Cease-Fire?
As Israel has shutdown its war against the Lebanese, slowly the smoke of another war which is being fought within its own borders becomes increasingly apparent. In some wasy the Lebanese war has been a useful tool for Israel over the last weeks, as it has deflected interest away from what has been happening in Gaza. Using the same pretext, i.e. the capture of an Israeli soldier by Palestinan militants, Israel has been systematically lauching a campaign against the Palestinan people. Just as in Lebanon infrastructure has been systematically targeted, water supplies have been cut off, electricity has been intermittent to say the least. Consequently the well-being of the people living in Gaza has been seriously marginalised. The difference between the Palestinians and the Lebanese however is that at least the Lebanese found borders open to them in order to facilitate their escape. For Palestinans the situation is however somewhat different, and as they are bombarded so they are denied the possiblity to escape. There is no longer any outrage and continuous protest against the actions of Israel, European papers no longer carry stories which condemn the actions of Israel and its heavy-handed approach to dealing with security. But the probelm persists, Palestinans continue to be killed, Palestine continues to suffer at the hands of those who it sees as its occupier. Only yesterday a Reuters vehicle was attacked, despite being clearly marked in Arabic, English and Hebrew as being a press vehicle (despite Israeli claims to the contrary) but even attacks on foreign nationals is not enough to wake us from this slumber with regard to what is happening in Gaza at the moment. One 'war' is over and so is the interest, for the while. While Lebanese it seems may yet have a future, it is not so easy to be hopeful for those living in Gaza.
Imran Khan getting it right
Who would have thought that a retired international cricketer would have more intellectual and political capabilities, and understand their subtleties and nuances better than any career politician that I can think of. Well the proof is in the pudding.
We Need a Political Solution - Imran Khan (Guardian)
Must read article
An Israeli voice that is rarely heard, but very relieving to hear.
What the Right has to offer - Gideon Levy (Haaretz)
Who wins in this war?
The recent conflicts in Lebanon and Israel strike me as completely senseless. It seems obvious to me that armed conflict ought to be avoided at all costs, presumably therefore such conflict can only be justified when it is apparent all other avenues have been explored. In such cases conflict may indeed serve some positive end, in that it resolves a larger issue. One might hope therefore that Israel’s recent offensive (and I call it an Israeli offensive in full knowledge of their claims that it was instigated by Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers) might have done just this, or at least had this as its aim. For it is certain that the Israeli attack was not simply a knee-jerk reaction to Hezbollah but a planned attack (see Seymour Hersh’s article http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact) with specific aims. Israel’s confirmed aim was the disablement of Hezbollah’s military capabilities and the eradication of this group that it sees as a terrorist organization. As such it might have been possible to assume that Israel’s actions were justified ones, no one wants to suffer at the hands of terrorists. The problem with this stated aim is that it is evident that such disablement was not only an overly-ambitious one but one which they could never have hoped to achieve. By contrast Hezbollah simply needed to survive in order to ‘win’ this conflict, as its aims were limited to the repulsion of the Israeli forces. Israel thus hands a victory to its sworn enemy by simply engaging with it and failing to destroy it. Hezbollah now has a stronger support-basis than ever before, and finds support not only from Shi’ias in Lebanon but also from Arabs at large (both in Lebanon and elsewhere). Hezbollah even in the wake of the war has proved its strength, offering 12,000 dollars cash to those who have had their houses destroyed, and providing a social and economic support that no international organization can match. Furthermore hatred against Israelis has become intensified and another generation of Arabs have found justification for this hatred. Israel continually claims that it responds to an existential threat by launching these kind of attacks but truly it only serves to worsen this threat. I find it very difficult to understand why this conflict was initiated. Even if it was, as some have been claiming, an initial strike against Iran at the behest of the US it has hardly served to provide any information or tactics – except to confirm that Katushya rockets do indeed work. The only conclusion that I can make from this war is Israel (or its US counterpart) think that disorder and conflict somehow benefit their causes in the region. As such therefore this conflict was both unnecessary and unwarranted, but as usual the world is powerless in the face this Israel-US duo (and their numerous political puppets).
Transparency of US foregin policy
The transparent hypocrisy of the 'democracy'-led foreign policy is astounding, and yet a point which rarely commented upon. The observation that Saudi-Arabia and many of the other Gulf states are among the closest allies of the US is hardly a subtle observation. The Emirs and Sultans of these states support wars in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan, they repeatedly attest their affections for the state of Israel and confirm its right to defend itself against terrorism, they buy US weapons, they host US battalions; they are, it seems, better allies of the US than France will ever be. In the context of democracy-led foreign policy, however, it seems this observation is at least a complex, if not subtle a one. Given the meagre democratic freedoms that are afforded at least 50% of the Saudi population - i.e. their female contingent, who are legally prevented from voting driving, wearing what they choose it certainly seems that they are not a natural political ally of a US administration which espouses democracy and freedom as the clinching factor in its foreign policy decision-making. This is not to mention the way Saudi Arabia treats its migrant workers, allows juvenile execution and forbids the meeting of unmarried men and women. Indeed one might expect Saudi Arabia to at least be a state in desperate need of 'regime change', as Iraq once was, and Syria and Iran still are. It is even possible that, owing to the fact that 15 out of the 19 hijacking terrorists who took a direct part in the atrocities of 9/11, that Saudi Arabia ought to be included among of one the infamous states affectionately referred to as the axis of evil. So much for a democracy-led foreign policy.
As one Damascene taxi driver ejected, while he obstinately blasted his horn at one of the numerous huge American-made cars, slowly lurching its way around the city in the relative cool of the Syrian summer, its back-seat populated with a line of bobbing black heads, and its bumper emblazoned with spartan Saudi plates: who'd want to live in Saudi Arabia? The weather is unbearable, all they think about is money, and, look at those women all in black, no freedom (as an aside he points out; they didn't dress like that at the time of the prophet!). And this is a Syrian Sunni talking; a citizen of the axis of evil, a subject of an undemocratic state in need of regime change, and even a sectarian ally of the Saudis. But this is not the view of one man, but of the majority of Syrians who see it as a gross injustice that they are seen to be such prolific enemies of the west and its desires for freedom and democracy, while the misdemeanours of their Saudi counterparts are glossed over without a second glance.
Of course neither the Syrians, nor any one else willing to analyse it, are blind enough to realise that these words of freedom and democracy are but empty gestures of rhetoric, and so inapplicable to a state which has lying beneath it a resource with which the US cannot do without. Evidently it is not democracy, but oil and the money it generates, that defines US foreign policy towards the Gulf states. Money which silences the ruling elite from making any protestations against the US, and money which ensures that the repressiveness of the Gulf States is systematically overlooked. But the real atrocity of this is not that the US has as yet, failed to add Saudi Arabia to their black list and therefore threatened it with trade embargoes and invasion (for undoubtedly this would result an Iraq-scale mess), but that this rhetoric has, and continues to serve as a pretext for an aggressive foreign policy throughout the Middle East. On what basis should the Middle Eastern states, such as Syria, for whom this transparent hypocrisy is so blatant, support the actions of the US or their Israeli sparring partner, except to ensure their own safety both actual and economic (as in the case of Egypt and Jordan)? On what basis should Syria not turn to Iran, who provides them with a genuine military deterrent, something that US clearly cannot offer (as Lebanon has recently discovered)? The US have shown themselves to be capricious, mendacious and dangerous in this part of the world, undeserving of its local political allies, seemingly won through economic and military coercion. But its democracy-led foreign policy continues unabashed and finds widespread political support in Europe and elsewhere, presumably not because of the fact that they buy the rhetoric but because they also crave after the money and power that trails behind the world's most powerful nation. The moral bankruptcy of global politics is truly incredible and yet it remains unchecked, no international laws can force the hand of the US and of this it is well aware, and so it will continue. I am not an apologist for Syrian or Iranian politics or foreign policies, for I am keenly aware of their enormous faults: repression and corruption are rife in both states. I am baffled however by the assurance with which the west, and the US especially, claims the moral upper hand over them.
Mad, bad and Stupid?
Those who assume that terrorists are simply mad, bad, and stupid are seriously missing a trick. While of course it is impossible to justify the actions of a terrorist it is not impossible, to at least attempt, to understand his/her motivations for these actions. Evidently terrorism is a horrific response to a perceived injustice but as such it is still a response to something real and as so not completely outside the limits of logic. While many terrorists may well be mad, bad, or stupid, or all three, it is clear that something is channelling this madness, badness, or stupidity into a desire on their part for 'terror'. When the citizens of western governments are threatened by such terror, it seems to me that it is incumbent upon their governments to at least endeavour to understand why this is. In the case of terrorism in the name of Islam it is quite clear that, at least in incidents of such terror in the UK, that British foreign policy is the primarily what these terrorists are reacting against. It is useful for politicians to merely brush these things aside and appeal to the mad, bad, stupid triumvirate - because so long as this is the case there is no need to interact with the causes, the responses, the perceived injustices, and in fact terrorism as a phenomenon. Terrorism therefore comes to be seen in the same light as a natural disaster; something which is potentially extremely damaging, can occasionally be predicted (often very inaccurately), even more occasionally prevented, but is essentially inevitable. The conviction with which the British government assures its citizens that they will be the subject of terror is unassailable, and probably justified given the current political climate. In such circumstances citizens of such a state will applaud the arrest of 'terror suspects', justify contraventions of human rights in order to keep them arrested, support their government's 'war on terror', and even (retrospectively or not) encourage Israel's current offensive against Hezbollah/Lebanon. But terrorism is not a natural disaster and palpably must not be treated as one. Terrorists, much as many are loathed to admit it, are human beings and as such have a rationale that is not dissimilar from that of yours or mine. A rationale that at this moment is leading them to take the most radical of actions, but it is not unlikely therefore that they are responding to the most radical of stimuli. And while most British citizens would find it hard to put British foreign policy in such a category, it does not take an enormous stretch of imagination to realise that this is exactly what many Muslims assume it to be. British foreign policy in both long and short term seems to have, whether explicitly or implicitly, have found Islam as its enemy. It is hardly an advertisement for positive Islamo-British relations to catalogue the UK's support of the US and its actions in the middle east, of Israel, or of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If I was a Muslim I think I would find it difficult not to see such a foreign policy as a threat to my religion or even to my identity. It is time for the British government to stop appealing to emotive and unintellectual responses to terrorism, and realise that the UK is threatened not because it lies on a terrorist plate-boundary but because its actions have provided a channel for the mad, bad, and stupid (or simply easily influenced) to commit these most atrocious acts. Terroism, despite the terrorists insistence, is not an 'act of God', but a human action that needs a human solution, so lets give it one.
Arab blood, European hands.
There is an oft-repeated phrase in the British media whenever there is violence in the Middle East - which goes something like 'the Middle East is a tinderbox' or 'violence is endemic to this part of the world' and suchlike. Of course as a British citizen reading the newspaper while eating your cornflakes this seems like quite a reasonable comment. Indeed the Middle East has not experienced anything close to a durable peace in the last hundred years. So of course the current violence in Lebanon just comes as one on the list of a catalogue of disasters. Lebanon has been almost synonymous with violence for the best part of fifty years. Why should it be any different now? The problem therefore on the part of those of us who use this Western perspective is one not only of anaesthetisation but also of a failure to accept any kind of responsibility. It of course does little good to look to the 'distant' political past of the post-WWI and WWII Middle East to apportion blame for the problems that exist now; my genuine concern for the present is quite different. Namely that the problems created at Versailles and subsequently worsened by Sykes-Picot, Churchill et al. continue to be exacerbated by the present politics of Europe (and of course the US). Europeans claim to have a collective guilt for colonialism and demonstratively distance themselves from this 'embarrassing' history, but post-colonialism is truly a myth. For surely if our embarrassment ran any deeper than merely attempting to give an impression of change then our current activities in the Middle East would be considerably different. But no, European politics continues in much the same way as it always has, only now it has discovered that there is no longer a need to actually govern an area to make your power felt. International organisations, politically at least, have subsequently become playgrounds for the exercise of European/US power. We determine who trades with who, who has the right to defend themselves, who has the right proliferate nuclear weapons, who has moral who is 'evil', even who goes to war with who. This does not seem particularly post-colonial to me.
Lebanon is a point in case, European politicians play upon the 'tinderbox' image of the Middle East and therefore gain a licence support what seems to those without power, and without a voice not only disproportional but downright illegal. This tinderbox is our creation and it is a fire that we keep stoking with our political maneuverings. After all what use is an immediate cease-fire, or a cease-fire at all if it takes 6 weeks to even have its wording agreed upon? The West allows this war to continue unabashed meanwhile people in both Lebanon and Israel both live in fear of their lives. It does not even require the taking of sides to realise that a cease-fire ought to have been agreed upon weeks ago. Remember that Israel does not act alone in this conflict but with the direct support of the US and in turn (though more surreptitiously) Europe. Let us engage politically as equals and then perhaps we have a chance of putting water on this fire for good.
The Politicization of Islam or the Islamicization of Politics?
It is quite plain to the Syrians I have been talking to recently - be they Sunni, Shi'a, Christian, Alawi, or Druzi that Hezbollah cannot be seen simply as a Islamic force. There is something seriously flawed about the polemic of politicians in the west, who themselves openly espouse a faith and a desire for justice on the basis of that faith (Bush's words with God spring to mind), when they seek only to deal with political Islam as primarily Islamic. Or as Jackie Ashley, writing in the Guardian would have us believe (see Comment is Free 7/08 'The global battle for ideas cannot be fought with guns'), that Hezbollah's aims are the recreation of a mini-Iran on the Mediterranean seaboard. The fact is that Hezbollah quite clearly uses Islam to bolster its political claims, which in truth remain primary. It is a point in fact that Hezbollah have sought to take part in the political processes of Lebanon and its attempts at democratisation, serving under the governance of both Sunnis and Christians alike. This certainly doesn't sound like the work of a party, and this is afterall what Hezbollah originally was set out to be (Hezb being 'party' in Arabic, 'Allah' being, well 'Allah'), which is attempting to instigate a religious revolution but one which is responding to a political reality. This does not of course mean that Hezbollah's terrorist activities do not render it abhorrent in my ways, but it is important also to relate to these terrorist activities in a political manner. Just as it cannot be affirmed that Palestineans blow themselves up simply for the love of God, so it must be recognised that Hezbollah is repsonding to what it sees as a palpable threat - Israel. The failure on the part of the western politicans therefore runs along its inability or unwillingness to force Israel to deal with these issues politically. For Hezbollah to be understand and counteracted, as it surely must, owing to its threat to innocent life, it cannot be thought of in these simplistic framework that western politicians turn to - that of Islam. Islam is neither simplisitc, nor is the politics that uses its strictures to provide it with a foundation. When we realise this then we might be able to sucessfully counter-act the long-term issues at hand rather than just belatedly and ineffectively put a plaster on the wound.
International Crisis Group Recommendations (the obstinancy of the West)
RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Quartet (U.S., EU, Russia, UN), the Governments of Lebanon and Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Hizbollah and All Other Relevant Parties:
1. Deal with the Gaza and Lebanon crises separately.
2. Address the Palestinian crisis by pursuing a deal including the following elements:
(a) Hamas must release the Israeli soldier it holds and reinstate the truce while the Palestinian Authority must seek to stop all militias from firing rockets;
(b) simultaneously, Israel must end its Gaza incursion, cease offensive military operations in the occupied territories and release recently jailed cabinet members and parliamentarians as well as other Palestinian prisoners (such as those who have not been charged with an offence, have been convicted on minor charges or are seriously ill or underage); and
(c) the international boycott of the Palestinian Authority government should end.
3. Seek an immediate Israeli-Lebanese ceasefire with clear understandings that it will include the following elements:
(a) an immediate, reciprocal cessation of attacks;
(b) an early prisoner swap; and
(c) agreement by all parties on strengthening the current UN presence in South Lebanon with a UN-mandated multinational force charged with verifying adherence to the ceasefire and working closely with the Lebanese army.
4. Follow the ceasefire with urgent and intensive diplomatic efforts to tackle all relevant root causes, with efforts focused simultaneously on:
(a) an internal Lebanese dialogue on full implementation of the Taif Accords and Resolution 1559 items, including:
i. eventual disarmament or integration into the army of Hizbollah;
ii. reforming the political system; and
iii. establishing a more credible, national army and security doctrine that can ensure the country’s defence;
(b) prompt return of displaced persons to the South;
(c) donor and especially Arab commitments to provide significant and urgent financial assistance to help rebuild Lebanon and alleviate its public debt;
(d) resolution of pending Israeli-Lebanese issues, including:
i. the fate of the contested Shebaa farms, with formal agreement by Syria that Shebaa is Lebanese and by Israel that it will withdraw;
ii. Israeli incursions into Lebanese water and airspace; and
iii. cooperation on demining efforts;
(e) engaging Syria, reintegrating it into the regional equation and discarding any agenda of externally-imposed regime change in exchange for its commitment to halt destabilisation efforts in Lebanon and for support on Hizbollah’s gradual disarmament or integration into the Lebanese army;
(f) engaging Iran by addressing a broad array of issues, including the nuclear question, Iraq, and the region as a whole; and
(g) reinvigorating the Arab-Israeli peace process in both its Palestinian and Syrian tracks.
Amman/Beirut/Jerusalem/Brussels, 25 July 200
Recommendations made are sensible, justified, and balanced. The problem is that the world consistently refuses to listen to such voices, preferring the expidience of war to the solutions of diplomacy. Sadly I feel this is how history will continue to write itself, but at some point maybe we will find the strength to react.
Declaration against the war
It seems a real shame, and a genuine indication of the world's inability to make any real humanitarian progres over the last century, that Sassoon's 'Declaration against the war' written in 1917 to voice his disgust at the first world war, still ring true today.
"I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the War is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it. I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this War, on which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purpose for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation. I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust. I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed. On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practised on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacency with which the majority of those at home regard the contrivance of agonies which they do not, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize".The shameful thing is that the situation seems to have worsened over the last century, for not only do I protest against the conduct of this war, but furthermore today this concern is not just for 'troops' but for a whole nation. Where Sassoon bemoaned the actions against an army we must bemoan actions against innocent civilians.
I have recently been accused of acting on behalf of the Syrian government by some commentator on the Guardian NewsBlog, this is of course nonsense. (I think since T.E.Lawrence Syrians have been a bit suspicious of using British people to assist them!) I feel instead that my plea is one as a human, that this war against the Lebanese people is a war which is both unjust and unjustified. So much so that I have taken it upon myself to adopt a slightly didactic tone. In the current circumstances however I don't think this is inappropriate.
