WHAT with the aggravating conflict situation in the Middle East and relations with India taking a nosedive yet again, the past few days have been truly troubling for Pakistan. Both developments are of concern, but given the human suffering of a people with whom we have historical links, I have chosen to focus this week on the situation in the Middle East and what it portends.

An important element that made conflict inevitable in the Israeli-Palestinian equation is the fact that the leadership of the Zionist movement had its origins in Europe. Though the state was established in Palestine, its founding fathers refused to see it as a Middle Eastern country and did not want its destiny to be linked to that region. Israel viewed itself as an extension of European Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, cultural preferences and geo-political interests.

On the other hand, the Palestinians saw the immigrants as aliens who had come to occupy the land where they had been living for centuries. Recently released archives confirm that the founders of Israel viewed the Palestinians with contempt, one of the reasons behind the Israeli reluctance to work out a negotiated settlement.

Consequently, ever since its establishment, Israel has based its policy on denying Palestinians an opportunity of establishing an independent state and ensuring that its neighbours remain weak and disunited. Of course, the Palestinians contributed to their own woes by basing their policies on false assumptions, both about themselves and their fellow Arabs. The latter never really had either the desire or the capability to pose a threat to Israel, especially after their crushing defeat in 1967.

But when the Palestinians and the Arab states have, on rare occasions, given evidence of wanting to enter into serious negotiations with Israel, the latter offered them such humiliating terms that the PLO leadership had no option but to reject them. In the pursuit of its rigid and divisive policy, Israel has counted on its remarkably enduring clout with Washington. It has never been short of money, material or political support from the US.

As in the past, this month’s spiralling crisis has exposed deep divisions within the Arab world and has left its leaders discredited and disgraced. A recent emergency meeting of Arab League foreign ministers was marked by an unwillingness to close ranks and present a united front against Israel. There was also a clear division between western allies like Egypt and Jordan and anti-Israel states like Syria. But most chose to simply keep a low profile and avoid any entanglement in the crisis.

As expected, the Bush administration has thrown its full support behind Israel, laying the blame at the doorsteps of Syria and Iran and providing a virtual carte blanche to the Jewish state to achieve its policy objectives. It is also preventing the Security Council from agreeing on a ceasefire. When the G-8 leaders, meeting in St Petersburg on July 16, called for “an end to Israeli military operations” and demanded that extremists stop shelling Israeli territory, Bush made it clear that in his view “as a sovereign nation, Israel had every right to defend itself against terrorist activity”.

Tony Blair gave fresh evidence of his loyalty to Washington when he alleged that the current crisis had revealed “an arc of extremism” across the world, conveniently forgetting that British policies, over the past 100 years, had played an important role in keeping the region engulfed in turmoil. The Europeans, true to their nature, wrung their hands in despair and while aware of what needed to be done, held back lest they upset the Bush administration.

This is not the first, nor will it be the last, attempt by Israel to attack Lebanon in its attempt to eliminate anti-Israel forces. Some 24 years ago, the Reagan administration had given Israel’s then defence minister, Ariel Sharon, the green light to invade Lebanon, in the expectation that this would eliminate the PLO and ensure American domination in the region. Instead, the US lost hundreds of its marines in Lebanon and its policies led to the creation of Hezbollah. Now, with the blessings of the Bush administration, Israel is engaged in an operation to eliminate the democratically elected governments in both Palestine and Lebanon.

Admittedly, Hezbollah can be accused of provoking Israel, especially at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is keen to demonstrate that he can be as tough as his political mentor Ariel Sharon. It is also true that Hezbollah has been trained by Iran and assisted by Syria, but its political cadres have shown remarkable discipline and resilience. After its success in pushing Israel out from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah emerged as a powerful force in the country.

There are, of course, many in Lebanon who resent Hezbollah’s growing influence and this provides the pretext for Israel to strike at that country. But having succeeded in liberating southern Lebanon and creating an efficient and clean administration in areas under its control, the Hezbollah has gained credibility. In fact, Hezbollah is the only Arab force to have taken concrete action to help the Palestinians against Israel’s harsh policies.

Israel’s well-crafted myth of being under assault from terrorists and Islamists is decried by several independent observers, even in Europe. In this case, Hezbollah conducted a raid across the border and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, but its rocket attacks on Israel were in response to its massive bombardment launched with the intention of destroying the Shia force and bringing about a regime change in Lebanon, as a prelude to a wider war in Syria and Iran.

Unlike previous Arab-Israeli wars, this time Israel is not confronted by Arab states but by popular resistance movements enjoying increasing recognition and support among the masses. The emergence of these non-state actors has deeply upset the Israelis and irritated the Americans, but neither is willing to appreciate the reasons responsible for this phenomenon. These non-state actors have emerged primarily because the Arab states are governed by unrepresentative, authoritarian rulers, most of whom stand discredited at home and are, therefore, dependent on western support.

The Jewish state had always wanted “to change the rules of the game.” That is exactly what Hamas and Hezbollah are doing now. This explains another development. The destruction of non-state forces opposed to Israeli aggrandisement is also an objective shared by the Egyptian, Saudi, Jordanian and other Arab regimes. Sadly, these reactionary regimes are failing to appreciate that the resistance movements are now the only credible forces that reflect the sentiment on the street which wishes to see the quick departure of American forces from the region.

The West and, in particular, the US must realise the fundamental truth that Israel’s policies are not going to bring peace to the region or to itself. It is, therefore, in the interest of the West to resolve the Palestinian issue, for it is the primary source of anger and alienation among Muslims the world over. The “road map” is there, but it cannot move forward till such time as Israel has crossed the emotional and psychological barrier of hatred for the Palestinians.

The two-state solution has been on the table for the past 40 years. It needs to be resurrected and then enforced by the collective will of the international community which must make it clear that the only option available to both is to live within the 1967 boundaries as independent, sovereign and sustainable states. That is the only guarantee for peace.

Israel can win all the wars it wants and kill as many Arabs as it wishes. But it must not ignore the demographic truth. Its six million Jews live in the midst of about one hundred million Arabs. Sooner or later, it must make peace with its neighbours and that depends on making peace with the Palestinians. Israel claims that it has no partner for peace talks. In truth, it is the Palestinians who have no partner for peace. Till such time as Israel ends its policy of “slow creep” that has enabled it to expand well beyond the 1967 UN sanctioned territory, while Palestine continues to shrink with each passing day, there can be no peace.

Nevertheless, if there is one silver lining in this otherwise dismal situation, it is the expression of doubt and misgiving amongst many sober Israeli political analysts. Even conservative Israeli newspapers have criticised the Olmert government for having no clear objective in undertaking the operation. They warn that winning wars and killing thousands of Arabs would never settle anything and counsel Israel to make peace with its neighbours.

As regards Pakistan, surely the “historic handshake” in Istanbul in September 2005 is already a distant memory. As was then pointed out, it was an initiative that was premature and based on false assumptions. Israel is a colonialist, expansionist state, determined to pursue its objective of “Greater Israel”. Its policies and practices remain highly questionable, in particular its espousal of the right of preemption especially in our neighbourhood. Let us not give it any legitimacy in expectation of a reward from our masters.

The writer is a former ambassador.

EUROPE’S gas emissions trading scheme is in disarray. The 11 governments now “face warnings of legal action from the European commission”. In fact, the scheme may well prove unworkable, not least because British industry feels it is being unfairly treated in comparison with France and Germany, which are actually calling for emission allowances that would exceed their emissions of several years’ back.

It is questionable whether carbon emissions trading will bring a certifiable reduction. As now embodied in the EU emissions trading scheme, fossil-fuel-burning companies such as power utilities, steelworks or cement factories are granted substantial carbon credits that they can sell - on the basis that they have emitted less than expected.

That may provide some incentive to look to more efficient technologies, but the assumption is that someone elsewhere, even in another country, is going to buy that credit in order to pollute.

In addition, the use of tradeable carbon units combined with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - whereby the Kyoto signatories from industrialised nations can invest in emission-reduction projects in developing countries - has huge potential for environmental damage and fraud.

How relevant are such schemes when deforestation, particularly in the tropics, results in tens of times more carbon emissions than putatively captured by all CDM schemes put together? Perhaps a carbon tax that could be ploughed back into carbon-reducing schemes, even by the original emitter, would be much fairer and less prone to abuse.

Last month energy minister Malcolm Wicks gave a clear indication to the Welsh affairs select committee that “the government will commit itself to a framework that sets a long-term price for carbon, either through a domestic, EU-wide or eventually wider international trading agreement” (Carbon pricing to encourage new nuclear power stations, June 14). Wicks obviously knew that, following the energy review, Britain would be building a tranche of nuclear power stations, despite the advice of the sustainable development commission.

Wicks says that we will have to replace 30 per cent of the UK’s current generating capacity over the next 20 years, mostly with nuclear power, if we want to reduce carbon emissions. But he compares the emissions from a nuclear power programme with stand-alone fossil-fuel fired plants rather than with a co-generation system, ideally operating on biofuels, which produces heat and electricity for households and industries simultaneously.

—Dawn/Guardian Service

The writer is science editor of the Ecologist.

I AM somewhat worried by the absence of out-of-the-box thinking in Indian and Pakistani media circles. They are still bold and imaginative, yet strangely wedded to the same ideas of “we” and “they”, the majority and the minority, action and response.

In neither country has the media been able to overcome prejudice. On certain matters their reaction is similar — full of hate, distrust and mostly one-sided. The Mumbai bomb blasts are a case in point.

When 186 people are killed in a matter of minutes the demand for someone’s head is natural. The mangled bodies of the dead and the wounded make a grisly scene giving the impression of a wronged, helpless state. But this is the occasion when the media should rise above biases and show the way. The Pakistan media should have sought answers from their government to questions raised about training camps for militants and the location of Lashkar headquarters and the like.

The Indian media should have assessed how far the Gujarat happenings have found resonance in Mumbai. Pointing an accusing finger in one direction is easy, but the difficult part is to verify behind-the-scenes briefings. Both governments tend to cover up their own failures by pinning the blame on hostile foreign and banned elements they have not been able to control.

There is probably something in the allegation about the complicity of the Pakistani military junta. Election in a year’s time means the army has to think long and hard about ways to divert public attention to something else, such as the heightening tensions with its perennial enemy. When religious elements (by no means limited) in Pakistan have different interpretations of jihad, a bleeding pluralistic India only whets their fundamentalism. Consequently, the interests of the army and fanatics coincide.

The Pakistani media should have come down heavily on them. Before them is the example of Balochistan where the army has used religious forces to curb a nationalistic expression for self- governance. Similarly, Islamabad has allied itself with the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) to encourage the remnants of the Taliban still resisting Kabul’s authority along the Pakistan- Afghanistan border. Since Islamabad would like to convert Afghanistan into a satellite state for reasons of “strategic depth”, the Pakistani media in general has gone along with this policy. Nationalism drives liberalism into the background. Isn’t this true for both the Pakistani and Indian media?

Terrorism is like Frankenstein. Once unleashed, it cannot be controlled. Probably, the villain of the piece is America which first created Al Qaeda to fight the then Soviet Union. Al Qaeda in turn gave birth to the Taliban which also enjoyed America’s blessings until 9/11. Washington did not object to their infiltrating Kashmir and creating trouble or carrying out acts of sabotage in India.

What changed everything were the attacks on New York and Washington when America apparently began using the whip against Pakistan while at the same time depending on Islamabad to control the new Frankenstein.

The question before New Delhi is what options it has to face the unholy alliance of mosque and cantonment. If TV networks were to be the guide — they have 98 per cent of viewers saying “we must act” — we should either adopt hot pursuit or bomb Pakistan. Obviously, Islamabad would retaliate. Event by event it might lead to a war — both sides have nuclear weapons. Are we prepared for that? Even a limited war will definitely impede our development. We have taken our forces right up to the border and kept them there for months at huge expense, but had to withdraw them and today we realise the futility of the whole exercise.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has tried to mollify aroused sentiments by warning Pakistan that the peace process would have no future if “terror modules are instigated, inspired and supported by elements across the border without which they (terrorists in India) cannot act with such devastating effects.” He claims to have “credible information” on this.

I wish the peace process talks had not been deferred. Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war. True, Islamabad has said that the “allegations are altogether unsubstantiated,” but the general impression in India is that the ISI is behind every act of terrorism which has taken place in Varanasi, Bangalore, Delhi and now Mumbai. Each time Islamabad has asked for concrete evidence. In such matters it is not always possible to gather it. There is a parallel here with the case of disgraced nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan. After he was caught red-handed selling nuclear material to Libya, Iran, North Korea and others, the Pakistan government disowned him, claiming that he had been acting on his own. As with the militants, who can prove this assertion to the contrary?

Our problem is that acts of terrorism aggravate Hindu-Muslim relations. This may suit the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and their political bedfellows, but it weakens our secular fabric. I know there are certain fanatic elements in Pakistan who want to see India as a purely Hindu state, mirroring their own Islamic credentials.

But the ethos of India — and its independence movement — is pluralism. No acts of terrorism are going to divert us from our basic values of secularism and democracy.

The prime minister has rightly said that the government will “crush” terror modules which exist in Mumbai and many other parts of the country but, if I may say so, the government needs a better intelligence system and closer coordination of the different intelligence agencies. There are eight of them, each going its own way. Why can’t they be combined?

Except for a few human rights activists, civil society in Pakistan has been disappointingly quiet. On the one side, it seems to be afraid of clerics and, on the other, the military. But it does not lack courage and I have followed its individual and collective struggles against the forces of oppression. Why doesn’t it speak out now and be counted? This is the moment in history which may turn the fate of Pakistan, provided they declare openly that they will not tolerate terrorism across the border. They must demand the dismantling of training camps and oppose the shelter which Pakistan provides to the militants after they have done their job in India or Afghanistan.

With the two governments standing apart and with little prospect of the peace process going further, it is necessary to accelerate people-to-people contact. Unfortunately, the administrations on both sides have reduced the number of visas, although the buses are plying back and forth on new routes. In fact, the empty buses are a sad commentary on prevailing relations between India and Pakistan. The core problem remains the lack of trust. Kashmir is only the fallout.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.