Waging Peace

Will Israel Again Use Nuclear Leverage on U.S.?

Nuclear specialist and longtime activist for Palestinian rights John Steinbach posed a frightening question at a July 29 luncheon briefing at Washington, DC’s Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine. Is Israel prepared once again to threaten to use its nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction to gain special American support in the peace process?

According to Steinbach, who has studied this subject for more than two decades, in 1973 Israel’s ambassador threatened to use nuclear weapons on Egypt if the United States did not immediately launch a massive airlift to save the rapidly disintegrating Israeli army in the Sinai. It worked then, Steinbach said, and one can easily imagine a scenario in which Israel, faced with having to give up all of “Judea and Samaria,” quietly, behind the scenes, threatens the U.S. or its allies with the use of neutron, gamma ray bombs to eliminate the Palestinian population.

Technically, Israel has the proficiency to make such a neutron bomb, noted Steinbach, but there is no indication that the Bush administration has received any such threat from Israel.

Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal is currently estimated to consist of anywhere between 200 to 500 weapons and is arguably the third most sophisticated arsenal in the world. While the subject of nuclear weapons may only recently have become a hot topic in global relations discourse, he pointed out, nuclear weapons have been a part of Israel’s strategic confrontation with the Arab world since the early 1950s.

The nuclear weapons project began with Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion. In 1952, Ernst David Bergman gave life to Ben-Gurion’s vision by creating the Israeli Atomic Energy Agency, designed both to innovate various sources of energy and to deal with the issue of national security and defense. During the 1950s, Israel went on to cultivate close ties with France regarding nuclear weapons, eventually signing a contract wherein France agreed to help develop the infrastructure of Israel’s nuclear weapons project.

This infrastructure was more or less in place by 1965, leaving Israel with only one significant glitch in its project: much-needed access to uranium. As an initial attempt to overcome this difficulty, Israel raided Britain and France for uranium, in what became known as the Plumbat Affair. Searching for a more sustainable solution to its uranium problem, Israel then formed a partnership with apartheid South Africa at a critical point in the latter’s history, when it had been ostracized by the rest of the international community for its apartheid regime. From this alliance, Israel received uranium, whileSouth Africa, in turn, benefited from trade relations with Israel at a time when it was under international economic sanctions.

On the eve of the 1967 war, a mere 10 days before attacking Egypt, Israel ordered the production of two atomic bombs. This signified the birth of a new concept: that of the Israeli nuclear deterrent, otherwise known as “the Samson option,” or the weapon of last resort.

In 1986, Israeli whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu exposed Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal, revealing that Israel had 200 very advanced weapons, including thermonuclear and miniature weapons. After being kidnapped and returned to Israel, Vanunu was convicted of treason. After serving 11 years in solitary confinement, he only recently has been permitted into the general prisoner population.

It is little known, even in the United States, Steinbach continued, that among secrets stolen by Jonathan Pollard was critical information, not just on targeting of U.S. missiles in the Soviet Union, but some actual scientific data on nuclear weapons. This is one of the reasons Pollard almost certainly is not going to be released very soon. But then, in Steinbach’s opinion, neither is Vanunu likely to be released when he finishes his 18-year term.

Israel’s arsenal of weapons is as sophisticated as—and perhaps more miniaturized than—that of the U.S. or Russia. It may even have more nuclear weapons than China. These weapons, which now include neutron bombs, micro-bombs, and clean bombs, have clearly been designed for fighting in a small geographic area such as the Middle East. The neutron bomb, for example, has the power to penetrate walls and buildings, killing more people with gamma radiation while causing less structural damage.

Israel is a known possessor of an ICBM, Steinbach added. Its satellites enable it to deliver far beyond the geographical boundaries of the Middle East. In fact, from the beginning of its nuclear weapons project, Israel was preparing second-strike and intercontinental capabilities in response to a presumed Soviet threat.

Due to its sophisticated delivery system, Israel has become the third strongest nuclear power in the world today, Steinbach said, most likely surpassing China as well as its parent, France. Its capabilities vastly exceed those of all the other Middle Eastern states combined.

Every U.S. administration has refused to comment on Israeli proliferation. Its refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) almost caused all of the Arab states to refuse to sign as well. One has to wonder how long Washington can sustain a tough nonproliferation policy without taking into account Israeli violations.

Asked whether Israel is more secure with its “Samson option,” Steinbach replied that, if one were an Israeli general, one would certainly say yes. The fact that Israel has become a renegade nuclear power, however, with no transparency as to how much and what kind of weapons it has produced, will lead to other nations in the area feeling the need to respond, he pointed out.

Labeled “non-conventional compellance” by Foreign Minister and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shimon Peres, the father of Israel’s nuclear program, the existence of the Jewish state’s highly sophisticated and complete set of weapons of mass destruction is in itself destabilizing, Steinbach maintained. Although one could argue on Israel’s behalf that being surrounded by hostile nations justifies its arsenal, its nuclear capabilities now extend far past what is needed for defense. The region’s nuclear buildup is destined to only contribute to its further instability.

John Steinbach is continuing his efforts to bring the Israeli nuclear program into the open, where it can be discussed without fear by both Israelis and Americans. Steinbach’s presentation at CPAP was considered to be of such importance that it was covered live by C-SPAN.

—Sophia Khan

Palestinian Unity in Defense

A statesman without a state, well-known Palestinian activist Dr. Haidar Abdel Shafi addressed an overflow house at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine Aug. 5. As a physician and chair of both the Red Crescent Society for the Gaza Strip and the United Palestinian Appeal, Dr. Abdel Shafi was scheduled to speak on the mounting humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and Gaza. Instead, after a brief background talk on the origins of world indifference to the Palestinian crisis, Dr. Abdel Shafi chose to describe his views of the Oslo peace process and the current intifada.

Abdel Shafi noted that the Western world hailed former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s initiative, which culminated in a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, effectively ending the regional blockade and isolation in which Israel had existed. According to Abdel Shafi, Palestinians saw it as an achievement so great for Israel, they hoped it would satisfy Israeli ambition enough to prepare them to negotiate a just peace. Contrary to expectations, however, Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank accelerated and Israel ultimately began a war on the PLO in Lebanon that led to the tragedy of the massacre at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Having made the point that world democracy had ignored Palestinian rights and aspirations in 1948, Abdel Shafi indicated that Palestinians still had expectations that the justice of their cause would win them backing in world opinion. To that end, when the U.S. made a clear statement (by means of Desert Storm) that it would not tolerate Iraq’s several-months-long occupation of Kuwait, Palestinians thought surely the U.S. would not tolerate Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestine. After all, Dr. Abdel Shafi pointed out, President Dwight Eisenhower had threatened sanctions against Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion’s government when it was slow to retreat from Gaza in 1956, prompting an overnight end to the occupation.

In such a frame of mind, Abdel Shafi contended, the Palestinians agreed to attend the U.S.-instigated peace process, despite their experience with the Israeli form of occupation. As a member of the negotiating team, Abdel Shafi put forth the first Palestinian requirement, that Israel stop all settlement activity, vis à vis U.N. Resolution 242—the so-called land-for-peace settlement. After much waffling on the subject, the Israeli team finally responded in plain language that they were settling in their own land. To give credit where it was due, Abdel Shafi said, then-Secretary of State James Baker did try to talk to the Israelis, but finally gave up and instead asked the Palestinians why that demand was so important at the moment, urging them to come back to it later.

Abdel Shafi said he knew then that there would be no meaningful negotiations, and recommended that the Palestinian team withdraw. However, he was not aware of the secret negotiations that resulted in the Oslo accords.

Abdel Shafi reminded the audience that he had stated publicly from the outset that the Oslo agreement was not a good one, largely because it did not even mention settlements. Now, of course, he pointed out, the world knows that settlements have doubled during the so-called peace process. Abdel Shafi expressed disillusion with and failure to understand why the U.S., as the party calling for negotiations, did not insist that Israel adhere to U.N. Resolution 242—purportedly the frame of reference for the talks. It was Washington’s duty, he maintained, to enforce the terms of the negotiations.

Having patiently endured the peace process with no results, Abdel Shafi said, it was inevitable that the present intifada, which he described as a spontaneous and emotional uprising, would erupt. However, he contended, it was the duty of the Palestinian Authority to see to it that the uprising of the people was organized and directed with unity of method in order for it to be effective. According to Abdel Shafi, the PA failed, preferring corrupt methods to allowing a unified and representative government to lead the Palestinian people in the fight for their rights. Regrettably, Abdel Shafi said, some of the extreme acts of the intifada furnished a pretext for Sharon’s brutality. The fact that the world was still not well informed, Abdel Shafi said, represented another failure on the part of the PA. The current Palestinian government, he said, must be replaced by a democracy that, Abdel Shafi hoped, would lead the Arab world in democratic reform.

Palestinians still suffering from early Zionist distortions of an empty land, in a time when travel and communications were slow, need to effectively inform the world—and especially Americans—of the truth of their history. Abdel Shafi exhorted the Palestinian- American community to create an information bureau to provide the U.S. with the other side of the story. He also called on Palestinians, however, to restrict military action to defensive action. If Palestinians offered military resistance only when Israel demolished houses or olive groves, Abdel Shafi opined, the world might understand that Palestinians were not violent terrorists bent on the destruction of Israel, but simply an occupied people fighting to achieve and maintain their human and civil rights.

Finally, Abdel Shafi said, he must object to the use of the word “terrorist” to define suicide bombings. He called them brutal and unnecessary, but argued that the legacy of terror in Palestinian land was that of Jewish terror perpetrated in the 1930s by means of timed bombs detonated in Arab marketplaces.

Though unusual for this type of event, Dr. Abdel Shafi’s talk was well attended by the national press. While it was indicative of change that national networks sent news cameras to cover the talk, as of this writing it remains to be seen if any of the footage made it beyond the cutting-room floors. It will be interesting, moreover, to see if only Abdel Shafi’s remarks about the PA’s failure and need of reform are deemed worthy of air time by the American press. Despite the history and insight contained in Abdel Shafi’s remarks, it is only too likely that those remarks on reform which seem to echo President Bush’s calls for Arafat’s removal will be the only ones heard by a wider audience than the one at CPAP. Abdel Shafi’s remark that a U.S. call to oust Arafat only led the speaker to think the Palestinian leader should stay in office will almost certainly not be heeded by an administration that Abdel Shafi said was clearly biased in favor of Israel.

—Sara Powell

Faith Watch and Vigil at Boeing Headquarters

On Saturday, July 6, Christian Peacemaker Teams held a vigil at Boeing’s Chicago headquarters to launch a seven-day, 193-mile faith walk to the Caterpillar headquarters in Peoria, IL. The walk was led by CPTers Michael Goode, who was denied entry into Israel and Palestine by Israeli authorities on June 24, and Cliff Kindy, who was denied entry in 2000. CPT is a faith-based organization which places nonviolent, civilian peace teams in conflict settings.

Goode spoke first, explaining that “Boeing is the largest exporter of weapons” in the United States. During the “current upheaval in Israel and Palestine,” he continued, CPT’s violence-reduction team in Hebron in the West Bank has witnessed the “devastating effect” of Boeing’s Apache helicopters against innocent Palestinian civilians, many of them children. Israel has announced plans to upgrade its current fleet of Apaches with Boeing’s AH-64D Longbow, Goode explained: “a helicopter Boeing claims is the world’s deadliest—400 percent more lethal than previous models.”

Kindy urged Boeing’s employees, officers, and stockholders to “stop the madness. Stop the war.” Rather than to kill Palestinians in the occupied territories, he said, helicopters should be used to put out forest fires in the western U.S.

Joel Finkel, a member of Not in My Name—a Jewish group opposed to Israel’s military occupation—spoke out against the use of Caterpillar’s D-9 bulldozers to “dispossess” Palestinians in the occupied territories. The occupation’s “oppression must be stopped,” he said—it fuels the violence that leads not only to the death of Palestinian children, but Israeli children as well.

Palestinian Caise Diab added that Israeli soldiers and Palestinians are in a situation “where their fate is not in their own hands.” One reason why this conflict continues, according to Diab, is that companies like Boeing gain financially from war. “When there is peace, there is no reason for a company like [Boeing]” to build weapons of war.

Goode then read the names of the 51 children—Palestinian and Israeli—who were killed between January and March 2002, while the approximately 30 vigil participants laid flowers on the ground in front of Boeing in remembrance of each of them.

Following the vigil, Kindy and Goode began their 193-mile walk to Peoria, IL with occasional supporters walking with them. They averaged 28 miles a day, sometimes in near 100 degree heat. They spoke at churches and with small groups along the way, as well as with passersby. Their first evening’s meeting was with the Bridgeview Islamic Community in southwest Chicago—a group that has dealt with racist attacks since Sept. 11. Many other travelers along the way asked questions about Goode’s and Kindy’s handcrafted cloth vests they wore, which stated, “Boeing and Caterpillar: Children Before Profits.” Total strangers provided food and sleeping quarters for the CPTers during this public witness.

The two reached Peoria on July 12 and held a similar vigil at the Caterpillar headquarters there the following day. Among the 20 supporters present were three Caterpillar employees.

—Wendy Lehman

CPT Trainees Bear Witness to Bloodshed Caused by Boeing Weapons

On July 22, Chicago police arrested three people, including CPT Training participants Jessica Phillips (Encinal, TX) and Char Smith (Gibson City, IL), during a prayer vigil outside Boeing World Headquarters. The arrest occurred after protesters poured 12 gallons of environmentally safe concentrated food coloring into the Chicago River. The section of river below Boeing Headquarters ran red as a graphic symbol of the bloodshed caused by Boeing weapons around the world.

As the red dye spread throughout the water, CPTers and Chicago-area supporters conducted a worship service consisting of prayer, singing and litany-reading at the entrance to Boeing. Participants gave examples of violence involving Boeing weapons that CPTers have witnessed, including:

• Apache helicopters attacking Palestinian communities and killing civilians, including children;

• Boeing’s automatic weapons being used to threaten civilians in Colombia;

• the effects of a 2,000-pound Boeing “smart” bomb on a residential neighborhood in Afghanistan.

The authorities released Smith and Phillips at 11:20 that night, after charging them with “dumping.”

The Boeing witness was organized by Peacemaker Corps and Reserve Corps applicants participating in CPT’s summer training.

—Courtesy CPT

Ros-Lehtinen Screens Cyprus Documentary

On July 17, during the week marking the 28th anniversary of Turkey’s invasion of northern Cyprus, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) hosted a congressional screening of the award-winning documentary, “Beyond Division: Reunifying the Republic of Cyprus.” In remarks prior to the screening, the Havana-born chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on International Organizations and Human Rights noted that the Cyprus situation reminded her of Castro’s takeover of her homeland, when “11 million Cubans became refugees.” If there is no solution to the Cyprus problem before the island nation’s expected accession to the European Union, she added, “Turkey will be occupying European territory.”

Cypriot Ambassador to the U.S. Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis described producer Peter Vogt’s half-hour documentary as “a message of hope and determination to see the ugly division of Cyprus come to an end.” The film reviews the history of Cyprus from its days under British rule (or, more accurately, “divide and rule”) through its struggle for independence and attempt to function under an “ineffective constitution imposed by Britain, Turkey and Greece.” Footage of Turkey’s 1974 invasion shows stunned Cypriots who, in a matter of hours, lost their homes, communities and, in many cases, family members.

Writer Christopher Hitchens, former U.N. ambassador and Cyprus negotiator Richard H. Holbrooke and Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute had little good to say about the world’s failure to prevent or rectify the division of Cyprus. Carpenter described the invasion and its aftermath as “an episode of hypocrisy.” According to Hitchens, then-President Richard M. Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger “disliked the idea of an independent Cyprus” and, in effect, “colluded” in its demise. Reunification of the island is the only acceptable solution, Hitchens added, and U.S. involvement (sans Kissinger, one assumes) the only way to achieve it. After all, Hitchens pointed out, Washington “only has to tell its friends” what to do.

—Janet McMahon