Before Obama's middle east speech, I heard a senior BBC news editor interview him. His responses were very thoughtful and candid - albeit to the more diplomatic end of the scale when asked if Mubarek was a dictator. Afterwards, the editor commented that he saw Netanyahu after his talk with Obama - the discussion which ran twice the scheduled 60 minutes worth - and that Netanyahu looked particularly grim-faced - as if he'd been given a good talking-to.
Obama can achieve without taking action. His middle east speech was masterful in what it says to both sides: two states, settlements out, but the alliance with Israel is powerful. When the BBC canvassed comments on it afterwards from a range of people, it was notably only the Israeli and Palestinian extremists that had anything negative to say about it - all else was praise. A good illustration that Obama was on the right track.
He has already succeeded in wringing concessions out of Netanyahu: not yet on the settlements, but at least on the two states.
And his speech was exquisitely timed - probably intentionally - to have some effect on the Iranian election. In the leadup to that election, there was a degree of political activism in Iran that many commented they hadn't seen since the 1979 revolution.
The outcome - to date - of that election seems to have run counter to everyone's expectations, given the mood on the ground beforehand. Which is probably why many are calling fraud - a vote of over 60% for Ahmadinejad is tantamount to absurd. Situation still unfolding.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Death of a Tamil brutaliser
Recently, both sides finally agreed that the leader of the Tamil Tigers is now dead. He had been killed in the recent action by the Sri Lankan army that, amidst a great deal of civilian anguish, elimanated the remnants of the Tigers as a (current) fighting force.
Velupillai Prabhakaran was apparently a rather obsessive man, at one time saying he'd instructed his people to shoot him if he ever deviated from their goals.
Prabhakaran is arguably credited with instigating the modern phenomenon of suicide bombing, the unpleasant rash sweeping the world.
It is easy to understand the level of desparation running through the populace in arenas of greatly uneven conflict: decades of brutalisation and privation, for example, have brought the Palestinians to where they are today. Motives of suicide bombers are the subject of much disagreement in a range of wildly conflicting studies, but it is clear that oppression - or its perception - is a key factor in most cases. And this directly equates to uneven conflict, which is where the suicide bomber's victimhood lies.
It is such an insidious, indifferent weapon. The prime perpetrators are those who consign the bombers to death, and there should be no sympathy for them. They are - in general - far too willing to murder people whose culpability in the conflict is negligible to none. Indiscriminate killing brutalises all sides: if there emerges any victor in such a conflict, they would have to preside over further decades of a violent society that they inflicted on the collective psyche.
The worst I've heard was reported by Owen Bennett-Jones, a BBC journalist with a strong reputation. He told of a family (in Pakistan, I believe) who recruited a 13-year-old boy to be a suicide bomber, who duly followed his orders. Although the boy was led to understand he would become a religious martyr, the root intention was far more prosaic: a single personal dispute.
All it takes is people who are too easily led (lack of education certainly helps, but it's not a prerequisite), plus someone who is lacking enough in humanity to propel someone else to certain death rather than do it themselves.
And this is not to neglect the greatest victims: those many civilians whose only crime is to try to live out the life they found themselves in.
Velupillai Prabhakaran was apparently a rather obsessive man, at one time saying he'd instructed his people to shoot him if he ever deviated from their goals.
Prabhakaran is arguably credited with instigating the modern phenomenon of suicide bombing, the unpleasant rash sweeping the world.
It is easy to understand the level of desparation running through the populace in arenas of greatly uneven conflict: decades of brutalisation and privation, for example, have brought the Palestinians to where they are today. Motives of suicide bombers are the subject of much disagreement in a range of wildly conflicting studies, but it is clear that oppression - or its perception - is a key factor in most cases. And this directly equates to uneven conflict, which is where the suicide bomber's victimhood lies.
It is such an insidious, indifferent weapon. The prime perpetrators are those who consign the bombers to death, and there should be no sympathy for them. They are - in general - far too willing to murder people whose culpability in the conflict is negligible to none. Indiscriminate killing brutalises all sides: if there emerges any victor in such a conflict, they would have to preside over further decades of a violent society that they inflicted on the collective psyche.
The worst I've heard was reported by Owen Bennett-Jones, a BBC journalist with a strong reputation. He told of a family (in Pakistan, I believe) who recruited a 13-year-old boy to be a suicide bomber, who duly followed his orders. Although the boy was led to understand he would become a religious martyr, the root intention was far more prosaic: a single personal dispute.
All it takes is people who are too easily led (lack of education certainly helps, but it's not a prerequisite), plus someone who is lacking enough in humanity to propel someone else to certain death rather than do it themselves.
And this is not to neglect the greatest victims: those many civilians whose only crime is to try to live out the life they found themselves in.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Apartheid and Israelis
Dubai, an oil-rich emirate that wants to become a significant part of the world - or rather, bring the world to it - caused headlines recently when it barred an Israeli female tennis player from attending a tournament.
It subsequently relented, and made special provisions to allow Andy Ram, an Israeli male tennis player, to compete.
That reminds me of the days of apartheid in South Africa, where everyone was classified on the basis of perceived races. This frequently arbitrary system fell apart when it was tested at the fringes - for example, some VIP visitors being given temporary 'white' status. This just showed how the whole system stank, since it wasn't based on a rigorous logic.
Likewise Dubai's actions stink - in particular in granting Ram a special status visa. Of course, they're caught between the desire for global status and their righteous sympathy for the plight of all Palestinians. Unfortunately, the two goals clash at times like this. In an ideal world this would not happen, but in an ideal world the US would not bankroll an Israel that continued to support Israeli settlements in the occupied territories - much less condoning occupation at all.
One can only hope that the new administration has the capacity to force meaningful resolution for the Palestinians.
It subsequently relented, and made special provisions to allow Andy Ram, an Israeli male tennis player, to compete.
That reminds me of the days of apartheid in South Africa, where everyone was classified on the basis of perceived races. This frequently arbitrary system fell apart when it was tested at the fringes - for example, some VIP visitors being given temporary 'white' status. This just showed how the whole system stank, since it wasn't based on a rigorous logic.
Likewise Dubai's actions stink - in particular in granting Ram a special status visa. Of course, they're caught between the desire for global status and their righteous sympathy for the plight of all Palestinians. Unfortunately, the two goals clash at times like this. In an ideal world this would not happen, but in an ideal world the US would not bankroll an Israel that continued to support Israeli settlements in the occupied territories - much less condoning occupation at all.
One can only hope that the new administration has the capacity to force meaningful resolution for the Palestinians.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Carter on the Middle East
Heard some comments from Jimmy Carter on the radio overnight - probably a BBC interview. He seemed to be very aware of the issues and points of contention in the middle east. Some of what emerged from that interview follows.
He mentioned that Obama consulted him on the middle east, and indicated it was one of his big priorities. Carter expressed strong optimism for the new administration's capacities to reduce tensions (his words on Obama in the past included: "honesty, intelligence, and politically adept"). He was especially praiseful for Obama's middle east envoy, George Marshall, who had a significant part in easing tensions in Ireland. Carter stressed Marshall's neutrality to the situation, with words that suggested a) previous envoys had been too pro-Israel to achieve solutions; and b) Israel probably wouldn't like him. Carter also noted that Israel seemed headed to a one-state solution, which was patently unviable, not the least because the arab population (Israeli? or Israeli+Palestinian?) was set to outnumber the Jewish.
Carter did not mention Hillary Clinton at all, which suggests that either Obama has no intention for her to play a significant part (wise), or that Carter had little confidence in her capacity to bring about peace. Certainly, Hillary's words prior to inaugeration sounded like a death-knell to peace, substantially the same attitude as past US administrations had had. I think it's possible for her to be a successful Secretary of State, but clearly not in this area.
The interviewer also made mention of Carter's upcoming book We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work. A promising title, and now, hopefully, a government with the capacity to achieve it.
He mentioned that Obama consulted him on the middle east, and indicated it was one of his big priorities. Carter expressed strong optimism for the new administration's capacities to reduce tensions (his words on Obama in the past included: "honesty, intelligence, and politically adept"). He was especially praiseful for Obama's middle east envoy, George Marshall, who had a significant part in easing tensions in Ireland. Carter stressed Marshall's neutrality to the situation, with words that suggested a) previous envoys had been too pro-Israel to achieve solutions; and b) Israel probably wouldn't like him. Carter also noted that Israel seemed headed to a one-state solution, which was patently unviable, not the least because the arab population (Israeli? or Israeli+Palestinian?) was set to outnumber the Jewish.
Carter did not mention Hillary Clinton at all, which suggests that either Obama has no intention for her to play a significant part (wise), or that Carter had little confidence in her capacity to bring about peace. Certainly, Hillary's words prior to inaugeration sounded like a death-knell to peace, substantially the same attitude as past US administrations had had. I think it's possible for her to be a successful Secretary of State, but clearly not in this area.
The interviewer also made mention of Carter's upcoming book We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work. A promising title, and now, hopefully, a government with the capacity to achieve it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)