The Indians are happy. They may not have enough food, no flowing water,no electricity and no work — but they now have a nuclear bomb. And theyhave tested it with great fanfare.
Undoubtedly, Mahatma Ghandi would have turned in his grave, had he notbeen cremated. His country is now ruled by an Indian Netanyahu, anationalist zealot supported by religious zealots. And what would betterfortify the rule of such a nationalist than to prove to the public thatworld opinion means nothing to him?
The result of the Indian nuclear testing was predictable. The neighboringPakistanis, too, have no food, but they, too, have a nuclear bomb. Andthey, too, have now tested it with great fanfare, and everyone is happy.
But what does this have to do with us? The Israeli government does notcare if a nuclear war breaks out between India and Pakistan, but it doescare about another angle of the matter. Pakistan is a devout Moslemstate. The science allowing it to make “the Moslem Bomb” could easilyfall into the hands of Iran or Iraq, thus entirely altering Israel’snational security situation.
There is another implication. The Pakistanis claim that Israel has helpedIndia produce the bomb. They also claim that Israeli planes were poisedto bomb the Pakistani nuclear reactor, a plan averted by the Americans.
Israel has already signed a strategic alliance with Turkey. If there is asimilar alliance with India, then the old Israeli concept of a “PeripheralAlliance” has been resurrected.
Ben-Gurion was the father of this concept. He determined that peacebetween Israel and the Arab world was impossible because we had settled onArab land and expelled most of its native population during the war of1948. (Ben-Gurion rejected the notion of attaining post-war peace becauseit would necessarily require Israel to allow some of the refugees toreturn and to pay reparations to the rest.)
To be able to remain in a perpetual state of war with the Arab world,Ben-Gurion needed allies. Those he sought out on three levels: Theinternational, the regional and the local.
At the time, on the international level, the concept of a “WesternAlliance” was predominant. Ben-Gurion was determined to maintain analliance with at least one Western power. First it was Great Britain andFrance which had not yet relinquished their colonial claims within theArab world. Following the failure of the Sinai campaign, during which thetwo colonizers were expelled from the Arab world, Ben-Gurion made a pactwith the United States which is still in effect to this day.
On the local level, Ben-Gurion sought the “Minority Alliance,” acollaboration with all the minorities in the region against the Suni-Arabmajority. Already in 1955, he strove to turn Lebanon into an Israeliprotectorate, under the rule of a Christian-Maronite officer appointed byIsrael. Later on, there was a collaboration with the rebelling Kurds inIraq. Efforts were made to reach the Lebanese and Iraqi Shi’ites. TheChristian Copts of Egypt and the south-Sudanese Christians were alsobrought into consideration. The entire scheme ended in abysmal failure.
On the regional level, the idea was of a “Peripheral Alliance” — agiant encircling ring of countries bordering the Arab world. Throughpainstaking efforts, alliances were made with Turkey, Shah-ruled Iran,Ethiopia, Uganda and Chad, with the support of racist South Africa. TheHummeini revolution threw a monkey wrench into the theory, but did notaltogether unravel it: As evidenced in the Irangate affair, Israelcontinued to supply arms to the Ayatollahs in Iran even throughout theirwar with Iraq. Geography wins out over ideology.
It appears that the idea has now been rejuvenated. A large newperipheral circle is beginning to materialize: An alliance with Turkey,India, Ethiopia, etc.
The trouble is that in the present situation, the concept has becomeobsolete. At its core lies Ben-Gurion’s anachronistic assumption thatpeace with the Arab world will not and cannot happen. When I wrote fiftyyears ago that the Arab world is our natural ally, it sounded crazy. Butfollowing Oslo, almost all of the gates of this world opened up for us.Shimom Peres speaks of “The New Middle East,” with words I used half acentury ago. Signing of pacts with the enemies of the Arabs will lead toa renewed closure of these gates.
There is a method to this madness. The alliance with Turkey serves tothreaten Syria, to prevent it from pursuing action toward taking back theGolan Heights. The alliance with India serves to pressure Pakistan andIran, thus reducing the nuclear threat to ourselves. In the long run, weare risking nuclear war in order to hold on to Katzrin in the GolanHeights and Ariel in the West Bank. If Haifa and the Tel-Avivmetropolitan area are wiped off the face of the earth as a result of sucha war, the settlers of Hebron and Beit-El would likely remain unscathed.
Eighteen years ago, Ariel Sharon said that the security region of Israelcovers the area from Pakistan to Central Africa. When I related this toBoutros Boutros-Ghali, he laughed. Today it is no longer funny.