Lord Weidenfeld of Chelsea

Fatal Honors

2012-11-07T20:08:59-05:00

The massacres in Syria are joined by a new and dangerous battlefield in the Lebanon. The fanatic regime in Iran is trying to incite a bitter civil war in order to distract the West and the hostile Sunnis from its nuclear plans. The reluctance of the West to act against the Assad regime and at the very least to close the airspace for Syrian fighter jets, makes the situation difficult for decent opposition powers and opens the floodgates for sinister terror gangs.

How long will Jordan be able to stay out of this crisis? The King and the leaders of the army are cautiously keeping guard east of the Jordan. Measured against the bloody fights in the region, the Palestinians could say that it is actually "all quiet on the Western front" but something is brewing in Gaza and the West Bank and it is not quiet at all.

A few weeks ago a ceremony took place in the West Jordanian city of Jenin. Delegates of the Arab Lawyers Union visited the family of the suicide bomber Hanadi Jaradat and celebrated the 9th anniversary of her suicide bombing attack in the Maxim restaurant in Haifa, killing 21 Israeli civilian and wounding about 50. Already years ago the Palestinian Authority has published a book of poems in honor of this suicide bomber.

This is not an isolated case. Suicide bombers who are celebrated as martyrs, and have the death of women and children on their conscience, are honored in street names. Schools, cultural institutions and summer holiday camps for Palestinian children are also often named after suicide bombers. All this is common place under the government of the "moderate" Fatah Party in the West Bank. The situation in Gaza has worsened after the Egyptian revolution. Underground channels and tunnels function better than ever before and the supply of weapons to Hamas is made easier by the silence of the Egyptian border guards. Rocket attacks on the Israeli south from Gaza and regular assaults from the Sinai Peninsula, where Egyptian control leaves a lot to be desired, create a mood of crisis.

European media underestimate in a lot of ways how much this one-sided reporting, fueled by the hatred of its neighbors, affects the Israeli psyche. They are tired of the dementia and, with a shrug of their shoulders, just go their ways.

Who is Going to Stop the Fanatics?

2012-10-04T11:33:22-04:00

An avalanche of violence and terror is rolling across the Islamic world. A brief, insignificant movie that dares to caricature the prophet Mohammed in a slightly critical fashion has triggered murder, arson and street battles. Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel condemn the film, but the jihadists continue to murder in Pakistan, Libya and Central Africa. Aided by the Internet the mobilisation of militant fanatics has now become a routine.

The author Salman Rushdie expects a second fatwa from Iran and the bounty on his head has been raised from $2.8 million to 3.3 million. Things are simmering in Egypt, the largest Arab country. The Sinai Peninsula is in danger of becoming a "Wild East". In spite of the anti-American outbursts of rage in Cairo the Egyptian President Mursi appeals to President Obama to empathise more with the bitterness and wrath of the Arab Street. This is a somewhat bizarre reproach if one remembers his genuflexion before the Muslim world in his famous Cairo speech at the beginning of his presidency.

A Europe, which is withdrawn into itself, and a policy of withdrawal on the part of the American President, in view of the whole world, facilitate foreign-policy adventures and claims of hegemony of various players in the region and its surroundings.

There are hardly any reactions from the West: where are the protests against the persecution of Christians in the Arab world? A Coptic academic from Egypt, who asked to remain anonymous, talks of horrible atrocities in the Egyptian provinces. There is only superficial coverage of the burning down of churches, the beating of prelates, the hate propaganda against the Catholic Church in the West Bank and the persecution of missionary orders in North Africa, and there is only scant admonition from the state chancelleries of the "Christian occident".

Where are the official protests against the bloodthirsty propaganda against the Jewish religion of the state and the media in Arab countries? The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", originating in Tsarist Russia, that hate literature in which the drinking of blood of Christian children is described as a secret Easter ritual, enjoys a wide circulation. Not so long ago I saw in a bookshop in Amman not one but two new translations of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and anti-Semitic books of fiction. All this is permitted and tolerated.

A Muslim in the Service of Israel

2012-07-20T12:42:37-04:00

Ishmael Khaldi is the name of the new Counsellor for Civil Society Affairs at the Israeli Embassy in London. The 38-year old, dark-skinned Bedouin is a Muslim and the first of his tribe in the Foreign Service of the Jewish state. He spent the first 15 years of his life with his family in a big tent in Northern Galilee. Stipends to a secondary school in Haifa and university, years of further learning in the United States, the military and internal security service culminated in his current role as diplomat. The new Israeli Ambassador to Oslo is a Druze, a member of a tribe that is wide-spread in the Middle East, and which has behaved loyally towards Israel since the time of its foundation. His deputy is an Arab Christian, and Arab Muslims are present in high offices too.

Nine further Druzes, amongst them two women, are also diplomats. It is a significant fact that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, ill-reputed as saturnine reactionary and proponent of Apartheid, is here the representative of a policy that is more open.

I know from my own, ten year experience as Chairman of the Board of the Ben-Gurion University of Beer Sheva in the Negev how close and purposeful Israelis and Bedouins cooperate on the education of young "children of the desert". Originally the University, whose founding had been inspired by David Ben-Gurion, was intended for newly arrived immigrants who did not have the intellectual levels of the old-established citizens or did not bring with them relevant education from their parental homes. They were meant to be looked after in this new university in the South of the Negev which could not compete with the higher standards of the universities in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

But something different happened: As, on the one hand, a world-renowned hospital for tropical diseases developed in Beer Sheva, and on the other hand the best scientists in this area did research in nuclear science the level of existing qualified teachers rose to such an extent that the young university soon made a name for itself in the country and the world. Thus not only students from all over Israel but also the Bedouins benefited. Founder of the state, David Ben-Gurion, who spend the last years of his life in a kibbutz in the middle of the Negev, once told me: "Our ancestors lived in tents too. I wish for nothing more than that our neighbours strive for and acquire the best: knowledge."

Is Dinner With David Cameron Worth £250,000?

2012-04-03T09:19:40-04:00

Privileged access of grand donors to political parties to leading members of the government, and subsequent, frequent malpractice, is a constant topic amongst the British public.

Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, are heavily criticised in the press, mainly by the Rupert Murdoch controlled Times and Sunday Times, that they surround themselves too much socially and closely privately with important business people who are known to give large sums to the Tory party.

David Cameron, for instance, had invited his richest backers to private dinners at his flat above Downing Street. The newspapers published the names of the guests, business connections and the amount of their donations. Cameron emphasised that he pays for private dinners out of his own pocket. Indeed, there were many names who as 'knights in shining armour' have spent considerable sums on England's public welfare.

The topic whether there should be elites in a democratic society who consider free and easy access to the powerful of the nation as their birth right is frequently discussed. England's 'ruling classes' did not see anything unlawful in the free, intimate association with the upper echelons of the political leaders of the nation.

Looking at the guest lists of the dinners or weekend visitors of England's Prime Ministers during the last half a century, there are differences in composition and procedure. Representatives of a wider social strata figured on the guest lists of socialist Prime Minister Harold Wilson. The Conservative Edward Heath put more emphasise on the world of culture and tried to distinguish himself as patron of music by hiring small orchestras and choirs. Margaret Thatcher loved to be surrounded by important business leaders at every opportunity. And Tony Blair opened the dining room of Downing Street and the garden at the country retreat, Chequers, to the avant-garde of pop music and art.

It cannot be dismissed that the resentment of the Murdoch press against the public reprobation of the hacking scandal is behind this wave of sharp critique of the government.

The original version of this blog has been updated, with agreement from the author, following a complaint.

Weakness on the Part of Democracies Discourages Those Who Strive for Freedom

2012-03-13T14:32:29-04:00

The grim question if, how or when Teheran's nuclear armament could be thwarted by using force is on the minds of insiders and observers in the free world. Gradually the theory that an end in terror is preferable to terror without end is gaining the upper hand. The gruesome scenario of a general nuclear armament panic in the trouble spots of the Middle East unsettles large circles.

Many fear a solo effort on the part of Israel, and even there several nuances of the will to intervene exist. But Israelis agree on one point: an existential decision has to be made in the country itself.

In front of 15,000 supporters in Washington, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu read out a few sentences from an exchange of letters between the Jewish World Congress and the US government from 1944. The short letter was an appeal to bomb the recently discovered extermination camp in Auschwitz as soon as possible. The reply came five days later: "Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere... and in any case, it would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources... Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans."

In fact in the final phase of the Second World War the Allies were anxious to play down the atrocities against the Jews in Europe. They did not want to encourage the advocates of an independent Jewish state in Palestine in London and Washington. In 1939 London had blocked immigration to Palestine. I remember that as a commentator with the BBC I received a political directive 'from above' not to report in too much detail the barbarity of the liberated extermination camps.

There are certain parallels between the current crisis in Syria and the events of the 1930s. When dealing with brutal regimes, with which one cannot live peacefully in the long run, hesitation only prolongs human suffering and fills the oppressed with bitterness. Weakness on the part of the democracies discourages those who strive for freedom, and at the same time encourages unstable and weak regimes to pursue new and unpredictable policies.

No Politeness Please

2012-03-06T11:28:05-05:00

It was a heroic death in the truest sense: Marie Colvin, war correspondent of the London Sunday Times, defied all dangers in order to report about the scandalous deeds of the Assad regime in Syria.

She fell victim to a rocket attack on the specially designated press compound for foreign journalists. Every once in a while I had interesting talks with this experienced journalist. During our last meeting we compared the mindset of a fanatic jihadist of al-Qaeda or Hamas calibre with SS henchmen or German Army 'volunteers' in occupied Europe and found that with regard to individual cruelty and delight, even lust in torture and killing, there was no difference.

The harrowing pictures of murdered children and victims of torture in Homs and other Syrian cities label the executioners of the Assad regime as true scum of the earth.

Even so there are still voices in the 'free West' that plead for mitigation when judging these enemies and for understanding of, even politeness towards these extremists.

In the latest edition of the leading socialist intellectual British weekly paper New Statesman, Hans Blix, former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, advocates in his article a more polite tone and more accommodating approach in negotiations with Teheran.

In a week in which yet again mutilated corpses and unconscious wounded lie on Syrian soil; in which in Egypt's elections the Muslim Brotherhood gained an absolute majority and the even more radical Salafists 29% of the vote, John Pilger writes: "Israel, America's hitman, is now widely recognised as the world's most lawless state." A British court refuses the extradition to Jordan of a notorious al-Qaeda ringleader because it might be possible that he cannot expect a fair trial. The mere monitoring of this individual is costing the British taxpayer 100,000 pounds a week.

The stance of the democracies towards the Syrian crisis - and also the undoubtedly difficult dilemma of the Iran question - reminds me as a contemporary of the 1930s of the false hopes, but also the cynical manoeuvring of those who propagated a bigger understanding and far-reaching concessions in the dealings with 'Herr Hitler', in order to transform him into a reliable partner.

The Angry Ones

2012-02-03T03:39:47-05:00

Who are the incubators of a real democratic renewal in the Arab Spring? After talking to young Egyptians, among them many intellectuals, who returned to their homeland having studied at prestigious English universities, I feel confronted with a rather contradictory picture.

They fight against corruption, religious fanaticism, for human rights, women's dignity and against violation of justice. But at the same time they are irreconcilable in their hostility towards the West. "You in America and Europe have supported the tyrant Mubarak for decades and condoned his torture chambers. We do not owe you anything. We are looking for new alliances, and even though they might not be ideal they are better than the West." They prefer Putin to Obama, are trusting Turkey more than Brussels and Berlin.

They have unambiguous views of Israel and the conflict in Palestine: diplomatic relations should be reduced further if not abandoned altogether. Open borders with Gaza, considerably more military elbowroom on the Sinai Peninsula, and the end of the gas supplies - as these are squandered below cost price to the Israelis - are the demands of the young Egyptians.

Most of all they are against a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They stand for a single, democratic Palestinian state where Palestinian refugees can assert their right to return. The idea of a Jewish state is a reprehensible, old-fashioned 'colonial' concept to them.

The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and the even more fanatic Salafists gained more than two thirds of parliamentary mandates will give the young Democrats of this new hue little chance to assert themselves. Thus they are not only isolated, and alienated from the West, but also a thorn in the side of the electoral victors. The likely solution - an alliance between Islamists of all shades and the army - threatens at best to force these young Democrats into an impotent opposition but worst still could lead to a breaking-up of their groups.

Economic misery; a devastating decline of the tourism which is so important for that country; unemployment amongst young people of all strata, including the academically educated, present a bleak picture.

How should the free world view this emerging tragedy?

An Icy Winter Threatens

2011-12-12T07:16:31-05:00

Gloomy weeks for the western world: the elections in Egypt and Russia threaten to transform the Arab spring as well as the hoped for political thaw with Moscow into an icy winter. In both cases the high expectations of a democratic development have proved to be bitter illusions.

The army leadership in Cairo is solidifying its foothold in the areas of security as well as every day politics and economy. Arguably, the old generals vacate their positions for younger colonels but the junta at the top is in control. Without any haste it is seeking partners within the camp of Islamists of all different shades - from the traditional Muslim Brotherhood to the mightily growing Salafists.

Whereas the former are politically more flexible and attract supporters from different strata and political nuances, the latter are fanatical, uncompromising, and faithful to the Sharia and the notion of universal jihad. Their hatred against America and Israel, their connections to Hamas and Hezbollah and their backing of a dangerous, aggressive policy in Gaza makes them a big political risk factor.

All this must be seen against a backdrop of a catastrophic economic situation in this country of 81 million Egyptians. Tourism and investments from abroad could reach zero point soon.

It was not only dreamers in the free world who had hoped that the "bloodless" fall of the Soviet system would bring about a new era of democratic development, rule of law and a liberal constitution in Russia. The elections which were meant to procure Vladimir Putin a second term in office and thus 12 years as autocratic ruler of this gigantic realm, seemed to have been accompanied, alas, by attempts at intimidation of voters and the prosecution of leaders of the opposition and sympathisers. These autocratic, arbitrary tendencies should worry even the most moderate political realists.

The consequences of both elections go far beyond the immediate political scene. They open up dangerous prospects at a time when the pillars of the free world - The United States and Europe - are shaken by crises, disputes and doubt in the area of world economy and internal labour markets. This is going to be a severe winter for us. Only if we read the signal correctly can we weather the cold.

Iran and the Bomb

2011-11-25T10:48:22-05:00

The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency about Iran's nuclear armament exploded like a bomb onto the world of Washington think tanks.

In two high-ranking round-tables, of which one is particularly close to President Obama and the other to the Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the topics of military intervention and regime change in Iran were discussed more openly and concretely than ever before.

Pessimists estimate that Teheran will have a nuclear weapon at its disposal in two months at the earliest, and in 22 months at the latest.

Optimists believe that for the time being Iran is aiming at blackmailing her neighbors and at restructuring the balance of power in the Middle East and not at a strike against Israel or Saudi Arabia. However there is the great danger that an impulsive purchase of nuclear weapons by several states out of fear could turn the region into a seething cauldron.

The planned attacks on the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington and the assassination plot against the ambassador gave great cause for concern.

Also President Ahmadinejad has intensified his aggressive rhetoric against Israel and the USA. In Israel intense discussions about a strike against Iran are secretly held. Even though a leading intelligence officer spoke publicly against it, the military option is taken seriously.

The decision depends on America's attitude and on the at least passive support by the anti-Iranian, Sunni powers of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates at the Gulf.

The latest news also encourages those who until now have advised against a mission to attack after all. The proponents in Washington of a military intervention are fully aware of the political consequences. However, they believe that a potential end with terror is better than certain terror without an end.

Washington is under no illusion that Europe could be incorporated operationally into military action against Iran. The French and the British have gone to the utmost of their strengths in their intervention in Libya. Germany is not seen as the country that actively intervenes in a military fashion but some moral support is hoped for.

However, even the most ardent advocates of a military intervention make clear that all the stops need to be pulled out prior to it in order to convince Tehran by means of economic sanctions to stop its nuclear program.

After the Fall of three Arab Dictators - What Next?

2011-10-27T15:35:53-04:00

The first three versions of regime change during the Arab Spring - unhindered escape of the Tunisian President, imprisonment and criminal proceedings in Egypt and mob law in Libya - have created a momentum that will be hard to stall.

The case of Libya shows that decisive action, i.e. Cameron and Sarkozy's initiative - supported by Obama - to effect NATO deployment, sealed Gaddafi's fate.

Otherwise it could have led to civil war and perhaps even the survival of the dictator. Yemen's dogged dictator is now heavily at risk.

However, the most bloodthirsty of all dictatorships, the Assad regime in Syria, keeps on fighting unperturbed because it seems to be sure of the protection by some weighty allies.

Iran's financial assistance and weapons supplies; Turkey's dubious stance which, on the one hand, calls for moderation but would not welcome regime change; and most of all, Russia's support at the United Nations give Assad enough reason to rage on.

Key words such as regime change, democratic renewal, freedom of the press are not well liked in Moscow and Beijing which seek to prevent any military intervention of the West.

Compared to Gaddafi, father and son Assad have to answer for at least 50,000 deaths and cannot rely on the kind of loyalty Gaddafi received from his tribesmen until the end.

A Libyan style involvement of the West and NATO as protectors of the civilian population in Syria would definitely sweep away the Assad regime. At the same time this would mean a heavy blow for Teheran which organises its assistance for Hezbollah in Lebanon and for Hamas in the Gaza strip from Damascus.

The Arab monarchies Morocco and Jordan might contain revolutionary elements but the majority of its people are Royalists. Both dynasties are held to be the descendants of the prophet Mohammed.

Saudi Arabia has a key position. The monarchy - closely linked to the clergy - does not only feel more secure on the domestic front but thinks it can rely on US protection.

After the death of the heir to the throne, Prince Sultan, this week a newly constituted High Council of Princes will now determine the succession to the aged King Abdullah. New arrangements will for the first time allow that not only members of the founding generation but also grandchildren and nephews of Ibn Saud obtain the right to be elected.

The oldest of the heirs apparent and current Minister of the Interior, Prince Nayef, is seen as a hard-line traditionalist who has little understanding of the spirit of the time.

Those Arab experts in the know are betting on a younger, more progressive Prince; a solution that would suit the ailing but realistically thinking King Abdullah.

The Syrian Problem

2011-10-02T10:53:05-04:00

"February 11 was the culmination of the Arab revolution. On February 12, the counterrevolution began." This is how two Middle East experts - the Palestinian Oxford don, Hussein Agha, and the Washington political scientist, Robert Malley - are summing up the situation in the latest edition of the New York Review of Books. The spontaneous uprising of the discontented in Cairo appears to have swept away the dictator seemingly effortlessly but the old structures of army, police and secret service are still in place and threaten to continue an only marginally relaxed, autocratic regime with the help of the multifaceted Muslim Brotherhood. Even in Libya, where the dictator will fall, the rebels cannot be seen as true democrats and power struggles lie ahead.

There may be tendencies in Iraq, Bahrain and most of all Saudi Arabia to relax the rigid regime. Thus Saudi Arabia gave women the right to vote for the first time. However, all these reforms do not constitute fundamental transformation.

A rancorous ruler fights for his survival in Yemen. In Syria the counter-revolution is at full blast. The brutality of the Assad clan has reached a gruesome climax. Two eyewitnesses of the massacres in Daraa and Homs told me about excesses the likes of which have not been seen since the most terrible phases of the Nazi era. Thus the young and old in the torture chambers are shown around the mortuary first and forced to look at tortured and mutilated victims as a warning example. The myth of the young, modern presidential couple that is willing to reform, which is disseminated by Western media agencies and American fashion magazines, is a bizarre lie because Bashar Assad and his brother Maher are personally responsible for the brutal oppression of any kind of freedom movements in this dark dictatorship.

The free world is slowly beginning to deal seriously with the Syrian problem. Now that the United States' military is involved in Afghanistan, Iraq and, at the sidelines, in Libya, the White House is reluctant to also get involved in Syria. Turkey, which is seeking to play the hegemon in the Middle East, sees itself as protector of her Syrian neighbour. However, in spite of a strong showing in Damascus, the Turkish leaders have so far managed to avoid endorsement of heavy sanctions, let alone military intervention, against Assad's tyranny.

Israel is keeping out of the situation and does not want to get directly involved in internal Arab conflicts. Israel's arch enemy resides in Teheran. Assad's overthrow would automatically destroy Iran's influence in Syria and the long-suffering Lebanon. A regime change in Syria could trigger a dangerous religious civil war between Sunnis and Shiites and spread to the neighbouring Iraq.

Considering the unsolved problem of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians also means that the democratic world, the Atlantic alliance and the European Union are faced with a highly dangerous political crisis added to the contractions of a sick world economy.

The Dangerous Consequences of Palestinian Statehood

2011-09-20T13:28:20-04:00

The bloody riots in front of the Israeli embassy in Cairo, followed by the visit of an over 200 strong Turkish delegation led by Prime Minister Erdoğan, his blazing speech against Israel and for the recognition of a Palestinian state, and finally Egypt's threats to "revise" the peace agreement with Israel create a dangerous atmosphere of crisis, even of war, in the Arab world. Subliminal anti-Jewish sentiments of the masses, on which the former Egyptian regime had imposed limits, remind me of the dark last years before the war in Hitler's Germany.

Erdoğan's ambition to be recognised as mastermind and trailblazer in the Middle East gives his rhetoric a sabre-rattling undertone. In his efforts to win over all Arab states, and especially those which particularly benefit from the West in military and economic terms, to politics that are unfriendly towards Israel, he attempts to influence mainly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Thus Prince Turki Al Faisal, important diplomat and former head of intelligence of the Saudi realm, threatened the US in the New York Times that if they took sides with Israel in the question of Palestinian recognition they would lose the friendship and any kind of cooperation with the kingdom. This is particularly important since Saudi Arabia was the only one amongst the Arab states to advocate constructive peace plans and the recognition of the Jewish state.

Prime Minister Erdoğan tries on the one hand to identify himself as proponent of personal freedom by warning President Assad to stop his brutal prosecution of the Syrian opposition, but on the other hand he is meek with regard to the question of international sanctions against Syria. He wants to keep room to manoeuvre on both sides of this international controversy. He knows that Russia and China would veto heavy sanctions against Damascus, let alone regime change, in the Security Council.

The more one contemplates the implications of even a symbolic recognition of a state on the West Bank and in Gaza, the more dangerous appear the consequences. Any kind of illegal violent measure against Israel on the part of Hamas and Hezbollah, any form of terrorism on its soil, from sea or air would in the case of an Israeli retaliation be denounced as act of aggression against a sovereign state and would have incalculable international ramifications. The temptation to provoke Israel militarily, to boycott it through the media, culturally and economically would be limitless. But most of all, each incident would diminish considerably the potential of serious and promising negotiations or even prevent them.

Assad's Dangerous Manoeuvres Deflect Attention From Syria's Internal Crisis

2011-07-05T23:11:08-04:00

June 1967: on the eve of the sixth day of the Six Day War, I was the guest of the newly appointed governor of the newly conquered old city of Jerusalem, General Chaim (Vivian) Herzog, later to become president of Israel, who had earned his military spurs as major in the Scots Guard in World War II. Among the guests were Winston Churchill's son Randolph and grandson Winston junior as well as Lady Pamela Berry, wife of the chairman of The Daily Telegraph.

By that evening Egypt's Air Force was destroyed; the Sinai desert occupied by Israel, Jordan's elite troupes -- the Arab Legion -- thoroughly defeated. Only Syria seemed to be unscathed. The steep Golan Heights still menaced the Jewish settlements of Galilee. Suddenly a messenger stormed into the roof restaurant and brought the news that elite units of the Israeli Army had just succeeded in scaling the Golan Heights and defeated the Syrian army. The road to Damascus was open. The Six Day War came to an end.

Syria remained the most implacable foe of the Jewish state. Shaken by internal crises, a junta of military men led by an Air Force officer, Hafiz Assad, seized power and formed the most savage and brutal dictatorship of the Near East.

Tiananmen Square in Beijing is still today a byword for brutality and oppression. The statistics are difficult to confirm but the number of victims is held to be somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000. Serbia's General Mladic has to answer for the murder of 8,000 hostages in Srebrenica. But Hafiz Assad has at least 30,000 human lives on his conscience of whom more than 10,000 were massacred in just one city -- Hama. Compared with China's population of more than one billion, Serbia's 8 million and Syria's 22 million inhabitants, these statistics should speak for themselves.

Assad's son Bashar came to power after the death of an elder brother, and another of his brothers, Maher, is now the commander of the dreaded special units who fight insurgents with unequalled brutality. Carefully organised atrocities like mass rapes, the maiming of women and carefully planned assassinations of children on the part of Syria's Special Commandos of the Secret Police lead one to the terrifying perception that even the worst crimes of SS extermination squads could still be outperformed. If the mass executions of the Third Reich were on an "industrial scale", the crimes of Assad's henchmen are marked by individual examples of sadistic cruelty.

Testimonials from numerous Syrians who escaped the present inferno and are either in Lebanon, Turkey or indeed in Britain tell tales of horror that defy imagination.

The Assad regime plays a very risky game by sending truckloads of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Syrian side of the Golan Heights to the frontier, driving them through the minefields of no man's land and encouraging them to demonstrate in favour of Israel's withdrawal. These highly dangerous manoeuvres to deflect attention from the internal crisis and simmering revolution in Syria risk the worst possible developments. It should make us think of that fateful date which now is almost more than 100 years behind us in June 1914 when an incident in far-away Sarajevo sparked a world conflagration and millions of dead.

Gilad Shalit: Confirming the Value of a Single LIfe

2010-07-07T09:48:21-04:00

The spontaneous solidarity march of 20,000 Israelis to the house of the parents of the young corporal Gilad Shalit held hostage by Hamas terrorists, and Prime Minister Netanyahu's offer to swap 1000 Hamas prisoners against one single Israeli soldier, are two gestures which confirm the value a single human life has in a democratic and civilised community. All the more grows the bitterness in Israel as to how little Netanyahu's gesture and the prevailing sense of values of the country are appreciated by much of the media but also state chancelleries in Europe. An amalgam of Israelophobe motives, fear of Islamic terror, the economic power of the oil producers, old prejudices against Zionism, hidden anti-Semitism, but alas also often crass ignorance of the reality still breeds today willing listeners and irresponsible critics in universities and trade union congresses.

Long have the media ceased to give systematic figures of carefully organised suicide bomb attacks. In every quarter of the Islamic world, but also in the great centres of the Western world, innumerable suicide attempts and murderous accidents are planned, effecting the loss of life of young people, even children. The wide variety of jihad operations on the part of Islamist extremists are nothing but organised infanticide. When bombs in big cities are aimed at crowded market places, official buildings, even mosques of inimical sects, their success is judged by the size of the casualties, even if those count innumerable innocent victims or indeed fellow religionists of the bomb throwers. This does not bother the criminals at all.

As far as the degree of cruelty of police investigations, court judgements, the use of naked force and indifference to human suffering are concerned, one must regrettably admit that Hamas and Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are torturers and killers in no way less cruel and culpable than the SS special death squads or the Ascension Commandos of the Gestapo.

No wonder that Israel's leadership finds it difficult to sit at the same table with radical elements in Gaza while these people negate the right to exist of Israel, or at best extend a brief moratorium before they once again inscribe their banners with curses of the State of Israel. Should President Obama succeed in giving Netanyahu the necessary assurances of support for Israel's security the people of Israel would be prepared to offer far-reaching concessions. Yet the disquiet in Jerusalem regarding Obama's attitude at the recent negotiations for atomic disarmament in the Middle East is not unjustified. If Israel were to surrender her atomic armament she would run the grave risk of being overwhelmed by the massive numerical superiority of her neighbours. Only fear of atomic defence holds many a bitter opponent from the temptation to attack the Jewish State.

The fundamentally and demonstrably false reporting of the so-called peace flotilla in the waters near Gaza, and the intervention by Israeli forces -- which was wholly permitted in international law -- contributes to the bitterness of Israeli public opinion. But what almost pains Israel more than the fuming hostility of her enemies is the superficial attitude of the 'neutrals,' who concede the same moral status to both sides. One feels that they no longer bother to find out what really happened. The rigid attitude of Israel's sworn enemies is almost easier to condone because of the frequent absurdities, thus there is that reaction of a noble Lord in the Bishop's Bar of the British House of Lords on the subject of Netanyahu's exchange of hostages: "Typical apartheid regime; one Jew is worth as much as a thousand Arabs."

Outlook From London: Crises Galore

2010-03-02T12:39:41-05:00

In a haze of uncertainty, political observers in Britain are wavering in their views about the issues in the general elections, due to take place within a few weeks. Only a short time ago commentators, spade in hand, were ready to bury Gordon Brown and the title of a political best-seller announced The End of the Party. All this because opinion polls declared the Tory lead over Labour falling from a high of 26% to a low of 2%. In view of the 'first past the post' British voting system, Brown would still be able to form a government with a tiny majority of two or three seats, or bring into a coalition the third -- the Liberal Democratic -- party, but this would prove an unhappy solution.

The need to choose between Brown's discredited government and the inexperienced team Cameron explains the bitter feelings of uncertainty and disappointment of the man in the street.

Both popular tribunes and scholarly experts flood the public with their definitions of the origins, duration, and consequences of the economic crisis. Those who cling to optimistic statistics are countered by sombre voices who claim that unless this or that robust cure is taken even worse will befall us.

In foreign politics things don't look much better. Great Britain is the most intensively engaged European country in Afghanistan and yet Obama's America is cooler than ever towards London, and of course towards all Europeans. The first signs of a new crisis with Argentina, with the resurrection of her claims to the Falkland Islands and objections to drilling for oil in the ocean nearby, raise the doubt that this time the United States would even be neutral - compared with the cordial collaboration between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the last of Britain's colonial wars. Yet for Chavez and Castro a new front against neo-colonialism seems to emerge.

Obama's refusal to attend the summit meeting of Europeans in Madrid in May effectively signaled the White House's downgrading of these meetings, whose outcome was expected to be of decisive importance at that moment when the Lisbon Treaty was about to be ratified.

The failure, or at best stagnation, of President Obama's Near East policy, whether this be the Palestinian conflict or the attempt to detach Iran from its vassals Syria and Lebanon, or indeed the prevention of Tehran's atomic programme, all create a dangerous vacuum.

An influential European politician on his return from Washington described to me the scenario that vexes military experts most at this moment: should Iran refuse to be stopped in reaching the end phase of her atomic programme and Israel see herself forced to intervene militarily, Iran already has its own road map to Armageddon. The straits of Hormuz will be mined; the oil price will rise to $200 per barrel; Hezbollah will shower her forty thousand rockets from the Lebanon and Syria on to Israel's north and Hamas will empty its arsenal onto Israel's south; the Syrian army will mobilise on the Golan Heights. The argument that Israel will have no choice but to defend herself with all, even the most deadly, means at her disposal is hard to refute.

On the other hand, to allow the Ahmadinejad regime a free hand constitutes an even greater risk because it would lead to atomic escalation in the whole of the region. Weaker countries would be blackmailed by Tehran and the influence of the West would weaken exponentially. The argument that an attack on Iran would rally her Opposition around the government is very debatable. We need to cast our minds back to last phase of the Third Reich, when fears that the people would rise, and werewolves form whole armies of organised resistance in the Bavarian Alps in defence of the Nazi regime, turned out to be wholly groundless.