Alan Hart

ONE very well informed and courageous Israeli who thinks the answer is “Yes” is Merav Michaeli, a radio and television presenter who also writes for Ha’aretz. She is completely without fear when it comes to telling it like it is. On 2 January this year, for example, she wrote: “The Israeli government doesn't want peace. There's nothing new in that. It has been the proven way since the establishment of the state.”

The headline over her latest article is Israel’s never-ending Holocaust. One of her main points is that Israel has never confronted the trauma of the Nazi holocaust and has “turned it into a placard in the service of the national trauma, to reinforce the constant existential fear and the aggressiveness that comes with it.”

Because what she wrote is so important, and in my view ought to be read by all peoples of all faiths everywhere who want to understand why the Zionist state is what it is, I am going to quote her at some length.

She wrote:

The Holocaust is the primary way Israel defines itself. And that definition is narrow and ailing in the extreme, because the Holocaust is remembered only in a very specific way, as are its lessons. It has long been used to justify the existence and the necessity of the state, and has been mentioned in the same breath as proof that the state is under a never-ending existential threat.

The Holocaust is the sole prism through which our leadership, followed by society at large, examines every situation. This prism distorts reality and leads inexorably to a forgone conclusion… that all our lives are simply one long Shoah (experience of persecution and extermination – my amplification not Merav’s).

The ‘Hitlers’ are always there: Just a week ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said for the nth time that there is no shortage of those who want to exterminate us completely. In other words, there is no lack of reasons to continue to reinforce the fear of the Holocaust – which, according to his father, historian Benzion Netanyahu, has never ended.

So it is that we don't have any rivals, adversaries or even enemies. Only Hitlers. This is how the Holocaust is taught in school, this how it is that Israeli students are taken to visit death camps – and how it came to be that, as Ha’aretz reported on Friday, just 2 percent of Israeli youth feel committed to democratic principles after studying the Holocaust… That's the way it is with traumas. Because of our human limitations, a trauma that is not dealt with makes us constantly see yet another trauma approaching – even when whatever is coming has no connection to the previous trauma and may even be a good thing. Trauma leads to belligerence and a strong tendency to wreak havoc on one's surroundings, but first and foremost on oneself.

What we consider rational is actually a frightened, defensive, aggressive pattern. Our current leaders have made Israeli Judaism just a post-traumatic syndrome, while they lead us to self-destruction.

I imagine that most if not all Arabs and other Muslims everywhere would welcome the prospect of Israel self-destructing, but in my Gentile view it is not actually a prospect to be welcomed. Why not?

If there comes a time when it seemed to them that the Zionist state’s self-destruction was imminent, Israel’s leaders would respond in the same way as they would if their state was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield. As readers of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews know, that response was put into words by Golda Meir in the course of one of my BBC Panorama interviews with her when she was prime minister. In a doomsday situation, she said, Israel “would be prepared to take the region down with it.”

The question arising is something like this. Is there any power on Planet Earth that could assist Israeli Jews to save themselves from themselves – perhaps I should say save themselves from their deluded leaders?

The more I think about this question, the more I am convinced that there is only one power that could do it – the Jews of the world. But that must be the subject of another post and I will welcome thoughts from others before I write it.

Dr. N. Janardhan

IT is now a familiar script. An “intelligence document” deems Iran closer to becoming a nuclear weapons power. Economic sanctions intensify. Reports point to Israel conceiving military action. The United States says all options are on the table. There is sabre rattling on all sides. Iran threatens retaliation. Oil prices rise. Frenzy media and analysts contribute theories about the “when, why, what, where and who” dynamics of the “conflict.”

And, a few weeks later, as is evident already, the crisis de-escalates toward a slow death, waiting only to pick up steam again.

The Iran-US-Israel rift is about brinkmanship, where all concerned are seeking to maximize on one another's domestic weaknesses and international gains. As much as they want to appear to be reaching the point of no return, their moves are geared to stopping well short of it. Just as they know the utility value of such rhetoric, they are equally aware of the catastrophic consequences of a conflict. All that has been, is, and will be played out in future is likely to follow the same script.

In the current context, as much as domestic compulsions of all the concerned parties heightened tension, the same factors cooled tempers too.

If the United States wished to take effective military action, its best bet was while its troops were in Iraq. As much as the build-up to the next presidential election generated its recent hawkish stance, its current economic and political woes would deter it from risking any misadventure.

Israel has lapsed into inaction due to the lack of consensus among its politicians and public; Palestinian moves toward unilateral declaration of statehood; Washington's own inaction and lack of endorsement for Israeli action; post-Arab Spring political scenarios and international realignments; and uncertainty about what military action would actually yield, with theories ranging from partial to complete destruction of Iran's nuclear program, to lack of Iran's retaliatory power, to full-scale regional chaos with the involvement of Iran's allies.

Iran is in the throes of decades-long international sanctions, which has limited its economic growth; the political tussle between the supreme leader and the president continues; though it appears subdued, the impact of the last presidential poll and its aftermath still lingers among a considerable section of the population; and the strength of its allies is being tested because of the events in Syria and Turkey's strategic shift in stance vis-à-vis Iran.

For their part, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries continue to be victims of an ideological war. While they are the principal stakeholders, they remain fringe players, relying on the action or inaction of others, rather than actively contribute to any conflict resolution process.

While the catastrophic consequences of military action need no elaboration, it is worth pondering over the utility of sanctions. How long will sanctions as an instrument of threat, coercion and pressure serve the endgame? History is replete with sanctions failing to yield results, with Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Zimbabwe being recent examples.

On the contrary, Libya exposed the double standards of some countries that took the lead to impose sanctions and then reversed their stand to strike lucrative economic deals. This lends weight to the fears of a “grand bargain” at some point with Iran too.

It is here that a change of tack is worth considering — one that is beyond both sanctions and military strike options. This untried path could be an Asian political solution, where the GCC countries and Iran are the principal negotiators, facilitated by influential Asian countries — China, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, and India, among others.

Turkey already has a proposal, which was formulated with Brazil and Iran in 2010, that could become the starting point again. It is a trial balloon worth pursuing, even as the “more trusted” Western approach searches for elusive results.

As the economic balance of power shifts from West to East, it is certain to impact the political and security dynamics of Asia in the mid-to-long term. In this context, developing a robust pan-Asian cooperative approach is important. Since Iran and the GCC countries are permanent neighbours, it is in their best interests to resolve their differences through a win-win formula, however daunting it is. While this crisis serves as the trigger, the interdependent bigger picture is enhanced Gulf peace and security, which is crucial to Asia translating its potential into reality in the 21st century.

Aijaz Zaka Syed

HERE'S a brief history lesson. At the height of World War II when Hitler's Germany was swallowing one mighty European nation after another without so much as a hiccup, Britain got so desperate for the US help that it resorted to all sorts of tricks to get the Atlantic cousins involved.

That old warhorse Churchill is said to have actually dispatched William Stephenson, Britain's master spy and the man who inspired Ian Fleming's James Bond, to the US to try everything from bribing and blackmailing the US senators to creating false-flag situations to force the US into the war against Germany. An unwilling America under a reluctant Roosevelt eventually joined the Great War after Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

As this psychological, diplomatic and economic war on Iran heats up, history appears to repeat itself all over again. Israel and its friends in the US establishment appear more desperate than the British had ever been to get Uncle Sam into the breathlessly awaited war with Iran. Desperate nations are as dangerous as desperate, suicidal men.

From the Mossad men posing as CIA agents to recruit saboteurs to assassinating top Iranian nuclear scientists that could be blamed on the “Great Satan”, Israel has already taken this campaign against the Islamic republic to dangerous levels. Right now tensions between Iran and the West are so thick that even a minor skirmish or misunderstanding could spark a full-blown conflagration. The assassination of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, deputy director of Natanz nuclear plant, this month is the fourth such killing of top Iranian nuclear scientists over the past year and half.

This is not just an act of terror, as Tehran chose to describe it, but a declaration of war. It would have provoked a third World War if the US and the now deceased Soviet Union had attempted something similar against each other's scientists. No other country for that matter would tolerate such attacks on its citizens and national interests.

Fortunately or unfortunately, a much sanctioned and politically and economically besieged Iran is perhaps in no position to respond to these flagrant provocations. Israel and the West may not have declared it formally but the war on Iran has already begun — on several fronts. Its economy, already vulnerable thanks to the decades of crippling curbs, has further been brutalized by the latest UN-US sanctions targeting its Central Bank and the crucial oil trade.

The European Union, one of Tehran's biggest trading partners and oil importers, has followed suit by banning Iran's oil exports and freezing its financial assets. Goes without saying these actions are going to really hurt Iran considering some 80 percent of its foreign revenue comes from oil exports. With its economy on the brink and sanctions turning the rail into a worthless paper, inflation has hit the roof biting ordinary people.

On the political and diplomatic front too, Iran finds itself at the receiving end as it helplessly awaits the approaching D- day. Just as a much sanctioned Iraq did in the run-up to the 2003 invasion. Not a single day passes without the Israeli, American and European politicians and security experts pitching for urgent “action” against Iran. Meanwhile, Washington and Tel Aviv are playing out the good cop-bad cop routine. The Americans raise the spectre of a unilateral Israeli attack even as the Zionists raise the bang-Iran rhetoric to a feverish pitch keeping the whole world dancing on the razor's edge. What is most disturbing though is not the perfidy of Israel or the hypocrisy of its protectors but the deafening silence of the international community. The less said of the United Nations the better. It increasingly reminds me of what Matthew Arnold said about Shelley — “an ineffectual angel, beating in the void his luminous wings in vain.”

The world body created to protect peace and resolve conflicts hasn't just failed in its raison de'tre — its purpose of existence — it has become a willing tool in the hands of the world powers. The UN has increasingly been acting as handmaiden of the empire, with its institutions like the IAEA offering the fig leaf of legitimacy and at times even aiding in its quest for global hegemony. But then what's new? It's a familiar and much repeated history.

What is most disturbing though is the shameful capitulation of the rest of the world in the face of this continuing tyranny and obfuscation. Abdicating its collective responsibility, the world community stands and stares once again as the coalition of the ever willing cooks up yet another unjust war against another oil-rich Middle East nation.

That said, Iran's leaders aren't exactly doing their people any service by forever obsessing over nuclear power at the expense of everything else. What is Iran itself doing to end its pariah status? How about building bridges with its Arab neighbours and addressing their apprehensions that are as much a result of Western propaganda as they are of its own rhetoric? Right now, Tehran needs all the friends and allies it could get.

Meanwhile the world community must do everything to prevent a war with unimaginably catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world.