The bottom line for big business is return on investment for shareholders. However, the way a business is perceived as environmentally friendly or destructive seriously affects their profits. This is why corporations increasingly try to persuade the population at large that they are our ethical guardians and conscientious caretakers of the environment.

Take the mining industry’s reaction to the recently neutered resources super tax (RST). The Minerals Council of Australia released advertisements claiming that the new tax would result in catastrophic job losses and a crippled Australian minerals sector – emphasising that their main concern was the loss of jobs. Yet the very same industry, during a time of record profits from November 2009 to March 2010, made 10,500 forced redundancies. It’s clear that this talk of “community concern” is only used when it suits the needs or image of big business.

The outcome of the RST served to highlight the government’s closeness to the mining companies. It was a reminder of the powerful influence major corporations maintain over our political processes. Transparency simply doesn’t exist and public cynicism inevitably grows.

The problem isn’t isolated to the mining industry. Even the most common aspects of our day-to-day of life, such as the water we drink, are affected. In 2008 Mount Franklin (a subsidiary of Coca-Cola Amatil) ran a trio of “earth-conscious” promotions. Prizes included a hybrid car and a trip to an eco-resort in the Daintree rainforest. This ethical posturing as “environmentally friendly” only served to obscure the environmental consequences of producing bottled water.

Coca-Cola paid just $181 for a water-extraction licence that allowed them to take 66 million litres of water from the Mangrove Mountain aquifer in NSW and yet bottled water is still more expensive than petrol. Even though PET bottles are completely recyclable, only 35 per cent of the bottles actually get recycled. The remaining 65 per cent of bottles end up in landfill, taking over 20 years to break down.

Because they have no reason to behave ethically, other than fear of a negative public image, some industries will use all means at their disposal to generate profits. This includes hypocritical marketing campaigns. For example in 2004 BP launched a nationwide ad campaign in the US framing itself as the “global leader” in clean energy production. Since becoming the “global leader”, BP has been involved in the dubious manipulation of the US propane market (in 2004); a devastating explosion at a BP refinery in Texas, killing 15 workers and injuring 170 (in 2005); and a spill of 260,000 gallons into the Arctic tundra from a BP pipeline in Alaska (in 2006). Throughout that period, BP’s sales rose from $192 billion in 2004, $240 billion in 2005 and $266 billion in 2006.

Following the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Mexican Gulf, the consequences of which are still immeasurable, new information is emerging every day on the many ways in which BP cut corners when it came to safeguards on the rig, some which have been implicated in the current disaster. Yet BP’s outgoing CEO, Tony Hayward, received a 40 per cent pay increase in 2009 based on BP’s “improved performance.” On leaving BP, Hayward said that his company had been the “model of corporate social responsibility” in addressing the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

The simple fact is that the majority of large corporations will do whatever it takes to generate increased profits. We shouldn’t fool ourselves by thinking otherwise. And governments are often helping. In the US, both Republican and Democrat members of congress have received large contributions from BP. The top 10 recipients, including Barack Obama and his opposition in the 2008 presidential election John McCain, netted combined contributions from BP in excess of $388,000. The transformation to a low-carbon economy, inevitable through climate change and a scarcity of non-renewable resources, fills some people with the hope that this type of business culture will change. But this is not certain.

For instance, links have been discovered between the transnational electric car company Better Place and the Israeli army’s illegal behaviour in occupied Palestinian territory. According to the Sydney Morning Herald in July, Ben Keneally, husband of the NSW Premier, runs the Australian arm’s marketing and strategy and the firm is currently lobbying for NSW government support. The company has built charging stations along Highway 443, a road that runs 30km through Palestinian territory in the West Bank. Part of the highway remains inaccessible to indigenous Palestinians despite an Israeli High Court ruling demanding equal access for both Palestinians and Israelis. Just because a company makes electric cars doesn’t mean they are ethically or environmentally sound.

The idea that industry should be left to make its own ethical decisions is both dangerous and misguided. Unless Australians take the time to listen carefully to what they’re told is “good” or “green”, some big business will continue to get away with unethical behaviour. But the fact that industry feels the need to engage in ethical and environmentally friendly marketing is a positive sign. It suggests that community pressure does have an influence on how corporations behave.

During this year’s US presidential campaign, both Republican nominee John McCain and Democratic contender Barack Obama expressed unwavering support for Israel.

It was the only country in the world that required constant loyalty tests. Obama told the leading Zionist lobby, AIPAC, that he would “bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security”. Palestinians were understandably upset when he argued that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” Such sentiments invalidate the possibility of a two-state solution, the road map long endorsed by the western world.

In February, Obama made the only comment in this year that could be construed as critical of the Zionist diaspora. “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel”, he said, “then you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”

In other words, the best friends of Israel, indeed any nation, are ones that offer both praise and anger. Unsurprisingly, the Jewish establishment reacted with fury to the statement, incensed that anybody would dare challenge Israel’s policies, such as its ever-expanding, illegal occupation of the West Bank, strangulation of Gaza and imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians without charge.

President Obama therefore presents a unique chance to re-frame the conflict, though the initial signs are less than promising. The appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and James L. Jones as national security adviser — the latter described by The Nation commentator Robert Dreyfuss as a “proverbial hammer in search of nails” — suggests a business as usual approach.

Will any global power dare tell the Jewish state — whose behaviour in Gaza was recently slammed by the United Nations as a “continuing flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law” — that its current behaviour is unacceptable to civilised nations?

The role of other international players will be essential. India and Pakistan should play their parts and engage both the Israelis and Palestinians. Each country brings a unique perspective to the negotiating table and necessarily challenges the blatantly one-sided partisanship of Washington and much of the European Union during the last eight years of the Bush era. At the end of this period, with Afghanistan and Iraq still in flames, Israel remains more isolated than ever before, thanks to resurgent Arab nationalism, led by Hizbollah, and Iranian ascendance.

Pakistan officially first engaged with Israel in 2005, despite robust opposition from hardliners. Following the Jewish state’s ‘withdrawal’ from Gaza, Pakistan’s then foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri said that, “We see this development as the beginning of the process of [ending] Israeli occupation and establishing a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace and security.” Israel’s then foreign minister Silvan Shalom expressed optimism that the Muslim state’s moves would lead to “a full diplomatic relationship with Pakistan as we would like it with all Muslim and Arab countries.”

The last three years have solely led to expanded Israeli occupation on Palestinian land and growing frustration with Israel’s intransigence. Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf said that his country would only fully recognise Israel when an independent Palestinian state was established.

“Pakistan is like Israel, an ideological state,” said Pakistan’s former dictator Ziaul Haq in 1981. “Take out the Judaism from Israel and it will fall like a house of cards. Take Islam out of Pakistan and make it a secular state; it would collapse.”

In the coming years, does Pakistan want to become friendlier with Israel to deepen its relationship with Obama or distance itself from a country that oppresses Palestinians on a daily basis?

The most likely scenario, assuming a relatively pro-western government remains in Islamabad, is a Pakistani elite that expresses occasional diplomatic solidarity with another nation fighting its own ‘war on terror’. Realpolitik is likely to win the day, not least because of India’s growing strategic partnership with Israel and weapons deals between the two countries. Pakistan fears its rival’s edge.

From Israel’s perspective, Pakistani recognition would be a coup — Turkey is one of the few Muslim states that recognise its existence — and could lead to Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh following suit. Furthermore, Pakistan remains the Muslim world’s only known nuclear power and Israel has long worried about this technology being transferred to its enemies. An alliance may lessen this risk.

But Pakistan should think very carefully before giving Israel what it craves. The vast bulk of the Muslim world regards Israel’s 41-year occupation of Palestinian territory as a crime against humanity and would not look kindly on Islamabad ignoring this reality. The Bush doctrine is hopefully dead and Obama may bring some greater pragmatism to the international arena. Pakistan would be unwise to show solidarity with the Jewish state at a time when virtually every country in the United Nations consistently votes against its policies.

India, that formed diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, remains tightly bound to the Jewish state. It even launched an Israeli spy satellite in January this year, primarily to monitor Iranian soil. The Indian secretary of defence Vijay Singh visited Israel recently and a senior Israeli security official told the Haaretz newspaper that “our security cooperation with the Indians is excellent — there is simply no other way to put it.”

Cooperation against ‘Islamic terrorism’ and the possible dissolution of Pakistan were also discussed. Relations between India and Israel tend to improve during periods of tension between New Delhi and Islamabad, so the period after the Mumbai terror attacks is proving to be lucrative for both sides.

Equally important, from Israel’s point of view, is the realisation that America’s influence in the world is declining and making friends in other regions is important for its long-term viability. India is the world’s largest democracy and a large market for its missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

The beginning of the Obama administration presents opportunities for a rejection of years of failed policies towards the Jewish state, but caution is urged. For example, the new president has spoken of challenging Iran’s suspected nuclear programme and will be looking for partners in this mission.

Pakistan and India, states that both commit their fair share of human rights abuses, should think carefully before fully embracing the racially exclusionary Jewish nation.

Strategic partnerships only make short-term sense. Israel’s survival is challenged by fundamentalist settlers in the West Bank and soaring Palestinian birth rates and is unsustainable as a western colonial outpost.Justice is not on its side.

The writer is a Sydney-based journalist and author.

www.antonyloewenstein.com