Initially, I must justify why I am suggesting "Roda Viva" — a very interesting Brazilian talk show broadcast on the channel TV Cultura — at 10 pm every Monday — to invite journalist Ivan Sant'Anna to talk about his latest book.
For me, this "book/synthesis" is quite enlightening, as it connects and explains political and economic facts that are usually talked about in the newspapers without the proper contextualizing. The book "puts together the pieces of two large puzzles” derived from the Middle East. Few people, even well-informed ones, know the backstage and sequencing of the political and economic struggle surrounding the oil dispute. The causes and effects. The rise and fall in the price of that black and oily soup of an organic origin — cooked in the hot bowels of the planet - and still irreplaceable, despite the pollution it causes. This is the main merit of the book, which also helps understand the Arab-Israeli conflict itself. There is no similar political problem on Earth in terms of complexity, because both sides are right. The problem is essentially physical: two bodies cannot occupy the same space.
For years, I have followed what happens in the world through the press. As television already gives us plenty of information about national politics, I always start reading newspapers from the international news section. However, the newspapers seldom offer a complete, step-by-step or even summarized view of what has already happened in the Middle East. Every newspaper, I insist, is essentially fragmented, as the space it has to inform is limited, addressing the issues of the day or the week. But only a book, or at least a booklet, can synthesize something which has happened and/or been happening in the course of decades. The result: our destiny is being built — or destroyed ... — without our knowledge and in very distant places. If the humankind is destined to be “fried”, then at least we should know, after the disaster, why it has happened. After all, there will always remain a few ragged survivors, sitting in the rubble, reading some leaves that escaped the great fire.
With the ever-increasing globalization — which needs some regulatory improvement and rational organization — a "war" seemingly minor, "just another one", be it in the Middle East or in Ukraine, could very well become a nuclear conflict. Since the beginning of the Cold War, the atomic risk has at least managed to prevent the air we breathe from being radioactive. We cheer, thus, for this unexpectedly virtuous side of the atomic fear that inhibited both Russian and American presidents from starting a Third World War. However, this positive effect of nuclear danger exists only when the fear is mutual. Something that does not happen in the Middle East.
When two or more nations hate one another, cultivating old resentment and the nuclear power is in the hands of only one of them, arrogance grows. The feeling of having a formidable and compelling force stimulates abuses, even unconsciously. This occurs both in the animal kingdom and in the “humanimal” one. A leopard does not eat another leopard. Instead, it eats the fragile gazelle but does not even try to eat the rhino, despite its protein abundance. Teeth and claws; weight, horns and aggressiveness are what define who can live or die. Men use some more sophisticated instruments, better known as politics and power.
See, for example, the case of North Korea, ruled today by a young, eccentric and murderous dictator who would never be elected by citizens with a minimum of judgment and freedom of expression. He is the by-product of a strange form of aristocracy: the communist one, the power transmitted through blood, an archaic system of governance that supposedly has been rejected since 1789 with the French Revolution. The current "leader" of North Korea was "anointed" president by his father, who dictatorially ruled the country for decades. However, with all its whims and vendettas — the young "Monarch" eliminates opposing ministers with complete aplomb — the international community does not dare to take measures of force against that country, fearing the nuclear warheads North Korea possesses. In short: he who has atomic force is always respected and feared. It is not accidental that the five countries with permanent seats and veto power in the UN Security Council are all nuclear powers.
The mention of the nuclear issue naturally reminds us of what occurs in the Middle East, where the only country in the region with atomic power, i.e., Israel, "requires" that the international community prevent its biggest political rival, Iran, from developing nuclear technology. Israel requires the atomic privilege to itself with such confidence that it promises to use all means necessary — obviously violent, at its sole discretion — to prevent any activity that allows Iran to develop nuclear technology of any kind, be it civil or military. Even after the major powers recently reached a new agreement in Vienna — a diplomatic effort which took more than ten years — allowing Iran a minimum level of pacific evolution in the atomic technology. This arrogance — challenging even his old ally, the United States (at least under the government of B. Obama) — is further evidence of the intoxicating effect caused by the possession of nuclear weapons.
The "book/synthesis" (as a matter of speech) written by Ivan Sant'Anna has forced me to rectify an argument I have repeated on the internet for several years about Israel.
This correction regards the sincerity (or else insincerity) of the pronouncements of the Israeli government when it justified its tough policies against Iran, Syria and Palestinians as a whole. Let me explain: Benjamin Netanyahu has often justified his dislike and intransigence against the creation of a Palestinian state on the grounds that the Arabs have never accepted the existence of Israel, to the point of promising to "wipe it off the map." Therefore, as the Arabs do not accept Israel's existence, there would be no reason to talk with the Palestinians about any form of division of the Palestinian land. In other words: "How could we help create a country that intends to destroy us?"
I have always interpreted this Israeli claim as a pretext, taking political advantage of a merely demagogic sentence often uttered by the then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as other fanatical enemies of Israel. Considering the size of Israel, with its more than eight million inhabitants, the Arab promise of a second Jewish Holocaust — something as sick as the first — would be unthinkable, just a veiled threat, nothing to be taken seriously.
However, after reading the summarized story of the creation of Israel – according to the detailed explanation made by Ivan Sant'Anna in his book - I realized that for two or three decades after the creation of the Jewish State, the Arabs have really had the intention of destroying that country. It was not mere demagoguery from the more radical Islamic wing.
Sant'Anna’s book describes, with numbers — the tanks, soldiers, aircrafts etc. — the huge war effort undertaken by the Arab nations which were determined to destroy Israel but failed because the Jews fought with rare determination, skill and the urgent support from the Americans. Israel was indeed on the verge of disappearance, even coming to the point of considering the use of the atomic bomb, of which it probably had only one or two at the time (it is impossible to know the real number with certainty because Israel is like a black box).
According to the same book, on its page 132, at the War of the Six Days, in 1967, Israel´s Defense Minister, Moshe Dayan, distressed about the inferiority of forces, went on to say at a meeting with the Israeli summit: "There is only one last resort left: to prepare for the nuclear showcase". To that, however, the more sensible and levelheaded Golda Meir immediately replied: "No way." This fact proves that since 1967 Israel has had at least one atomic bomb. And until now it wants to remain with the exclusive privilege of having that power.
These details are, among other things, what make Ivan Sant'Anna´s book especially instructive. Another interesting aspect is that the author paints personality traits of people who have influenced the rise and fall of the oil price, explaining why such oscillations occur. Former oil minister of Saudi Arabia, Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who used to appear in the headlines every week, decades ago, has his tactics to keep oil prices at the most convenient level to the interests of his country and other producers explained. He was a very intelligent and sensible man, playing his role as he maintained his influence with the king of Saudi Arabia. With the shift of the King, Yamani changed his relationship with the monarchy.
Returning to the Arab mantra of "sweeping off Israel" from the Middle East, one must, however, remind the Arabs that if they at first had some degree of moral justification to try to stop the Jewish “invasion”, the passage of time has made their claim obsolete. Israel has grown, consolidated and become an accomplished and undisputable fact. In civilizational terms, there is no sense, now, to talk about its destruction.
The only solution today for everyone in the region to be able to coexist would be the settlement of borders established by the international community — as Israelis and Palestinians seem unable to reach an agreement — after the demands of the parties are heard. The final decision of the deadlock would inevitably have to come from a "third party", i.e., the International Court of Justice, or else a special court, created ad hoc especially for the case with wide powers of equity and not merely to check if treaties, many of them the result of pressures of all kinds.
As for the issue of the return of the expelled Palestinians – who have been living precariously in shelters in neighboring countries - and the excess of Jews wanting to live in "their country," the solution must also come “from the outside", i.e., an international body, and not by a unilateral decision of either party. The judiciary might not always offer the ideal decision, but it is always a better solution than letting gross, sheer strength filled with blood and ruins all over prevail.
Any future non-conformities against an international solution may be covered or mitigated with the payment of compensations to those people affected by the judicial solution — perhaps the amount of money necessary to reach an adequate reparation will be high but the continuation of death and destruction will be even greater. For instance, the purchase of two areas in Africa would allow both the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs to live in peace without forced contacts, something that now is almost impossible in Palestine. Of course, the Africans would have to be heard about that. It is not an easy solution, but it is possible as long as there is patience.
In the past, large areas were offered to the Zionist movement for the installation, whether temporary or permanent, of a Jewish homeland. Lands in the Congo, Uganda, Mozambique and other regions were proposed. Uganda, which has a climate similar to the south of the Mediterranean Sea, i.e., not too hot, was rejected by the Zionist leaders for three reasons: the existence of many wild animals; the proximity to a savage tribe; and religious reasons, related to the "need" to return to a place considered sacred. According to the Zionists, only Jerusalem could host the new nation. It is fair to say the refusal was reasonable, at that time, due to distance, the hot African climate, as well as the difficulty of transport and access.
Now, however, it is the lions, and not the humans, that need protection; African tribes nowadays use mobile phones more often than arrows, and most of the Jewish people are agnostic anyway. Considering the size of Africa and the technology available these days against the excessive heat in shops, homes, factories and offices, both Jews and Palestinians could very well live and work there, and consequently help immensely the economic progress not only of themselves but also of Africa, which lacks investment and skilled labor. The gigantic size of Africa and the minimal utilization of its potential, today, is further evidence of the political stupidity of humanity as a whole.
Ivan Sant'Anna, at the end of his book, considers impossible a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and his reasoning is based solely on the terms of the Palestinian size and land occupation. But who knows? If we include the African wilderness to solve the problem — as well as the opinion of Africans themselves, who would also have its advantages with the emergence of large-scale jobs —, perhaps the old racial, political and cultural conflict might end.
The Palestinians are not comparable, culturally speaking, to the Native Indians — who lived in the USA and were expelled by the British colonizers — reduced today to a few thousand individuals living in Indian reserves. The Palestinians are much more educated than the Indians of the Old West at that time. They will never forget the offense, expulsion and meanness with which they were treated by the Israeli. This recollection of suffered injustices keeps brewing in their minds. They long for revenge in the same manner as the European Jews - trampled, beaten and murdered in extermination camps - yearn for vengeance, or justice, until today, more than sixty years later, demanding jail or gallows for old Germans who followed Nazi orders despite knowing what was going to happen.
The Jews – a well-educated, multilingual and specialized in finance people (specialization which is mostly due to the very fact that in some countries they were prevented from becoming industrialists and farmers) — need to understand and be tolerant to the reaction of the most impatient Palestinians against the massive occupation of their land. Should the opposite occur, with Palestinians arriving in waves to Israel after an absence of centuries, the local Jews would probably react in the same way. Terrorism was also a last resource used by Israelis against English authorities in Jerusalem, to the point of blowing up a hotel in 1946, the Hotel King David in Jerusalem, which served as housing for the British officials who were responsible for administering the Palestine, after the First World War ended.
According to the media, there has been an upsurge of anti-Semitism in Europe. It runs mostly because of the truculent and arrogant style of the Israeli Prime Minister, who thinks he is beyond good and evil.
Netanyahu explains nothing and relinquishes nothing. He only reacts with brute force, crushing the enemies of Israel with planes and tanks, even though the enemies are inferior in weapons. For each Israeli killed, ten or twenty Arabs die. He represents only strength and an imaginary racial superiority, forgetting that his strength is not only his own, having had the previous US support.
Netanyahu considers himself a patriot, but a patriot at its narrowest sense, a primitive one, who never tries to understand the motivation of the opponent. He loves Israel — but let us not forget that Hitler also loved his Germany. And Hitler “loved so much" that he had a sad ending. If the Israeli had treated better the Palestinian population, providing them basic services such as healthcare, education, transport and whatever else is usually necessary for a dignified life, such a conduct would have obviously led the Arab population to gradually decrease their animosity. It is not with vinegar that one attracts humble hummingbirds and bees. We cannot forget that bees carry honey, but they also have stingers.
(July 18, 2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment