revealed in the Iraqi sequence of elections, which even under conditions of the American occupation and a hostile resistance, produced clear victories for Islamic political forces and stinging repudiations of the sort of compliant secularists that Washington backed. Similar outcomes, with less dramatic results, were evident in elections held in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which together with the election of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as President of Iran, apparently sent a clear message that the more democratic the political process, the more likely it was to produce an anti-American, anti-Israeli leadership. The Hamas victory in the January elections in the Palestinian Territories culminated this disillusionment with the democratic path to security, as envisioned by Israel and the United States, for the region.

    But rather than abandon geopolitical ambitions, it appears from recent developments that Israel is testing the waters for all out regional war, either with covert encouragement from the US Government, or at the very least, a green light from Washington to ignite a bonfire. Of course, there are other factors at work. The Israeli leadership, especially its military commanders, never accepted being pushed out of southern Lebanon by Hezbollah, and the politicians appear to hold the Palestinian people responsible for the election of a “terrorist” leadership and, thus, deserving of punishment. Furthermore, the anti-Syrian Lebanese response to the assassination of Hariri on February 14, 2005 was hoped to result in a more robust Lebanese political leadership that would effectively disarm Hezbollah and, thereby, enhance Israeli security. When this did not happen, but rather Hezbollah acquired more potent weaponry, as well as a place in the Lebanese cabinet, it was obvious that the soft Israeli option had failed. Even such a prominent mainstream supporter of Israel as Shlomo Aveneri observes that the real objective of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon is to install a Quisling government in Beirut, which was after all the main objective of the 1982 Sharon-led invasion of the country.

    In relation to the Palestinian conflict, Israel has set for itself a unilateralist course ever since the collapse of the Camp David process in 2000. The Sharon approach, based on Gaza disengagement, the illegal security wall, and the annexation of substantial Palestinian territories to incorporate the main Israeli settlements was always based on moving toward a “solution” without the agreement of the Palestinian leadership. But to move in such a direction in a politically palatable manner required the absence of a Palestinian negotiating partner. First, Arafat was humiliated by direct military attacks on his headquarters and confined as to virtual house arrest; then Abbas was marginalized as too weak to carry weight; and now Hamas has been repudiated as unfit to govern the Palestinians or represent their interests. Against this background, Sharon/Olmert unilateralism appears to be the only option, a worrisome conclusion as it is sure to keep the conflict at boiling point for the indefinite future.

    A further factor is the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Here again Israel and the United States are at the forefront of an insistence that Iran not pursue its legal right to possess a complete nuclear fuel cycle under its sovereign control, although subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that enriched uranium and plutonium are not diverted for military purposes. Whether this unfolding crisis, abetted by the inflammatory language of Ahmedinejad, is part of a deliberate strategy of regional tension devised by Washington and Tel Aviv cannot be determined at this point. What is clear is the selective enforcement of the nonproliferation regime. Several parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Germany, Japan) have complete nuclear fuel cycles under national control; India is being assisted in developing its nuclear technology despite its nuclear weapons program and refusal to become a party to the treaty; Israel itself disallows a nuclear weapons option to other states in the region while maintaining and developing its own arsenal of these weapons; and, of course, the United States throws its nuclear weight around, including developing new categories of nuclear weapons (“bunker-busters” and “mini-nukes”) that are apparently being integrated into battle plans for possible future use.

    This adds up to a confusing picture, but with clear threats of a regional war spiraling out of the present situation, given the Israeli/American vision of security, and the degree to which the control of this region is vital for the energy future of the world as well as decisive in the struggle to withstand the challenge of political Islam.

    There are some factors that are working against such a dismal future: the political/military failure in Iraq, the devastating economic effects of engaging Iran in a war, the rising oil prices, and the opposition of European and Arab countries. But can we be reassured at this point? I think not. Israel tends to view its security ambitions in unconditional terms that are oblivious to wider detrimental consequences. The United States leadership remains wedded to its grand strategy of regional restructuring, and is not encountering political opposition at home or even media criticism as a result of either its support of the Israeli offensives in Gaza and Lebanon or of its efforts to widen the arc of conflict by pulling Syria and Iran into the fray. I fear that what we are witnessing is an extremely risky set of moves to shift the joint Israeli/American regional game plan in an overtly military direction. It always had a military centerpiece associated with the Iraq War, but the basic strategy was based on an easy show of force against a weakened Iraq followed by falling political dominoes elsewhere in the Middle East. Neither the UN, world public opinion, nor regional opposition seem likely to halt this slide toward regional war. We can only hope that prudence somehow remains a restraining force, at least in Washington.

    In concluding, it is obvious that there are wider implications for other countries in the region, especially those faced with ethnic conflict and transnational armed struggle. As tempting as it might be to follow Israel’s lead, the prudent course, especially in light of these dangers of regional war, is to be extremely cautious about undertaking cross-border military operations. The Israeli policies have already backfired to a significant extent, strengthening the political stature of Hezbollah with Lebanon and causing Lebanese public opinion to unite around criticism of Israel’s behavior.

     

    Richard Falk is the Board Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and professor emeritus of Princeton University.

  • Let Mordechai Vanunu Go

    On leaving Israel/Palestine today, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate, who has spent the last 10 days in Israel-Palestine campaigning for an end to the detention of Mordechai Vanunu, said:

    “I believe it is sad and shameful that the Israeli Government continues to detain Mordechai Vanunu for this the 20 year of his internal exile within Israel. He has no secrets. He is no threat to Israeli security. I therefore call upon the Israel Government to uphold Mordechai Vanunu’s human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of movement and let him go.

    I also support his call for a Nuclear Free Israel, Middle East and world and call upon the Israeli Government to open Dimona for inspection, and to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty.

    During my visit I have travelled to Jenin Refugee Camp, Hebron, and Bethlehem in the Israeli Occupied Territories. I have witnessed the daily suffering of the Palestinian people living under an increasing and worsening oppressive Israeli occupation.

    I believe there is a great desire for peace amongst all the people, but in order to move into serious dialogue and negotiations urgent steps, and the political will; particularly from the Israeli Government, need to be taken. I therefore make the following Appeal:

    1. I call upon the International Community, European Community, the United States of America, to intervene to end the 40 year occupation by Israel and to end the Palestinian suffering in Palestinian camps for 60 years. The International Community must not be intimidated and silenced by threats of being anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli, but must be bold in demanding Israel upholds it obligations under International Law.
    2. The way for peace must be for Israel to end the occupation and recognize and respect all the national and international human rights of the Palestinian people.
    3. I call upon the Palestinian people to use the methods of Jesus Christ, Badshan Khan, Gandhi, Martin Luther King of nonviolent resistance to the occupation and apartheid system, which continues to cause so much suffering to their people. And for the International Community to support such a nonviolent resistance by the Palestinian people.
    4. I call upon the Israeli Government to uphold International Court of Justice and dismantle the Apartheid wall, and the Apartheid system of injustice. To recognize the democratically elected Government of the Palestinian people and enter into serious dialogue with their new ‘partner for peace’.
    5. I call upon Israeli Government, European Union, United State, to restore Foreign Aid as the withdrawing of this, is in effect. a collective punishment of the Palestinian people, many of whom already live under great poverty and hardship, due to the continuing illegal occupation and colonization of the Palestinian Territories.
    6. I call upon all Israeli and Palestinian people to continue to hope and believe and act for peace, and to do everything in their power to begin to build trust and friendship amongst each other. Nuclear Weapons, militarism, and emergency laws will not build trust, but overcome the fear of each other, and continuing the great work already being done by both Israeli and Palestinian peace activists, and many others, will bring peace. The Israeli Government can help this process by making it possible for people to actually meet each other, and build a grassroots peace movement together.

    I have great hopes for both Israeli-Palestinian and leave strengthened and upheld by the love and affection I have received from my many Israeli and Palestinian Friends.

    Shalom/Salam,
    Mrs Mairead Corrigan Maguire Nobel Peace Laureate

    Peace People 224 Lisburn Road, Belfast. BT9 Northern Ireland – UK. www.peacepeople.com Tel: (44) (0)2890 663465 Fax: (44) (0)2890 381987 Email Info@peacepeople.com

    Mairead Corrigan Maguire received the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize and the 1991 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. She recently participated in the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2006 International Law Symposium, “At the Nuclear Precipice: Nuclear Weapons and the Abandonment of International Law.”

  • Vanunu Should Get Nobel Peace Prize

    UNITED NATIONS — U.S. whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says Mordechai Vanunu should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for revealing Israel’s nuclear arsenal and be allowed to travel the world to promote the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    Ellsberg, whose disclosure of secret Pentagon documents about the Vietnam war helped crystallize anti-war sentiment in the United States in the early 1970s, urged delegates from 188 countries attending a conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to strongly protest Israel’s restrictions on Vanunu’s speech and travel and his likely return to prison.

    Vanunu, a former technician at Israel’s nuclear plant in the southern town of Dimona, served 18 years in prison for divulging information about Israel’s secretive atomic program to a British newspaper in 1986. He has been barred from leaving the country until at least April 2006 and went on trial last month for allegedly violating a condition of his 2004 release that banned contacts with foreigners.

    Ellsberg, who said he recently spent five days with Vanunu in Israel, dismissed the government’s claim that Vanunu still has secrets that could endanger national security as “absurd.”

    “It’s clearly an attempt to prolong his sentence indefinitely, sending him back to prison for years,” Ellsberg told reporters Wednesday before addressing the review conference.

    “The message this sends to potential Vanunus in other states is very clear, and the question at this conference is whether the nations of the world should encourage or strongly protest that message,” he said. “The fact is more Vanunus are urgently needed in this world.”

    Ellsberg said that if, for instance, an Indian technician had revealed the country’s plan for a nuclear test, international pressure might have prevented it — and “how much better India, Pakistan and the world would be.”

    In the early 1960s, Ellsberg said he was working in the Pentagon on command and control of nuclear weapons and nuclear war plans and should have done what Vanunu did and “tell my country and the world the insanity and moral obscenity of our war planning, which remains the same today.”

    “I regret profoundly that I did not reveal that fact publicly, with documents,” he said.

    Ellsberg, who spoke on behalf of the non-profit Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which promotes the abolition of nuclear weapons, said Israel today is probably the third or fourth-largest nuclear state — behind the United States and Russia, and possibly France.

    He said Vanunu is reported to have revealed in 1986 that Israel had about 200 nuclear weapons. Vanunu has estimated that at the same rate of production Israel had when he left Dimona in 1985, the country should have close to 400 weapons today, Ellsberg said.

    That’s more than Britain, China, India and Pakistan, and probably more than France, he said.

    Israel neither acknowledges nor denies having a nuclear weapons program, following a policy of nuclear ambiguity.

    Ellsberg said British nuclear scientist Joseph Rotblat, who won the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize for his work against nuclear weapons with the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, has repeatedly nominated Vanunu for the award.

    “He should get the Nobel Peace Prize as Joseph Rotblat has frequently recommended,” he said.

  • Vanunu Faces New Prison Term

    The travails of Mordechai Vanunu continue.

    Last week, the Israeli government indicted the former nuclear technician on 22 counts of violating restrictions it had imposed upon him last April. A hearing date has not yet been announced.

    During the past year Vanunu has openly defied the Israeli authorities. Indeed, on the very day, last spring, when he completed his 18 year sentence for treason, Vanunu walked out of Ashkelon prison to the cheers of his supporters and immediately violated the government’s restrictions by issuing a press statement on the nuclear issue.

    Who would have guessed that this brave man would not only survive 18 years in a 6X9 foot windowless cell, eleven and a half of them in solitary confinement, not to mention near-continuous harassment by his handlers, but would emerge unbowed and unbroken, as plucky as ever? Vanunu’s resiliency is amazing.

    He has made it known that he wishes to leave Israel, settle in the US, and have a life. Yet, Mordechai has also refused to be muzzled. He is blessed with the gift of gab, and during the last year, in numerous interviews with the world press, he has been an articulate spokesperson for a nuclear-free Middle East. Vanunu has warned of the grave perils of a nuclear disaster. He has called upon the Israeli government to sign the NPT, open the country’s nuclear sites to IAEA inspection, close down the aging and unsafe Dimona reactor, and take immediate steps in concert with other states in the region to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ). Vanunu has also roundly condemned Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

    All of this has alarmed the Sharon government. At a time when Israel’s leaders have been threatening war on Iran for its alleged (but unproven) secret nuclear weapons program, the last thing they need is this pest Vanunu going around blabbing about Israel’s enormous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Mordechai is the mite under their skin, the irritant that keeps them scratching at the nuclear rash. Obviously, they want to make him go away (permanently) by putting him back in a cell. Out of sight (as in forever) and especially out of earshot of the world press. Will they succeed? Will the world stand idly by while they bury Vanunu a second time?

    The day before his indictment, Mordechai and several other peace activists spoke at a press conference in Jerusalem, organized by Rayna Moss of the Committee to Free Vanunu. Mordechai said: “I did not seek to harm Israel, but rather to warn of an enormous danger. I do not seek to harm Israel, now. I want to work for world peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons. I want the human race to survive.”

    He continued: “I’d like to address world leaders here for the Holocaust Museum ceremony. They have come to commemorate the Jewish holocaust which took place 60 years ago, but they must acknowledge that the threat of a future holocaust is the nuclear holocaust.”

    Other speakers included Moss; Dan Ellsberg, former Pentagon insider who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon Papers; attorney Jennifer Harbury (from the US), author and director of the STOP Torture Campaign; and also Fredrik Heffermehl, a Norwegian author/attorney who is the Vice President of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms.

    The Israeli government claims that despite Vanunu’s 18 years in prison he remains in possession of nuclear secrets, and for this reason is still a threat to Israel’s security. The claim is bogus, as Dan Ellsberg pointed out in his statement: “Mordechai Vanunu has no secret information. He has one huge secret which he revealed on April 21 last year. That after 18 years of imprisonment and solitary confinement and mistreatment a person can still come out sane, articulate, compassionate. This is the secret that no regime wants its citizens to know.” He then added, “Mordechai is a prophet, and the scriptures say that prophets are never appreciated in their own country.”

    Ellsberg called on Israel to lift the restrictions on Vanunu: “At the time of the American revolution, when we freed ourselves from the British empire, we didn’t retain any of their laws and regulations. The time has come for…Israel to also free itself from the State of Emergency regulations of the British Empire.”

    Israel has no first amendment and no Bill of Rights. The restrictions imposed upon Vanunu (prohibiting him from traveling abroad, contacting foreign citizens and media, and controlling his movement inside Israel) are based on the 1945 State of Emergency Regulations introduced by the British during the period of the Mandate. Since 1948 Israel has continued to operate under this antiquated legal structure, which allows the Israeli government to penalize individuals without trial, indefinitely. The regulations are used frequently to detain Palestinians. Nor have Israel’s courts challenged the system. For example, in July 2004 Israel’s Supreme Court rejected Vanunu’s appeal of his restrictions.

    Evidently, the Sharon government was not listening to Ellsberg. The very next day they indicted Vanunu, though at this juncture it remains uncertain whether they intend to use the court process, i.e., put Vanunu on trial, or apply the draconian emergency regulations.

    If there is a silver lining, here, it is the likelihood that Israel’s leaders, in their limitless arrogance, may overreach. They seem perpetually on the brink. Vanunu has been nominated again this year for the Nobel Peace Prize, and who knows? The Nobel committee may yet redeem its many recent blunders by actually doing something noble. If Israel continues to harass Vanunu, he might get it…

    That would surely touch off an explosion in the Sharon government louder than a Sahab-III missile.

    (Thanks to the Campaign to Free Vanunu for details used in preparing this report. A special thank you to Rayna Moss.)

    Mark Gaffney is the author of Dimona, the Third Temple, a pioneering 1989 study of the Israeli nuke program. Mark’s latest is Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, released last spring by Inner Traditions Press.

  • Letter from The Rt Revd Riah H Abu El-Assal in Jerusalem on the arrest of Mordechai Vanunu from St George’s Cathedral Close

    The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & The Middle East The Diocese of Jerusalem

    The Rt Revd Riah H Abu El-Assal

    11 November 2004

    To: a.. The Most Revd Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury b.. The Most Revd Frank Tracy Griswold Presiding Bishop of ECUSA c.. The Most Revd Andrew Hutchinson Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada d.. The Most Revd Peter Carnley Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia e.. The Australian Board of Mission f.. The Revd Canon John L. Peterson Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council g.. The Revd Samuel Kobia General Secretary of the World Council of Churches h.. Mr Jeries Saleh Middle East Council of Churches i.. The Heads of Churches in Jerusalem

    It is with tremendous grief and sadness that I inform you that the Israeli special police force entered St George’s Cathedral Close today without permission and took Mordechai Vanunu into custody. Approximately thirty officers, many with guns, entered the cathedral gardens and interrupted breakfast in the Pilgrim Guest House. It was a traumatic event that terrorized many of our tourists, pilgrims, and staff. In the 100 years of the cathedral’s history, such an event has never taken place.

    Immediately I related how they have come into a sacred place, and that their guns were not welcome. The officers with guns withdrew to outside of the Cathedral Close; however, it came to my attention later, that at least one of the officers still carried a concealed weapon. This was after I had been reassured that all weapons had been removed from the church grounds. It is inconceivable why such force is mandated for procedures like today’s.

    Mordechai was calm during the search, questioning the need for the interrogation, and they searched his room in his and my presence. They took his papers, laptop, and other possessions into custody. I called his lawyer, and he will meet Mordechai in Petah Tiqva.

    This type of entry into a sacred space must not be tolerated by the churches throughout the world, and it must not be accepted by those who respect the rights and dignity of every person. We ask the government of Israel to stop such actions as these, and we call for the respect of sacred places in the Land of the Holy One. It is with extreme sadness and disappointment that I must write this letter, and please continue to pray for us in these difficult times.

    Peace of God to all of you,

    The Rt Revd Riah Abu El-Assal Bishop in Jerusalem

    cc:

    His Excellency, President Moshe Katsav Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

  • Contesting Iran’s Nuclear Future

    Iran continues to challenge international efforts to hold it accountable for its suspicious nuclear activities. Later this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors will meet to address the issue against the backdrop of growing fear that time to contain the country’s nuclear ambitions is running out. This leaves little doubt that Iran will be high on the Bush administration’s foreign-policy agenda in the months to come.

    To date, the IAEA has relied on public shame to force Iran’s compliance. In the past two years, agency inspectors laid bare much of Tehran’s nuclear program. But suspicions remain that Iran’s ruling mullahs have not revealed all. Should Iran continue to waffle, the international community must decide if it must take more aggressive steps to force the revolutionary state to accede. The following options suggest that there is no clear path.

    The most benign approach would be to continue current IAEA efforts. Arguably, agency inspections and quarterly public reports will, in time, embarrass Iran to resist the nuclear-weapons temptation. This butts against two facts, however. First, suspicions persist that Iran has not come clean about all its nuclear activities. Second, Iran’s enrichment and reprocessing endeavors make no sense apart from nuclear weapons. For example, the solitary power reactor Tehran hopes to initiate in 2005 or 2006 does not justify the economic investment in facilities to recycle nuclear fuel into weapons-grade material.

    Believing that diplomacy had not run its course, Britain, France and Germany opened a dialogue with Iran outside the IAEA framework. In October 2003, the three European powers sent their foreign ministers to Tehran. The diplomats offered economic carrots and peaceful nuclear-energy assistance as a quid pro quo for Iran to halt its developing enrichment program. The meeting prompted cautious optimism: Tehran announced that it would suspend the manufacture of nuclear centrifuges. Nine months later, the mullahs reversed themselves.

    Chagrined, the Europeans renewed the dialogue. The Iranians stonewalled. They declared that “no country has the right to deprive us of nuclear technology.” The Europeans remain undaunted. They continue to try. Today, for instance, they are sitting down with the Iranians in Paris, where they will likely continue to dangle economic incentives in exchange for Tehran’s promise of a halt to Iran’s enrichment program. Tehran’s probable, coy response: It might suspend – again – its enrichment activities, but just for a short time, to give diplomacy a chance.

    Unimpressed, the Bush administration remains convinced that Iran is using diplomacy to buy time for its nuclear ambitions. For months, the administration has pushed the IAEA to declare Tehran in violation of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. The result would place the matter before the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

    But this is another path to nowhere. Iran’s critical vulnerability to sanctions – reliance on the hard currency earned through oil exports – is a double-edged sword. The United States is unlikely to generate Security Council support for measures that will restrict the already tight oil market. Washington also is stuck on its own petard – the Iraq WMD intelligence debacle. In the absence of a nuclear weapons “smoking gun” – certified by the IAEA – the Security Council is unlikely to issue more than a rhetorical slap on the wrist that calls upon the mullahs to reconsider their transgressions.

    Among the dwindling options is confrontation. One option would galvanize members of the Proliferation Security Initiative – which includes a core group of a dozen or so nations that have agreed to intercept WMD contraband – to isolate Iran until it disgorges its nuclear weapons capacity. However, building the PSI into a serious new “alliance of the willing,” in the absence of a clear and present danger, is unlikely.

    Then there is military action. Only military occupation can guarantee Iran’s nuclear disarmament; limited military strikes will not destroy hidden nuclear facilities. But, in the Iraq aftermath, either option would be a hard sell to the American public. On the other hand, Israel, which considers Iran a mortal enemy, does not require a sales job. Jerusalem repeatedly has declared that it will not allow Iran a nuclear weapons capacity. But Israel is in no better position than the United States to destroy the program.

    This leaves two factors that may impact Iran’s nuclear future. One is peaceful regime change. Although there is some hope that a new generation of Iranians – who might be more nonproliferation compliant – will replace the mullahs, there appears to be little prospect in the short term. In time, impetus could come from a thriving democratic Iraq. Unfortunately, Baghdad’s political future will not be resolved anytime soon.

    On the flip side, the United States and its allies could concede that little can be done to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. By accepting this prospect, the challenge will be to keep the nuclear peace. The solution must include an explicit warning to Tehran from Washington and Jerusalem: Any Iranian nuclear threat or act – or any complicity in a terrorist nuclear act – would result in the elimination of the revolutionary regime by any and all means. The time to issue this warning is now, before the mullahs realize their nuclear ambitions. The result might have a sobering impact as Iran weighs a nuclear armed future.

    Bennett Ramberg served in the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

    First published by the San Francisco Chronicle.

  • Israel’s Nukes Serve to Justify Iran’s: Deterring the Deterrents

    The more nuclear arms are lying around, the more the chances of them being used. So to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons is a laudable objective. But for the United States, Britain and France to insist on it is hypocritical.

    These Western powers have argued convincingly for decades that nuclear deterrence keeps the peace – and themselves maintain nuclear armories long after the cold war has ended. So why shouldn’t Iran , which is in one of the world’s most dangerous neighborhoods, have a deterrent too?

    And where is the source of the threat that makes Iran, a country that has never started a war in 200 years, feel so nervous that it must now take the nuclear road? If Saddam Hussein’s Iraq , with its nuclear ambitions, used to be one reason, the other is certainly Israel, the country that hard-liners in the United States are encouraging to mount a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear industry before it produces bombs.

    The United States refuses to acknowledge formally that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though top officials will tell you privately that it has 200 of them. Until this issue is openly acknowledged, America, Britain and France are probably wasting their time trying to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons.

    The supposition is that Israel lives in an even more dangerous neighborhood than Iran. It is said to be a beleaguered nation under constant threat of being eliminated by the combined muscle of its Arab opponents.

    There is no evidence, however, that Arab states have invested the financial and human resources necessary to fight the kind of war that would be catastrophic for Israel. And there is no evidence that Israel’s nuclear weapons have deterred the Arabs from more limited wars or prevented Palestinian intifadas and suicide bombers.

    Nor have Israel ‘s nuclear weapons influenced Arab attitudes toward making peace. In the 1973 Arab war against Israel and in the 1991 Gulf war, they clearly failed in their supposed deterrent effect. The Arabs knew, as the North Vietnamese knew during the Vietnam War, that their opponent would not dare to use its nuclear weapons.

    Israelis say that they need nuclear weapons in case one day an opportunistic Egypt and Syria, sensing that Israel ‘s guard is down, revert to their old stance of total hostility and attack Israel. But, as Zeev Maoz has argued in the journal International Security, these countries keep to their treaty obligations.

    Egypt did not violate its peace treaty with Israel when Israel attacked Syria and Lebanon in 1982. Syria did not violate the May 1974 disengagement agreement with Israel even when its forces were under Israeli attack. Nor did Egypt, Jordan and Syria violate their treaty commitments when the second Palestinian intifada broke out in September 2000.

    Since its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Egypt has reduced its defense spending from 22 percent of its gross national product in 1974 to a mere 2.75 percent in 2002. Syria ‘s has fallen from 26 percent to 6.7 percent. The combined defense expenditures of Egypt , Syria , Jordan and Lebanon amount to only 58 percent of Israel ‘s. It is the Arabs who should be worried by Israel ‘s might, rather than the other way round.

    Israel ‘s nuclear weapons are politically unusable and militarily irrelevant, given the real threats it faces. But they have been very effective in allowing India, Pakistan, Libya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, North Korea and now Iran to think that they, too, had good reason to build a nuclear deterrent.

    Four of these nations have dismantled their nuclear arms factories, which shows that nuclear policies are not cast in stone. The way to deal with Iran is to prove to its leadership that nuclear weapons will add nothing to its security, just as they add nothing to Israel ‘s.

    This may require a grand bargain, which would mean the United States offering a mutual nonaggression pact, ending its embargo over access to the International Monetary Fund and allowing American investment in Iran . It would also mean America coming clean about Israel ‘s nuclear armory and pressuring Israel to forgo its nuclear deterrent.

    If Western powers want to grasp the nettle of nuclear proliferation, they need to take hold of the whole plant, not just one leaf.

    Jonathan Power is a commentator on foreign affairs.

    Originally published by the International Herald Tribune.

  • Support for Wall Mocks International Law

    What is most remarkable about the International Court of Justice decision on Israel’s ”security barrier” in the West Bank is the strength of the consensus behind it. By a vote of 14-1, the 15 distinguished jurists who make up the highest judicial body on the planet found that the barrier is illegal under international law and that Israel must dismantle it, as well as compensate Palestinians for damage to their property resulting from the barrier’s construction.

    The International Court of Justice has very rarely reached this degree of unanimity in big cases. The July 9 decision was even supported by the generally conservative British judge Rosalyn Higgins, whose intellectual force is widely admired in the United States.

    One might expect the government of Ariel Sharon to wave off this notable consensus as an ”immoral and dangerous opinion.” But one might expect the United States — even as it backed its ally Israel — at least to take account of the court’s reasoning in its criticisms. Instead, both the Bush administration and leading Democrats, including Senators John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, mindlessly rejected the decision.

    Even the American justice in The Hague, Thomas Buergenthal, was careful in his lone dissent. He argued that the court did not fully explore Israel’s contention that the wall-and-fence complex is necessary for its security before arriving at its sweeping legal conclusions. But Judge Buergenthal also indicated that Israel was bound to adhere to international humanitarian law, that the Palestinians were entitled to exercise their right of self-determination and, insofar as the wall was built to protect Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, that he had “serious doubt that the wall would. . .satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify as legitimate self-defense.”

    The nuance in Buergenthal’s narrow dissent contrasts sharply with, for instance, Kerry’s categorical statement that Israel’s barrier “is not a matter for the ICJ.”

    To the contrary, Israel’s construction of the wall in the West Bank has flagrantly violated clear standards in international law. The clarity of the violations accounts for the willingness of the U.N. General Assembly to request an advisory opinion on the wall from the court, a right it has never previously exercised in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The clarity also helps to explain Israel’s refusal to participate in the ICJ proceedings — not even to present its claim that the barrier under construction has already reduced the incidence of suicide bombing by as much as 90 percent.

    Significantly, the court confirms that Israel is entitled to build a wall to defend itself from threats emanating from the Palestinian territories if it builds the barrier on its own territory. The justices based their objection to the wall on its location within occupied Palestinian territories, as well as the consequent suffering visited upon affected Palestinians.

    If Israel had erected the wall on its side of the boundary of Israel prior to the 1967 war, then it would not have encroached on Palestinian legal rights. The court’s logic assumes the unconditional applicability of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, to Israel’s administration of the West Bank and Gaza (a principle affirmed by Judge Buergenthal). That body of law obliges Israel to respect the property rights of Palestinians without qualification, and to avoid altering the character of the territory, including by population transfer.

    The decision creates a clear mandate. The ICJ decision, by a vote of 13-2, imposes upon all states an obligation not to recognize ”the illegal situation” created by the construction of the wall. This is supplemented by a 14-1 vote urging the General Assembly and Security Council to “consider what further action is required to bring an end to the illegal situation.”

    Such a plain-spoken ruling from the characteristically cautious International Court of Justice will test the respect accorded international law, including U.S. willingness to support international law despite a ruling against its ally. The invasion of Iraq and the continuing scandals have already tarnished the reputation of the United States as a law-abiding member of the international community. When U.S. officials dismiss the nearly unanimous ICJ decision without even bothering to engage its arguments, America’s reputation suffers further. In fact, elsewhere in the world, U.S. repudiation of this decision can only entrench existing views of America as an international outlaw.

    Richard Falk is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University, and is chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The United States Has Lost its Moral Authority

    Peoples the world around have a history of culture and religion. In the Mideast , the religion is predominantly Muslim and the culture tribal. The Muslim religion is strong, i.e., those that don’t conform are considered infidels; those of a tribal culture look for tribal leadership, not democracy. We liberated Kuwait , but it immediately rejected democracy.

    In 1996, a task force was formed in Jerusalem including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. They submitted a plan for Israel to incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Clean Break. It proposed that negotiations with the Palestinians be cut off and, instead, the Mideast be made friendly to Israel by democratizing it. First Lebanon would be bombed, then Syria invaded on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction. Afterward, Saddam Hussein was to be removed in Iraq and replaced with a Hashemite ruler favorable to Israel .

    The plan was rejected by Netanyahu, so Perle started working for a similar approach to the Mideast for the United States . Taking on the support of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Cambone, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld et al., he enlisted the support of the Project for the New American Century.

    The plan hit paydirt with the election of George W. Bush. Perle took on the Defense Policy Board. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith became one, two and three at the Defense Department, and Cheney as vice president took Scooter Libby and David Wurmser as his deputies. Clean Break was streamlined to go directly into Iraq .

    Iraq , as a threat to the United States , was all contrived. Richard Clarke stated in his book, Against All Enemies, with John McLaughlin of the CIA confirming, that there was no evidence or intelligence of “Iraqi support for terrorism against the United States ” from 1993 until 2003 when we invaded. The State Department on 9/11 had a list of 45 countries wherein al Qaeda was operating. While the United States was listed, it didn’t list the country of Iraq .

    President Bush must have known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq . We have no al Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorism from Iraq ; we were intentionally misled by the Bush administration.

    Which explains why President-elect Bush sought a briefing on Iraq from Defense Secretary William Cohen in January before taking the oath of office and why Iraq was the principal concern at his first National Security Council meeting – all before 9/11. When 9/11 occurred, we knew immediately that it was caused by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan . Within days we were not only going into Afghanistan , but President Bush was asking for a plan to invade Iraq – even though Iraq had no involvement.

    After 15 months, Iraq has yet to be secured. Its borders were left open after “mission accomplished,” allowing terrorists throughout the Mideast to come join with the insurgents to wreak havoc. As a result, our troops are hunkered down, going out to trouble spots and escorting convoys.

    In the war against terrorism, we’ve given the terrorists a cause and created more terrorism. Even though Saddam is gone, the majority of the Iraqi people want us gone. We have proven ourselves “infidels.” With more than 800 GIs killed, 5,000 maimed for life and a cost of $200 billion, come now the generals in command, both Richard Myers and John Abizaid, saying we can’t win. Back home the cover of The New Republic magazine asks, “Were We Wrong?”

    Walking guard duty tonight in Baghdad , a G.I. wonders why he should lose his life when his commander says he can’t win and the people back home can’t make up their mind. Unfortunately, the peoples of the world haven’t changed their minds. They are still against us. Heretofore, the world looked to the United States to do the right thing. No more. The United States has lost its moral authority.

    Originally published in The State on June 23, 2004

  • Israelis and Palestinians: Two Traumatized Peoples

    I have long loved Israel. When I was there in the sixties, I found that little country a rare and refreshing spiritual, political, and social experiment. It had taken, I felt, the best from a variety of governing systems and had blended them in a remarkable way. I had hoped each of my sons and daughters would spend time on a Kibbutz.

    When I returned in the 80’s, I found a very different ambience. Israel was heavily armed, frightened, defensive, and persecuting the Palestinians. What had happened to this promising nation and its people to become so bellicose?

    A whole new chapter of my life opened. I wondered why people tortured other people, and thought that if I could know that answer, there might be new possibilities for peacemaking and reconciliation. And, as a Quaker Pacifist, I believed that I should have no enemy and should care for the wounded on all sides of any battle.

    That year I worked on both sides of the Green Line – moving back and forth, interviewing peace people, both Israelis and Palestinians. The suffering of the Palestinians under Israeli rule was horrifying. It seemed madness; I wondered whether the behavior of the Israeli government and the military had anything to do with the suffering from the Holocaust. I began reading everything I could find on the Holocaust syndrome. In the ensuing years, I learned about post-traumatic-stress disorder (PTSD) – a tragic condition which frequently affects soldiers when they emerge from battle – and often years later.

    I learned that in World War I people called the behavior of men returning from wars “Battle Fatigue” and the behavior was similar to one suffering from a catastrophic event “outside the range of normal human experience.” Symptoms can include depression, isolation, withdrawal, rage, inability to feel – numbing, alienation, intrusive thoughts, horrifying flash-backs, a form of hyper-vigilance akin to paranoia, and more. We began calling it PTSD.

    I looked at the histories of these two adversaries, the Israelis and the Palestinians. I saw them as two traumatized people who have both suffered from and committed acts of terrorism and violence against one another. Today the Israeli government is in a position of power and is oppressor to the Palestinians. There is, of course, retaliation. While there is a strong, and active peace movement against the Israeli government’s policies—at least 50% of Israeli citizens are said to disagree with their government—the people have not been able to change its policy to one of just and peaceful coexistence.

    Today it’s easy to see the Palestinian suffering and the injustices they experience. It is not so easy to see the suffering of Israelis, and to consider them brutal, relentless, and unapproachable.

    I see this differently. I have come to believe that violence springs from our unhealed wounds, and our attitude toward violent people requires a compassionate approach, while we stand steadfast against cruel actions. I believe we must listen compassionately to both sides of all conflicts, and explore the history and fears of both. This is called “Compassionate Listening” and is being practiced in the Middle East, Alaska, the US, and Canada with interesting results.

    I studied every thing I could find on the Holocaust Syndrome, and returned to the area many times to learn more about both suffering peoples. I felt it might be the unseen and unhealed wound of both parties to this tragic conflict.

    There is a new consciousness of the long-term effects of the concentration camp on their survivors. There is a new awareness that no healing processes were available at the time people were released from concentration camps, and a disturbing lack of care since then. Some people are beginning to refer to the violent actions of their government and the refusal to grant Palestinians a home of their own, as PTSD on both sides. The survivors in Israel experience a deep fear that it will happen again. Many Israelis appear to be affected by a “siege mentality,” and they believe they live in a dangerous “war zone.”

    Rabbi Jeremy Milgrom was born in the US and is now an Israeli citizen. When I was there in the ‘90s he was head of Israel’s Clergy for Peace. This tall, young man, intense, and compassionate said: “The holocaust left many Jews so scarred that they believe powerlessness is a sin. They feel the whole world is hostile to us – this is sick behavior. Our politics are the opposite of forgiveness – mainly rebellion against mistreatment suffered in the Holocaust, and violent treatment from Palestinians who demand their freedom.”

    Rabbi Milgrom is second generation from the Holocaust and finds his government irrational because the Jewish State has been implemented at the expense of the Palestinians who formerly lived on the land, and because Spiritual Zionism has changed into Statehood after the Nazi persecution. There was a war with the Palestinians which Israelis won and Rabbi Milgrom maintains the “Israeli agenda is corrupt because we’re not permitting Palestinians to re-unify. We Jews feel guilt toward the Palestinians, and we’re unwilling to have a dialogue with them because it will be so unpleasant.”

    Rabbi Milgrom was also struggling with the issue of forgiving Germans, for he said, “as long as we withhold forgiveness of the Germans, we’re corrupted. It’s very hard to trust after the Holocaust, (but) if we can have this redemptive dialogue with the Germans, then we can break down the resistance to having it with the Palestinians. Forgiveness is a release from the past. You don’t have to forget.”

    Another Rabbi, Rabbi Jonasson Gershom, in his article Breaking the Cycle of Abuse, wrote: “On a conscious level, the Israelis are not purposely punishing the Palestinians for the Holocaust. The very suggestion is horrifying to most Jews – didn’t we collectively vow ‘never again?’ But it is also true that people who have been abused will, when they come to power, abuse others because they do not have healthy models for exercising power. Abuse is passed down from generation to generation…unless there is some kind of therapy to teach new ways of coping with frustration and anger.”

    Rabbi Gershom also addresses the question of abuse in its’ application to nations. It is relatively easy to overthrow a government, but far more difficult to oust the internalized oppression which causes us to demonize others. The abuse cycle is not logical. It is a set of totally irrational behaviors based on pain, fear, shame, guilt, and anger… rather than forgive and forget, we need to forgive and move forward… Nonviolence does not mean passive resistance; it means holding to the truth, using truth, faith, and love as our ‘weapons’ for waging peace.

    I agree with Rabbi Gershom. There is a Buddhist tale of the snake who learned to practice nonviolence. Like the snake, I reserve the right to “hiss” and warn others of danger.

    Last night I met with editor-in-chief of New Outlook magazine, Chaim Shur. He was a lovely, generous, gentle man who told me “the Holocaust is the worst trauma in Jewish history. The whole world was killing us. No one did anything to prevent it. The Holocaust Syndrome invades a large part of our lives. Five hundred thousand people in Israel are Holocaust survivors – and now there is a second generation…”

    When I asked him if he thought survivors suffer from PTSD, he answered, “PTSD is not a scientific diagnosis. I have a daughter-in-law whose parents are Holocaust survivors. I don’t accept it.”

    After this journey, I returned to the Middle East to listen to Palestinians. By this time I had learned new things: that people become “terrorists” when they feel their grievances are not heard, their concerns not addressed. I believe that our work as peacemakers is not to take sides, but to seek truth, and, there will never be peace unless both sides are listened to. We must care about those who hurt others, and listen with respect to those who disagree or oppose us. I believe that through such listening we can open new avenues for communication where people are in conflict. We hope that one day they will be able to listen to each other.

    Now to Palestine, or the occupied territories: How can I make Gaza real to you? Gaza, a Muslim strip of land on the Israeli-Egyptian border – the most densely populated area in the world. Perhaps by telling you how people looked, what they said, and what I saw and heard.

    In the outskirts of Gaza, fruit trees blossom, wild grasses cover the fields – and people suffer.

    The main street had chuckholes full of dirty water, broken buildings, blind stores, their locked doors covered with anti-occupation graffiti. A woman walked down the broken sidewalk, a baby on her hip, talking and gesticulating excitedly. A barefoot old man carried a knotted staff; he limped.

    Gaza in 1996. Desolate, harsh, dark corners, prostheses, crutches, braces, scabies. 15,000 demolished homes, miscarriages from gas attacks, rubber fragmentation bullets, plastic bullets over an explosive metal core. Prison sentences of 150 years, 700,000 people in 360 square kilometers, 45% of their land confiscated by 2,500 Israeli Settlers, Xeroxed pictures of sons of Gaza who were martyrs, on lamp posts. Young men and children shot for throwing stones.

    Refugee camps, rag walls on houses, sewage flowing in the central gutter down narrow streets. “There’s not even enough room to carry our dead through these streets!” Malnutrition, worms, parasites infesting the people.

    And still, there is life in Gaza.

    We drove into a parking lot across a shallow lake of dirty water left by the rains. The buildings are faded blue and white. A sign reads American Friends Service Committee: Early Childhood Education Center. We are taken to a pale green room with a desk and chairs. We wait for Mary Khass, a Palestinian Quaker and pacifist who is the director of this little Center. She has suffered the fate of most Palestinians: a son was killed, her family disrupted, desolation and despair. Yet Mary is said to have a sturdy faith in life; and she lives in this childcare center.

    Mary Khass enters. She is full-figured, Western dressed. Her face is carved into lines of pain and compassion. She stands before us telling her story. I trust Mary Khass.

    “My deepest concern is the children. We and the Israelis are raising a generation of haters. It is important for the Palestinians and Israelis to come to an understanding before the Palestinians lose all the land. There is no survival without sharing. We and the Israelis will have to live here – the sooner, the better.

    “What can you do to help us? Work hard for the two states. Respect and support Israeli progressive groups, but remember, they haven’t done enough unless they refuse military service in the occupied territories. If they are against the occupation, they must not serve.

    And then, her cry of anguish: “How can they sleep? There is a hospital next to this place. I have seen Israeli soldiers raid the hospital. They shot and beat patients, nurses, doctors. I saw an Israeli soldier crying and beating his head against the wall. A Palestinian mother comforted this soldier. ‘Malesh. It’s all right, my son.’ That young man could have said ‘no.’ Why didn’t he say no? Can Israelis not see it’s more courageous to work for peace than war?

    “We have unwanted refugees all over the world. We didn’t cause the Holocaust. We advocate a peaceful and just solution for both. But my people have learned that depending on justice and the politicians is fruitless. We must pay the price and bring about change ourselves. Our children are suffering emotional horror, hypocrisy, violence, and fear. The little ones learn how to solve problems with violence. They are out-of-control. They are controlling us. The hand that throws the stone needs understanding and love. Educators need education to deal with opening the minds of these little ones.

    “Recently a bullet was shot in a camp. Nobody was hurt. All the camp was placed under curfew for twelve days. One hundred and eighty young men were arrested. All the citrus groves were demolished. Three houses were destroyed. Many men between the ages of sixteen to sixty were beaten.

    “The Israelis must learn to live with guilt. To do this, they must stay in camps with us. As long as they don’t stay in our camps, they haven’t crossed the line emotionally. As long as they don’t discourage their military from serving in the territories, they wipe my tears with one hand, and slap me with the other.”

    That night we heard shooting in the streets; fires blazed in the sky. The next day, fighting continued with rock throwing and sporadic shots. Soldiers and rock-throwers faced-off on a street in which we were riding; our driver turned hastily and left. We later learned a nine year old boy was killed.

    We were taken from refugee camp to refugee camp – more stories.

    “I was in prison; so was my husband – he for 440 years. I was pregnant, near term. The guards insisted the baby should be born – now – dead. They said I have five living children; this one must die. They drove me for two hours over rough roads. I was forced to lie on my stomach. The baby did not come. They took me to a room in the prison and manacled me to the bed. They threatened and probed and pushed. Still the baby did not come. They called my baby a terrorist. At last, my baby came. He lived! I called him Yasser. God wanted Yasser to live.

    More voices from the camps: “I have two martyrs in my family; two of my sons were shot. See their pictures on the wall…My son was seventeen when he was killed by open fire on demonstrators…Mine was shot in the head…My son is in Anssar III, the prison of suffering…My youngest son is serving his ninth prison sentence…”

    “Do not feel sorry for us. We are parents of Martyrs. We are proud. For thirty-eight years we were silent and compliant. Then we began the Intifada – our uprising. We do not use weapons. We use our skills. We now have hope and a purpose. We will not stop until we get our independent State and our own identity.”

    I feel there are always new possibilities if we look for them. The therapist, Alice Miller, is confident that we can find ways to free ourselves of hatred and rage by doing the painful and rewarding work of feeling and experience it “in its original context.” She is confident that we can save life on our planet by “questioning present dangerous and ubiquitous blindness (denial) – above all, as it exists in ourselves.”

    I agree with Alice Miller, and I feel, if we can see the sorrow and suffering of those who commit heinous violence, some new dimensions will open for our lives and for peacemaking. I see peacemaking as a healing process, and know that if we include this dimension in our efforts, our efforts will have new power and persuasion.