Netanyahu's crimes against the peace process are ignored

By Dara MacNeill

Noam Chomsky - the man the US establishment does its best to ignore because they can't answer the questions he poses - was once asked his opinion of Richard Nixon's fall from grace over the Watergate affair. Watergate, you'll remember, had to do with the illegal bugging of political opponents' meetings, secret slush funds and political dirty tricks. In short, the sort of activity that keeps most governments busy, off the streets and out of more serious trouble.

Chomsky replied that Nixon's fate was akin to prosecuting a mass murderer for breaking a red light. Chomsky was referring to Nixon's covert - not to mention illegal - bombing campaign against Laos and Cambodia, conducted as part of the US attempt to defeat the independence movement in Vietnam.

Those campaigns which, one general proudly boasted, would bomb the countries in question ``back to the stone age'', resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. The campaigns were conducted against entirely neutral countries who were in no way involved in the United States' invasion of Vietnam.

Neither Nixon, nor even his close aide Henry Kissinger - a later recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize - received even the judicial equivalent of a slap on the wrist for their criminal, murderous activities. Yet when Nixon was adjudged to have been involved in telephone tapping he was also adjudged to have crossed a moral Rubicon. This, not wholesale murder, left him unfit to hold office.

A similar scenario almost unfolded in Israel recently. There, the man under the spotlight was the country's premier, Binyamin Netanyahu.

The allegations against Netanyahu and others centred on a squalid little deal that was hatched in order to keep Netanyahu in power, and a key member of his coalition government out of jail.

The coalition member - Mr Aryeh Deri - was (and is) facing trial for charges of bribery and corruption. It is claimed he persuaded Netanyahu to appoint a lawyer of his acquaintance, Mr Ronnie Bar-On, to the post of Israeli attorney general. With Mr Bar-On occupying the country's top legal office, Aryeh Deri would then expect to have seen the charges he faced either reduced, or simply disappear. Bulky files disappearing down the back of the radiator, that sort of thing.

Netanyahu acceded to the request and his coalition stayed together. And then the wheels started to come off this sleazy plot. News of Mr Bar-On's appointment was greeted as though it were a practical joke: the man was ludicruously underqualified for the job. Public ridicule forced his resignation within two days.

A subsequent police investigation recommended that Netanyahu face charges over the affair. Israel's legal authorities declined but spoke of their ``real suspicions'' about his role.

As with Richard Nixon, it would have been somewhat unjust had Netanyahu been forced from power on this issue. The man's real crimes are far more serious and deserve far greater legal, moral and political scrutiny.

Thus, within hours of being `cleared' Netanyahu was boasting to the world of his determination to continue with his life of political crime: the Har Homa settlement would proceed; Israel would maintain control of the Golan Heights; he would continue his work to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state.

To date, well over one hundred people have died as a result of Netanyahu's policies, most of them Palestinians. Should he continue on his reckless path, the only certainty is that many more will die. By comparison, negotiating a squalid backroom deal bears a marked resemblance to breaking a red light.

 

The end Fujimori always wanted

Given Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori's disdain for compromise, it was always likely the siege at the Japanese embassy in Lima would end in violence.

That Fujimori chose to act when he did is probably explained by two factors. Firstly, the President's popularity ratings had dropped from 66% in January, to a low 28% this month. Secondly, Peru is experiencing an economic crisis - largely of Fujimori's own making. To date, the foreign investors that have poured money into other Latin American economies have tended to shy away from Peru, fearful of its record of `instability'. The 120 day embassy siege would merely have confirmed their belief in this regard.

Two years ago, for example, a leading US bank advised the Mexican government that while the Zapatista rebel forces remained in visible control of large parts of the southern Mexican state of Chiapas, investors would not commit to the country. They advised the regime to crush the uprising. Within weeks the Mexican army had launched an assault on rebel positions in Chiapas.

The full and true story of the events of 22 April in Lima remains to be told. Nonetheless, there is evidence that Fujimori - far from seeking a negotiated solution - was simply biding his time before initiating the assault.

On 4 April, the President reiterated his `determination' to seek a peaceful end to the crisis. Two weeks later, the country's Interior Minster and its police chief resigned their posts. Both were directly responsible for securing an end to the siege.

Three days before the siege was ended, a key Red Cross official in Lima left Peru at the government's request. The organisation had played a crucial role in the negotiations.

Equally, shortly before the embassy was stormed another key negotiator, Bishop Cipriani, announced his intention to rest for a time. He cited health problems as the reason. And isn't it remarkable that all the MRTA guerrillas inside the embassy were killed in the assault?