“It's time to shed mantle of a victim”, Bruce Haigh , Canberra Times , Opinion, 9 August 2006

 

EXPERIENCE should have taught the Israelis that the use of overwhelming force against its neighbours will always generate an equal and opposite reaction. But Israel is locked into a pattern of behaviour which shapes and dictates the reaction of its enemies, of which there is an increasing number. Israel has learnt nothing; it believes compassion and negotiation are a sign of weakness.

 

There is no incentive for Israel to behave in any other way. The US supplies military equipment and moral support. Poor simple George W. Bush has divided the world into those fighting terrorism and those supporting and promoting terrorism; a return to the Cold War mentality. America seems to have difficulty defining itself unless faced with a hostile "-ism". What Bush and his administration seem to have overlooked is that Hezbollah is not a new phenomenon; it traces its origins back to the creation of the state of Israel .

 

Israel was created out of collective allied guilt and compassion at the end of World War II, although the idea of a Jewish state dates back to guarantees given to Jewish leader Chaim Weizman under the British Balfour Declaration in 1917. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain was mandated by The League of Nations to administer Palestine , and allowed Jewish settlers. Clashes occurred between settlers and Arab residents who had little say in these arrangements. The Arab bottom line was that they would accept settlers within an Arab state, the settlers wanted a separate state. The UN proclaimed the state of Israel in 1948 and the Arab League promptly invaded. Israel survived and added a little more territory.

 

Since that time a constant state of tension has existed between Israel , neighbouring Arab states and their allies and resident and displaced Palestinians. There have been a number of wars, guerrilla raids and acts of terrorism. Nothing has been achieved. The Palestinians await their own state and Israel craves security while conducting itself in such a manner as to make this difficult, if not impossible, for the foreseeable future. Jewish settlements in occupied territory and bunker-busting bombs on Lebanese apartment blocks are part of the angry and emotional fabric which constitutes Israel today.

 

In the meantime, George W. Bush, in a sleight of hand, has conscripted Israel into fighting his war on terror.

 

Blocking the UN Security Council from seeking a ceasefire is not good foreign policy and may well come back to haunt the US. By doing this they have signalled that they condone state-sponsored terrorism. And John Howard cheers from behind; a foreign policy of craven servility. As a medium-ranking power outside the region and with nationals from both sides of the conflict living in Australia , Howard's foreign policy with respect to the Middle East should be even- handed. Howard should temper the Bush rhetoric on terrorism with knowledge of the history of the conflict between Israel and the Arab world.

 

Far from securing its borders, Israel has created another generation of Islamic radicals. But we will not have to wait a generation to experience the immediate mobilisation of Arab anger and frustration.

 

I have been involved in observing and analysing events in the Middle East since 1972. The fundamentals of the Arab/Israeli conflict have not changed. What has changed is the nature of the Arab opposition to Israel , its backers and supporters.

 

It was finally acknowledged, after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, that Israel , with US (and British) backing, had the capacity to destroy most states in the Middle East . That recognition sent opposition underground, away from state structures. So that, for instance, powerful elements in Saudi Arabia have been prepared to secretly channel funds to groups and organisations in order to avoid US pressure that would have been deployed had states been the recipients. Many powerful individuals and institutions in Saudi Arabia have an ambivalent attitude towards the US as the principal backer of Israel .

 

It is from this ambivalent background that Osama bin Laden evolved, was nurtured and eventually burst on to the world stage with the attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001. A singular act of gutlessness, since his own neck was never on the block, but that is the nature of the new dispensation. Bin Laden might be counted among the ranks of World War 1 generals who never went into the firing line and never witnessed at first hand the carnage they caused.

 

But if Arabs feel aggrieved, then Israel does so in spades.

 

The effect of the Holocaust has never been factored-in to the seemingly irrational over-reaction of Israel to the threats that it is faced with. The Holocaust hang-up has been a significant guilt trip for successive US administrations and a defining framework for all Israeli policy-making with the ongoing message that Jews are not weak, they will never again be pushed around. Within that framework Middle East negotiations are difficult.

 

Collectively Jews do not want to be perceived as weak, particularly so in Israel . Who is going to be brave enough to say that the Holocaust should no longer be a defining feature of Israel ; that if Israel is going to be able to negotiate its future with its neighbours it has to be able to shed the mantle of victim?

 

By providing unconditional support to an emotionally and psychologically damaged Israel , as much at war with its past as with its future, the US risks also becoming a victim of that past. The Israelis have a right to exist within secure borders. Palestinians have the same right, so far denied by Israel , the US and a few allies including Australia .

 

Bruce Haigh is a retired diplomat who has worked in the Middle East .