This is the second part of a three-part interview with Avi Shlaim, professor of International Relation at the Middle East Centre, Oxford. Iran and International Organisations – some legitimate, some less legitimate – were discussed.
An important point to note is Israel’s behaviour towards Iran. The Iranian nuclear program is not an Israeli issue: it’s an issue which involves the entire international community, because it raises the threat of nuclear proliferation; the international community has dealt very effectively with it. Iran has been cooperative, willing to deal with all the issues and put them on the table and have negotiations, including the nuclear issue. It was America, under the Bush administration, who rejected dialogue in favour of threats against Iran. So, here is one more example of an international issue which Israel appropriates, trying to stop negotiations which might resolve this issue peacefully and keeps threatening military action: This is one more example of Israel as a destabilising force in the region and a prime example of Israeli double standards, considering it has nuclear weapons and yet makes such a fuss about a civilian nuclear of Iran. Now, one reason why Iran wants to have nuclear weapons, or rather the capability to use nuclear weapons, is because it is under constant threat from Israel, therefore it needs a deterrent. Worse still, it is an example of western hypocrisy and American double standards: the US has pushed for sanctions against Iran, it threatens Iran over its civilian nuclear program, but does not say a thing about Israel’s nuclear weapons. This kind of American double standards provokes distrust and hostility, not only in the Arab world, but throughout the Muslim world. The main issue for Muslims everywhere is not Iran’s nuclear program: it’s the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and America’s blind support for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. So what we have in today’s world – at least in the Middle East – is not a liberal international order, but Israeli military domination underwritten by America: a colonial situation with Israel as a colonial power in occupation of Palestinian territory and exercising military domination of the entire region, intimidating its neighbours, near neighbours and far neighbours like Iran and all of it with the full support of the sole surviving superpower.
As for Britain, it has tended to follow America on all major issues, including the Middle East, the war in Iraq and Israel and Palestine. Britain has not behaved like an independent or impartial power, but has always followed the American lead. Ever since 1967, the Americans have arrogated to themselves a monopoly over the diplomacy surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict. They excluded the Soviet Union during the Cold War and they have excluded the European Union and they continued to exclude Russia and the UN. They arrogated to themselves a role that by rights belong to the United Nations: they have had a monopoly over diplomacy and the so-called peace process, but they have not delivered a settlement, they have not delivered peace. Since 1991, at the aftermath of the first Gulf war, we have had over two decades of the American-sponsored peace process: a lot of process and no peace. Now, the American-led peace process is not just a charade: it’s worse than that, because it gives Israel just the cover it needs to pursue its aggressive colonial agenda on the West Bank. It can do whatever it likes, and the fact that there are peace talks going on – although the peace talks are an exercise in futility – gives Israel some kind of thin veneer of legitimacy for its colonial expansion on the West Bank. There is one other organisation that is relevant here, and that is the Quartet. The Quartet consists of America, Russia, the EU and the UN. In other words, the UN – which should be the supreme world body regulating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – is relegated to being one member in group of four actors. It’s a wrong hierarchy: the UN should be dealing with this dispute, not the Quartet: the Quartet has in fact no basis in international legality: it’s an American invention. America invented the Quartet in 2002, and it hasn’t achieved anything. I regard it as a clever American device for wasting time because, again, there is a pretense of doing something about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when in fact nothing is being done. In 2003, the Quartet came up with a very good plan, the Road Map, which envsiaged a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza by 2005 and, because of Israel’s obstruction, it fell by the wayside.