Israel - the friend Nigeria cannot acknowledge
By Elizabeth Ohene
It is being suggested here that like the Dikko case, the Federal Military Government has protested too loudly and reacted far out of proportion to what is required of the innocent or aggrieved party it claims to be, and as a consequence, gives the impression that it has something to hide.Alhaji Umaru Dikko himself possibly put the idea into the minds of the Nigerians - the idea of the kidnap, that is.
Remember his early interviews in the year when he said that "they have turned me into some kind of a Hitler being sighted at different places at the same time etc. etc." Well if there is a Hitler or Eichmann or Bormann or Klaus Barbie, the people that have specialised in dealing with such former German Nazis are the Israelis.
After all, are the Israelis not known for their daredevil, undercover operations and did they not successfully kidnap Eichmann and most recently the 'Butcher of Lyons'?
To the Israelis therefore the Nigerians went, for the moment it is not yet important to untangle whether it was the Federal Military Government or "patriotic friends of Nigeria" to borrow the words of Maj-Gen. Hannaniya the not-welcome-in-London- Nigerian-High-Commissioner to Britain.
But then the Israelis have always posed a problem to Black Africa. Their rugged individuality and tenacity of purpose have always been admired. Their ability to make gardens bloom in the desert sends African countries wishing they could also perform the ‘Israeli miracle' and turn their own countries into economically viable societies.
And then, of course, all those years of Israel regularly defeating her Arab neighbours in a never ending series of wars; there is nothing like the image of the small outnumbered and persecuted nation beating the bigger nations to bring out sneaky admiration.
But all that was before the 1973 war which led to the ostracization of Israel from black Africa. The unseemly affair between South Africa and Israel also meant that Israel rapidly lost whatever friends she had left in black Africa.
After the diplomatic isolation, no self-respecting African nation could be seen to be openly having dealings with Israel.
Those African nations that either did not break off relations with Israel or later on resumed diplomatic relations are those that have never been counted among the 'progressives".
With Nigeria, however, it is and has been an entirely different kettle of fish altogether. Here is the 'giant of Africa' that pronounces itself the progressive leader and uncompromising on all things Zionist and apartheid.
But even more important was the role of the Arab world in the Nigerian scheme of things.
Apart from the predominantly moslem north of the country identifying more with the Arabs than the Israelis on religious grounds, there is the very strong economic considerations; OPEC after all is Arab domin- ated and Nigeria has been almost solely dependent on oil for the past dozen years.
"It is known, for example, that since the coup, it is not only the Emir of Kana and the Ooni of Ife who are highly placed Nigerians that have paid 'private' visits to Israel why then have they been the only ones to be punished?"
While Israeli expertise in agriculture or turning deserts into gardens or road building and security and intelligence work are all definitely welcome to Nigeria, on the balance, it was more important to keep her oil producing and exporting country friends happy by keeping a posture of public hostility towards Israel than to be friendly with the Zionist state.
Luckily for all concerned, Israel, much as she would want to claim the top prize of announcing Nigeria as part of her diplomatic breakthrough in Africa, was quite willing to remain in the background and bid her time. And it was not exactly an uncomfortable time in the shadows either for Israel as business in Nigeria was booming and they could put their famed business skills to work.
And then the coup of December 31, 1983, and Israel knew that things could no longer be left to go on a planned course.
The coup meant that with all political activity having been banned, there was no longer any legal organization that could be lobbied.
Something spectacular was needed to bolster Israeli efforts. It was not difficult to evaluate the new military regime and conclude that since the soldiers appeared to have no clue to the nation's problems, and this had become obvious to the public within weeks of the takeover, retributive measures on the former leaders could at least be guaranteed to keep public hysteria going for a while.
Had the Dikko kidnap succeeded, of course, there would have been no word of Israeli involvement even if suspicions would have been high and their trademark would have been only too visible.
Of all the various theories that have been advanced for the Israeli role in the Dikko kidnap, none sounds as plausible as the holding out of a promise by Nigeria of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel should the kidnap succeed. As the impending trial will doubtless reveal, the money motive was always the secondary consideration.
But then the kidnap did not go according to plan and it is being said among knowledgeable circles that the Israelis feel it was not their fault that things did not work.
In other words, if they had been given a free hand to do things their own way, and if all the back up measures they had requested had been provided, the kidnap would have had a different ending.
Things being as they were, however, strenuous denials of government involvement necessarily had to be issued and damage limitation procedures set in motion.
It was while these were going on that the visit of the two Nigerian traditional rulers to Israel hit the headlines. It is being suggested here that like the Dikko case, the Federal Military Government has protested too loudly and reacted far out of proportion to what is required of the innocent or aggrieved party it claims to be, and as a consequence, gives the impression that it has something to hide.
The break in diplomatic relations between Nigeria and Israel has never interfered with Nigerians paying a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, the christian section that is, while the moslems regularly made their pilgrimage to Mecca.
Such pilgrimages to Jerusalem have been widely advertised in the Nigerian press and no suggestion has ever been made that there was anything improper about such visits.
The Ooni of Ife on his return to Nigeria made a statement that has not been contradicted in any substance. The traditional ruler has said that he paid a private visit to Israel for religious purposes and claimed as much for the Emir of Kano.
The FMG's reaction has been to announce the suspension of the two rulers from their duties, the seizure of their passports and their confinement to their hometowns. Drastic measures those, and hardly called for unless the suggestion is that both the Emir of Kano and Ooni of Ife are not telling the truth and were up to some sinister things in Israel which have not been disclosed, rather than prayer journey. In which case the onus surely is on the FMG to show that the two leaders were in Israel for purposes other than private or religious ones.
The Ooni of Ife has stated categorically that the two state governors Oyo and Kano were well aware of the visits. An assertion that is quite contrary to the claims of Foreign Minister Gambari. Why then should the two rulers be punished drastically when they have not been shown to have committed any crimes.
All this is giving a lot of credence to the other highly placed rumour that, in fact, the two traditional rulers also fall into "the patriotic friends of Nigeria" Hannaniya-style category and their only crime is that they were unfortunately exposed before being able to pull off their coup.
The FMG statement that spelt out the punishment for the rulers said that the Emir of Kano ought to have known better, having been an Ambassador of the country and should have avoided potentially embarrassing diplomatic incidents.
Well, the suggestion is that precisely because these two traditional rulers are such diplomatically sophisticated people and not at all like your average traditional ruler, they were in fact the bearers of a letter from the highest source.
Obviously not all members of the FMG were privy to the delicate negotiations and decision which accounts for the initial hue and cry that greets the visit from government circles has meant the necessity of a public denunciation of the two ambassadors.
It is known for example that since the coup, it is not only the Emir of Kano and the Ooni of Ife who are highly placed Nigerians that have paid 'private' visits to Israel - why have they been the only ones to be punished?
The next episode in the intricate Nigerian-Israeli relations is being watched with a lot of attention. There is no doubt that only so many denis can be issued. But maybe the day is coming when Nigeria might decide that she is better off discarding her "progressive" cloak to take full advantage of whatever Israel has to offer damn the consequences.
The Arab members of OPEC who recently gave Nigeria an increase in their oil quota are said to be watching all of it with very keen interest.
