A flash of lightning

Uri Avnery

Night. Utter darkness. Heavy rain. Visibility close to nil. And suddenly ­ a flash of lightning. For a fraction of a second, the landscape is lit up. For this split second, the terrain surrounding us can be seen. It is not the way it used to be.
   Our government's action against the Gaza aid flotilla was such a lightning flash.
   Israelis normally live in darkness as far as seeing the world is concerned. But for that instant, the real landscape around us could be seen, and it looked frightening. Then the darkness settled down over us, Israel returned to its bubble, the world disappeared from view.
   This split second was enough to reveal a dismal scene. On almost all fronts, the situation of the state of Israel has worsened since the last flash of lightning.
   The flotilla and the attack on it did not create this landscape. It has been there since our present government was set up. But the deterioration did not start even then. It began a long time before.
   The action of Ehud Barak & Co. only lit up the situation as it is now, and gave it yet another push in the wrong direction.
   How does the new landscape look in the light of Barak's barak? ("Barak" means lightning in Hebrew.)
   The list is headed by a fact that nobody seems to have noticed until now: the death of the Holocaust.
   In all the tumult this affair has caused throughout the world, the Holocaust was not even mentioned. True, in Israel there were some who called Recep Tayyip Erdogan "a new Hitler," and some Israel-haters talked about the "Nazi attack," but the Holocaust has practically disappeared.
   For two generations, our foreign policy used the Holocaust as its main instrument. The bad conscience of the world determined its attitude towards Israel. The (justified) guilty feelings ­ either for atrocities committed or for looking the other way ­ caused Europe and America to treat Israel differently than any other nation ­ from nuclear armaments to the settlements. All criticism of our governments' actions was branded automatically as anti-Semitism and silenced.
   But time does its work. New tragedies have blunted the world's senses. For a new generation, the Holocaust is a thing of the remote past, a chapter of history. The sense of guilt has disappeared in all countries, except Germany.
   The Israeli public did not notice this, because in Israel itself the Shoah is alive and present. Many Israelis are children or grandchildren of Holocaust survivors, and the Holocaust has been imprinted on their childhood. Moreover, a huge apparatus ensures that the Holocaust will not disappear from our memory, starting from kindergarten, through ceremonies and memorial days, to organized tours "there."
   Therefore, the Israeli public is shocked to see that the Holocaust has lost its power as a political instrument. Our most valuable weapon has become blunt.
   The central pillar of our policy is our alliance with the United States. To use a phrase dear to Benjamin Netanyahu (in another context): it's "the rock of our existence."
   For many years, this alliance has kept us safe from all trouble. We knew that we could always get from the U.S. all we needed: advanced arms to retain our superiority over all Arab armies combined, munitions in times of war, money for our economy, the veto on all UN Security Council resolutions against us, automatic support for all the actions of our successive governments. Every small and medium country in the world knew that in order to gain entrance to the palaces of Washington, the Israeli doorkeeper had to be bribed.
   But during the last year, cracks have appeared in this pillar. Not the small scratches and chips of wear and tear, but cracks caused by shifts of the ground. The mutual aversion between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu is only one symptom of a much deeper problem.
   *The chief of the Mossad told the Knesset last week: "For the U.S., we have ceased to be an asset and become a burden."
   *This fact was put into incisive words by Gen. David Petraeus, when he said that the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is endangering the lives of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The later soothing messages did not erase the significance of this warning. (When Petraeus fainted this week
   at a Senate hearing, some religious Jews viewed it as divine punishment.)
   It is not only the Israeli-American relationship that has undergone a fateful change, but the standing of the U.S. itself is changing for the worse, a bad omen indeed for the future of Israeli policy.
   The world is changing, slowly and quietly. The U.S. is still by far the most powerful country, but it is no longer the almighty superpower it had been since 1989. China is flexing its muscles, countries like India and Brazil are getting stronger, countries like Turkey ­ yes, Turkey! ­ are beginning to play a role.
   This is not a matter of one or two years, but anyone who is thinking about the future of Israel in 10, 20 years must understand that unless there is a basic change in our position, our position, too, will decline.
   If our alliance with the U.S. is one central pillar of Israeli policy, the support of the vast majority of world Jewry is the second.
   For 62 years, we could count on it with our eyes shut. Whatever we did ­ almost all the world's Jews stood at attention and saluted. In fire and water, victory or defeat, glorious or dark chapters ­ the world's Jews did support us, giving money, demonstrating, pressuring their governments. Without second thoughts, without criticism.
   Not anymore. Quietly, almost silently, cracks have appeared in this pillar, too. Opinion polls show that most American Jewish young people are turning away from Israel. Not shifting their loyalty from the Israeli establishment to Israel's liberal camp ­ but turning away from Israel altogether.
   This will not be felt immediately either. AIPAC continues to strike fear into Washingtonian hearts, Congress will continue to dance to its tune. But when the new generation comes to man key positions, the support for Israel will erode, American politicians will stop crawling on their bellies, and the U.S. administration will gradually change its relations with us.
   In our immediate neighbourhood, too, profound changes are underway, some of them beneath the surface. The flotilla incident has exposed them.
   The influence of our allies is decreasing constantly. They are losing height, and an old-new power is on the rise: Turkey.
   Hosni Mubarak is busy with his efforts to pass power to his son, Gamal. The Islamic opposition in Egypt is raising its head. Saudi money is trumped by the new attraction of Turkey. The Jordanian king is compelled to adapt himself. The axis of Turkey-Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas is the rising power, the axis of Egypt-Saudi Arabia-Jordan-Fatah is in decline.
   But the most important change is the one that is taking place in international public opinion. Any derision of this reminds one of Stalin's famous sneer "How many divisions has the pope?"
   Recently, an Israeli TV station showed a fascinating film about the German and Scandinavian female volunteers who flooded Israel in the '50s and '60s to live and work (and sometimes marry) in the kibbutzim. Israel was then seen as a plucky little nation surrounded by hateful enemies, a state risen from the ashes of the Holocaust to become a haven of freedom, equality, and democracy, which found their most sublime expression in that unique creation, the kibbutz.
   The present generation of idealistic youngsters from all over the world, male and female, who would once have volunteered for the kibbutzim, can now be found on the decks of the ships sailing for downtrodden, choked and starved Gaza, which touches the hearts of many young people. The pioneering Israeli David has turned into a brutish Israeli Goliath.
   Even a genius of spin could not change this. For years, now, the world sees the state of Israel every day on the TV screen and on the front pages in the image of heavily armed soldiers shooting at stone-throwing children, guns firing phosphorus shells into residential quarters, helicopters executing "targeted eliminations," and now pirates attacking civilian ships on the open seas. Terrified women with wounded babies in their arms, men with amputated limbs, demolished homes. When one sees a hundred pictures like that for every picture that shows another Israel, Israel becomes a monster. The more so since the Israeli propaganda machine is successfully suppressing any news about the Israeli peace camp.
   Many years ago, when I wanted to ridicule the addiction of our leaders to the use of force, I paraphrased a saying that reflects much of Jewish wisdom: "If force does not work, use brains." In order to show how far we, the Israelis, are different from the Jews, I changed the words: "If force doesn't work, use more force."
   I thought of it as a joke. But, as happens to many jokes in our country, it has become reality. It is now the credo of many primitive Israelis, headed by Ehud Barak.
   In practice, the security of a state depends on many factors, and military force is but one of them. In the long run, world public opinion is stronger. The pope has many divisions.
   In many respects, Israel is still a strong country. But, as the sudden illumination of the flotilla affair has shown, time is not working in our favour. We should deepen our roots in the world and in the region ­ which means making peace with our neighbours ­ as long as we are as strong as we are now.
   If force doesn't work, more force will not necessarily work either. If force doesn't work, force doesn't work. Period.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

AMM Shahabuddin

Even the UN had turned a deaf ear to Iran's pleas. It had already adopted a resolution unanimously with five permanent members including China and Russia supporting sanctions against Iran to force it to abandon its nuclear policy. However, despite the passage of the resolution, America is unsatisfied with the 'soft' sanctions. So it appears that it wants to go ahead along with its obedient 'caddies' to play golf in Iran by adopting some suitable 'pre-emptive' action.
   Meanwhile, despite the adoption of the UN resolution, Iranian President Ahmadinejad's offer of a 'nuclear swap deal' brokered by Brazil and Turkey was 'still on the table'. Under the deal, Iran had agreed to deposit 1200 Kg of low enriched uranium with Turkey, in return for reactor fuel. But the deal was also not liked by the US and some of its Western camp followers.
   However, Iran had already warned the European Union (EU) countries of 'dire consequences' (if they followed up the sanction) and advised them 'not to succumb to US pressures to march on a wrong path.' The Iranian President also reminded President Obama that Israel was doomed and blamed Washington for 'orchestrating' the nuclear sanctions against Teheran.
   Incidentally, Italian PM is reported to have told media that Israel may decide to take military action against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. This Israeli threat for carrying out military action against Iran is nothing new. Whatever Israel does in the region - whether in Palestine or Iran - it does so with full protection of Washington, which is there to protect the 'spoilt-child' in any eventuality. Even Pakistan, being the first Muslim nuclear power faced similar threats from Israel on its nuclear plants.
   Meanwhile, the 'Group of Eight' (G-8), a club of the worlds' richest countries at their recent meeting in Toronto (Canada), had expressed their worries that Israel 'will probably act pre-emptively'. Hence the 'G-8' leaders had advised Iran to respect the rule of law and show their commitment to international law. But these elites of the world failed to show their 'courtesy' to give similar 'advice' to 'disguised' nuclear power Israel now ruling the roost in the Middle East over the entire Arab world. So what would be the answer on the part of the G-8 countries if they are asked why they felt shy towards Israel and preferred to thrash Iran which has every right to acquire nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
   
   How to cripple Pakistan?
   Since Pakistan had exploded its nuclear bomb and stormed into the exclusive nuke club and posed a big challenge to its nuclear rival and the most powerful neighbour India, many were simply caught napping. Now many seem to have started thinking how to cripple Pakistan as a nuclear state and remove the obstacle on the path of India becoming the most powerful nuclear nation in Asia and as a big rival of emerging China in the region. The US also got involved in it as it wanted to boost India as against its rival China. And the recent nuclear technology and power treaty between the US and India is a glaring example of the shape of things that are likely to come in the region.
   And the menacing Taliban militancy in the north western Pakistan and adjacent areas to Afghanistan is now being exploited by these vested quarters. Pakistan's sky suddenly had become cloudy and threatening as the cooked-up story was afloat that Pakistan's nuclear plants are likely to be grabbed and controlled by the racing Taliban against Pakistani forces. However, an official announcement was made to clear the atmosphere that Pakistan's nuclear plants are in 'safe hands' (The people started guessing in whose 'safe hands?)
   
   Washington's dual policy
   Now let us have a glimpse of America's dual policy in respect of its war on terror on one hand, and its own vast arsenal over which it is presiding on the other hand. It does not behove on the part of America, when it is armed with nuclear weapons to its teeth, to be up with arms against some 'nuclear minnows', like Iran, while itself possessing thousands of nuclear weapons, which the UN body SART (Strategic Arms Limitation and Reduction Treaty), had been trying to bring down the level of the possession of nuclear weapons since 1991. But America had been following a wrong channel under the table, to equip its 'spoilt-child' Israel with undisclosed number of nuclear weapons to maintain its dominance over the Mid-East region, to keep a sharp eye on the Arab world. But Israel's undisclosed number of nuclear weapons had neither been ever inspected, nor challenged by anybody, including the UN. However, nobody bothers about it. But they are prompt enough to declare Dr. A. Q Khan of Pakistan a 'nuclear thief' and indirectly force his government to put him under house-arrest, cut off from outside world. In this context, it is worth quoting comments made by an eminent Bangladeshi journalist in an article published in a leading Engilish daily sometime back. Commenting on Dr. Khan's 'pilferage' of nuclear technology from Europe the writer, inter alia, said, "The bigger truth is that he (Dr. Khan) is guilty as some others, such as, those who have worked in the shadows for years to develop the Israeli nuclear industry, of doing precisely those things which had endangered the security of the world."
   The writer is a retired UN official.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Barrister Harun ur Rashid

On 24th June, President Barack Obama declared that he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have "succeeded in resetting" the relationship between the former Cold War adversaries that had dipped to a dangerous low in recent years.
   This meeting was President Obama's 7th since he took office in January 2009, and his invitation to President Medvedev to come to White House. Obama visited Moscow last July.
   Obama said: "Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, the US-Russian relationship has to be about more than just security and arms control. It has to be about our shared prosperity and what we can build on together."
   More than anything else the events surrounding Russian President's visit served to underscore both the personal rapport the two men have developed as both are in their forties (Obama 48 and Medvedev 44) and more broadly increased cooperation between the two countries that reached a low point in August 2008 when Russia was involved in armed conflict with Georgia, an American ally.
   In the ornate East Room of the White House at a news conference, Obama directly acknowledged differences in some areas, such as Moscow's tensions with neighbouring Georgia, but said "we addressed those differences candidly." Medvedev described the Georgian war as "the conflict that was initiated by Georgia's leadership."
   And he announced that the U.S. and Russia had agreed to expand cooperation on intelligence and the counterterror fight and worked on strengthening economic ties between the nations.
   
   Obama's gift for Russia
   Obama gave Russia perhaps the biggest gift it could have wanted from the meetings: an unqualified, hearty plug for Moscow's ascension to the World Trade Organization. Russia has long wanted membership but U.S. support in the past has come with conditions.
   "Russia belongs in the WTO," Obama said as the two leaders stood side by side in the East Room after several hours of meetings.
   They emphasised common ground, with Obama saying that he President Medvedev has had "excellent discussions, discussions that would have been unlikely just 17 months ago".
   After the meeting, the two Presidents went to Ray's Hell Burger, a popular spot in a Virgina suburb across the Potomac River for cheeseburgers and fries. Customers cheered when the two walked in. Later, at the news conference, Medvedev called the burgers "probably ... not quite healthy but it's very tasty."
   
   Aid for Kyrgyzstan
   Obama said the two had also agreed to coordinate on humanitarian aid for Kyrgyzstan, wracked by turmoil in the wake of the president's ouster. Kyrgyzstan's president was driven from power in April amid corruption allegations, sparking violence that has left about 2,000 people dead and 400,000 ethnic Uzbeks homeless.
   Medvedev began his U.S. visit in California, where he toured Silicon Valley high-tech firms as part of his push to establish a high-tech centre in Russia. Before he left Russia, as part of his broader modernisation initiative, he opened an economic forum in St.Peterburg at which he announced lower capital gains taxes for investors, a greater focus on privatising industries, stronger rule of law and liberalised access to tourist visas and work permits.
   U.S. officials pointed to signs that Obama's much-heralded efforts to start fresh with Moscow have delivered results, from Russian support for new U.N. sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear program to the signing of a major treaty to reduce the two countries' stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Obama now is turning more fully to the issues of trade and business cooperation.
   But conservative critics in the US see Obama as too conciliatory and say he hasn't resolved disputes over issues such as Moscow's human rights record, missile defense and the legacy of the Russia-Georgia war of 2008. They charge that by speaking softly on those issues, the United States is compromising its influence among Russia's neighboring countries.
   
   Difference remain
   Analysts however there are some policy issues that divide the two countries. One is the expanding role of NATO. The role of NATO's as "world policeman" instead of the UN would not suit Russia.
   On NATO, Russia has been closely watching the North Atlantic Pact and finds new draft NATO strategy to be contradictory because while it acknowledges the limits to resources and responsibility of the bloc, it proposes to substantially expand its role.
   Furthermore, Russia questions the justification of invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by the US. Russia believes that when the US combat leaves Iraq in 2011, it would leave for several more years its military contingent in Iraq that will be larger than the present number of US soldiers in Afghanistan.
   Afghanistan is called "the graveyard of empires" for good reason. The Russians reportedly killed one million Afghans and that didn't work. They had to withdraw in 1989. Russia believes that the US's strategy in Afghanistan would fail and the Afghans will have to decide what kind of government they would like to have in their country through a fair election.
   It is natural that issues will remain between the two global powers. However "The true significance of Medvedev's visit is that it brings us closer to a relationship that doesn't require Cold War-style summits to sustain itself," says Sam Charap, a Russia analyst at the Center for American Progress. "The lack of headlines is actually a sign of progress."
   Klaus Klenfield, chairman of US-Russia Business Council, cited "a new quality in relations, both in politics and business", not least the opportunity between Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev.. He adds "The two leaders are really getting along very well; there is a lot of progress on the political front. Business will now follow."
   The writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE