Is Stealing Cows Good?

"If he steals my cow, that is bad. If I steal his cow, that isgood" - this moral rule was attributed by European racists to theHottentots, an ancient tribe in Southern Africa.

It's hard not to be reminded of this when the United States and the Europeancountries cry out against Russia's recognition of the independence of SouthOssetia and Abkhazia, the two provinces which seceded from the Republic ofSakartvelo, known in the West as Georgia.

Not so long ago, the Western countries recognized the Republic of Kosovo, whichseceded from Serbia. The West argued that the population of Kosovo is notSerbian, its culture and language is not Serbian, and that therefore it has aright to independence from Serbia. Especially after Serbia had conducted agrievous campaign of oppression against them. I supported this view with all myheart. Unlike many of my friends, I even supported the military operation thathelped the Kosovars to free themselves.

But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the saying goes.What's true for Kosovo is no less true for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Thepopulation in these provinces is not Georgian, they have their own languages andancient civilizations. They were annexed to Georgia almost by whim, and theyhave no desire to be part of it.

So what is the difference between the two cases? A huge one, indeed: theindependence of Kosovo is supported by the Americans and opposed by theRussians. Therefore it's good. The independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia issupported by the Russians and opposed by the Americans. Therefore it's bad. Asthe Romans said: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, what's allowed to Jupiter isnot allowed to an ox.

I do not accept this moral code. I support the independence of all theseregions.

In my view, there is one simple principle, and it applies to everybody: everyprovince that wants to secede from any country has a right to do so. In thisrespect there is, for me, no difference between Kosovars, Abkhazians, Basques,Scots and Palestinians. One rule for all.

THERE WAS a time when this principle could not be implemented. A state of a fewhundred thousand people was not viable economically, and could not defend itselfmilitarily.

That was the era of the "nation state", when a strong people imposeditself, its culture and its language, on weaker peoples, in order to create astate big enough to safeguard security, order and a proper standard of living.France imposed itself on Bretons and Corsicans, Spain on Catalans and Basques,England on Welsh, Scots and Irish, and so forth.

That reality has been superseded. Most of the functions of the "nationstate" have moved to super-national structures: large federations like theUSA, large partnerships like the EU. In those there is room for small countrieslike Luxemburg beside larger ones like Germany. If Belgium falls apart and aFlemish state comes into being beside a Walloon state, both will be receivedinto the EU, and nobody will be hurt. Yugoslavia has disintegrated, and each ofits parts will eventually belong to the European Union.

That has happened to the former Soviet Union, too. Georgia freed itself fromRussia. By the same right and the same logic, Abkhazia can free itself fromGeorgia. 

But then, how can a country avoid disintegration? Very simple: it must convincethe smaller peoples which live under its wings that it is worthwhile for them toremain there. If the Scots feel that they enjoy full equality in the UnitedKingdom, that they have been accorded sufficient autonomy and a fair slice ofthe common cake, that their culture and traditions are being respected, they maydecide to remain there. Such a debate has been going on for decades in theFrench-speaking Canadian province of Quebec.

The general trend in the world is to enlarge the functions of the big regionalorganizations, and at the same time allow peoples to secede from their mothercountries and establish their own states. That is what happened in the SovietUnion, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Serbia and Georgia. That is bound to happenin many other countries.

Those who want to go in the opposite direction and establish, for example, abi-national Israeli-Palestinian state, are going against the Zeitgeist - to saythe least.

THIS IS the historical background to the recent spat between Georgia and Russia.There are no Righteous Ones here. It is rather funny to hear Vladimir Putin,whose hands are dripping with the blood of Chechen freedom fighters, extollingthe right of South Ossetia to secession. It's no less funny to hear MicheilSaakashvili likening the freedom fight of the two separatist regions to theSoviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

The fighting reminded me of our own history. In the spring of 1967, I heard asenior Israeli general saying that he prayed every night for the Egyptianleader, Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, to send his troops into the Sinai peninsula. There,he said, we shall annihilate them. Some months later, Nasser marched into thetrap. The rest is history.

Now Saakashvili has done precisely the same. The Russians prayed for him toinvade South Ossetia. When he walked into this trap, the Russians did to himwhat we did to the Egyptians. It took the Russians six days, the same as it tookus.

Nobody can know what was passing through the mind of Saakashvili. He is aninexperienced person, educated in the United States, a politician who came topower on the strength of his promise to bring the separatist regions back to thehomeland. The world is full of such demagogues, who build a career on hatred,super-nationalism and racism. We have more than enough of them here, too.

But even a demagogue does not have to be an idiot. Did he believe that PresidentBush, who is bankrupt in all fields, would rush to his aid? Did he not know thatAmerica has no soldiers to spare? That Bush's warlike speeches are being carriedaway by the wind? That NATO is a paper tiger? That the Georgian army would meltlike butter in the fire of war? 

I AM curious about our part in this story.

In the Georgian government there are several ministers who grew up and receivedtheir education in Israel. It seems that the Minister of Defense and theMinister for Integration (of the separatist regions) are also Israeli citizens.And most importantly: that the elite units of the Georgian army have beentrained by Israeli officers, including the one who was blamed for losing LebanonWar II. The Americans, too, invested much effort in training the Georgians.

I am always amused by the idea that it is possible to train a foreign army. Onecan, of course, teach technicalities: how to use particular weapons or how toconduct a battalion-scale maneuver. But anyone who has taken part in a real war(as distinct from policing an occupied population) knows that the technicalaspects are secondary. What matters is the spirit of the soldiers, theirreadiness to risk their lives for the cause, their motivation, the human qualityof the fighting units and the command echelon.

Such things cannot be imparted by foreigners. Every army is a part of itssociety, and the quality of the society decides the quality of the army. That isparticularly true in a war against an enemy who enjoys a decisive numericalsuperiority. We experienced that in the 1948 war, when David Ben-Gurion wantedto impose on us officers who were trained in the British army, and we, thecombat soldiers, preferred our own commanders, who were trained in ourunderground army and had never seen a military academy in their lives.

Only professional generals, whose whole outlook is technical, imagine that theycould "train" soldiers of another people and another culture - inAfghanistan, Iraq or Georgia.

A well developed trait among our officers is arrogance. In our case, it isgenerally connected with a reasonable standard of the army. If the Israeliofficers infected their Georgian colleagues with this arrogance, convincing themthat they could beat the mighty Russian army, they committed a grievous sinagainst them.

I DO NOT believe that this is the beginning of Cold War II, as has beensuggested. But this is certainly a continuation of the Great Game.

This appellation was given to the relentless secret struggle that went on allthrough the 19th century along Russia's southern border between the two greatempires of the time: the British and the Russian. Secret agents and not sosecret armies were active in the border regions of India (including today'sPakistan), Afghanistan, Persia and so on. The "North-West Frontier"(of Pakistan), which is starring now in the war against the Taliban, was alreadylegendary then.

Today, the Great Game between the current two great empires - the USA and Russia- is going on all over the place from the Ukraine to Pakistan. It proves thatgeography is more important than ideology: Communism has come and gone, but thestruggle goes on as if nothing has happened.

Georgia is a mere pawn in the chess game. The initiative belongs to the US: itwants to encircle Russia by expanding NATO, an arm of US policy, all along theborder. That is a direct threat to the rival empire. Russia, on its part, istrying to extend its control over the resources most vital to the West, oil andgas, as well as their routes of transportation. That can lead to disaster.


WHEN Henry Kissinger was still a wise historian, before he became a foolishstatesman, he expounded an important principle: in order to maintain stabilityin the world, a system has to be formed that includes all the parties. If oneparty is left outside, stability is in danger.

He cited as an example the "Holy Alliance" of the great powers thatcame into being after the Napoleonic wars. The wise statesmen of the time,headed by the Austrian Prince Clemens von Metternich, took care not to leave thedefeated French outside, but, on the contrary, gave them an important place inthe Concert of Europe.

The present American policy, with its attempt to push Russia out, is a danger tothe whole world. (And I have not even mentioned the rising power of China.)

A small country which gets involved in the struggle between the big bulliesrisks being squashed. That has happened in the past to Poland, and it seems thatit has not learned from that experience. One should advise Georgia, and also theUkraine, not to emulate the Poles but rather the Finns, who since world War IIhave pursued a wise policy: they guard their independence but endeavor to takethe interest of their mighty neighbor into account.

We Israelis can, perhaps, also learn something from all of this: that it is notsafe to be a vassal of one great Empire and provoke the rival empire. Russia isreturning to our region, and every move we make to further American expansionwill surely be countered by a Russian move in favor of Syria and Iran.

So let's not adopt the "Hottentot morality". It is not wise, andcertainly not moral.