The Jerusalem synagogue attack should not be the tipping point

World leaders, including US President Barack Obama, have condemned Tuesday’s attack in the Kehilat Bnei Torah, at Har Nof, in West Jerusalem where two Palestinian cousins killed five people — four Jews who were praying and a police officer — and injured eight others.
Daniel Carmon, Israeli ambassador to India, too condemned the attack saying: “Incitement and the glorification of terrorists by the Palestinian leadership is a fast track to violence and terror itself...We must take every effort to delink religion and terrorism, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi said himself in the Australian Parliament on Tuesday.”
This spike in attacks against Jews in Israel should be of concern to all who hope to see an end to the tension in the region. Tension has been brewing for some time now after news spread that Israel had plans of altering the present arrangement of prayers at the Temple Mount, revered by both the Muslims and Jews. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has denied any such plans and said that Hamas has been spreading these “lies”.
It is encouraging that Mahmoud Abbas, President of the state of Palestine and chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), has condemned the “acts of violence no matter their source”, but as Netanyahu has said it “is not enough”. To bring any semblance of peace back to the region Abbas has to do more than express shock and regret, especially at a time when such acts of terror are pushing the holy city to the brink. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is the second largest PLO member, has claimed credit for Tuesday’s attack further putting pressure on Abbas.
If the recent attacks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem can be attributed to lone wolf attacks by disgruntled Palestinians, Tuesday’s attack stands out for the planning that seems to have gone behind it. The Kehilat Bnei Torah in Har Nof is in a Jewish locality and unless there was extensive planning the cousins could not have attacked the synagogue.
While Netanyahu has promised to “settle the score with every terrorist” both sides must be careful to not let Tuesday’s attack set off a string of attacks on worshippers — as in February 1994, when a US-born Jewish doctor killed 30 Palestinians in a mosque in Hebron and in March 2002, when a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 30 civilians and injured more than 140 during a Passover seder in Netanya.
(This appeared in the Hindustan Times on November 20)

Gaza attack: World nations watch as Israel 'wins'

                                                                                                                Pic: WSJ

The scoreline says it all: 1814-67. Israel 'won', Palestine battered black and blue. This latest round of Israel-Palestine conflict started with the abduction and killing of three Israeli youth in June 30. Israel began a manhunt for the people behind the killing and started bombing what it called 'Hamas targets'. On July 17, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) invaded Gaza and on August 5 withdrew its forces. On Friday, hours before a 72-hour ceasefire was to end, two rockets were fired into Israel by militants from Gaza. Hamas has denied firing the rockets. The Cairo-brokered ceasefire was has come to an end with Israel and the Hamas not reaching an agreement.

After nearly 30 days of violence more than 1,814 Palestinians, mostly innocent civilians, have been killed. On Israel's side, it lost 64 army personnel and three civilians. That's roughly 27 Palestinian lives for every loss Israel suffered.

For those who enjoy the spectacle of warfare this is how comfortable it gets. A news report that is widely circulated and called the 'Sderot Cinema' shows how Israeli residents climb a hillock, sit on chairs and cheer as bombs fall on Gaza. For those who are shaken by its horrors, this is what 21st century massacres look like.

While Israel is guilty of using disproportionate force, Hamas cannot escape blame. Its use of human shields, keeping weapons in schools and firing rockets from densely populated civilian areas has jeopardised the safety and security of Palestinians — who the organisation claims to serve and protect.

Guilty of complacence

World nations have expressed grief at the events and have asked for peace to prevail but have stopped short of condemning Israel for its attack on innocent civilians (however, many nations have condemned the Hamas for its atrocities).

The United States has always showed unwavering support to the Zionist cause and this time also it stood by its ally. However, two instances stood out that showed a bit of insensitivity on Washington's side. First was on July 14 when President Barack Obama hosted prominent American Muslims at the White House Iftar dinner. Obama probably chose a wrong occasion to reiterate Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Hamas, especially at a time when scores of innocent Palestinian children and women were dying. The second was on the next day, on July 15, when a shipment of 4.3 ton US-manufactured arms arrived at the Port of Haifa, Israel.

Former US President Jimmy Carter in an article co-authored with former Irish President Mary Robinson for 'Foreign Policy' said, "There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defence Forces are conducting this war… Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it co-operate in its own demise". Carter and Robinson go on to say that only by recognising Hamas as a political player can the West provide it incentives to lay down arms. But it seems Obama is in no mood to listen to Carter.

 

BRICS leaders at Fortaleza

Playing both sides of the fence

New Delhi, it seems, is playing both sides of the fence. In mid July in a strong-worded statement released at Fortaleza, Brazil, India, along with other BRICS nations, censured Israel. However, a discussion on the Gaza conflict was not permitted in Parliament. Following this, on July 23, India voted in Palestine's favour at the UNHRC.

No friends in West Asia

Though the grand visions of a United Arab Republic and Arab Federation have more or less perished, the fault-lines that drove such ambitions during the mid-20th century are visible. If Arab socialism and nationalism were the threats to the monarchies in West Asia then, today it is democracy and variant Islamic schools of thought. That's why even though Saudi Arabia will not break bread with Israel it will not lend a hand to the Palestinian cause in which Hamas is a player. Add to this Syria's historical claim that Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine are part of Greater Syria (Damascus disapproves the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916) and the hostility the Palestinians have faced from Jordan's Hashemites, the Palestinians have few friends in the region.Read: Militants fire rockets at Israel as Gaza truce expires

John Kerry

So it's not surprising that there was not much condemnation from the Arab world against Israeli action, except for token statements calling for a ceasefire and peace from the Arab League. The 21-member league was, however, critical of US secretary of state John Kerry's meeting with officials from Qatar and Turkey (two countries that back Hamas) in Paris.

Far from a solution

While Israel maintains that it cannot lower its guard, the Palestinians are replete with stories of atrocities and injustice by Israel that 'occupies' its territory. Israel's violation of international norms, especially its spree of new settlements in the occupied territories (in 2013 there were about 540,000 Israelis living here), has made it hard for even its well-wishers to defend its cause. On the other hand, Hamas, which is ruling the Gaza Strip, without shunning its violent ways has not made it easy for the people of Palestine.

                                                                Pic: Twitter

In its zeal to 'protect' Israel's interests the IDF have forgotten the number of innocent Palestinians killed by its mindless bombings. In the din of new settlements coming up Tel Aviv has forgotten UN Resolution 242. Washington has shown double standards in defining human rights, and the world in general has remained a mute spectator. Hamas, which claims to represent the voice of a section of the Palestinian people, has been exposed and has done disservice to the Palestinians.

Israel has retreated to 'defensive positions' around Gaza claiming that its objective of destroying tunnels in Gaza has been achieved. But this is a pyrrhic victory — if at all there is a victor.

If Carter's words are uninspiring and violence is the preferred way, Israel and the US should consider another US president, John F Kennedy's words: Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.

(This article appeared in the Hindustan Times on August 8)

As Uncle Sam Beats the Retreat from Iraq

In the euphoria of Libyan dictator-president Muammar Gaddafi being captured and killed by Libyan rebel forces on October 20, media houses around the world overlooked or underplayed a development in the Middle East. At a relatively toned down press briefing from the White House, the following day, US President Barack Obama announced that by December 31 all US troops would leave Iraq. Thus, by bringing to an end the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was strongly opposed by many of US’ allies including France and Germany, Obama has kept one of his poll promises. This is a decision that future analyst will observe as an important move that changed the way the world does politics because a pullout by US from Iraq has more than one implication and impact. So why did such a monumental announcement by Obama go under the radar of sorts? While the move was discussed widely in the United States, internationally the response it received was lukewarm. Perhaps it was intended to be so.

Politics of pullout

Obama’s announcement was criticised by Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney as a sign of weakness and an open invitation to Iraq’s neighbour Iran to fill in the vacuum. Romney while making these allegations is either exposing his political naivety for it was President Bush who signed the withdrawal in 2008, or it is political opportunism, a craft which needs a lot of honing.

For Obama it is a win-win deal in many ways. Firstly, as the 2012 presidential race heats up, the announcement is a brownie point for Obama. As of November 4, 49 per cent of Americans approve of the way he is handling his job; that’s a two per cent rise from the previous month. The spree of assassinations -- Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gaddafi --- has assuaged the US public that the billions they have been spending has seen some fruition.

Secondly, the war on terror, waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, has bled the US in many ways – financially, perception-wise and human casualty. Financially, the wars have cost the US close to $2.5 trillion and this sum is entirely --- yes entirely --- on money borrowed. With no tax reforms and the war spending increasing US’ debt has shot through the roof. Perception-wise the US has lost footing within and outside the country. The number of people in the US who think that the wars are of a “choice” and not a “necessity”, to use Obama’s phrase to describe the Iraq and Afghanistan operations respectively, are on the rise. Americans also feel that these operations in the Middle East and other countries have only earned them the hatred of others. A good example would be Pakistan, which is a war ally. Despite Washington pouring in billions into the country, US is detested by the people and government of Pakistan. Recent reports from Iraq indicate that even groups that initially welcomed the US forces are happy to see the pullout. The human casualty, in the form of wounded --- physically and mentally – war veterans, is an expenditure that is going to grow on the US economy as years pass by. Economists fear that this will have a telling effect on the economy in the years ahead.

Thirdly, the US, while in theory actually pulls out, actually does not. While on the surface there is a pullout the US has worked out mechanisms through which it will have a sizable presence in the Iraq. Through the various embassies in Iraq US will be employing close to 20,000 personnel. This soldier pullout paves the way for the comeback of the ‘notorious’ contractors. Ted Wright, president of Blackwater (responsible for the Nisour Square Massacre in 2007) has expressed interest to do business in Iraq again. The US has signed arms deal with Iraq worth more than $10 billion. In the lieu of training and maintenance US personnel will be stationed in Iraq soil. Given all this, it is clear that the US has made sure that it maintains its presence in the country. After all Iraq is a major oil producing country and the revenue trade with Iraq can generate through development work is too lucrative for any country to forgo.

Middle East equation

To understand the political fluctuations and future developments in the Middle East it is essential to first understand the two predominant sects in Islam --- Sunni and Shia. Sunnis form roughly 85 per cent of the Muslims world over. The Middle East is predominantly Sunni but Iraq and Iran have Shias as the majority with a presence in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. Saddam Hussein was heading a Sunni minority government in a Shia majority Iraq. He suppressed Shia and Kurd movements and Tehran was his bete noire. Other countries in the region thought of him as a good counterweight to an Iran that was getting assertive and threatening after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The United States, by invading Iraq, ousting and hanging Saddam did in a year what Iran was trying to achieve for decades. Thus Washington was levelling Iraq as a playing field for Tehran.

‘Good’ neighbour

For all the tall talk done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “Iran should not miscalculate about our (US) commitment to Iraqis” analyst agree that Iran’s influence over Iraq cannot be stopped, and definitely not by any of the tactics the US has used till date.

While invading Iraq former President George Bush had planned to reform the country and turn it into the first true democratic country in the region with the hope that it would serve as a beacon to other countries to move towards democracy. However, the steps taken by the US to usher in this change went wrong from the beginning. America’s hand-picked Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government could get the required numbers last year only because it got the backing of Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a Shia with active backing from Tehran. Thus the democracy that the Washington propped up in Baghdad was on the stilts lent by Tehran.

However, there is a silver-lining as Iraqis, who have longed for democracy and have witnessed the developments in the neighbouring countries, have protested against the stand Maliki has taken on the uprising in Syria. Maliki has not criticised the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, who is an ally of Iran.

Pullout Panic

Of late there has been a call for attacking Iran for the threat it poses because of the nuclear weapons it has in its possession. A rattled Israel, which has not had good relations with Iran, is in the forefront with this call for attack. While it is a matter of concern that Tehran has a clandestine nuclear programme going on in the stealth, it is also a known fact, something akin to a public secret known to all. Russia has advised caution in approaching Iran.

It is understandable that Israel is worried that with US pulling out of Iraq, Iran will have a free run over there. Add to this the Arab Spring which is bringing traditional US favourites down and giving groups that are close to Tehran a chance to run these countries; not to mention the Gilad Shalit deal which has given the Hamas a boost. Thus a US pullout from Iraq can be said to be the trigger for this panic attack.
(This appeared as an Opinion in The New Indian Express on November 10)

Tharoor is looking Parliament, talking Knesset

Shashi Tharoor, when declared as the UDF candidate for the Lok Sabha elections from Thiruvananthapuram, appeared too polished to be a politician and had a panache that was the much-hooted sign of the middle class professional entering politics. But that was just a resounding loud false alarm. No sooner was his candidature announced than skeletons started to tumble; and tumble they did from everywhere imaginable.
Though Tharoor tried to lure the netizen youth and NRKs (Non Resident Keralites) through his website explaining his candidature, he has been criticised in many Internet forums. Right from his being a member of the advisory committee of the Coca-Cola India Foundation to the legal tangle for allegedly disrupting the National Anthem; to his 1992 comments on Sonia Gandhi’s inability to lead the party, to recently the KPCC youth burning his effigy at the state capital.
These allegation standing, what should be of concern to the diverse electorate of Thiruvananthapuram are Tharoor’s views on Israel and his admiration for its military offensive in Gaza that left the strip in tatters earlier this year. In an article titled India’s Israel envy (Haaretz, January 23, 2009) Tharoor, contrary to India’s stand on the Palestine conflict (which incidentally is also Congress’ view), expresses his sympathies for Israel that is “a small country living in a permanent state of siege… surrounded by forces that are hostile to it”. Tharoor, displaying his pro-Western ideology, might overlook the fact that the “forces” (read Hamas) is a democratically elected government the people of Palestine have chosen, but he cannot or rather should not gloss over the human right violations that the Israel army has done in Gaza for which it is drawing flak from the UN Human Rights Council, a subsidiary of the UN that he aspired to head only a few years ago.
While sticking out his neck for the Israelis, Tharoor does not miss to take a dig at the Congress-led UPA and the sorry state of India’s national borders in, “… unlike Israel, India has seemed unable to do anything about it (terrorist attacks)” and “India is a giant country whose borders are notoriously permeable, an open society known for its lax and easygoing ways”. Tharoor’s “lax and easygoing” comment reminds one of an oriental view of a Westerner who sees Indians as a group of people who ‘need to be governed’. This is a view of a person sitting in Park Avenue or cooling off at Burj Dubai, not that of a peoples representative who has sweated it out in front of the secretariat or the streets of Thiruvananthapuram.It will be interesting to see if Thiruvananthapuram, which last favoured a LDF candidate, oblige Tharoor. Tharoor claims to know the state capital. The question is: Does the state capital know him? For a man who until 2007 was “living in and out of a suitcase” while in the city, Thiruvananthapuram must be more than a handful. When Tharoor says that the time he has spent in the city is enough to represent it, it reflects poor of the electorate he aspires to represent. Come May 16 and we would know if Thiruvananthapuram will have a parliamentarian who is an Israel-sympathising NRK.