Muslims Are Stuck With Global Demographic Bomb Between Palestine & Indo-Pak War.

** Pakistan's Demographic Trap Combined With Water Scarcity - And A Tougher India Willing To Use Its Control Over The Region's Water Sources As Leverage If Islamist Infiltration Into Jammu & Kashmir Does Not Stop - Implies That The Population Bomb In South Asia Could Easily Be Linked To A Nuclear Explosion

** Elections In Algeria Shows Up The Level Of Resentment Both Among Berbers & The General Public Towards The Leadership

NICOSIA - The rulers in the Arab World, Iran and other Muslim countries have fallen into a trap between rapidly spreading ramifications of Israeli-Palestinian violence and a dangerous war in the Indian subcontinent. What makes this trap particularly alarming and forces these rulers to be extremely cautious is a bomb of demographics threatening most of the world.

There is a demographic bomb now ticking in almost every country across the globe. In Europe, this bomb is presently in the hands of extreme right-wing parties - with some of them either close to taking power as in the case of Jean Marie Le Pen's National Front in France or already there as in the case of Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, and others forcing their governments to take actions which until recently were taboo like the anti-immigration laws in Denmark due to come into force on July 1.

Europe will end up being ruled by extreme right-wing parties, because of the demographic bomb, and Sept. 11 has acted as a detonation for an unprecedented wave of violence against Muslim immigrants. It is said that it is the browning of the USA which brought those forces who put Bush in the White House. In India, the "saffronisation" of Hindu society is bringing to the fore a new version of Mussolini's brownshirt fascism. In China, the young ruler-in-waiting might reverse the one-child family trend and cause an avalanche of youth across Asia. In Japan, the labour force keeps shrinking as the population enters a period of rapid aging - with nanotechnology, among other things, promising to make people live longer.

On the Palestinian side, the demographic bomb will in coming years replace the suicide bomb as the weapon most threatening to the Israelis. This could lead to violence on a much greater scale than at present, unless a settlement between the Arabs and the Israelis is reached before then. Observers believe that, despite the current level of violence, there is a substantial population on both sides who see the prospects for a solution based on a final territorial compromise and an ideological reconciliation.

In an article in the 'International Herald Tribune' of May 24, Dennis Ross, special Middle East co-ordinator during the Clinton administration, makes the argument that, amid the recent carnage, both sides have become more ready to "accept fundamental change". He writes that a prospective final settlement would involve a Palestinian state, comprising 97% of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, while Jewish settlements would be reduced in size until they form three small blocs in the West Bank. He believes that the settler movement would be ready to accept these ideas, which form the bulk of the Clinton proposals made in the months before his departure from office in January 2001.

The logic of the demographic bomb underlies much of Ross' article, where he argues that the change in Israeli attitudes toward territorial compromise stems from the "desire to preserve the Jewish character of Israel. Israelis know that before this decade is over, more Arabs than Jews will live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordanian River. Israel cannot hold the territories and remain both democratic and Jewish".

The Palestinian will have to make equally hard choices. They would have to choose between accepting the 97% on offer from the Israeli side - combined with statehood - or insist on getting 100% face the prospect of receiving nothing for the foreseeable future. Moreover, they would have to accept the reality of not getting full sovereignty over symbolic holy places, and perhaps equally important, of surrendering the right of return for Palestinian refugees into pre-1967 Israel. The alternative, however, is bleak because - as Ross says - the Israelis would rather "live with the conflict until such time as the Palestinian grow weary of it" than allow Palestinians to return to Israel's pre-1967 borders - which of course would completely alter the demographic character of the country.

After the events of the past two months, there are signs that the Palestinian side would be prepared to make such a compromise. Despite enhanced anti-Israeli sentiment throughout the population, there are also questions being asked about the viability of the strategies being applied by President Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Authority (PA). According to Ross, Palestinians are questioning the wisdom of the intifada while "many...among Fatah activists" are saying the time has come "to acknowledge there will be no right of return for the refugees".

Some Palestinian intellectuals have gone further and are even suggesting that the leadership structure should be altered to create more room for dynamic and democratically-oriented figures, while Arafat would be elevated to a symbolic post. One Palestinian rights activist has suggested that a non-political technocratic administration should be put in place, while a temporary international mandate on Palestine should be restored in order to get the fledgeling state off the ground through adequate training in governance and in working with the institutions of a democratic system.

It remains to be seen whether the leaderships on both sides can channel the willingness for compromise on the part of populations in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President Arafat are men from an old school of thought, who are focusing as much on their personal historical legacies as that of their respective nations. Pragmatism is less likely to be on top of their agenda than the fear of making a mistake at this juncture in their careers. In the meantime, the demographic bomb will keep ticking and an explosion much greater than what has been taking place over the past weeks could become inevitable.

The demographic bomb is also ticking on the Indo-Pak frontier where over a million soldiers and paramilitaries are poised for a war, which could rapidly take a nuclear turn. Demographics also lie at the root of that conflict, with implications going far beyond the territories of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan), and Jammu and Kashmir (India). Islamabad strategists have hinted for years that water lies at the core of the dispute, with this resource becoming an increasingly scarce commodity in Pakistan, where population growth rates are among the highest in the world. The headwaters of Pakistan's main rivers flow from Indian-controlled Kashmir and there is a fear that New Delhi could choke off the water supply to coerce Islamabad into the position of a vassal state.

The Indus Water Treaty, signed in 1960, is regarded as the only treaty between the two states that has not been violated so far. However, following the decade long insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir guided by Pakistani intelligence services, senior officials in New Delhi have hinted that the treaty may no longer be observed to the letter. There are plans to build dams on the rivers that flow through Jammu and Kashmir into Pakistan, with the state government of Jammu and Kashmir now arguing that the original treaty ignored Kashmiri water requirements in order to settle Indo-Pak differences. Meanwhile, even current water flow rates are proving insufficient for Pakistan's requirements, with the key provinces of Punjab and Sindh - which are also the most populated - quarrelling about annual water allocations determined by the Punjabi-dominated bureaucracy and military forces in Islamabad.