The BBC and the Gaza appeal

I know some bloggers have taken to boycotting the BBC (though again, what good will it do? Unless you are going to stop paying your tv licence...) for their stance on the Gaza appeal.

But I do agree with the bloggers. I think they should broadcast it - and I think they have been leant on by the pro-Israel lobby to stop them - but their reasons for not showing the appeal are merited, if a little... inhumane isn't the right word, but it'll do.

They've said they don't want to take sides in the conflict. They've said it's a complex issue. They've said that it would compromise their impartiality. And these are all fine reasons I guess.

Except that it's crap. The reason the BBC (and indeed, Sky) don't want to broadcast an appeal to help Palestinians (which would show Israel in a bad light) is because they fear recriminations. They expect that, were they to show the appeal, Israel would suspend their filming rights there - which, in fairness, they probably would.

So rather than aiding people who are suffering because of Israel's tactics, the BBC is hiding behind impartiality in the hope that no one sees through it. In doing so they are actually doing what they intend not to do - implicitly condoning the behaviour of one side in this conflict. But then, business is business.

Cowards.

Read more...

Protests - what are they good for?

I was dragged out to go shopping in Edinburgh this afternoon... and saw in passing the "anti-Israel's actions against Gaza" march.

Now don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiments - as is probably obvious from previous posts on the subject. But I guess this is where my cynicism surfaces.

Given that millions protested against the Iraq war - and no one in the government paid any attention, given Israel has ignored UN Security Council resolutions to stop the conflict, in what way will protesting in Edinburgh make a difference?

Now I know that's not the point of protesting - or is it? Am I just the kind of person that looks for an end point in any kind of action - appreciating that some things are intrinsically good but that the outcome of action are how they should be judged? I don't really know. Maybe Stephen Glenn - who spent the day in the rain at the march - can explain what was the expected outcome from today's action.

I admire the sentiment and the motivation to get something done... but I'm sceptical that today will have achieved anything other than annoying some drivers in Edinburgh who couldn't get through the centre of town. Anyone think otherwise?

Read more...

What I meant to say yesterday...

I'm not usually a big fan of Robert Fisk's work, but this article in yesterday's Telegraph really picks up on the hypocrisy of the Israel attack on Gaza - that, were Hamas the perpetrators, the term "war crime" would be bandied about like it was going out of fashion, yet Israel's actions are in their "defence."

As someone put to me yesterday, subjectivity plays its part. Whatever "side" you support in a conflict, you inevitably view it through a particular tint of glasses. Which is why terms like "terrorist", "war crime", "conflict" and even "war" have lost their meaning in today's society. When people start ascribing value judgements to concepts they lose their neutrality.

It might sound like I'm criticising Fisk here, but that is not my intention. He makes a good point about the value judgements ascribed to the actions of Israel and Palestine. There are a couple of points I'd like to make.

Firstly, if you are currently supporting Israel's "defence" of their people, think about where you stood on apartheid South Africa. I know it is not a great comparison, but there are similarities. Did you support the brutal suppression of a majority in a land by incomers (I know, in the case of Israel, that is a controversial point - again proving the subjectivity of the situation)?

Secondly, what makes the actions of a state (Israel) more legitimate than those of a (arguably) a terrorist group (Hamas)? Academically and historically, a government in a state has the powers of control - exercised through the legitimate use of force. But, arguably, in this case, both Israel and Hamas are legitimate actors - Hamas as the democratically elected government of the Palestinian Authority. I'm not arguing that neither side can then be disqualified from being branded as terrorist simply because they are acting on behalf of a state (or, in Hamas' case, a quasi-state). It it the actions which are perpetrated - on both sides of the divide - which that judgement should be made upon.

I don't think "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is right, at least, not if the terms are used correctly. Yes the views are subjective and yes they are deeply ingrained. But if we look solely at the actions involved we shall see no value judgement, no sides taken. Rather, the acts are judged independently of the actors.

This is the point I was trying to make yesterday. Obviously, both are at fault. But neither side can claim the moral high ground, as some commentators would have us believe.

Read more...

A mess of our own making

Israel and Palestine.

What a mess.

I don't really know where to start, and I think that is part of the problem. Other bloggers have rallied to the defence of Palestinians in the latest conflict/Israeli offensive (depending on your point of view) while others have suggested that, whatever Israel does, it must be supported. I'm not of that view - and I will explain why.

Israel was formed in 1948, unilaterally declaring independence from the British mandate of Palestine, as a home for the Jewish population there and from across the world. Immediately afterwards, Israel was invaded by surrounding Arab states. A year later, a ceasefire was called and the Green Line - the de facto border of Israel - established. UN estimates of 80% of the Arab (Palestinian) population (710,000) fled Israel at the time, while mass immigration of Jews from across the world saw Israel's population grow from 800,000 through 2 million in ten years, to around 3 million today.

The whole story of the conflict (attacks, counter-attacks, politics) is way to long to relate here, but I do suggest, for an easy-to-read, abridged, version, Teach Yourself: The Middle East Since 1945 which has the basics of it.

So Israel, with 3 million inhabitants, surrounded by nations hostile to its existence, has found a way to survive for over 60 years. But it has not found a way to secure its borders, nor has it found a way to safeguard its people. Since the foundation of the UN, Israel has been the largest transgressor of UN resolutions. In the name of defence, Israel has attacked - as it is doing so not in Gaza and as it did so in Lebanon in 2006 - civilian targets. And yet the UN is powerless to stop it, because the UN is financed by the US and the US has to bend to the wants of its powerful Jewish lobby.

I am not an apologist for Hamas. I recognise that their actions are not those of democrats and they are not the acceptable face of Palestinians. But Israel's actions can no longer be condoned - whatever the US says. US support for Israel simply makes the situation worse. It gives Israel a clean slate at the UN, more financial backing for attacks against civilians and, perhaps more dangerously, provides further ammunition for Islamic fundamentalists who are already pretty angry at the West.

Maybe Samuel Huntington's conclusions (if not his method) are correct in A Clash of Civilisations. All I'm sure about in this situation is that when, eventually, Israel decides it has destroyed enough of Gaza, this won't be over. There will never be a lasting peace in the Middle East. We've meddled too much in affairs which are not ours.

That's a bit deeper than usual, no?

Read more...