New Delhi is not Teheran

Fairness isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Sometimes it makes sense to maintain “double standards,” to dismiss cries of hypocrisy as naïve, and even dangerous. In the international arena, for instance, nuclear proliferation rules that should be rigorously applied to rogue states such as Iran, and proliferating countries such as Pakistan, ought not to be applied to trustworthy and non-proliferating nations such as Israel and India.

How to treat New Delhi is very much on the agenda. On March 2, a politically weakened US President George Bush traveled to India to clinch what Bush rightly called “an historic agreement” with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The deal would “mainstream” India into the club of nuclear nations (necessary because it is not a signatory to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), making nuclear commerce between the two countries possible. It would also draw Washington and New Delhi into a genuine 21st century alliance contributing to a more secure America.

The deal, years in the making, has India placing 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors, those in the civilian-sector, under international safeguards; the other eight would remain as military facilities and thus not be subject to international inspections. Nevertheless, New Delhi is prepared to limit its stockpile of nuclear bomb-making ingredients, assuming multi-lateral arrangements can be worked out, capping its stockpile of nuclear weapons.

That is not enough for New York Times super pundit Thomas L. Friedman. In his March 8 column, Friedman questioned Washington’s wisdom in facilitating India’s entry into the club of nuclear nations on the grounds that New Delhi still refuses to sign the NPT, and that American policy is to prohibit civilian nuclear technology from reaching nations that have not signed the treaty.
While Friedman is a friend of India’s (you just need to read his bestseller, "The World is Flat," to appreciate that), when it comes to “undermining” the anachronistic NPT he won’t make any exceptions – not even for India.

Friedman argues that granting special dispensation to India would undercut “the legal basis” for building coalitions against the spread of WMDs to rogue states.

Right. You can just see North Korea and Iran capitulating under the onus of international law.

Now the Economist has joined the fray. The newspaper, whose current cover cleverly portrays Bush costumed as a Texas-cowboy straddling an atom bomb (think Dr. Strangelove), editorializes that in allowing India “to import nuclear fuel and technology despite its weapons-building, Mr. Bush has not for the first time seemed readier to favor a friend than to stick to a principle.”
What Bush wants, says the Economist, is to treat “democratic, friendly, law-abiding India” as some kind of exception. Says the Economist: That could “fatally” undermine the NPT regime.
If the Bush-Singh arrangement “fatally” undermines NPT maybe the treaty is as obsolete to the realities of the 21st century as the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact (which renounced war as an instrument of national policy) was to the 20th century.


I MUCH prefer the more pragmatic worldview of another pundit, The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, who writes that, “The cry of ‘double standard’” is a bit silly because “India is our friend and Iran” is not. “The Israeli bomb threatens nobody. An Iranian bomb does. India has transferred its nuclear technology to no one. Pakistan has. No one worries about India or Israel making the technology available to terrorists. Everyone worries about Iran doing that.”

Significantly, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei has endorsed the Bush-Singh arrangement while opposition from China (the nuclear club member that matters most) is muted.

On Thursday, the White House asked Congress to implement the Bush-Singh deal by adopting legislation that would exempt India from Atomic Energy Act rules prohibiting US nuclear sales to non-NPT states. In addition, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group would have to alter its regulations to allow them to provide goods and services to India.


I HOPE Congress approves the deal because – like Israel – India finds itself in a unique situation. And like Israel, it deserves special consideration.

• India was in the forefront of the NPT idea, but wanted the rules applied universally. Instead, the NPT formalized what India saw as a discriminatory regime; only the US, USSR, China, France and Britain – what became the club of nuclear nations – were given the legal right to maintain weapons of mass destruction. New Delhi refused to sign on to this arrangement.
• India never proliferated. It never obtained illegal know-how. Indian scientists developed and then carefully guarded the knowledge of atomic bomb-making. Contrast this with non-NPT signatory Pakistan which illegally obtained its know-how and than proliferated what it knew (for a price) to North Korea and Iran.
• Also contrast India’s faithful non-proliferation behavior with the deceitful actions of Iraq, Iran and North Korea in violation of their NPT obligations. Even Indian firms behaved more responsibly than a number of Western European companies which sold nuclear know-how and material to the rogue states.
• And India opposes a nuclear-armed Iran. The Indian government consistently supported Washington at the IAEA, despite powerful domestic opposition from Muslim and left-wing parties, and notwithstanding the fact that India imports 70 percent of its oil and will need Iranian cooperation to meet its ever-growing energy needs.

SO HERE is one of those issues that require some out-of-the-box thinking. India is already a major player in the international arena and its voice will only become stronger with time. Fostering ties between the US and India, which is not only the most populous democracy on earth, but also the world’s fourth largest economy, demands putting ourselves in India’s shoes. New Delhi is being wooed by the Arabs, Persians, even the Chinese. As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pointed out on January 5: “We can’t say to the Indians, on the one hand, you can’t... [engage in] energy relations with Iran, but by the way, ‘civil nuclear’ is closed off to you.”

In this, Rice is backed by former secretary of state Henry Kissinger who argues that “India should be treated as a country whose nuclear progress had become irreversible.”

Whatever the Bush administration’s other failings, it is spot on in its appreciation of India’s global importance.

It is also in Israel’s geo-strategic interest to see ties between India and America made stronger. Though much still needs to be done to draw India and Israel closer, enormous steps have been taken since New Delhi first recognized Israel in 1950 and finally established an embassy in 1992.
Both Israel and India represent ancient civilizations which today share common political values, overlapping security concerns, and a growing commerce (to the annual tune of $2.5 billion). There is even talk that the Bank of India wants to open a branch in Israel, a step that would make trade even easier.

As Jews mark Purim this week to commemorate our triumph over an ancient Persian madman, Hindus will be marking Holi – the end of winter – festival of colors. Megilat Esther recalls that King Achashverosh’s empire stretched from Hodu ad Kush – from India to Ethiopia.

If we play our cards right democracy’s “empire” can stretch even wider.

KADIMA DROOPS – Plain Talk

We are just back from a lovely week in Spain (Seville, Madrid, Cordoba) to discover that – in our absence – Kadima dropped several seats in the polls.

Nevertheless, the party founded by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is still projected to come out well ahead of either Labor or Likud and to form the next government.

When Israelis go to the polls on March 28 they will know what the competing parties stand for.

Pray they choose wisely.

This election will be the belated referendum many of us wanted prior to the Gaza disengagement.

The steadfast (and rational) Right will know to vote for the “National Union/NRP.” Others may opt for Avigdor Leiberman’s “Israel Beiteinu.”

The irrational (and messianic) Right can choose from an array of smaller splinter parties.

Those who are taken in by charlatanism will vote for “Likud” whose leadership facilitated the disengagement, but then pulled out just prior to its implementation.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the masses. So Likud’s low-blow, personalized, anti-Olmert campaign ads portraying him as a “leftist” combined with the charms of the charismatic Binyamin Netanyahu will likely garner it the chump vote.

What Likud says it stands for is anti-unilateralism. Netanyahu claims he isn’t against cutting a deal with the Arabs, but any concessions should be based on give and take.

So, anyone who actually expects the Arabs to cut such a deal, or anyone who prefers the status quo more than anything else, might want Likud in power – assuming they actually believe Netanyahu would be faithful to his campaign promises.

The rational Left, I suppose, would vote for Amir Peretz’s “Labor Party.”

Peretz stands for unconditional negotiations with the Palestinians – but even he is hard-pressed to find Palestinians to talk to (and even he has ruled out dealing with a Hamas-led PA).

He’s just met with the ever-irrelevant Mahmoud Abbas, presumably to show that there is Palestinian partner.

A Labor vote would also be an expression of support for the party’s domestic agenda which includes increasing the minimum wage.

The more hardcore leftwing vote will go to “Meretz” under Yossi Beilin. But the party is in serious straits and there is a chance it won’t make it into the 17th Knesset. Good riddance.

Haredim (the ultra-Orthodox) will vote for the Ashkenazi “United Torah Judaism” or the Sephardi “Shas” parties because they have parochial interests and want to see them funded.

And, of course, the Arab citizens of Israel, will vote for the various Arab parties. But there too, the level of fragmentation and vote dissipation, may mean that fewer Arab Knesset members will meet the threshold necessary to be elected this time around.


THOSE of us who plan to vote for Kadima think we know what our party stands – at least on security issues.

This sense was reinforced by Avi Dichter, a former Shin Bet chief, and top Kadima Knesset candidate, when he described over the weekend how Kadima would seek to re-draw Israel’s map based on the still under construction security fence and settlement blocs.

Sunday’s “Yediot Aharonot” tabloid even published a map which purported to show the settlements that would likely remain and which would be evacuated under a Kadima-led government.

Any “second disengagement” would be from settlements, not the land itself – meaning Israel would retain military control over all of Judea and Samaria.

Dichter said “We have no intention of carrying out a military disengagement because we have no partner who will fight terror. The stage of a full hand over of the area will only take after place after a Palestinian Authority arises that proves that it is able to and will fight terror.”

According to “Yediot Aharonot,” there are to be seven settlement blocs:

* Ma’aleh Adumim (east of Jerusalem), Ariel, the Gush Etzion (south of Jerusalem) as well as the Jordan Valley.
* Karnei Shomron-Kedumim; Ofra-Beit El; and Hebron-Kiryat Arba

Smaller isolated settlements would be evacuated inside the larger settlement blocs closest to them.

This is not a plan to make life better for the Palestinian Arabs (though it may reduce the number of military checkpoints), but to enhance Israeli security.

The plan will reduce the number of enemy civilians under Israeli jurisdiction (and thus friction between the two sides) and increase the land available to the Palestinians.

But the main goal would be to reduce the number of isolated Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria that the army has to worry about.

This would presumably make it easier for the IDF to defend access to those communities that remain.

Is the Dichter plan Kadima’s final word on how it would re-draw our security map? I hope not.

It obviously makes security sense to retain the Jordan Valley. Not only don’t we know what the future will bring for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (whose population is overwhelmingly Palestinian Arab), but we can have no illusions about a Palestinian polity led by the Islamist rejectionists of Hamas.

Jerusalem can hardly allow the Palestinians to control the gateway to western Eretz Israel.

But I am curious why, under Kadima’s plan, the settlements of Shiloh and Eli which sit high on strategic mountaintops are slated for abandonment while Karnei Shomron (and Ofra) which sit relatively low are slated to be retained.

From a purely military viewpoint – why not retain Shiloh which sits literally midpoint in the very heart of the country?

Kadima’s bottom line philosophy blends unilateralism (vis-a-vis the enemy) with a desire for international support.

Sunday’s “Haaretz” reported that Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is hoping to enlist international backing – hoping that for starters Washington will formally recognize Israel’s new defense lines – for redrawing the map. I fear he will be disappointed, certainly by the EU and in all probability by the US as well.

Nevertheless, Kadima represents a pragmatic, centrist approach that accepts the status quo can’t go on; that the strategic, demographic and diplomatic balance of power demands Israeli unilateralism. And that the Israeli home front must made more cohesive if we are to overcome what the enemy (on all fronts) has in store.

The Right wants voters to believe that Oslo and the war it wrought have had no lasting deleterious diplomatic or military impact on Israel’s position.

The Left remains deluded that unconditional negotiations will lead to two states living side-by-side in peace.

Only Kadima seems to have a firmer grip on reality.

But that does not mean they have all the answers.

Dalai Lama in Israel

The welcome presence in Israel of Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama and leader of the Tibetan people, reminds Israelis that we are not, after all, at the center of the universe; that there are political struggles, philosophical approaches and spiritual roads that have nothing to do with Jews, Israel, or the clash between Islamist medievalism and Western modernity.

Faced with a newly installed and Hamas-led Palestinian parliament a stone’s throw from our capital and menacing taunts from a Teheran just over the ballistic horizon, we Israelis could, perhaps, be forgiven for focusing mostly on our own existential dilemma.

The Tibetan struggle is not for independence from China, but for cultural autonomy. A vast, mountainous territory almost six times Israel’s size, Tibet lies at the crossroads of India, Nepal and China.

It was briefly independent in 1911 as a Buddhist theocracy. But when a Tibetan uprising inside China spread to Tibet itself in 1956, Beijing began to reassert control over the region. By 1959 China had crushed the Buddhist rebellion and occupied Tibet, forcing the young Dalai Lama and tens of thousands of his followers to flee to refuge in India, where they now reside. Today, thanks to Chinese policies, Tibetans are a minority in their own land.

Jews know something about preserving a unique civilization in exile, and about facing down an enemy against overwhelming odds. And Israelis feel a special affinity to the Tibetan cause; some are helping to establish The Tibet Museum in India.

The mere presence of the cleric here (it was his third visit) made the Chinese Embassy in Tel Aviv uncomfortable. Consequently, neither Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert nor President Moshe Katsav met with the Dalai Lama. This sensitivity – though arguably diplomatically prudent – is misplaced given the disregard Beijing has shown for Israel’s concerns over Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons; not to mention the support that we, as a democracy and a Jewish state, should be showing for the cause of human rights.

Charismatic and self-effacing – followers believe he is the manifestation, or “reincarnate,” of the Buddha – the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 for anchoring his cause in non-violence. He argues, pragmatically, that in politics reason must triumph over emotion; that there is a distinction between an evil act and the one who carries it out; that today’s enemy has the potential to be tomorrow’s friend.

“How do you dialogue with a Hitler or a Stalin?” an Israeli reporter asked.

Replied the sage after a lengthy pause: “It is difficult. But then violent methods are even more disastrous.”

Yesterday, speaking before a reverent audience at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Dalai Lama instructed that compassion does not mean surrender; that the talmudic principle “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man” has parallels in all the great religions; and that at the end of the day, non-violence is the only way forward for humanity.

So beyond sympathizing with the decency of a man who abhors harm to his adversary, and the apparent justice of Tibet’s cause, what can Israelis take away from this encounter?

More ancient than Buddhism, the Judaic tradition is remarkably pragmatic. It places virtually no stricture above life itself. It is the civilization that aspires to the fulfillment of Isaiah’s vision that “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more.”

Yet alluring as the Dalai Lama’s message is, his is not the Jewish way. Facing an enemy that invented the suicide bomber’s belt, the response of unilateral pacifism would result in our annihilation. In place of an imperfect Israel, a violently reactionary Islamist regime would arise.
Still, even though the message of non-violence resonates only as a faint hope vis-a-vis the Arab and Muslim world, perhaps the presence of this “simple Buddhist monk” will at least remind Israelis of the way we should treat each other.

No matter how acrimonious our schisms, no matter how profoundly felt the alienation or how painful the hurt after Gaza and Amona, we must abhor intra-communal violence. We must invoke the memory of another teacher of non-violence, the Rev. Martin Luther King, who, when urged by black militants in 1966 to abandon his peaceful path, brushed them off, declaring: “I’m not going to use violence, no matter who says it.”

Thank you Amira Hass

Were you as intrigued as I was by Amira Hass’s piece on Haaretz’s front page today (Sunday, February 12)?

It’s an item that ought to be read – carefully.

Hass – perhaps the country’s foremost pro-Palestinian, Israeli-born journalist – describes a closed-door meeting of the Quartet (the UN, US, EU & Russia) which took place on January 30 in London.

Also attending was former US president Jimmy Carter, in his capacity as having been a “senior” monitor of the Palestinian elections.

A quick aside. Years ago, I interviewed the late Rabbi Alexander Schindler in connection with research I was doing on his tenure as chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations during the Carter years.

Schindler, a Reform rabbi and liberal Democrat, told me in no uncertain terms that Carter was the only president he would classify as an out-and-out Jew-hater. I’ve never forgotten that.

Back to London.

Carter used his Quartet guest appearance, according to Hass, to denounce Israeli policies and to criticize the US for coddling the Jewish state.

Then Carter urged the Quartet to open negotiations with Hamas. Hass does not tell us how Condoleezza Rice reacted.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavorov, Hass reports, also said a few nice words about Hamas.

One thing that emerges out of Hass’s description of the meeting is that the Quartet was (all along) far from united in backing Washington’s “no talk” stance on Hamas. Not just Russia, but Kofi Annan and the EU’s Javier Solana also wanted to go soft on Hamas.

What this illuminates for me is that all the anger at Putin because of his plans to invite Hamas to Moscow is wasted.

Pundits were asking why Russia was “breaking” with the Quartet, and speculating that Moscow wanted to re-establish the foothold in the region that the USSR once enjoyed. There’s something to that, perhaps.

But if Hass is right – Russia’s actions are in essential harmony with the Quartet’s view of Hamas.

If anyone is out of step with the “international community” it is Washington.

The Prophet’s honor

The cartoon was disgracefully insensitive. It depicted a barbed wire Star of David in which innocent Palestinian men, women and children were trapped. By the time it appeared in the "Seattle Times" in July 2003, hundreds of Israeli civilians had been mercilessly slaughtered by Palestinian terrorists in what they call the “second intifada.”

But compared to what is typically found in the Arab press, cartoonist Tony Auth’s effrontery was fairly bland.

Arab political “humor” knows no bounds.

A cartoon in Qatar’s Al-Watan depicted Prime Minister Ariel Sharon drinking from a goblet of Palestinian children’s blood. Another, in the Egyptian Al-Ahram al-Arabi showed him jackbooted, bloody-handed and crushing peace.

Arab cartoonists routinely demonize Jews as global conspirators, corrupters of society and blood-suckers. Just this Saturday, Britain’s Muslim Weekly published a caricature of a hooked-nose Jew – Ehud Olmert.

And it’s not just cartoons. During Ramadan 2002, an Egyptian satellite television channel broadcasted the multi-episode "Horseman Without a Horse" series based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion canard.

How did Israel and world Jewry respond? The Israeli embassy in Cairo filed a protest. A US student group held an orderly demonstration outside an Egyptian consulate, and Jewish leaders sent a strongly-worded letter to the Mubarak government.

Contrast this with the frenzied Muslim reaction to 12 cartoons, including one depicting the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban which appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten five months ago and was recently widely disseminated. It was intended, paradoxically, to satirize Muslim intolerance.

The cartoon “blasphemy” has generated bomb threats, armed takeovers and widespread desecration of the Danish flag. A Western cultural center was vandalized; Catholic aid workers were threatened. European observers at the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Sinai wisely stayed away from their posts.

Several Muslim states have recalled their ambassadors. There is talk of a Muslim trade boycott of Danish (and European) products. Mass protests are being held throughout the world. In London, marchers carried placards reading: “Massacre those who insult Islam” and “Freedom go to hell.” Protesters denounced the BBC for airing the cartoons during news broadcasts.

Things continue to deteriorate. In Damascus on Saturday rioters set fire to the building that houses the Norwegian, Danish and Swedish embassies. In Beirut yesterday the Danish embassy was set ablaze.

Official Western reaction has generally been to meet intolerance with remarkable sensitivity and understanding. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, while apologizing for the offense caused, sought to explain that his government doesn’t actually control what newspapers publish.

The Vatican condemned the cartoons as offensive; so did the US State Department (though the White House denounced subsequent anti-Western violence as “outrageous”).
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw counseled self-censorship: “There is freedom of speech... but... not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory.”

There are those who would argue that the controversy does not reflect a clash of civilizations. Yet it is precisely this persistent refusal to acknowledge the obvious that weakens the cause of tolerance and liberty. Must “understanding” invariably result in the abdication of Western values?

If anyone wants to appreciate why the West views with such suspicion the weapons programs of Muslim states such as Iran, they need look no further than the intolerance Muslim regimes exhibit to these cartoons, and what this portends.

No one wants to add fuel to the fire. Mobs are more easily placated than reasoned with. But once this controversy passes it will be valuable to determine just who exploited the flap to foment anti-Western outrage, and to inquire what “moderate” Muslim voices said.

One such voice, Jihad al-Momani, editor-in-chief of the Jordanian weekly Shihan, was arrested for republishing the cartoons (to show Arabs what they were protesting). In an accompanying editorial – which his staff subsequently repudiated – Momani wrote: “Who offends Islam more? A foreigner who draws the prophet... or a Muslim with an explosive belt who commits suicide in Amman or anywhere else?”

Globalism demands that points of contact between Islam and the West be multi-cultural havens, not flashpoints. For that to happen, tolerance must be a two-way street.