For those of you who do not remember how La Fontaine, in his fable “The Wolf and the Lamb”, portrayed the constant prevalence of the arguments of the strongest party, I will repeat it here, with discreet embellishments (literary freedom...), showing its analogous pertinence to the reaction of the great powers to the nuclear agreement signed by Iran, Turkey and Brazil on 17-5-2010.
The fable states that a lamb was drinking water from a stream that flowed on sloping terrain, when it saw a wolf approaching to quench its thirst. The wolf was on a level higher than that occupied by the lamb. The defenseless herbivore tried to hide, but had already been seen by the wolf. The latter, scowling, in all certainty already salivating at the though of an imminent meal, initiates the following dialogue with the lamb:
— What makes you so bold as to dirty the water that I am drinking? — I am not dirtying anything, because water flows from high to low and you are upstream from me — This does not matter, because you said bad things about me a year ago! — But, Mr. Wolf, I had not been born a year ago! — Well, if it was not you, cheeky lamb, it must have been your brother! — That cannot be, because I have no brothers... — Then it must have been another lamb - a friend of yours, or the dog that guards the flock, or even the shepherd - such rabble. The fact is that I feel judicially offended!
With this haughty argument, the wolf considered the artificial polemic to be closed, carrying its prey in its mouth in order to devour it in some quiet place. While chewing on the now defunct debater, the wolf was perhaps thinking: “Shut up, conscience! Wolves are also “human beings”. God did not create me to eat vegetables. If anyone is to blame for the lame sophisms that I invented at the time, it is not me”.
Mention has already been made at the beginning of this article of the moral of this story: it is not difficult to forge “arguments” in order to justify the interests of the strongest. At the present moment in time in international politics, power is in complete favor of those countries that sympathize politically with Israel - a notable possessor of atomic weapons, without being bothered on this account - and fear, or pretend to fear, that Iran is planning to fabricate atomic bombs in order to drop them on Israel; even acknowledging that Iran itself knows that it would be crushed and incinerated in a nuclear inferno, soon after or even at the same time as any ill-advised attack.
The perspective of armed conflict is like a dream come true for the lucrative armament industries of several countries. Furthermore, it serves the political interests of Iran’s great enemy in the region, which is none too satisfied with the perspective of having to re-start disagreeable bilateral talks that attempt to discuss the creation of a neighboring Palestinian state, with a growth in population that is far greater than that of Israel. Following the agreement signed on May 17th 2010, the “wolves”, unhappy with the decreased risk of armed conflict, need to invent new arguments in order to stir up mud in the water; and, according to media reports today (19-05-10), it appears that that they are doing just that.
With a view to clearly and globally understanding the “Middle East problem” (without an overview of the problem, it is difficult to understand its component parts), it is necessary to persevere with a synthetic view regarding the origins of the Palestinian issue and subsequent developments up to the date of the nuclear agreement mentioned at the beginning of this article. This short simplified explanation will be considered as “simplistic” or “naive” by those interested in maintaining a pre-conflict or openly warlike climate; however, the author still trusts in the existence of intellectual honesty and intelligence on the part of the majority of those who read articles concerning this controversial issue. I will make an extremely brief summary of the festering sore that has potential for transforming the planet into an enormous open wound, infected with hatred and with presentiments of burned flesh.
As mentioned above, there follows a highly simplified “primer”, in order to allow for a rapid understanding of the topic in question.
In year 70 of the Christian era, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans. The Jews found themselves forced to abandon Israel - the so-called “second diaspora” - without even surmising any incentive or participation on the part of Palestinian Arabs in this expulsion. Up to then, Arabs and Jews had lived together reasonably peacefully. Most of the Jews became scattered throughout the south of Europe, although slowly moving in a northerly direction. Despite this diaspora, the Jews, zealously maintaining their customs and religious traditions, mixed little with the Europeans and were persecuted in various manners, including - in some countries - the prohibition of acquiring land for cultivation.
As a result of this prohibition and needing to earn a living, the Jews specialized in the only options open to them, namely: business and finance, becoming very skilled in matters of money and business in general. To a greater extent than the Christians, given that Christianity did not look kindly on “vulgar” and earthly mercantile activities. The eyes of Christians were fixed on the infinite - spiritualism is all well and good but, as everyone knows, it does not pay the bills. When there was a shortage of money, some Christian governors requested loans from the Jews; however, when the time came for payment, if this was not possible, a “pogrom” was invented, alleging that the Jews were the assassins of Jesus Christ. And the masses, jealous of Jewish wealth, gave vent to their repressed feelings. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Jews, as a result of their business dealings with other peoples, cultivated the art of learning foreign languages, a powerful tool that maintained them, on average, much better informed than those practicing other religions.
As victims of regular “pogroms” (massacres), confiscations and humiliations, it would be only natural for the Jews to yearn for a “homeland”, a country that was their own, not as mere guests tolerated to a greater of lesser extent. But which country would it be, after nearly two millennia scattered throughout the world?
In Germany, with the rise to power of Adolf Hitler - a powerful speaker, but a mediocre thinker, violently anti-Semitic -, the European Jews attempted to obtain the authorization of other countries for a mass migration, fleeing from the Nazi threat. However, despite formal declarations of solidarity, such countries, including the USA, did not agree to receiving millions of German Jews, it being the case that the same occurred in the case of other nations, apparently sympathetic (paying lip service only) to the yearning of the Semites to live in safety.
In 1902, long before Hitler, the British Colonial Secretary even offered the Jews an area of 5,000 square miles known as “Mau Plateau” in Uganda (this area is currently part of Kenya); however, the offer was rejected on the grounds that there were many wild animals in the region, as well as the presence of Masai tribespeople, which could represent a problem. The actual climate was not bad, as the plateau was situated at a reasonable altitude, being similar to that found in the south of Europe. This proposal ended up being rejected at a Zionist congress. In my humble opinion, this was the wrong decision, due to the fact that, with the passage of time, Israel would have become a powerful nation, with its inhabitants free from the concerns inherent to every country that is transformed into an occupying force, as in the case of Palestine. The most that could occur would be some kind of revolt on the part of the local natives, in the event that they were not treated with respect.
Ultimately, with an incessant influx of Jews to Israel, coming from all parts of the world, without a cry of “enough!” on the part of successive Israeli governments, the mere number of people occupying the same space resulted in that which would be inevitable, namely: the pure and simple expulsion, with no right to compensation, of the weakest - in this case, the Palestinians. Here the great sore, infected to an ever greater extent and expressed in the form of “suicide bombers” and rockets that are little more than home-made which, for the time being, generate more noise than deaths. They do not kill to a great extent, but serve as a pretext for interrupting talks held with a view to dividing Palestine into two states. This is something which, at base, the current Israeli government does not accept at all, although it does not say so in an explicit manner, fearful of losing international support.
Where does “nuclear Iran” come into all this? Could it be that there is only expression of solidarity with the suffering of the Palestinians or, as Israel alleges, is there a desire for increased power in the region? I would risk stating that solidarity is likely the preponderant factor, due the fact that a mere desire for increased influence, through growth in nuclear capabilities, has shown itself to be immensely counterproductive, actually reducing influence, a shot in the foot, extremely dangerous for the future of Iran itself. Through the works and grace of its enemies, the country has become an international villain, suffering progressive sanctions - with a further batch on the horizon, according to newspapers on May 19th. Hillary Clinton has already made it clear that the Security Council is not going to take account of the agreement signed, days previously, by Iran, Turkey and Brazil. Hillary is re-writing the fable of the wolf and the lamb, “If it was not you, Iran, that muddied the water, it was a relative of yours, your dog or your shepherd”. The order of the day is to devour Iran, on whatever pretext, making the most of current circumstances surrounding its current president, Ahmadinejad, showing him to be a big mouth who uttered a few stupid phrases in the past and is afraid of being seen as a coward - by his citizens - if he recants on his misguided statement regarding the non-existence of the Holocaust and the infantile promise of wiping Israel off the map.
Several decades ago, the Shah of Persia signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; however, Article X allows any signatory state to withdraw from the treaty, by alleging, for example, security reasons (in this case, in relation to its enemy Israel). On the Internet, it is possible to access the aforementioned Non-Proliferation Treaty and see how easy it is, at least from a legal point of view, to become free from International Atomic Energy Agency criticism and inspections.
Three months after submitting a request for withdrawal from the treaty, Iran would be free of the possibility of being accused of non-compliance with any international standard. It would be in the same position as Israel, which has always makes it implicit that it is in possession of nuclear weapons and does not wish to sign the NPT, remaining exempt from inspections. I do not know whether Iran did not request withdrawal from the NPT for reasons of incompetence - forgetfulness on the part of its Foreign Relations Ministry - or whether it did not make such a request because, if it did so now, the “wolf” of the fable, or the subservient pack, would say that making such a request now is an implicit confession that Iran is fabricating nuclear weapons, there being an urgent need for invasion of the country, prior to the end of the three-month period.
Whoever accompanies, on a day-to-day basis, media reports on what is happening with respect to the “Iran problem”, can only be amazed that almost no mention is made of the inequality of international treatment of the “nuclear” stances adopted by Israel and Iran. The former, I repeat, has not signed anything and enjoys the luxury of fabricating nuclear weapons to its heart’s content, despite the fact that it has the best-equipped armed forces in the Middle East. Iran is the “villain” (although it could cease to be one in three months), despite the fact that it has now agreed to hand over part of its uranium for enrichment in Turkey. Even if Iran does this, it will still be subject to further sanctions, because it still has many kilos of this material, necessary for normal activities performed for peaceful purposes. It should be emphasized that, if Iran hands over all its uranium for enrichment in another country, it would have to deactivate its facilities for a long period of time. Perhaps decades, as nobody can guarantee what will happen in the future. In addition, Iran is very astute in developing its knowledge regarding use of the atom, given that oil is a finite asset, it pollutes, and it even encourages the occult energy ambitions of powers that imagine themselves to be “smart”. “Pero no mucho”, because there are still many thousands of intelligent readers who are not easily deceived and understand the moral of the fable, and how it is just as applicable today as when it was originally published by Fontaine.
(19-5-2010)
