By Swapan Dasgupta
In assessing events in distant places, it is often
helpful to ask a simple question: what would we have done in a similar
situation? Had India, for example, been confronted by a constant barrage of
unprovoked rocket attacks from across the border aimed at our cities, would we
have gone crying to the international community? Maybe we would have alerted
our diplomatic missions and even presented a full picture of the happenings to
the United Nations Security Council. But our first priority would have been self-defence.
In concrete terms that would have meant military retaliation aimed at both damaging
and neutralising the adversary. Having demonstrated our determination to not
take attacks on civilian targets lying down, we would have been receptive to
international concern over a possible escalation of the conflict. But without
foreclosing the military option altogether.
The above scenario isn’t entirely hypothetical.
Those who recall the short-lived Kargil conflict in the summer of 1999 when
India was confronted by an audacious Pakistani offensive will know that this is
precisely how the Indian Government of the day reacted. Of course, the
mountains where the battles raged were largely uninhabited and there was no
real danger of large-scale civilian casualties that would have excited the
Western media. At the same time, let us not forget that the Kargil conflict
wasn’t seen as just another India-Pakistan brawl because both countries
possessed nuclear weapons. There were grave international concerns over the Indian
subcontinent being transformed into the “most dangerous” region on earth, and
it finally took direct US pressure for Pakistan to realise it was in a no-win
situation. Yet, it is important to remember that President Clinton’s pressure
on Pakistan to behave would not have happened had India not responded robustly
to the aggression.
Arguably, international relations are not always
governed by templates and long-standing conflicts such as the ones affecting
West Asia are often governed by the principles of exceptionalism. This is
particularly true of the unique problems and challenges that confront Israel, a
state that has witnessed unending conflict since its formation in 1948. Yet,
despite the strong feelings the mere mention of the ‘Jewish homeland’ arouses,
it is a measure of some reassurance that the latest conflict occasioned by
Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza has, by and large, produced
relatively ‘normal’ responses.
President Barack Obama epitomises the trend. Unlike
most occupants of the White House, Obama does not have a reputation for being a
natural friend of Israel. On the contrary, his relationship with the doughty Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been so awkward that commentators have
even speculated over the likely end to the special US-Israel relationship. Yet,
his first reaction to the rocket war launched by Hamas was unequivocal and
based entirely on common sense: “The first job of any nation state is to
protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if… somebody was sending
rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do
everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect the Israelis to do the
same thing.”
Unlike the past where almost every Israeli move
aimed at strengthening its national defences have been viewed as expressions of
‘Zionist imperialism’, the latest tension has not been blamed on Israel. Indeed,
the only criticisms of Israel are that its retaliatory attacks have been
‘disproportionate’, have been accompanied by some rhetorical flourishes of its
Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Yaalon to “blow Gaza back to the Middle
Ages” and its threat to undertake a ground campaign if the attacks persist. The
rush of dignitaries to Israel haven’t been accompanied by expressions of
righteous indignation over Israeli recklessness but a concern that a ground war
would be tactically imprudent and result in Hamas painting itself as the
underdog. The principle of Israel’s right to self-defence hasn’t been seriously
contested particularly when, as in this case, it is faced with an adversary
that openly proclaims that “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until
Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
These developments mark a significant departure from
2010 when the Israeli raid on a ship allegedly carrying humanitarian relief to
Gaza resulted in an onrush of anti-Israel sentiments in the Muslim world and in
the campuses of the US and Europe, and contributed immeasurably to Turkey
disengaging from its measured relationship with Tel Aviv. But thanks to its
knee-jerk reversal of its earlier policy, Turkey also finds itself reduced to
the role of a passive bystander in the region.
It is also noteworthy that the election of a Muslim
Brotherhood candidate, with deep ties to Hamas, in Egypt’s first democratic
election has not succeeded in making Israel more vulnerable. On paper, Egypt
has kept faith with its new ideological proclivities by withdrawing its
Ambassador from Tel Aviv and charging Israel of aggressive intent. However,
behind the scenes it is fully engaged in trying to cobble together a working
cease-fire and not responding emotionally to Hamas’ appeal to join the good
fight against Israel. The fragility of the Egyptian economy, its dependence on the
US for both development and military assistance, and the delicate balance
between the army and the civilian government has made it wary of rushing to the
assistance of Hamas.
Overall, there appears to be a creeping realisation
in the world’s capitals that, far from emerging as a slightly more rooted
alternative to the largely discredited Fatah leadership of the Palestinians,
the Hamas has shed very little of its fanatical determination to destroy Israel
and drive out the Jewish people from the region. Hamas may have broken from
Iran on the issue of support to the anti-Assad rebels in Syria, but along with
the theocracy in Iran and the splinter jihadi groups in Gaza, it poses an abiding
threat to a peaceful resolution of the problems that cropped up since the war
of 1967. Like the LTTE which was destroyed by the Sri Lankan military at a
terrible cost, Hamas has absolutely no hesitation in using civilians as human
shields. It actively seeks more civilian deaths from Israeli strikes (and
‘friendly fire’) on the ghoulish belief that greater the number of ‘martyrs’
the more the resolve to fight Israel to the bitter end.
For the past decade, thanks to some misplaced
humanitarianism, there has been a tendency to question Israel’s credentials on
all counts. This has seen many countries wilfully turn a blind eye to the real
nature of fanatical anti-Zionism. The latest spat in Gaza may not radically
alter this gratuitous hostility to the only country in the region that combines
a vibrant democracy with economic development. But even if it forces
international opinion (including in India) to look a little more carefully at
the larger agenda of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention the
regime in Iran, it will be a step in the right direction. In the coming years,
as many more authoritarian regimes struggle to cope with angry upheavals, the
democratic world will be forced to acknowledge that Israel epitomises the
values it is comfortable with. The alternatives presented by those who seek an
Israel-free West Asia are too hideous to contemplate.
The Telegraph, November 23, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment