Don't worry, there won't be peace

By Alon Liel

About two weeks before the Israel Navy's confrontation with the Gaza-bound Turkish flotilla, a radio interviewer asked me how the matter would be dealt with. "The more force we need to use, the greater our loss will be," I replied.

I feel the same on the eve of the talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The more force we exert in the negotiations in Washington, the greater our failure will be. It's supposed to be good that direct talks are beginning. The problem is that they will not result in peace. It's not because we don't need peace. Without peace with the Palestinians, we're just about hopeless. But it won't come.

Achieving peace requires an entirely different approach by the Israeli leadership. The Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman can't shake the sense that it is going to fight over peace with Abbas - a war over territory in the West Bank, a war over Jerusalem, a war over the Palestinian refugees. If we don't entirely change this approach by making a complete political and diplomatic U-turn, the talks will fail.

If the intent is to begin a struggle with the Palestinians in the presence of the Americans and the world, it will be a waste of everyone's time. In such a case it's clear to everyone that we will "win." Who is Abbas compared to us? Where are his fighter jets? Where are his submarines? Where is his Dimona nuclear facility? Where is his elite special operations force? Where are his connections in the U.S. Congress? And if he really gets us mad, we can always stop transferring him funds altogether.

It's not possible for the strongest kid and the weakest kid in the neighborhood to conduct talks on reconciliation and friendship when the talks are based on arm wrestling. It's absolutely clear who will win. But there will be no peace or reconciliation after the strong one beats the weak. It's like the case of the Turkish flotilla. The so-called victor in the tussle is the main loser.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu is our only hope at the moment. He has positioned himself before the Israeli public as the country's No. 1 patriot. He has no real rival in the political sphere. Israel is thriving economically, in large part thanks to him. He is capable of leading Israel to peace, but not with the fighting spirit he is bringing to Washington. Going into peace talks in a warlike mood presents greater risks than opportunities. The failure of the talks could turn the West Bank into another Gaza Strip and Abbas into Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas - and that's without mentioning the international implications.

We have to talk in Washington rather than threaten, to plan (together ) rather than manipulate things, to convince and be convinced, all with the knowledge that we have no alternative to this process. We have a lot more to lose from the talks' failure than the Palestinians do. At worst, they are liable to remain without a state of their own, but we are liable to lose the one we have. We won't physically lose it, but its identity will be lost along with its mission as the state of the Jewish people.

Mr. Prime Minister, only one person in the world can fail in these talks, and his name is Benjamin Netanyahu. If there is success, you will have to share the Nobel Peace Prize with Abbas and special U.S. envoy George Mitchell. If there is failure, it will be yours alone. And your failure, Mr. Prime Minister, will not be our failure, it will be our disaster. Because, for the time being, I don't see the U-turn that is needed, I don't believe there will be peace. Get ready for the commission of inquiry.
--------------
The writer was director general of the Foreign Ministry during Ehud Barak's term as prime minister.

Bagaimana Sultan Muhammad al-Fatih bebaskan Kota Istanbul

Dipetik dari Harkahdaily: Husam Musa

Hari ini, 546 tahun yang silam, Muhammad bin Murad melukir satu sejarah dengan menawan kota yang sangat kuat pertahanannya - Konstantinapole. Pada ketika ini Presiden PAS Dato' Seri Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi Awang, telah pun berada di Kota Istanbul untuk menghadiri sambutan ulangtahun upacara yang amat bersejarah ini.

Tulisan ini cuba melihat bagaimana seorang pemimpin seperti Muhamad Murad yang kemudiannya diberikan gelaran Muhammad Al Fatih, telah berjaya dilahirkan. Adakah di sana satu metod tertentu untuk mencetak pemimpin seperti beliau dan bagaimanakah cara untuk berbuat demikian.

Peribadi dan kepimpinan Muhammad Al Fatih menunjukkan beliau mempunyai ciri berikut;

a. Asuhan dan disiplin Islam yang kuat
b. Mempunyai matlamat hidup yang ingin dijayakan c. Kehendak yang kuat
d. Sabar dan ketahanan ruhani yang kuat
e. Pengetahuan dan kemahiran yang diperlukan untuk misinya, atau mendapatkan bantuan pakar dalam bidang masing-masing bagi tujuan melengkapkan skil berkenaan
f. Ibadah dan pergantungan yang kuat dengan Pencipta

Sebelum isu ini dikupas lebih lanjut, kita tinjau dulu bentuk pertahanan Kota Konstantinapole itu sendiri yang sangat menakjubkan;

Kota ini berbentuk tiga segi. Dua bahagian kota menghadap laut iaitu Selat Bosporus dan Laut Marmara. Bahagian daratan dilingkungi oleh sebuah benteng yang sangat kukuh;

a. Bahagian luar kota dilingkungi oleh sebuah parit besar. Dalamnya 10 meter dan lebarnya 60 meter
b. Ada dua tembok iaitu tembok luar dan tembok dalam. Tembok luar sahaja setinggi 25 kaki dan setebal 10 meter
c. Tembok dalam pula setinggi 40 kaki tinggi dan 15 meter tebal
d. Terdapat menara kawalan sepanjang tembok dalam dengan ketinggian 60 meter!
e. Terdapat 400 batalion tentera terlatih mengawal tembok ini sepanjang masa

Dengan kedudukan pertahanan seperti itu, hampir mustahil untuk tembok ini dicerobohi.

Di bahagian laut pula, terdapat rintangan rantai besi yang kuat diletakkan di Selat Bosporus yang digunakan untuk menghalang kapal-kapal melepasinya.

Konstantinapole telah menjadi ibu kota Empayar Bizantin untuk berkurun-kurun dan dikenali sebagai kota yang paling makmur dan terkaya di Eropah. Ia terletak di pertemuan antara Asia dan Eropah dan Laut Mediterranean dan Laut Hitam. Justeru, ia sangat strategik baik dari segi perdagangan mahupun geo politik.

Sejak Rasulullah s.a.w mengungkapkan bahawa nanti Kota penting ini akhirnya akan jatuh di tangan seorang pemerintah yang terbaik, memimpin tentera yang terbaik sepanjang zaman, telah banyak percubaan dibuat untuk menawan kota ini, namun tidak berjaya. Sahabat seperti Abu Ayub al Ansari juga telah berusaha dan mereka telah mengepung kota ini selama tujuh tahun, tetapi masih gagal.

Hanya 800 tahun selepas sabda Nabi yang Mulia itu, sabda yang menakjubkan ini menjadi kenyataan. Sultan Muhammad bin Murad yang kemudian lebih masyhur dengan gelaran Sultan Muhammad al Fatih telah memulakan pengepungan ke atas Konstantinapole pada hari Khamis, 5 April 1453 dan berjaya membuka kota ini pada 29 Mei 1453, hari tulisan ini dipostkan.

Sungguhpun pengepungan ini berlangsung selama hampir dua bulan sahaja, program penaklukan ini telah berjalan lama!

Ia bermula apabila bapa Sultan Muhammad Al Fatih, Sultan Murad memilih guru-guru yang terpilih untuk mendidik anak raja ini, yang waktu itu, se orang anak yang nakal.

Sejak berumur sembilan tahun, Sultan Muhammad telah mengalami pendidikan disiplin yang ketat. Rasa bebas dan nakal sebagai anak raja yang masih kecil mula berakhir apabila bapa baginda memberikan kebebasan kepada guru-guru beliau untuk membentuk dan mendidik Muhammad.

Rotan turut digunakan oleh gurunya untuk mendisiplinkan anak ini. Dalam satu kejadian, Muhammad telah sengaja dirotan dengan teruknya tanpa sebarang kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh beliau.

Tujuan guru beliau berbuat demikian ialah untuk membentuk perasaan belas kasihan dan sikap adil dan saksama dalam jiwa bakal Sultan ini. Supaya nanti baginda dapat mengambil keputusan berpaksikan keadilan dan memahami perasaan orang-orang yang tidak diperlakukan dengan adil!

Sultan Muhammad dibimbing untuk menghafal al-Qur'an. Dilatih untuk sembahyang malam. Dibentuk menjadi wara' dan zuhud. Diasuh mencintai ilmu dan ulama'. Mempunyai budi pekerti yang baik dan perasaan yang halus. Keunggulan pendidikan keruhanian Sultan Muhammad ternyata apabila baginda akan dilantik menggantikan bapanya secara rasmi sebagai pemerintah Kesultanan Uthmaniah, beliau menangis teresak-esak.

Gurunya lah yang telah mengarahkan beliau menerima tanggungjawab itu atas hujah bahawa seorang berkaliber seperti beliau wajib memikul amanah ummah dan itu jihad dan ibadah yang lebih besar.

Pendidikan Sultan Muhammad di istana baginda hampir komprehensif. Sebagai bakal raja dalam persekitaran Eropah dan pusat perdagangan dan diplomatik, baginda dapat berbahasa lebih dari lima bahasa.

Sudah tentu baginda fasih dalam bahasa Arab.

Baginda juga diajar matapelajaran sejarah, geografi dan astronomi. Pakar ketenteraan juga diundang untuk memberikan pendedahan ketenteraan kepada beliau.

Lama sebelum program pembebasan Konstantinapole dimulakan, Muhammad al-Fateh telah berbincang dengan pakar sejarah dan ketenteraan mengenai sebab-sebab kegagalan ekpedisi penawanan Konstantinapole sebelum ini.

Apa rahsia kekuatan pertahanan kota itu dianalisis. Bagaimanakah caranya untuk mengatasi halangan-halangan itu juga dibincangkan.

Dari perbincangan itu, antara lain mereka mengenal pasti hal berikut;

a. Dinding tembok itu terlalu tebal dan pada waktu itu belum ada teknologi yang boleh meruntuhkannya. Sultan Muhammad telah mengarahkan dicari satu teknologi yang boleh meruntuhkan tembok itu.

Tentera baginda akhirnya berjaya mencipta meriam yang paling canggih dengan bantuan seorang pakar senjata bangsa Hungary yang telah diculik dari kurungan dalam penjara Konstantinapole dengan mengorek lubang bawah tanah yang dalam dan panjang!.

Berat setiap meriam ciptaan baru ini ialah 700 pauns! Ia perlu ditarik oleh 100 ekor kuda dan seratus orang tentera. Bila diletupkan, bunyinya boleh didengar sejauh 13 batu! Setiap tembakannya akan menyebabkan tembok yang kuat berlubang seluas enam kaki. Nah! Benteng besar itu sekarang telah menemui ruasnya.

b. Rantai besi yang kuat yang dirintangi menghalang laluan kapal. Ia menghalang bantuan dan pergerakan melalui laut.

Sultan Muhammad telah mencipta satu plan luar biasa mengatasi halangan ini. Ia adalah antara rekod sejarah yang menakjubkan dari segi kreativiti dan kekuatan keinginan seorang pemimpin. Baginda mengarahkan pembinaan kapal di daratan. Dibuat pada sebelah malam supaya tidak disedari oleh musuh.

Mesti disiapkan dalam masa yang singkat. Kapal ini diluncurkan dari daratan sejauh 5km ke lautan dengan meletakkannya tergelunsur di atas batang-batang kayu yang telah diatur dan telah diminyakkan untuk melicinkan perjalanan kapal-kapal itu.

Pada masa yang telah ditetapkan, kapal-kapal ini dilancarkan dari daratan dan muncul di depan Kota Konstantinapole sebelah lautan dengan melepasi rantai besi yang telah terpasang! Ia memeranjatkan tentera musuh. 400 kapal musuh terbakar dan serangan dari lautan berjalan serentak dengan pengepungan sebelah daratan.

c. Lazimnya bila tentera sampai di pantai menghadap Kota ini, mereka terdedah kepada serangan musuh kerana kawasan yang terbuka dan jika sekiranya satu benteng pertahanan mengelakkan serangan hendak dibina, ia memakan masa selama setahun.

Sultan Muhammad telah mengarahkan benteng pertahanan menghadap tembok kota Konstantinapole itu dibina dalam masa tiga bulan dengan menggunakan segala teknik pembinaan semasa yang canggih.

Benteng Rumeli Hissari dibina di tebing sebelah Eropah, lebih kurang 5 batu dari Kota Konstantinople di mana Selat Bosphorus adalah yang paling sempit. Ia dibina bertentangan dengan Benteng Anadolu Hisar di tebing sebelah Asia yang telah dibina oleh Sultan Bayazid Yildirim dahulu.

Ia memang berjaya disiapkan seperti direncanakan.

Dari mana kekuatan keinginan seorang pemimpin ini diperolehi oleh Sultan Muhammad?

Gurunya bukan sekadar menyuntikkan kekuatan ruhani kepada bakal Sultan in, tetapi juga telah menyuntik sikap terbuka terhadap teknik dan teknologi baru yang diperlukan untuk misi mereka. Mereka juga menyuntik sikap berminda strategik dan kreatif.

Sultan Muhammad dapat menganalisis dengan tepat permasaalahan dan mencari jalan penyelesaian terhadap setiap permasalahan itu secara praktikal sebelum melancarkan misinya.

Tetapi yang paling penting, sejak kecil lagi guru-guru baginda telah membentuk minda baginda untuk merasakan dirinya lah yang disebutkan oleh Rasulullah s.a.w sebagai raja terbaik yang memimpin tentera terbaik yang akan dapat membebaskan Konstantinbapole.

Sasaran, visi dan misi yang jelas, yang disuntikkan ke dalam minda baginda ternyata berkesan. Dari kecil, Sultan Muhammad mengimpikan bagindalah pembebas itu!

Baginda bergerak selari dengan impian ini. Akhirnya, ia adalah sebuah kenyataan.

Dari sudut kepimpinan, bapa baginda seorang yang berpandangan jauh. Sejak umur 14 tahun, Muhammad telah diminta menguruskan empayar dengan alasan, bapanya ingin menumpukan kepada ibadah.

Namun, dalam dua keadaan kritikal, bapa baginda pulang semula untuk memimpin Kerajaan Uthmaniah. Selepas ancaman kritikal itu diatasi, Muhammad diberikan peluang untuk menguruskan semula empayar yang sedang berkembang itu.

Melalui pendedahan berbentuk bimbingan ini, Muhammad terlatih menjadi pemimpin yang berkualiti.

Ditambah, sepanjang hayat baginda, guru-guru baginda yang menjadi rujukan keruhanian dan kebijaksanaan, sentiasa bersama baginda. Hatta, ketika pengepungan kota itu berlangsung, gurunya mengimamkan solat hajat semua tentera Sultan Muhammad.

Melihat 150,000 tentera Islam berbaris rapi untuk bersolat di luar kota itu, cukup untuk menakutkan musuh yang sedang berkawal dalam kota!

Pada hari pembukaan Kota Kontantinapole yang bersejarah itu, Sultan Muhammad bersujud syukur.

Sepanjang kempen, baginda tidak putus-putus mengarahkan tenteranya bertakbir dan melaungkan slogan-slogan bersemangat, termasuk motivasi berasaskan hadis Nabi bahawa Konstantinapole akan dibebaskan oleh tentera yang terbaik dan merekalah tentera terbaik yang dijanjikan oleh Nabi itu.

Pada kali pertama solat Jumaat hendak didirikan di dalam Kota Konstantinapole yang baru sahaja dibebaskan, timbul pertanyaan siapa yang layak menjadi imam solat Jumaat yang pertama itu.

Baginda memerintahkan kesemua tenteranya termasuk dirinya berdiri dan diikuti pertanyaan: "Siapa di antara kita sejak baligh hingga sekarang pernah meninggalkan solat fardhu walau sekali sila duduk!".

Tiada seorang pun yang duduk, kerana tidak seorang pun di antara mereka pernah meninggalkan solat fardhu.

Pertanyaan seterusnya, "Siapa di antara kita yang sejak baligh hingga kini pernah meninggalkan solat sunat rawatib sila duduk!".

Sebahagian daripada tenteranya duduk. Kemudian Baginda bertitah, "Siapa di antara kamu sejak baligh hingga ke saat ini pernah meninggalkan solat tahajjud walaupun satu malam, sila duduk!".

Kali ini semuanya duduk, kecuali baginda sendiri sahaja yang tetap berdiri! Subhaanallah!

Baginda tidak pernah meninggalkan solat fardhu, Solat Sunat Rawatib dan Solat Tahajud sejak baligh. Tepatlah janji Rasulullah s.a.w dan kota ini kemudian bertukar nama kepada Istanbul.

Sekarang, marilah kita mengenali secara ringkas guru-guru yang berjasa besar membentuk Sultan Muhammad.

Pertama, Ahmad 'ibn Ismail Al-Kori:

Guru istimewa ini menunjukkan role model kepada Sultan Muhammad. Seorang yang wara', tidak menyembah Sultan sama seperti orang lain memberikan tunduk hormat, memanggil nama Sultan dan kerabat mereka dengan nama mereka masing-masing tanpa sebarang panggilan gelaran, Bersalaman dengan mereka tanpa mencium tangan mereka. Sepanjang Ramadhan, Sultan Muhammad menghadhiri kelas mentafsir ayat-ayat Al Qur'an yang diadakan di istana baginda selepas solat zuhur, dengan guru-guru yang bersilih ganti.

Ahmad ibn Ismail lah yang mengajarkan Al Qur'an, hukum-hukum agama dan kepatuhan padanya. Ia juga membentuk rasa takwa dalam jiwa Sultan Muhammad dengan berbagai cara, termasuk nasihat-nasihat yang berkaitan dengan tugas pemerintah.

Kedua ialah Sheikh Muhammad bin Hamzah al-Rrouhy, lebih dikenali sebagai Ba'q Shamsuddin. Beliau meninggalkan kesan yang sangat mendalam terhadap keperibadian Sultan Muhammad.

Beliau telah menginspirasikan Sultan MUhammad meningkatn aktiviti dakwah dan keislaman di bawah Empayar Othmaniah sebagai satu cara memperkuatkan empayar tersebut.

Beliaulah yang paling giat meyakinkan Sultan Muhammad bahawa beliau adalah raja terpilih seperti yang dimaksudkan oleh Rasulullah s.a.w dalam sabdanya itu.

Selain mengajarkan teras-teras ilmu Islam, Shamsuddin juga bertanggungjawab mengajar sains, matematik, sejarah, strategi perang, astronomi dan lain-lain.

Beliaulah yang telah merotan Muhammad di masa kecil tanpa sebab. Beliaulah yang mententeramkan Sultan Muhammad yang menangis kerana enggan menjadi raja. Beliaulah yang telah ditanya oleh Sultan Muhammad samada beliau boleh bersara selepas lama memerintah kerana ingin menumpukan kepada ibadah tetapi dijawab, ibadah sebagai Sultan yang adil adalah lebih berharga lagi.

Shamsuddin meletakkan insipirasi dalam dada Sultan, memberikan baginda tujuan dan misi pemerentahan yang jelas dan bersama baginda sehingga cita-cita itu tercapai.

Kerana itu lah, beliau dikenali sebagai Penakluk Ruhani Konstantinapole. Guru yang merancang lahirnya seorang pemimpin dan terukirnya sebuah sejarah. Insan pada sisi lain Sultan Muhammad al-Fatih.

First Iran, now Arabs going nuclear

By Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, Al-Jazeera

There is a renewed effort to engage with Iran about its nuclear programme. Washington has expressed a willingness to hold direct talks with Tehran, which marks a dramatic shift between the policy of Barack Obama, the US president, and his predecessor George Bush.

The emphasis on dialogue comes as North Korea signals that it is restarting a nuclear plant that produces arms-grade plutonium, and Arab nations are importing nuclear technology and assistance at an unprecedented pace.

Al Jazeera spoke to Richard Falk, the chair of the board at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, about Iran's nuclear programme, its effect on regional Arab ambitions for nuclear power, and whether the Middle East will enter a nuclear arms race.

The following are excerpts from the interview:

Al Jazeera: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, recently announced the opening of a nuclear fuel plant, and stressed Iran's ability and right to enrich uranium. But, he also welcomed constructive dialogue with the US and other powers. What motives are behind his statements?

Falk: I think it is difficult to assess the motives behind this kind of Iranian public initiative. It may be connected with domestic politics - the election campaign there - where Ahmadinejad is trying to present himself as a leader who has restored Iran's stature and that this stature is associated symbolically with a robust nuclear programme.

It may also be a signal that though Iran seems receptive to resuming some kind of negotiations about their nuclear programme ... this shouldn't be made too easily.

It could be that this is part of a bargaining strategy by indicating that they already have enrichment capabilities and if they were to curtail them they would have to be given quite a bit in exchange.

Are Arab states pursuing nuclear programmes due to growing energy demands or does the perceived threat from Iran's apparent capability to develop nuclear weapons play a role?

Often in these kinds of decisions the true motives are disguised and the public explanations are presented in the most acceptable, least provocative form.

I think that is the case here. Most of the rationale for these expanded nuclear energy programmes are almost always related to domestic factors, increasing electricity demand and the expense of importing energy.

It is hard not to believe, given the geopolitical climate in the region - not only Iran, but the Iraq war and other factors like Israel's nuclear capabilities - that the geo-strategic factors have not entered into the motives of all these countries going in that direction.

Of course, they are also imitating one another. There is a sense that if you don't move in this direction you are acknowledging you are subordinate or marginalised in the region.

There is also a prestige element at work. It is extremely hard to read the hierarchy of motives. In the background it is probably the way in which India and Pakistan evolved their nuclear programmes.

They developed over time and as a result, India began to be taken seriously as a world power when it crossed the nuclear threshhold.

Will the Middle East witness a race for nuclear technologies?

The background of all of this is the abandonment by the Arab countries of their earlier mission of seeking a nuclear-free region that are directed at weapons and combining it with regional security.

Perhaps it is an interpretation that Israel is never going to go along with the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East.

And now that Iran is at least a latent nuclear weapons state, it doesn't make any sense to proceed in that direction anymore, rather to the extent that strategic considerations are at work.

It seems that the leading Arab countries think that they need to have their own long-term security. It should be a contingency option for them.

Arab leaders have implied that Israel does not want to see Arab countries acquire nuclear technology and has thwarted their efforts to advance their programmes. Is there truth to this?

As you suggested, the evidence over the years is that Israel becomes very nervous when any of the Arab countries move in directions that could challenge its regional military superiority.

Though that is sort of a remote prospect, the manner in which Israel views its relationship with its neighbours is such that it has consistently opposed arms sales of any kind or of enhancement of their potential capabilities.

Maybe Israel would prefer to see the Arab countries energy-dependent rather than energy-independent. I think it is consistent with the kind of regional hegemonic ambition that Israel both defensively and offensively assert.

Thirty years ago you called for a total renunciation of nuclear power in exchange for other pollution-free energy sources and have been since. Obama has also pledged to create a nuclear-free world. But is it too late?

I think it is already too late. A number of elements make it too late.

The first of which is this sense that alternative energy is indispensable for dealing with the limitations on oil supply and in the face of increasing demand for oil and gas, combined with considerations for climate change and combined with the fact that there is a sufficient commitment on the part of a sufficient number of important states that it is just implausible to think that this kind of total de-nuclearisation can occur.

The only thing that might give it a renewed possibility is another Chernobyl-type accident. Or several Chernobyls which would highlight the other aspect of developing nuclear energy - what you do with the waste and a variety of related things.

Jordan wants to maintain their right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But the UAE has unilaterally given up theirs to prove their peaceful intentions to advance their programme. Should Arab countries be allowed to enrich uranium?

The US geopolitical discipline in relation to nuclear energy and weapons has faced a two-tier view of international legitimacy. Some countries are allowed to have the weapons and other countries are not.

Of the ones that are, most say that the others are not allowed to come close to the threshhold. At the same time, from the perspective of the international law regime embodied by the NPT, it was supposed to be consistent with having the complete benefits of peaceful uses, including the option to develop the nuclear fuel cycle.

You have a much stricter regime geopolitically than you do legally. The UAE is trying to conform to the geopolitical discipline or reality by assuring the world its nuclear energy programme is accepting international inspection and forgoing the option to reprocess nuclear fuel or have the enrichment capability.

I suppose the UAE is trying to make itself look like the optimal actor of how to ensure the energy security transition beyond the petroleum age. They also have the resources to pull off the kind of programme there.

Is it fair for 'nuclear weapons states' to tell others they cannot produce weapons without stripping down their own nuclear arsenals?

The fascinating fact is that they have been able to successfully for 45 years convince most of the actors in the world that they are better off going along with nonproliferation charades, rather than repudiating them.

It is based on this whole pervasive double standard that is embedded in the whole idea of nuclear nonproliferation and what I call the mind game that has been successfully played by the nuclear weapons states that makes us believe that the danger comes more from those who don't have the weapons, rather than those who have the weapons.

Nuclear weapons states have not fulfilled the Article Six pledge of nuclear disarmament. It was unanimously affirmed in the advisory opinion of the world court of the legality of nuclear weapons.

It was divided on the issues of use, but unanimous on obligation to seek in good faith and I think they have not acted in good faith and fulfilled the real bargain. Therefore non-nuclear states, from a legal point of view, would be quite entitled to say they are no longer bound either.

Is it in the interest of these states, particularly Israel and the US, to work toward military de-nuclearisation?

I would think it is in Israel's long term interest. It is particularly pertinent to the region because there are several dimensions of unresolved conflict, one important adversary posses a rather formidable nuclear weapons capability, others, particularly Iran have clearly latent potential.

So if one is thinking from the perspective of conflict avoidance or war prevention, it could seem that one is at a point where it would make a lot of sense to exert that kind of political pressure.

Israel talks a lot about attacking Iran, but that is filled with uncertainty and probably would generate a very strong backlash in the region and possibly even in the US and Europe. They stand to gain a lot by a reliable process of regional regulation, security, system of mutual non-aggression.

In that sense it exposes the unwillingness of the US to press Israel in the way it would press other countries, which is illustrative of another aspect of these double standard in nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.

Aiming for a new Americas

By Lucia Newman, Latin America editor, in Trinidad, for Al-Jazeera

Expectations for an important shift in relations between the US and its southern neighbours are high as leaders from every country in the Americas - with the exception of Cuba - gather in Trinidad and Tobago for the fifth summit of the Americas.

The summit was launched in 1994, with a clear mandate to establish a "hemispheric free trade zone" of the Americas, reaching from Alaska in the north to Tierra del Fuego in the south by 2005.

A lot has happened since then and the political map of Latin America, particularly South America, has changed radically.

A region that for more than a century took its cue from Washington, and was often ruled by US-backed military governments, is now led almost entirely by left or centre-left governments which have declared their political and economic independence.

'Equal' relationship

In a possible sign of the changing economic times, the insistence on a hemispheric free trade accord has been scrapped, replaced by an agenda that focuses on human prosperity, environmental sustainability and energy security.

And Latin American and Caribbean leaders are also interested in something else.

They are looking for a different, more equal kind of relationship with the world's biggest superpower, and for the first time, the president of the US seems to be willing to listen.

"Times have changed," said Barack Obama in an interview with a Spanish language television network.

"I think it's important for the US not to tell other countries how to ... structure their democratic practices and what should be contained in their constitutions."

US-Chavez meeting

The reference to internal politics was clearly directed at Washington's staunchest opponent in the region, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, who once compared Bush to "Satan" and Adolf Hitler.

He will come face to face for the first time with the new US president.

"The summit is an opportunity to reset Latin America's relations with the United States," says Chavez.

Nevertheless, on the eve of the summit of the Americas, the Venezuelan leader hosted a meeting of ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America) with the presidents of Nicaragua, Cuba and Bolivia, in which he said he and others would veto the US-backed final declaration of the summit, because it is "misplaced in time and space".

"Let us hope that the president of the United States goes there to listen," added Chavez.

"We are going to speak our truth."

Cuba pressure

One of those "truths" not on the official agenda but which will clearly be on the table is the absence of Cuba.

The one-party state was expelled in 1962 from the Organisation of American States (OAS) under whose auspices the summit of the Americas is held.

Every nation in Latin America and the Caribbean is calling for the US to end its 47-year economic and political embargo against Cuba, and Obama will be reminded that the rest of the region wants Cuba brought back into the fold.

On the eve of the summit, the US president did announce measures aimed at "reaching out to the Cuban people", which include lifting restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba by Cuban-Americans.

But regional leaders say that is not enough.

"I have told ... Obama that there is no academic, sociological, political, economic, ethical or moral explanation for maintaining the blockade against Cuba," Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, said in a recent interview with Al Jazeera.

Obama has responded by saying that Washington has made the first gesture and now Cuba must take the next step by moving forward on human rights issues.

"We are willing to talk about anything he wants, human rights, freedom of the press, whatever, but always on equal terms and without the slightest shade of doubt about our sovereignty," Raul Castro, president of Cuba, responded.

But the summit organisers are concerned the Cuba issue could overshadow the stated goals of the summit and the opportunity to discuss co-ordinated actions aimed at overcoming the current economic crisis.

"Yes, we welcome the discussion on Cuba. Yes, there are statements to be made, but not in any aggressive form, so as to take away from what we are truly here for," Paula Gopee-Scoon, the Trinidadian foreign minister, said on Friday.

It's our 'secret'

By Doron Rosenblum, Haaretz

If the expression "a bad feeling" were a quarry, and if all the words related to "hope," "embrace" or "feel" could somehow be turned into capital, Israel could have this week become the richest and strongest country in the world. Aside from all kinds of essential words that described the location of journalists and the connection of interview subjects to the prisoner exchange with Hezbollah, sentences such as "accompanied by a bad feeling" and "we all embrace the families" once again filled our existence. Above all, that absurd expression, which has turned into a kind of national motto, is hovering over us once again: "I want to hope." It's an expression adopted by military and political leaders, of all people - those from whom we expect some kind of concrete and rational plan.

"We wanted to hope" that the captives would somehow come back alive, despite the intelligence information; the chief of staff "wanted to hope" that the Israel Defense Forces would smash Hezbollah in three days - if not at the beginning of the war, then at least by its conclusion; "we wanted to hope" that Syrian President Bashar Assad would agree to shake Ehud Olmert's hand and would forget about the Golan; "we wanted to hope" that Samir Kuntar and his friends would be raised on the values of Zionism and the good deeds they experienced during their decades of imprisonment, that Hezbollah would stop arming itself, or that Iran would be impressed by our threats and destroy its nuclear installations on its own. That's how it is when one "wants to hope." The sky's the limit.

In that sense, the "tough week" of the prisoner exchange deal was nothing new. We only emphasized to ourselves, and to an astonished world, the path that Israel as a country has chosen to follow for so many years, the path of magical thinking.

A path that, with a kind of joy-in-despair, has abandoned rational thought and primarily the consideration of long-term national interests and instead devotes itself, and does so with great pride, to "feelings" and desires: anger, revenge, pity, hopes, even if they that are cloaked, after the fact, in lofty words such as "values" and "sensitivities" and "respect for human life."

Although the prisoner exchange this week was more rational and reasonable than many of its predecessors, it still recalled a certain context. Almost every major step taken by Israel in the past decade - from a naive belief in Yasser Arafat to the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, to the overreaction to the intifadas, and up to the disengagement from Gaza and the Second Lebanon War - demonstrated not only an absence of logical thinking, but even a defiance of cold, rational considerations.

This could have been dubbed "the victory of hope" had there at least been some kind of victory here; but, in its absence, we have remained only with "wanting to hope": a kind of mystical faith that desire alone, plus "positive energies," would change reality by taking shortcuts through it and bypassing its laws.

In that sense, Israel may be ahead of its time: It long ago revealed "the secret," like the name of one of the New Age best sellers, which says that if we close our eyes tight and "want to hope," the thing will happen. If we only "embrace the families," make a decisive speech or "get our picture taken with Assad," the reality will change by itself, without a need to do anything about it (such as preparing the army for war, or waging a wise diplomatic offensive or making rational concessions in genuine negotiations). But unfortunately, Israel is living in a region that is entirely "Old Age": It is confronting the negative energies of enemies whose basic positions have not changed a millimeter for decades, and who adhere to the most basic utilitarian rationale, as far as they are concerned.

And, thus, when a leader like Hassan Nasrallah succeeds in jerking us around and toying with us and our "feelings" as though we were puppets on a string, we have to ask ourselves: Are we really facing an unbelievably demonic genius, or has the guy simply invaded the playing field that we have abandoned - the arena of practical and clever thinking, which once was unique to us in this region?

With the help of the media, which pursue emotions and weeping and embraces, in which the crocodile tears of promos for the Israeli versions of "Survivor" and "The Biggest Loser" mingle with the sorrow of those deceived by Hezbollah, the media have forgotten the meaning of "the real story," just as the army has long since forgotten the meaning of victory.

Because while we are wallowing in wishes, prayers, collective weeping and pseudo-familial embraces, the bad news is that our neighbors have simply discovered our "secret." While we are still focusing on emotions, they have adopted thinking.

ANALYSIS : In Lebanon, prisoner swap is Hezbollah victory

By Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz Correspondent

Hezbollah has been touting the prisoner exchange deal with Israel as confirmation that the Shi'ite militant group ultimately defeated Israel in the Second Lebanon War, but the swap is at least as much of a Hezbollah victory within Lebanon.
"The signatures of Olmert and Peres on the swap means official confirmation of the defeat and failure of the July aggression in the face of the will of the resistance," said Nabil Kaouk, Hezbollah's commander in southern Lebanon.

But the swap may be even more significant within Lebanon. Since the end of the war, Hezbollah has been trying hard to prove that even if it was mistaken in its assessment of Israel's response to its abduction of Israeli soldiers, the war had a positive outcome.

Despite UN Resolution 1701, which theoretically set strict limitations on military action, Hezbollah has strengthened itself militarily and politically since the war. It effectively annulled UN Resolution 1501, which laid the foundation for disarming it; it imposed its own conditions for the establishment of a new Lebanese government, attained veto power for important decisions, and is continuing its fight for an election law that would ensure it significant gains in next year's election.

The prisoner swap tops off the list of achievements.

"Despite differences of opinion within Lebanon, Hezbollah has managed to take advantage of every opportunity to strengthen its military and political capabilities," Kaouk also said.

The prisoner deal is one of those opportunities, which comes somewhat belatedly, since Hezbollah reaped most of its achievements on the domestic front before signing the swap. But the prisoner exchange is no longer needed as leverage in the domestic dispute.

Thus although the big celebrations tomorrow in the Lebanese town of Aabey and in southern Beirut, where the freed prisoners will be welcomed home, will augment the store of faith the public has in Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the celebrations are not enough to serve an immediate political aim.Nevertheless, it seems that Nasrallah is still not sure of his Israeli partner.

Tuesday's report in the Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar about the way the swap will take place, and particularly about the doubt regarding whether one of the Israeli captives was still alive, shows that Nasrallah is holding onto another card meant to keep Israel from backtracking at the last minute.

Now what remains is to wait until Nasrallah gives a full report of the negotiations, including the tricks he played, and get the official Hezbollah version of the abduction. In his last speech, Nasrallah promised he would deliver more details, and it seems more unpleasant surprises await Israel.

The kidnapping of soldiers is considered in Lebanon to be part of Hezbollah's private accounting vis-a-vis Israel, and the swap is just one more page in this accounts ledger.

However, Hezbollah, which presents itself as a national resistance organization working for the interests of Lebanon, must still produce one more achievement: Israel's withdrawal from the Shaba Farms area. The Shaba Farms function as Hezbollah's justification for the claim that Israel did not fully withdraw from Lebanon, requiring Hezbollah to be armed so it can complete this mission too. Hezbollah is not opposed to
negotiations aimed at giving Lebanon control over the Shaba Farms; it simply does not believe in the Lebanese government's ability to achieve anything through talks with Israel.

The prisoner swap will serve Nasrallah as a banner to wave before the Lebanese government to prove the justness of Hezbollah's path.

Timeline: Iran-Arab relations (Al-Jazeera, Jan 14,2009)

Iran and its Arab neighbours have maintained a wary, yet stable relationship throughout the 20th century. However, relations deteriorated rapidly during and after the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Neighbours such as Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain accused Iran of inciting their Shia minorities. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein, Iraq's former president, repeatedly said he was fighting on behalf of Arab states against Iranian expansionism.

Since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, relations between Iran and the Arabs plummeted even further. In 2005, as sectarian war appeared to rip Iraq apart, Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, said US policy in the country was benefiting Iran.

"We fought a war together to keep Iran out of Iraq after Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason," al-Faisal said in 2005.

Relations between Iran and the Shia Hezbollah movement of Lebanaon on the one hand, and Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia reached boiling point in July 2006 when Tehran accused the Arab states of allowing Israel to invade Lebanon.

But in late 2007, relations between Iran and the Arabs suddenly changed with foreign ministers exchanging visits to better ties and sign business and security pacts.

Timeline: Arabs and Iran

1969: Iran drops its claim on Bahrain.

1971: Iranian forces occupy three islands, including the strategic island of Abu Musa at the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz, claimed by both Tehran and the United Arab Emirates. The UAE agrees to share control of Abu Musa but continues to call for the return of the other two islands - the Lesser Tunb and the Greater Tunb.

March 1975: Iraq and Iran sign an agreement mediated by Algeria ending all outstanding border disputes. Iraq makes territorial concessions, chiefly relinquishing demands for the Shatt-al-Arab waterway shared by both countries in the Gulf. In return, Iran stops supplying Kurdish separatists with arms and money for their war against Baghdad.

October 1978: In further observance of the 1975 agreement, Iraq's government asks Ayatollah Khomeini, the leading Iranian cleric, to leave Najaf after spending 14 years in exile in the country. Khoemini leaves for Kuwait where he is denied entry and diverted to Paris.

January 1979: Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran is ousted from power. Anwar Sadat, Egypt's president, angered Khomeini by providing a home for the exiled shah. Iran then severed all ties with Egypt.

February 1979: Khomeini returns to Tehran and is installed as leader and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

November 1979: Iranian students storm the US embassy and take several Americans hostage. The siege lasts 444 days and comes to be known as the Iran Hostage Crisis.

September 1980: Khoemini calls for Iraq's Shia to rise up against the Saddam Hussein government. Saddam responds by annuling the 1975 Algiers Agreement. Both countries shell each others' borders. Iraqi military forces invade on September 22.

Saddam, says he is fighting Iran on behalf of other Arab states, who viewed the country as a threat to stability.

Almost all Arab countries, except Syria and Libya, support Iraq logistically and financially.

1980: The UAE submits its claims on Abu Musa to the UN. In the same year, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain form the Gulf Co-operation Council in response to Iranian threats.

October 1981: Anwar Sadat is assassinated by Islamic Jihad members. Iran symbolically dedicates a street to Khaled el-Islambouli, Sadat's assassin.

July 1987: More than 400 Iranian pilgrims are killed during the Hajj in Mecca when they clash with Saudi security forces during an anti-Iraq and anti-US demonstration.

July 1988: While protecting Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Gulf, US Navy cruiser Vincennes shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner killing 290 passengers

August 1988: Iran and Iraq sign a UN-brokered ceasefire ending their war. Some two million soldiers and civilians are killed and wounded during the eight-year conflict.

July 1989: Saudi authorities execute 16 Kuwaiti Shias alleging they plotted a number of bombings which killed two pilgrims in Mecca. Riyadh blames Tehran for the attacks.

August 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait. Iranian policy-makers adopt a sense of pragmatism and opt non-involvement.

January 1991: Saddam Hussein revisits the Algiers agreement and concedes the Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iran.

April 1992: Iranian forces take full control of Abu Musa.

In the years following the defeat of Iraqi forces in Kuwait, the US adopts a dual containment policy targeting Iran and Iraq. Nevertheless, Iranian leaders begin a new wave of diplomacy to improve relations with Arab governments.

Once considered a hostile neighbour, Iran has seen its influence grow in the political spectrum of the Middle East.

In recent years, it has supported movements countering what it calls US interventionist policy.

Iran is known to support Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and according to the US military, Shia militias in Iraq.

As a result, Iran is now regarded a major player in the geopolitics of the Middle East.

The inclusion of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, its president, in the meeting of the GCC in 2007 reflected a concerted effort on the part of Arab states to recognise Iran's influence as a rising power.