International gangsterism unlimited

Indeed, this is not the first time that Israel has transgressed; it is a habitual offender of international law and is the one state that has ignored any number of UN resolutions. The incident is of course a crass exhibition of the arrogance of power; Israel was merely following in the footsteps of the US' and Britain's war on Iraq. If you are strong, it is kosher for you to go and attack any UN member state if you suspect that it has behaved in a manner you don't like. That now seems to be the guiding principle of states like the US and Israel.

Like the US War on Terror, Israel justifies its actions in the name of fighting terrorism. For Israel the supreme example of terrorism is the Palestinian suicide bomber. The question is never asked: How come the Palestinians have produced over a 100 suicide bombers who went and blew themselves up in order to kill some Israelis? Or what drives them to this supreme self-sacrifice? Could there not be a valid reason for the course of action that is described as 'terrorism' and which may concern Israelis' own aggressive actions. Israel, as soon as it sees a violent act, with no consideration of why, shouts 'terrorism'. It uses it as a cover for its own aggrandisement. Israel has been acting thus to reach an undefined goal. In this it is aping the US and UK.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

There is merit in Syrian President's observation Israel cannot live without an (aggressive) war; it committed major aggressions in 1948 and 1967 and an unending series of permanent aggressions in the shape of settlements on Palestinian land and other so called retaliatory attacks on the militarily occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza.

Actually Israel acts the way it does in Syria and Lebanon simply because of the assurance that the US is behind it four square. The ultimate responsibility for Israeli transgressions and aggressive behaviour can only be on the US. Everybody in the world appreciates the situation in this way. Therefore nobody was surprised when the American Ambassador Negroponte, instead of condemning Israel for its plain aggression on Syria, tried to provide a cover to it in the UNSC by calling for condemnation of Syria for training terrorists on its soil simply because Israel made this claim.

One's immediate reaction was to underline the fact of this Brave New World that Bush and his neo-cons have roughhewed. What else could be expected from Israel? The US and UK, the leading powers that had played a decisive role in the formation of the UN at the end of Second World War, are now in the forefront of the new tendency that spits on the UN's face and wages preemptive, indeed preventive, wars. All the much trumpeted idealism of the time when UN was founded, supposedly to enforce international law, stands forgotten or set aside simply because the US wanted to wage wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. Why? because it did not like the regimes these countries had. Others suspect that Iraq's location, its oil and its natural role in the region and Afghanistan's geography were the real reasons why Messrs Bush and Blair were fixated on these two countries. They went to the extent of what critics are now describing as telling lies to justify the wars.

It bears repetition to say what counts now is power. If you have more of it, you can dictate your terms to your neighbours. You can enforce your preferences and punish those that do not accept your dictate. Israel is just doing that -- simply because it happens to be in fact an outpost for the US power. It does look as if the Palestinians have no realistic hope of forcing Israel to vacate its aggression. Their violent protests are playing on the aggressor's pitch; in a violent contest Israel will always win. They have to change their tactics. Adoption of non-violent methods of protest and agitation holds more scope, as they had earlier seen. Their original non-violent Intefada's results can be compared with what they have achieved by their unparalleled sacrifices. World's moral support -- an important factor -- will be easier to obtain if the protests remain non-violent. As it happens, fairplay and respect for the rights of others, the essence of international law, stand subordinated to the whims, misjudgments or plain bad intelligence -- because of which the Bush-Blair duo went to war on Iraq -- as is now emerging from on-going inquiries. That apart, the lesser fry have been left wondering about how to cope with this nasty and brutish world. Are not there any countervailing forces?

It is true that on a purely military plane, there is no countervailing military force to stop the US-UK-Israel juggernaut. Is there nothing to checkmate this colossus? The question occurs and recurs. On further thought, several possible countervailing forces of a non-military character can be discerned. Indeed one is of a quasi-military nature: If the pattern persists, wanton aggression evokes two kinds of reactions; one is evident in the behaviour of Palestinians ranging from Intefada to suicide bombing; the second is some version of armed resistance or guerilla tactics as the US occupation forces are encountering in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There appears to be no end to Palestinians' resistance also, despite their helplessness, or perhaps because of it. At one level these are also wars of attrition. It is to be seen for how long can the Zionists sustain the current cycles of violence in occupied areas of Palestine. Similarly the ability of the US to recruit enough foreign forces for the duty of safeguarding the American interests and lives is uncertain. No Army is designed to face guerilla resistance for long. America's War on Terror, so far, has produced more terrorists than it has killed. Israel too has met with similar results.

Secondly, world opinion remains a factor. The world had never seen such huge public protests as before the start of the Iraq war. Cynics say that Messrs Bush and Blair went to war nonetheless and the unparalleled protests could not restrain them. They had better wait a while: both the US and British governments have been constantly on the defensive since. World opinion has a way of penetrating the electing constituencies of the aggressors that seek to hold them to account. This is happening in UK as well as in the US. While Bush might be tempted to do another neat spectacular job in the election year, it does look it is a highly risky approach and experienced election campaigners might successfully advise him against it. At any rate, it is risky to ignore the long-term effects of world opinion. Only tight dictatorships are immune from it -- but only for a time.

For electorates in democracies, despite the governments' ability to manufacture consent for a time, sustaining wars of conquest that clearly benefit only certain sections is all but impossible. Even in the home of capitalism, America, not all voters are thrilled by the vision of large strategic, economic and political gains that the war party hopes from Afghanistan and Iraq occupations. They notice the large expenditures on war that mean more taxes on themselves and shrinking budgets for social sectors.

They do not like the prospect. President Bush's demands on the Congress for more budgets are likely to be met for some time but before too long American public opinion might elect a peace-making Administration.

One says this knowing that politics in the US is very largely bipartisan and that on the fundamentals of keeping America number one, militarily and economically, there is near unanimity among Democrats and Republicans. It is not that Democrats have not waged wars or denied enough funds to the Pentagon. Even so, the common Americans forced their government to run away as fast as it could from Vietnam. Steady deaths of its youth and loss of treasure concentrate the minds of American people pretty quick. Domestic social consequences -- shrinking expenditures on social security, health and education while military spending goes through the roof intensify anti-war sentiments.

An eventual imperial overstretch has been clearly visualised by American writers themselves. In the flux that characterises present state of the world, many nations feel the pressure to acquire the wherewithal to deter aggression: weapons of mass destruction. Campaign for non-proliferation of nuclear weapons has lost its elan; it is increasingly failing to inspire confidence. When medium strength powers see America throwing its weight about all round the globe, simply because it is the biggest nuclear power, many are tempted to go nuclear. If some cannot acquire atomic capability, they would work for getting chemical or biological WMDs. World's flux today might become the chaos of too many WMDs in too many places. American policies are pushing towards an even more chaotic and dangerous world where civilisation will be threatened by new dark forces.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.