WHAT A DEGRADING TURKISH WAY OF ‘USING’ FRIENDS IN JERUSALEM AND ELSEWHERE
USA Armenian Life Magazine
July 28, 2006
Appo K. Jabarian
Managing Editor / Executive Publisher
Hye Kiank Armenian Weekly
Ever since the infamous and notoriously anti-Armenian ‘Turkish Armenian
Reconciliation Commission’ was decommissioned in late 2003, denialist
Turks and their cronies embarked on a series of new attempts at fake
dialogue to lull Armenians into subjugation and pacifism. Several
such attempts were detected early on by alert Armenian activists
and derailed. An attempt made earlier this year by denialist Turkish
officials visiting USC was foiled.
However, another bridge of dialogue called the ‘armworkshop’ continues
to function albeit with much difficulty. The listserv at ‘armworkshop,’
administered by Turkish Prof. Fatma Muge Gocek of University of
Michigan at Dearborn, has hundreds of members from around the world.
Most of the members are scholars. Others are government or civic
leaders representing various countries, including but not limited
to the United States, Turkey, and Israel. Some other members who
represent the Armenian-Americans include Marc A. Mamigonian, Director
of Programs and Publications at National Association for Armenian
Studies and Research ( NAASR ); Dennis R. Papazian, Ph.D., Professor
of History, Director, Armenian Research Center, The University of
Michigan-Dearborn; Harut Sassounian, the Publisher of The California
Courier, among others.
Several Turkish and other scholars are known to be ‘righteous’
individuals who acknowledge the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. When
the subject in that listserv does not deal with the hard core facts of
the Armeno-Turkish conflict, the discussants are content with their
‘highly scholarly’ approach. However, when a fellow like Sassounian
brings to the forefront of public awareness crucial facts that deeply
affect the Armenians and serve as a wake-up call to genuinely righteous
members of the listserv, some members resort to mudslinging against
Sassounian. One such member is Turkish scholar, Dr. Kerem Oktem
(D. Phil, M.St. MMES, Oxon) of St Antony’s College (University
of Oxford) in England. Another is Jewish scholar Louis Fishman,
Instructor in History at Carleton College. A third such member is
Turkish Assistant Professor Ugurhan G. Berkok, Dept. of Politics and
Economics at Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston, Ontario.
In a commentary titled, “Israel Asks U.S. Jews to Lobby for
Azerbaijan, Against Armenia,” Sassounian wrote on July 25: ‘It is
common knowledge that Azerbaijan, following Turkey’s footsteps, tries
to use the political clout of Israel and American-Jewish organizations
in Washington, D.C. to counter Armenian interests. Israel obliges
the Azeri demands out of an interest in importing oil and gas from
Azerbaijan and exporting various products, possibly including
weapons. Israel also needs access to Azerbaijan in order to
collect intelligence on neighboring Iran. The details of this close
cooperation, more aptly described as ‘mutual exploitation,’ are
not usually made public. The July 10, 2006 issue of The Jerusalem
Report, however, published a 13-page article by Netty C. Gross
disclosing some of the ties between Azerbaijan, Israel and American
Jewish organizations. The Report covered the visit to Baku of ‘a
delegation of Israeli dignitaries and Russian Jewish functionaries’
in mid-May. The article titled, ‘The Azeri Triangle,’ started with a
straightforward statement: ‘Israel and Diaspora Jewry are deepening
their own links with oil-rich Muslim Azerbaijan and helping the Azeri
regime win friends in Washington.”
Sassounian noted: ‘Describing ‘a strong
Azerbaijani-American-Israel-Jewish connection’ [that] benefits
everyone,’ Gross wrote that Israel ‘is deeply interested in
consolidating its relations’ with Azerbaijan. ‘Israel has seen it
in its interest to encourage U.S. Jews to take up the Azeri cause in
the Washington corridors of power, at the same time reinforcing the
notion held by many Azeris and others in the Third World that the way
to Washington leads through Jerusalem.’ It is noteworthy that Gross
implicated ‘U.S. Jews’ in carrying out the instructions of Israel
‘a foreign power ‘ in the United States to serve the interests of
Azerbaijan. ‘. In early February, a 50-strong delegation from the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations was received
by Aliyev. In April, the Azeri president welcomed Israeli tycoon
Lev Leviev.’
Sassounian continued: ‘Gross gave the details of some of the links
between the two countries as relayed to him by Israel’s ambassador to
Azerbaijan, Arthur Lenk, a native of New Jersey’. Gross then disclosed
the political connections between Azerbaijan, Israel and American
Jews regarding Armenian issues: ‘Israel’s main selling point with
Azerbaijan is not Israeli. Rather, it’s the American Jewish lobby,
which, encouraged by Israel, has helped Azerbaijan in Congress. The
background to the story is the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict’. A
particularly painful sore point is Section 907, a U.S. congressional
amendment to the 1992 Soviet [sic] Freedom Support Act, aimed at
boosting economic and humanitarian aid to all of the 15 emerging
former Soviet republics except Azerbaijan. Passed at the urging of the
Armenian-American lobby in 1993, when the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
was flaring, 907 barred the U.S. from military or other cooperation
with Azerbaijan’. Encouraged by Israel, influential American Jewish
groups have since acted on behalf of Baku as a bulwark against the
powerful American-Armenian lobby in Congress and have tried to get
907 repealed. Since 2002, when the U.S. needed Azeri airspace to reach
Afghanistan, the U.S. has agreed to annual presidential waivers of 907,
which lift restrictions.”
Sassounian underlined: ‘Gross quoted Mark Levin, (the executive
director of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, a Washington-based
organization that is ‘a member of the coalition of Jewish groups
that have worked on behalf of Azerbaijan’s interests on Capitol
Hill,’) as stating that the American-Armenian lobby in Washington
‘is very strong and organized, and speaks in a unified voice. On other
political issues, we have partnered with [the Armenians], but when it
comes to Azerbaijan, we are on different sides of the fence.’ Levin
acknowledged that, on the whole, American Jewish policymakers feel
comfortable in their strong support of Azerbaijan on the Hill and take
their cue from the U.S. and Israel. Various Azeri officials confirm the
value of the Jewish lobby in countering Armenians: ‘American Jews have
helped us lobby in Washington against the Armenians and their help
is very important. We are very appreciative,’ Azerbaijan’s Foreign
Minister Elmar Mammadyarov told Gross. ‘ Regrettably, Gross misleads
his readers by not pointing out that not all Jews sell out their
souls to Azerbaijan or Turkey. As it has been repeatedly documented
in previous columns, many Jewish individuals and organizations in both
Israel and the United States are strong supporters of Armenian issues,
despite the pressures from the government of Israel!’
Sassounian further underlined: ‘Gross balanced the effusive
pro-Azeri comments in his article by including statements that accuse
Azerbaijan’s leaders of ‘corruption and political repression.’ He
referred to critics who said that the cozy relationship between
Israel and Azerbaijan ‘will unravel just as Israel’s romance with Iran
did.’ He quoted Dr. Asim Mollazade, the chairman of an Azeri opposition
party, as saying that the United States, Israel and Jewish Americans
would someday be ‘deeply disappointed’ for supporting the undemocratic
and corrupt regime in Azerbaijan. Gross also pointed out the double
standards practiced by Azeri leaders who present themselves to Jews as
being pro-Israeli, while distancing themselves from Israel in front
of the Muslim world. He mentioned, for example, the fact that Israel
opened its Embassy in Baku in 1993, and yet Azerbaijan has not opened
its Embassy in Israel in order to appease fellow Muslims. Last month,
Azerbaijan assumed the chairmanship of the Organization of Islamic
Countries which held its annual conference in Baku.’
Sassounian concluded: ‘Obviously, Israel is free to establish
economic and political ties with any country, including Turkey and
Azerbaijan. American Jewish organizations are likewise free to send
delegations to various countries. But when they agree to place
their considerable political clout at the services of Azerbaijan or
Turkey against Armenia’s interests, Armenians worldwide then have
the perfect right to expose their sinister arrangements and counter
their every move.’
No sooner than Sassounian’s eye-opening commentary was circulated
on the internet, several listserv members of the ‘armworkshop,’
including professors Oktem, Fishman, and Berkok, resorted to a
campaign of mudslinging against Sassounian. This writer received
copies of their vicious e-attacks against Sassounian from several
members of the ‘armworkshop.’
On July 25, Dr Kerem Oktem wrote: ‘I find Mr. Sassounian’s articles
annoying and disturbing in general. ‘Despite my general dislike of
Mr Sassounian’s contributions, I would like to say that his last
sentence on the article he sent out today is inexcusable.’
Dr. Oktem was rebutted by a fellow list member Attorney Harry Dikranian
of Montreal, Quebec: ‘It may annoy certain readers who would prefer
Jewish-Azeri-Turkish alliances remain undisclosed. Such interest-based
alliances are more than conceivable and indeed sinister (the clearly
appropriate word) without needing to evoke the images you detail. ‘
I would certainly not use this article as an example for an indictment
to reductionism, simplification or incitement, etc., as you suggest,
against Harut Sassounian. I believe there should be ample place on
this list for such well-written and balanced newsprint analysis.’
Apparently disturbed by Attorney Dikranian’s lucid remarks, Dr. Oktem
adamantly e-filed an ‘ADDENDUM’ saying: ‘I certainly do not wish to
imply that Baskin Oran and Harut Sassounian are comparable in the
way they approach the issues debated here. What I meant to imply was
that Baskin Oran’s choice of words (Jewification) led to an outcry
on the list, partly understandable, partly surprisingly hostile to a
leading critical, radical scholar, who has been at the forefront of the
struggle of minority rights in Turkey, at a time mainstream Turkish
leftist intellectuals were concerned with how to establish different
kind of dictatorships for perceived majorities (proletariate [sic],
peasants, you name it). I further meant to say that since Baskin
Oran was vilified so aggressively, and in my view undeservedly for
a misconstrued term, than Harut Sassounian’s hate speech requires
a much stronger response. Hence my request that such should not be
circulated on this list.’
In response to Dr. Oktem’s diatribes, Andrew Kevorkian, a respected
intellectual, wrote: ‘Since when is a true statement ‘hate-speech”
I am on Sassounian’s e-mail list, and I have read his ‘Commentary’
and your reaction, and I am puzzled. It is common knowledge — and,
if I were a Turk, I would be proud — that Ankara dictates policy to
the US State Department. At least, it does so on matters Armenian,
Cypriot, Greek. Why would saying so constitute ‘hate-speech” For
far too-many years, I, too, have been saying and writing the same
thing to anyone who would listen. Why, therefore, should it disturb
you that an Armenian should not only state the obvious but also ask
other Armenians to do something about it”
Kevorkian continued: ‘It would appear that all your years in the West
— and all your schooling (I won’t say ‘education,’ because that is
a different animal) — hasn’t rid you of your Turkishness (and the
thin skin which all Turks have — as a British editor once told me)
and hasn’t enabled you to acquire a respect for such un-Turkish
concepts as ‘free speech’ and ‘free press.'”
Kevorkian added: ‘But, what is worse, you then trot out the favorite
image of the anti-Semite Jew and ascribe it to Sassounian’s intention
or objective. Talk about ‘hate-speech’!!! As a so-called ‘scholar,’
you should be a seeker after truth. Try reading all the studies
that have been conducted — and published — on the various lobbies
that abound in Washington, and read what they say about the ‘Jewish
Lobby’ vis-a-vis Turkey and Turkey’s interests, and then re-read what
Sassounian has said. What Sassounian has been saying is: ‘Israel’s
lobby in Washington supports Turkey’s interests, and we Armenians must
do our best to counter it.’ That is hardly ‘hate-speech.’ Except,
of course, under Turkey’s infamous ‘Article 301.’ Try thinking
“Western.” Who knows, you may even grow to like it.’
And to add insult to the 91 year old genocidal injury inflicted upon
Armenians by Turkey in 1915-23, Assistant Professor Berkok retorted:
‘I’m sure you (Dr. Oktem) must have heard similar chauvinist slurs from
Kevorkian’s Turkish counterparts! And just when I thought chauvinists
were all Turkish! And, I’m sure, your Turkishness predisposes you to
be unable to “… acquire a respect for such un-Turkish concepts as
‘free speech’ and ‘free press.’ That’s why you’ve been a member of
this listserv, haven’t you’ I fully share your scholarly perspectives
on the Sassounian piece and on the Kevorkian e-mail. Your two e-mails
sufficiently highlighted the criterion of scholarliness as opposed
to Sassounian piece and Kevorkian e-mail.’
Last but not least, a crony of denialist Turks, History instructor
Louis Fishman of Carleton University, apparently deeply panicked
by Sassounian’s revelations, showered on the latter a ‘carpet
bombardment’ of meaningless questions. Instead of honestly and
humanely addressing the critical questions raised by Sassounian,
Fishman resorted to a silly campaign of accusations in the form of
‘counter-questions.’ However, when his intimidating tactics failed to
‘produce’ subjugation and silence with his target victim, he resorted
to mud slinging against Sassounian.
To his credit, Kevorkian delivered a swift and decisive blow to
Fishman: ‘I know only what he (Sassounian) wrote, and I obviously
was in agreement. However, when Kerem wrote his comments, I took
umbrage because he didn’t seem to want to refute anything that
Sassounian said, but wanted only to accuse him of uttering of what
was not there”hate-speech.’ I noted in his comment–and in yours
(Louis Fishman), as well — on my message that there was no attempt
to deny the truth of what Sassounian (and I, if I may) said but to
further throw stones:
Is it, or is it not, true that Turkey dictates the US State
Department’s policies regarding Armenia, Cyprus, Greece’
Is it, or is it not true, that the ‘Jewish Lobby’ in the US, fights the
Turkish fight (better, it must be admitted, than the Turks ever can)’
If Turkey can object (as it does) to the role that the ‘Armenian Lobby’
plays in Washington, why, therefore, cannot an Armenian object to
what the Jewish/Turkish Lobby does”
Kevorkian also pointed out: ‘If Kerem purports to be a scholar (I
once knew a man who said that he was ‘in the Circulation Department’
of a major newspaper; it turned out that he took the printed newspapers
from the press and wrapped them and carried the bundles to the waiting
trucks!), then he should, first, set aside his biases and prejudices
and, second, should investigate the contrary opinions that exist
and should therefore, test his with what others say. That is why I
suggested that he read the studies on Washington lobbies (as I have)
and note what is said for the Armenian, Greek, Jewish, and Turkish
lobbies. He will find, among other things, that the first three are
funded by the respective ‘diasporas’ in the US and that the Turkish
is the only one funded by ‘the national government.’ There is nothing
wrong with that, in my opinion, but it says much. Also, he will find
that it is a fact that the ‘Jewish Lobby’ also makes it a point to
fight in the Turkish corner. Although I find it bizarre, I find nothing
wrong with that, either. I would like to see a non-Armenian Lobby (or
two) help fight in the Armenian corner. But, to throw stones at me
(which I don’t mind–I have been assaulted by better stone-throwers
than either of you) and Sassounian, rather than refute the arguments
that we have made shows, if nothing else, that we are right, and you
have no legitimate counter-argument.
And, finally, is it, or is it not true that, almost daily, news
reports come from Turkey that yet another journalist or author
has been cited for ‘insulting Turkishness” Even Turkey’s so-called
‘friends’ are finding that hard to absorb, and I note that neither
Kerem nor you, has responded to my statement that the concepts of
‘free speech’ and ‘free press’ do not exist in Turkey and that the
‘new’ Penal Code with its Article 301 is as wicked as the infamous
‘Star Chambers’ were many centuries ago. But, enough. I don’t know
anything about your “list,” but if it is directed at like-thinkers,
you should give a secret password to those who will automatically
nod their heads at anything that you say, and keep the likes of
Sassounian out. Finally, when your supply of stones is exhausted,
perhaps you may want to get around to the questions above.’
Oktem’s, Berkok’s and their likes’ campaign of deception in service
of their Ankara and Baku-based denialist aggressor masters, is
nothing new to Armenians. However, what’s degrading is their masters’
obstinate efforts to operate in the dark, and force Israel and the
Jewish American Lobby to also operate in the dark doing their dirty
work in return for giving them money, oil and gas. What a degrading
Turkish way of ‘using’ friends in Jerusalem and elsewhere.

FOUNDATION OF NEW CHURCH IN STEPANAKERT WAS LAID
Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
26 July 2006
On July 22 the Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin B visited Artsakh
to sanctify the foundation of the second church in Stepanakert,
Saint Astvatsatsin (Holy Mary) Church. In the ceremony of laying the
foundation of the church NKR President Ghukassian, Speaker Ghulian,
members of government were present.
AA. 26-07-2006

IRANIAN EMBASSY IN ARMENIA URGES INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO STOP CRISIS IN MIDDLE EAST
Yerevan, July 27. ArmInfo. The Embassy of Iran in Armenia has made a
press statement today in which it urges the UN and the international
community to take serious measures to stop the crisis in the Middle
East.
The Embassy says that the continuing military actions in the Middle
East have made the world’s nations doubtful as to the ability of the
international community to establish peace and stability in the world.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EUROINTERATION TO BE HELD IN YEREVAN JULY 28-29
Yerevan, July 27. ArmInfo. International conference “Eurointegration:
Ways and Mechanisms to Attain Common and Peaceful Neighborhood”
will be held in Yerevan July 28-29.
The event is organized by the International Center for Human
Development, European Integration NGO, Armenian Center for
Trans-Atlantic Initiatives and European Commission.
Attending the conference will be representatives from Armenia, Georgia,
Ukraine, Turkey, Russia, Moldova, Bulgaria and Romania as well as EU,
NATO, OSCE and CE.
The objective of the conference is to present European values,
principles and commitments as guarantees of security and cooperation
in the region. The conferees will discuss the present situation and
the prospects of cooperation in the South Caucasus.-0-

REP. PALLONE URGES SENATE TO BLOCK HOAGLAND NOMINATION
Washington, DC, July 27. ArmInfo. In a July 25th speech on the House
floor, Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
called on the U.S. Senate to block the nomination of Richard Hoagland
to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, reported the Armenian
National Committee of America (ANCA).
In his remarks, the New Jersey legislator outlined the reasons for
his opposition, notably Ambassador-designate Hoagland’s denial of the
Armenian Genocide and his evasiveness and lack of responsiveness to
Senate inquiries. He also highlighted the failure of the Administration
to respond honestly to communications it held with the Turkish
government concerning the firing of current U.S. Ambassador to
Armenia John Evans over his February 2005 remarks affirming the
Armenian Genocide.
Congressman Pallone closed his speech by noting his “fear that
sending an ambassador to Yerevan who denies the Armenian genocide
would represent a tragic escalation in the Bush administration’s
ignorance and support in Turkey’s campaign of genocide denial. The
State Department has reported to Senate offices that they expect
Ambassador Designate Hoagland to be confirmed during a business meeting
early next week. I would urge the Senate to block his nomination
until this administration recognizes the Armenian genocide.”

WORLD FOOTBALL LEGEND MICHEL PLATINI TO VISIT AMENIA AUG 2
Yerevan, July 27. ArmInfo. The world football legend, French football
player, Vice President of the Football Federation of France, FIFA and
UEFA executive Michel Platini is to pay an official visit to Armenia
Aug 2.
The press service of the Football Federation of Armenia (FFA) reports
Platini to come on the invitation of FFA President Ruben Hayrapetyan.
Platini will meet with Hayrapetyan and will attend the ceremony of
opening of small artificial turf football fields in Yerevan’s Avan
and Kanaker-Zeitun communities.
To remind, FFA and UEFA are implementing a Small Football Fields
project. Armenia will get 1 mln Swiss francs under the project through
the Hat Trick investment program. The key requirement of the project
is that each beneficiary national association should open at least 40
small football fields. As of today there are 2 such fields in Yerevan.
Platini will also meet with Armenian state and public figures.-0-

Armenian government to send humanitarian aid to Lebanon
Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
26 Jul 06
On an instruction from Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Markaryan,
the Armenian government has discussed the possibility of rendering
humanitarian aid to Lebanon. The meeting made a decision to help the
Lebanese people with medicines, tents and equipment.
After the government’s decision, it will be possible to send
humanitarian aid by a Yerevan-Aleppo charter plane tomorrow. The work
that is being carried out to move ethnic Armenians to Armenia was
also discussed at the meeting chaired by Minister for Territorial
Administration Ovik Abramyan.
So far, about 550 ethnic Armenians have arrived in Yerevan from
Lebanon and 54 from Israel. It is expected that another 120 people
will arrive in Armenia tomorrow. Most of them are Armenian citizens.
Foreign citizens are also arriving in Armenia. Fifty-one foreign
citizens have already applied to the migration agency for temporary
asylum. Forty-nine of them are from Lebanon and two from Israel.
Taking into account the increase in the number of people arriving
in Armenia from the Middle East, as well as the fact that not all
of them have relatives in Armenia, the meeting decided to discuss
possible assistance to them as well.

Karabakh leader, British baroness discuss bilateral ties
Arminfo
27 Jul 06
Yerevan, 27 July: The president of the Nagornyy Karabakh republic,
Arkadiy Gukasyan, received a delegation led by the deputy speaker of
the British House of Lords, Baroness Caroline Cox, today.
During the meeting, the president expressed his gratitude to the
baroness for her 61st visit to Karabakh and noted the role of
her traditional visits to the republic, which have allowed Artsakh
[Nagornyy Karabakh] to make many friends and companions, the Karabakh’s
presidential press service told Arminfo.
In turn, Cox informed Gukasyan about the programme of her organization
(?Aid: Confidence-Building) to train doctors and nurses in Artsakh and
spoke about her speech at the British House of Lords on the destruction
of Armenian monuments by Azerbaijanis in Jugha [Azerbaijani exclave
of Naxcivan].
At the request of participants in the meeting, Gukasyan answered a
number of questions concerning the current socioeconomic situation
of Nagornyy Karabakh , as well as prospects of further development.

Turkish court acquits author of charges of turning people against military service
AP Worldstream; Jul 27, 2006
A court on Thursday acquitted a Turkish author and journalist of
charges of turning people against military service for defending the
rights of a conscientious objector in her weekly magazine column.
The court ruled that Perihan Magden’s article amounted to “heavy
criticism conveyed within the scope of freedom of expression” and
did not constitute a crime.
Magden was among a string of writers and journalists to stand trial
for expressing opinions, despite pressure from the EU _ which Turkey
hopes to join _ to scrap repressive laws and improve freedoms.
In her column, published in the weekly Yeni Aktuel magazine in
December, Magden defended conscientious objector Mehmet Tarhan who
was sentenced to a record four-year term in a military prison for
disobedience after refusing to wear his military uniform. She argued
that Turkey needed to establish a civilian service as an alternative
to compulsory military conscription.
Conscription in Turkey is obligatory for men over 20, and the country
does not recognize the right to conscientious objection. Objectors have
also been prosecuted on charges of turning people against the military.
Magden faced up to three years in prison had she been convicted.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government has said it has no
plans to change such laws, saying where appropriate the charges are
eventually dropped and defendants are acquitted.
EU officials argue, however, that even if the charges are dropped the
threat of prosecution remains as a deterrent against people wishing
to express opinions.
Late last year, a Turkish court dropped charges against Orhan Pamuk,
one of the country’s most famous novelists, who faced trial on charges
of insulting “Turkishness” for commenting on the mass killings of
Armenians by Turks around the time of World War I. The charges were
dropped for technical reasons amid intense international pressure.

The lesson of Suez has not yet been learned
The Scotsman – United Kingdom; Jul 27, 2006
George Kerevan
THIS week, 50 years ago, the Egyptian leader Gamal Nasser announced
to cheering crowds that he was nationalising the Suez Canal. This
sparked off a chain of events that led inexorably to Britain, France
and Israel invading Egypt. There are good reasons why the anniversary
of this extraordinary little war is being underplayed half a century
on, except of course in Egypt.
For one, having invaded Egypt and captured the canal, the Brits were
forced into instantaneous and ignominious retreat after America’s
President Eisenhower threatened to sink the pound. The British prime
minister, Anthony Eden, whose idea the whole adventure had been,
was humiliated and soon driven from office.
The Israelis drew the sensible conclusion that they could only rely
on themselves for security. Meanwhile, Nasser, whose utter military
incompetence had just lost him the first of many wars, turned defeat
into political victory and became the hero of the Arab masses.
Now that British troops are back in the business of invading Arab
states, and Israel is slugging it out with Hezbollah in Leb-anon, are
there any lessons we can still learn from the Suez debacle? The main
one is that the use of force has to be very well judged, otherwise
you end up in a bigger mess than when you started.
Looking back on Suez in 1956, it is obvious that the British hadn’t
a clue what their own end game was. Having captured the canal,
it suddenly became blindingly obvious that there was no neat exit –
except the first boat home. Were we hoping somebody nicer than Nasser
would just pop out of the woodwork, or were we going to bring back
King Farouk from exile?
That’s not to say we should romanticise Gamal Nasser, who happily
recruited ex-Nazis – actually, they were anything but ex – to help
run his military, in the hope of throwing the Jews into the sea. And
Nasser’s pan-Arab nationalism was premised on ignoring the rights
of the ancient ethnic minorities of the Middle East – Jews, Assyrian
Christians, Armenians, Druze and Copts.
But in retrospect, Nasser seems to have been more bluff than
action. Without Suez, we might have turned Egypt into another India –
wary of the West, non-aligned but not a threat. Especially if we’d
accepted Egyptian ownership of the canal and funded the Aswan Dam. As
it was, when Nasser died in 1970, Egypt quietly slipped back into
the western orbit.
Here’s my worry about what’s happening in Lebanon today: like Suez,
we don’t have a political end game for when the shooting stops. Britain
waded into Egypt in 1956 with no idea how to get out. Lebanon in 2006
is different in that Israel did not start the fight. But I fear the
Israelis are making it up as they go along, which is just as risky.
Hezbollah is the armed proxy for the Iranians, who now dominate
politically the crescent running from south Lebanon through Syria to
Shiite Iraq. The Israelis, whether you like it or not, are trying to
give Hezbollah and the Iranians a bloody nose before they get too
bumptious and start making use of their strategic hold over a big
chunk of the world’s oil.
It was inevitable that Hezbollah would eventually provoke the Israelis
into defending themselves. Once the die was cast two weeks ago,
when Hezbollah unilaterally started firing rockets and kidnapping
Israeli hostages, the Israelis had little choice but to go in and
do something about it. The problem, as I see it, lies in the tactics
the Israelis have been forced to employ.
WITH aid from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah has turned
south Lebanon into a series of minefields and fortifications, forcing
the Israelis to resort to air strikes to wear the enemy down rather
than embark on a costly frontal assault. Unfortunately, even with
precision-guided bombs, this is next to impossible to achieve, never
mind the fact that the Israelis lack the local intelligence to know
where Hezbollah elements are hiding. As a result, we have seen a lot
of buildings blown up, and hundreds of thousands of people fleeing as
refugees. But, as of yesterday, Hezbollah’s capacity to fire rockets
seemed unimpaired.
Hezbollah cannot be let off the hook through an unconditional
ceasefire. That would hand it a victory we will live to regret in
Iraq as well as Israel. But equally, Israel cannot have extended time
merely to drop more bombs in the hope that they hit something.
Israel has not grasped the significance of the changes in the Middle
and Near East brought about by the rise of Iran. The game is no
longer one of Israel using its military strength against a divided
and incompetent Arab world. It is now facing a new Persian Empire,
which is an altogether more dangerous foe, especially if Tehran
acquires nuclear weapons. Israel cannot win that fight alone.
Which is why there has to be a political solution to the Lebanese
crisis as soon as possible, and that has to come from America. It
should be the most important thing on President Bush’s agenda. I fear
it is not.
The Lebanese state has to be persuaded to disarm Hezbollah. Syria has
to be pressured into breaking with Iran (in return for discussions
over the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights). The Arab world – which is
no friend of Hezbollah or Iran – needs to be convinced that if it
supports Hezbollah being neutralised, America and Britain will put
a Palestinian state at the top of their agenda.
Suez in 1956 was a military success and a political failure. Lebanon
2006 is running the risk of being both a military failure and a
political one.