Has Barack Obama warranted his Nobel Peace Prize?

The Nobel Peace Prize awarded Barack Obama in 2009 seemed to pre-empt any concrete action and even declared policy. At the time Ben Pershing wrote in the Washington Post:  that when he was elected a year ago, not even Mr Obama's aides would have thought the president would be spending 10 December in Oslo picking up the Nobel Peace Prize. However, Mr Pershing writes, it has turned out to be an award that "has probably spawned more headaches in the White House than pride".

"And now the president and all his men are trying to make the best of a politically awkward situation," he continues.[i]

The perception that Obama was different to his predecessor was world-wide and yet any elected President had to have some of the same agenda as well as carry on some of the legacy of his predecessor.

            There is no doubt that George W. Bush was held in universal disdain (although I’ll be interested to see how he is viewed with the advantage of hindsight; especially his second term) and that Obama seemed to be heralding a new era in American foreign policy. Ben Feller writing in the Huffington Post wrote: "Obama refused to renounce war for his nation or under his leadership, saying defiantly that 'I face the world as it is' and that he is obliged to protect and defend the United States," he says.[ii]

In an editorial for the New York Daily News Josh Greenman wrote: "They wounded two doves with one stone. No matter how much you like Obama and his foreign policy, it is patently ridiculous that a man who's served less than nine months as President should earn a prize that eluded even Mahatma Gandhi."

But Mr Greenman does not blame Mr Obama for what he calls this mockery:

"It's not Obama's fault he attracts such absurd knee-jerk adulation from the world's elites, all for a series of compelling speeches and pledges to cooperate with the world community... Now, the prize is officially a late-night joke. And like it or not, Obama is part of the punch line."[iii]

And Greenman pretty much hits the nail on the head. Obama’s election was rejoiced the world over, much more so than in his own country, which still remains a country very divided.           “The committee said it honored Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Obama said he viewed the decision less as a recognition of his own accomplishments and more as "a call to action."[iv]

So how is the Prize allocated?

The Nobel Peace Prize winner is chosen by a five-member committee of lawmakers elected by the Norwegian parliament. Specially appointed advisers weigh in.

More than a year before the prize is awarded, the Nobel committee seeks nominations from members of governments and international courts, heads of universities, academics and previous Nobel laureates. Self-nominations are not allowed. The nomination deadline is in February.

The committee makes its final vote in October. The winner is determined by a simple majority vote.[v]

 The reason given by the committee for choosing Obama perhaps underpins the problems we have in the world, "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population," the committee said of Obama.[vi] What they really meant was values and attitudes held by the majority of Europeans. So perhaps the real problem is that the Nobel Peace Prize is not really relevant anymore; nevertheless I intend to discuss whether Obama has met those expectations.

A very good article quoting 9 different Foreign Policy experts opinion of how Obama has fared in his first term can be found at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/23/grading_obama_s_foreign_policy  Here the views vary from mildly successful, to not quite up to it. My summation of the article is that in very few areas has Obama taken a leadership role due to not having defined policies.  I tend to concur that Obama tends to react to situations rather than lead. On the positive side he hasn’t made many serious errors.

Fox News is proudly right wing and is definitely not a supporter of the president, yet I present their take on his Foreign Policy in his first term:

[vii]

            I believe any goodwill that Obama had engendered early on in his administration has gone by the wayside. America’s name in the Middle East is not good. America has left Iraq to what seems to be sectarian strife. It has muddied its name in Afghanistan and is being asked to leave a year earlier than planned. Pakistan is an ally in theory only. The Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations are more moribund than ever. The Americans perhaps reluctantly supported the rebels in Libya yet are not too keen to intervene in Syria. In fact the Arab Spring has been a massive headache for the U.S, with most of the dictators falling being stalwarts of past American policy; Obama’s appeal to the Muslim world having been made from Mubarak’s Egypt.

            China is certainly establishing itself as a superpower and a possible alternative to the U.S for many countries. The old enemy, Russia has also started to show its teeth, with Putin painting the U.S. as the bad guys in every situation. The Korean situation is an unclear as it has been with Obama using the same stick and carrot techniques of his predecessors.

            The biggest concern in the world today is Iran, who with potential nuclear capabilities will be a threat to not just Israel, but the whole western world. Obama’s tactic seems to be a Robert Dulles form of brinksmanship. Scary stuff.

            I don’t think Obama has justified the Prize he was awarded in 2009. However we in Australia will continue to support him, or more correctly, the U.S.A and follow them into any theatre of conflict.

---

[i] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8406023.stm  (Thursday 10/12/2009)

[ii] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8406023.stm  (Thursday 10/12/2009)

[iii] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8406023.stm (Thursday 10/12/2009)

[iv] http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html (9/10/2009)

[v] http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html (9/10/2009)

[vi] http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html (9/10/2009)

[vii] http://video.foxnews.com/v/1496135232001/judging-obamas-foreign-policy/ (9/3/2012)

Vindicated?

71-31 is a convincing win in anybody’s language, with the exception of Tony Abbott (who defeated Malcolm Turnbull by one vote for his party’s leadership). What has, for all intents and purpose, been a lead weight around the government’s neck has been removed. Kevin Rudd or as he likes to refer to himself, K-Rudd (I have a serious aversion to people who refer to themselves in the third person), was that lead weight. The so-called coup of 2010 has now been explained to the public (readLaurie Oaks article ) and government members no longer need to walk on egg shells. Today’s vote was a massive blow to K-Rudd.

Kevin Rudd’s ego is massive and his need to control everything is legendary. However as I found out in an article posted on MichaelDanby’s website he was a famously faceless man as far back as 1992 who pedalled influence and showed his tendency to be a control freak. Since the 2010 election Rudd has carefully avoided two things: Firstly he never refused to rule out a leadership challenge and secondly he could never pledge loyalty to the Prime Minister. In the wake of today’s vote, he ruled out a challenge and promised to loyally work towards the re-election of the Prime Minister. He said he accepts the judgement with “no rancour and bearing no grudges”. It must be said that he was gracious, if not a little bit long-winded, in defeat.

Tony Abbott proved that he is a man with a very selective memory. In his press conference immediately before question time he said that Australians want an election, because they want a chance to vote for their Prime Minister. He seems to forget that there was an election in 2010 that voted in Julia Gillard. Maybe he forgot, because he lost that election. As the master of the sound bite or slogan Abbott came up with a reasonably good one during this press conference when he said “This was not a good government being hampered by a rotten apple, but a bad government exposed by a whistle-blower”.  Unfortunately for him it is not one he can use again, because the rest of us have already moved on. He will try though and this prompted one ABC journalist to say that he needed to come up with a “big new slogan”.

Now there is 18 months to the next election and the public will once again be faced with the choice of Gillard or Abbott for Prime Minister, but this time Julia won’t be undermined from within. The Coalition will be doing their own polling trying to find out why despite the malaise that been eating Labour they can’t surge ahead in the polls. The conclusion will be a possible leadership spill for them. If they want to have half a chance to be elected they have to remove the unelectable Abbott. Newspolls still show Malcolm Turnbull as their preferred candidate.

How much of a bad taste has the last 18 months left in the minds of the voters will be the major concern for the Labour party. There is no doubt that it did, but a few little sweeteners should be able to turn that around. My personal opinion is that come July with the beginning of the Carbon tax and the increase in the minimum taxable income and increase in the pensions, we will see a surge of Labour in the polls. But of course, only time will tell.

Why they hate Kevin Rudd so much | Herald Sun

A must read before the Monday ballot for leadership

Why they hate Kevin Rudd so much | Herald Sun

The Battle for Labour

Kevin Rudd had my support in 2007.  Not that K-Rudd or Kevin 07, however you want to remember him, struck me as an appealing character, more that I thought one J. Howard had overstayed his welcome as Prime Minister.  Rudd campaigned well and won a huge victory for Labour.

Whether it was the size of the victory or just his unbelievable self-confidence, but on that very night, K-Rudd made his first autocratic decision and it was about being autocratic. He announced at his acceptance speech to the campaign team that he and he alone would decide who the ministers in his cabinet would be.  Remember that the Labour Caucus (the parliamentary members) selected the ministers. 

Perhaps the time had come for the leader to choose his own cabinet; it makes sense. Yet I’m pretty sure that a few jaws dropped when he made that speech. It was a sure sign of a fairly autocratic approach to leadership. It seems, in retrospect, that that was a fairly good indication of the style of leadership he was to employ as Prime Minister.

There is no doubt that K-Rudd is an intelligent man and yet if you accept the “in” theory of multiple intelligences, he seems to lack in social intelligence. It is difficult to believe that he was very popular at school. He is in fact your classic nerd. Is that a reason to discount him as PM? Well that is something I wish to explore in this article.

Rudd had popular support and came in with a challenging program of reforms and projects. By 2010 his popularity was waning and the truth is that he had not achieved very much. I distinctly remember at the time that I, as an outside observer, could not understand why with such a comfortable lead in the polls, K-Rudd was constantly apologising for not achieving.  The fact was, that he had achieved very little in 3 years of government. In his defence he had a minority in the senate, which made things difficult.

The “overthrow” of K-Rudd was a quick coup that took the nation by surprise. There were no real signs of it coming, which means to the credit of the coup leaders, there were no hints of disloyalty in the public arena and no leaking to the press.

At that particular point of time, I felt great sympathy for Kevin, despite the fact that I actually believed it was a good move. I thought it was a good move for several reasons. The Rudd government was not managing to get much of its political agenda through the parliament, and it started to look unsure of itself. I believe had the coup not come when it did, The Rudd government would have imploded or at the very least, fallen at the next election.

Now some people think Julia Gillard is a “Bogan” a derogatory term for working class Australians. While it is true, her accent would support that contention, I know her to be anything but. What is true is that she is closer to the working class than Kevin in background and identification. She is also far less pretentious than Kevin.

No-one expected Kevin to accept the decision easily, but since then he has been like a little boy who wants to stop the game, because it’s his ball and he’s not being invited to play. Going so far as to sabotage the election campaign of 2010. It was never said, but it was clear. Kevin saw himself as bigger than the party and more important than the party.

Those who believe that “where there is smoke there is fire”, will understand that Kevin has been smouldering for the last year and a half and has been very careful never to deny he wanted the leadership back. That lack of denial was always enough to make it a fall-back position for the Coalition whenever they had run out of something negative to say about the government. 

 So to borrow a term from an ex- Prime Minister, this is the leadership battle we had to have. Kevin’s claim to be a “happy little vegemite” as foreign minister never rang true.

P.M. Gillard has taken the initiative away from K-Rudd by calling for a leadership ballot on Monday.  She also made it quite clear that if she is unsuccessful she will go quietly to the backbenches and relinquish any claim to leadership ambition and that she expects the same of Kevin.

Truth can be damaging. The vote is a caucus vote and Labour would be advised to tone down the vitriol in public and keep in house.  However in order to win, Kevin needs to convince that he would be a better bet than Julia come election time. It is in his interest and not the party’s, to keep the battle in the public eye. Once again self interest ahead of Party interest.

Because of the sabotage in the last election campaign, Julia has had to work with a minority government, dependant on the independents in the parliament to keep power. It has been an extraordinary balancing act and she has done it with aplomb.

It is worth noting that the independents in the lower house will do everything to ensure that there will not be an early election as that would certainly endanger their own seat in parliament. These independents have found it easy to work with Julia and have made it particularly clear that they wouldn’t like to work with Tony Abbott. One imagines that if push came to shove, they could work with Kevin. Oakshott and Windsor are fairly committed to Julia. Bob Katter couldn’t care, because he thinks he’s a “shoe-in’. 

The Tasmanian, Wilke, is starting to make noises about how he could work well with either Rudd or Abbott. Funnily enough I don’t think they could work with him, but I guess he’ll have to find out for himself.  One can be sure that he will vote against everything that a Gillard government brings to a vote.

Well now I’m going to call it for Julia. She has the numbers in Caucus where it counts. As far as I’m concerned she comes out of this smelling of Roses.

Why We Need Words Like 'Islamist' :: Middle East Forum

A very thought provoking article that challenges conventional wisdom on the subject

Why We Need Words Like 'Islamist' :: Middle East Forum

US anxiety grows over possible I... JPost - Iranian Threat - News

This is scary in an of itself, however whatever you think about it, it is clear that Iran is going to be the conflict of importance this year.

US anxiety grows over possible I... JPost - Iranian Threat - News

2011, The year that was.

The world as we know it is going through some amazing changes now; not just physically, so let’s leave the Climate Change arguments aside and all the phenomenal natural disasters we have endured this year. I am talking politically, philosophically and perhaps ideologically.  Judeo-Christian values, so much a part of Western philosophy, are being demonized and stand undefended. This is so much the case that demonizing Judeo-Christian values is considered legitimate, while any negative aspersions on Islamic values is sensitively seen as illegitimate.

As we head into what appears a global financial meltdown the West is looking shaky. Both the US dollar and the Euro are struggling and 2012 will be a landmark year in determining how this crisis will be handled. At the same time we have an “Arab Spring” that seems to be democratically installing Islamist governments throughout the Middle-East.

This is being opaquely mirrored in the west with the “Occupy Wall St.” movement and in Russia with the protests over the election result. This was recognised this week by “Time” magazine when they named “the protester” as their person of the year. As is my nature, I tend to be more pessimistic and see this as a year of discontent on a global level.

While democracy is seen as a step forward, it should also be remembered that we are talking about countries and peoples with no background in democracy or how it functions. Democracy is not innate, it is taught. The idea of a government for the people, by the people is a foreign concept for anyone not brought up in that environment. A strong political leader felled, leaves a vacuum that must be filled. This vacuum usually coincides with a lack of political organisations let alone parties; and any parties that already exist are tainted by their connection with the outgoing regime.

A fundamental flaw in western thinking about the Middle East has always been in applying western (read: Judeo-Christian ) values to a situation in where the people have, at best, a vague understanding of western values. This is reflected in the expectation that the people revolting against cruel despot was necessarily a cry for a change in the system rather than a change in leadership; that protest marches are led by philosophers rather than disgruntled citizens; and most seriously-unity in protesting equates to unity in goals.

Islamism is a minority position in most Arab countries, but an organised position with strong base support. It is also a position that people tend not to oppose publicly, because they don’t want to be seen as anti-Islam. In the vacuum that is left after the felling of a despotic regime the only organised political party is the Islamist party; usually because they had been outlawed by the out-going despot. Both of these points help gain support among the locals. The West is being seen as the power behind the felled regime and is therefore unpopular. Islamist rejection of all things western is another draw card.

The majority of the population in the Arab countries that have had revolutions are not religious, let alone Islamist in their views. However the lack of political savvy and organisation of those that were at the forefront of the Arab “Spring” has meant that they were not to be the direct beneficiaries of their actions.

Apart from the Islamists the only other strong political voice is that of the military. Daniel Pipes argues in his article “Lion’s Den: Revolution or coup d’etat?” (Jerusalem Post 2/2/11) argued that the military would not allow a totally Islamist government to take power.  While more recent events have indicated that Islamists are indeed forming government (see: Barry Rubin’s article in the Jerusalem Post- The Region: Islamist in power? What could go wrong? Printed 6/11/11)  if the elections in Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt are anything to go on. However I’m not so sure that Daniel Pipes was wrong. I believe the military is going to maintain a disconnect from the executive and keep their options open.

In the west we have been enamoured with the romanticist idea that the youth using new universal technology (social media) toppled the old regime. We have assumed their rejection of the old regime and their embracing of the social media technology, necessarily made them pro-western. These are false assumptions based on not just an ignorance of the region, its people and their mentality, but also based on a certain arrogance.

Middle Eastern countries judge the western powers on their actions, but do not perceive these actions from a western point of view, or with a similar value system. This is important to realise, because European powers seem to base their approach to the Middle East on feelings of guilt over their colonial past. Unless it was particularly cruel[i] the colonial rule was largely seen as positive in the development of all of those countries. Eventually a liberation movement would form, but this was largely due to political maturation of the local population.

Ironically the Europeans are racked with guilt over their colonialist past, but truth be known, while it did impinge culturally on those occupied countries, there were many benefits as well; not the least of which was becoming part of the global community. However whether I am right or wrong on that issue is neither here nor there, because it happened; for better or worse. We will never know how Africa, the Middle East and most of the southern hemisphere would have developed without European colonialism and it therefore doesn’t matter. Should Europeans feel guilty? If they want. Do the formerly oppressed blame the colonialists? Maybe. Do either matter? No, not at all.

Today we talk about the Arab Spring (albeit 8 months long already) that has dethroned four despotic regimes and it continues. We read about Syria and Yemen, but hear little about what is happening in Jordan or even Iran. If Robert Fisk, writing in “the Independent” is to be believed King Abdallah’s time as king is limited. That is not to say that Assad is on solid ground in Syria either. Melanie Phillips in her article in “the Daily Mail” painted a rather gloomy picture.

We prepare to leave 2011 with a much changed Middle East, an uncertain Middle East and one can’t help thinking, a Middle East that is an increasingly important and integral part of the world. Of course there are still a couple of weeks to go, so maybe I’m talking way to early.

Russia as perceived by the west has been falling behind an Iron Curtain being put in place by ex-KGB boss Putin. There is no doubt that Russia is not as corruption free, or as transparent as most western countries and that Putin has been very heavy handed with opponents. It was expected that Putin would be crowned King in coming elections. However the elections for the Duma and resulting ongoing demonstrations would seem to be a sign of growing tolerance rather than the powerlessness of Russian democracy. It may not be to Putin’s liking, but legitimate opposition seems to be the price of staying in power. Once again we depart 2011 and await and interesting 2012 in Russia. The posturing of Russia has been instrumental in shaping the developments around the world and so must wait to see where Russia sits in this fluid stage of world politics.

I say a fluid state of world politics, because I get the feeling that since the Cold War we are looking for clear sides to align with. It was a far simpler world. My sneaking suspicion is that we are headed towards a polarised world (maybe two-headed, maybe three-headed) again.

The “Occupy Movement” in my mind has two incarnations; one American, the other-the rest. The Occupy Wall Street Movement was a legitimate response by a sizeable amount of people who have been hard hit by the GFC. More than in any other countries Americans have seen huge payouts to banks and corporations to “bail them out” and continue to pay astronomical salaries to their executives, while average Americans were feeling the pinch.

This election year will be critical in how America rebounds towards a more robust economy. However the economy is just part of the problem. America is a society divided and congress and Capitol Hill don’t see eye to eye on much at the moment. 

America will close out 2011 having put the Iraq war to sleep, well at least in terms of major manpower commitment; the economic assistance will be ongoing. It will now have to deal with a huge influx of returning servicemen in an economy that is neither growing nor providing jobs. While Iraq wasn’t a defeat, it wasn’t a victory either; and there will be no morale boost from the end of the war.

The Occupy movement in Australia was, or rather is, small and seemingly inconsequential. Of course the movement in Europe is larger and far more radicalised than the American model. It is more violent and supported by a variety of interest groups in society. This is just one of the many focal points of Europe today, although many are intertwined.

Social unrest in Europe has many sources. Multiculturalism has had mixed success, but European countries that have long been the destination of choice for peoples from the former colonies and now of course it the destination of choice for those that can manage to flee the Middle East or western Africa. The GFC is greatly affecting Europe. The Eurozone had stronger economies holding up the weaker economies in the understanding that as soon as one country goes a domino effect could well be in place.

One of the biggest problems facing Europe is that the traditionally strong economies are struggling.  Greece, Portugal aside, the eyes are on the Italian, Spanish and even the French economy. The crumbling weaker economies resolve to stand by austerity measures is also important. Unity of purpose may be enough to pull Europe through the financial crisis, although I doubt it.

It still faces many social questions.  High unemployment and a growing underclass, which just so happens to be largely Muslim,  are likely to cause many new flashpoints and may lead to a renewal of large scale terrorist attacks.

Here in Australia we just seem to float happily along largely untouched by the malaise in the world. Were the opposition to be believed the government is marching into Armageddon.  I would like to think to a large degree, although nothing like it used to be, Australia is still the lucky country.

I haven’t even mentioned the natural disasters of 2011-: Auckland, Queensland, Japan all in the first 4 months, but of course the list went on. While man can do little to stop these random events, how he responds is perhaps an appropriate topic for a future blog.

Just over a month ago I lost my sister to Mesothelioma. She was a warrior to the end trying to stay alive a little longer for her daughter. She died 2 weeks short of her daughter’s third birthday. It summed up 2011 for me.

I wish anyone who reads this blog a very happy New Year and let’s hope that 2012 is a good year for all (I have no doubt that it will be an interesting one)

---

[i] The colonial powers were largely benevolent governments with the goals of “advancing the society” with a western understanding of what that means. That is not to say they did not exploit the countries or its native population.

Sleeping with the Enemy: US Partnership with Saudi-Wahhabis – by Rusty Walker | LUBP

Although the author of this article clearly has an agenda, it is very intersesting

Sleeping with the Enemy: US Partnership with Saudi-Wahhabis – by Rusty Walker | LUBP

Encountering Peace: Half-way ther... JPost - Opinion - Columnists

A sadly perceptive account of Netanyahu as a leader.

Encountering Peace: Half-way ther... JPost - Opinion - Columnists

Jordan Is Palestinian :: Middle East Quarterly

A very interesting article on an issue that rarely sees the light of day

Jordan Is Palestinian :: Middle East Quarterly

Yahoo! 2011 My Year In Review

In lieu of doing my own year in review. This one covers a lot of things, though not much from an Australian perspective. Still a good review. If i find another good one I'll post it.

Yahoo! 2011 My Year In Review

The earthquake in the Arab and Islamic world | Melanie Phillips

An interesting, even perceptive view of what is happening in the Middle East today; i.e. the Arab Spring/Summer/Autumn/Winter

The earthquake in the Arab and Islamic world | Melanie Phillips

Prof. Gad Yair's Blog | CoolCite - The CV-Based Academic Network

This is a very interesting article. Agree or disagree with the conclusions, it is thought provoking.

Prof. Gad Yair's Blog | CoolCite - The CV-Based Academic Network

Anita's Eulogies

The eulogies for Anita Steiner 13/11/11. First 25 minutes should be fast forwarded

“Keeping a Positive Attitude to Help Beat Meso” by Anita Steiner « ADAO – Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

While this was posted on her blog, this was the last article written by my late sister. What an inspiration she was and continues to be.

“Keeping a Positive Attitude to Help Beat Meso” by Anita Steiner « ADAO – Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

“Keeping a Positive Attitude to Help Beat Meso” by Anita Steiner « ADAO – Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

While this was posted on her blog, this was the last article written by my late sister. What an inspiration she was and continues to be.

“Keeping a Positive Attitude to Help Beat Meso” by Anita Steiner « ADAO – Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

LEFT, RIGHT OR STRAIGHT AHEAD

I can't remember whether I read it on Facebook or Google+, but it was a very interesting question; why do people who oppose onshore processing of refugees are also climate change sceptics and, no less so, visa - versa? Great question isn't it, because there is no logical connection between the two issues, let alone the incongruence of the two opinions. Could it possibly be that our fellow citizens feel such an affinity to a political party that they will blindly follow the blanket policies of the party? Well, yes!

This of course is nothing new. In Australia we are a loyal bunch. We follow our football teams for life. In Melbourne marrying a supporter of another team is no less intermarriage than a Jew and Muslim marrying. And in much the same way as the affinity to a football club is passed on from generation to generation, so is political affinity. Both historically reflected a socio-economic bracket and identity. This is less obvious today, but it doesn't take much for people to show their "colours".

And to my original question of why people buy into the party line lock, stock and barrel the correlation to football is just as valid. We love run of the mill, grunt players (i.e. not superstars) just because they play for our team. A player vilified by rest of the football public would retain our support if he played for our team. Of course a player, no matter how loved, who transfers to another team is immediately despised as a traitor. 

 Our frame of reference is determined by where we grew up, who we grew up with, our religion and that of those around us; where we went to school and who with: what our socio-economic background was and is now; and maybe even which football team we support.  I guess it is natural to adopt the views of your peers and that those views wouldn't have been too different in the beginning.

The national debate in Australia has started to resemble a football game. Like supporters, our politicians have lost sight of the issues to be caught up in "getting the edge" in that day's particular encounters. Tony Abbot, I point the finger at you and say, "J'ai accuse!". You have reduced the national debate to the national screaming match. The people are tired and they are starting to see through the negativity.

Paradoxically the more mantras and sound bites are used the less the issues are blurred in the eyes of the public. It all seems so simple. A little "American" (with no offence meant). A party that has benefited this mentality is the Greens. This party by foundation and association should be a one issue party. Of course there can be no such thing in the national forum. The Greens are a party split into an overbearing left and the foundation environmentalists. The Greens are yet to get dirty in politics, but they are going to hold the balance of power in the senate; their innocent façade will quickly disappear. It will be interesting to see how united they stand.

The Liberal and Labour parties are much more diverse in what they purport to represent and yet they clearly still have a defined constituency (although Labour has seemed to be out of touch with its constituents in recent years). For many years a relative small group of people, commonly known as the swinging voters, controlled the outcome of elections. This is qualified with the occasional third party and smattering of independents.

I wanted to believe that "the new paradigm" of a minority government would lead to an opening of the minds, to discussions or at least the admission that compromise is okay. This seems to have been taken on board by all by the Liberals, who at no stage since the election have even looked like they would be prepared to compromise in order to accommodate the independents. No such luck. Partisanship is rife and it means never agreeing with your opposition.

Underlying and encouraging this stance is the fact that the general population seems to be buying into the tactics. The Prime Minister has been labelled a liar by a man who changes his position on issues as easily as one may change clothes. Yet the credibility gap lay on the side of the Prime Minister. I would continue my equation with football culture by pointing out that although Australians love an underdog, they support winners not losers. Losers are not respected. From one of the greats of Australian Rules football said "Winners are grinners, losers can do what they like".

Interestingly enough Abbot is not a winner and although he is still to cotton to the fact, he is in fact a loser.  With the passage of the Carbon Tax the tide is turning and I think the Australian public will stay true to form and start to support Julia. Tony Abbot will be seen as a loser not as an underdog, largely because he doesn't see himself as an underdog. The die-hards will always support their team, but their numbers will shrink. What about the independents? Will the pay a price for not being on a team, or will they benefit by being associated with a winning team? I think the latter.

The Shalit Deal

The release of Gilad Shalit is perhaps the ultimate example of the maxim,  “ Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Of course that is true for all sides of the equation. It was in every sense a political decision on both the Israeli and Palestinian side. Like any political decision there are positives, but also negatives with consequences.

On the Palestinian side the timing was as much political as anything else. Mahmoud Abbas had gone to the UN in September to demand a Palestinian state. The Hamas administration in Gaza had no choice, but to seem to support the move, but that tacit support was always tenuous at best. As part of the move to statehood there would have to be a unification of Gaza and the West Bank as well as two governments that have already outlived their 'use by' date. Both governments were democratically elected many, many years ago, but have not faced the people for some time.  Hamas were heading to electoral disaster and risked losing their Gazan stronghold.

There is no doubt that the “Shalit deal” has done Hamas no end of good in the eyes of the Palestinian masses and this will make any election very interesting.  It reversed the situation of Fatah’s bid for statehood and forced Fatah to give the tacit support behind gritted teeth. The consequences seem relatively minor for Hamas; for all intents and purposes, an easy decision.  However there are always consequences to political decisions.

On the face of it and probably in the long run the political decision from an Israeli standpoint is far more complex. I think it is worth trying to understand the Israeli mindset in order to fathom just how complex. Far from the menacing military state with its sights set on conquest of Arab lands that is portrayed in the media we see in Australia, Israelis see themselves as a country under siege. Yes it’s true. I ask the sceptics to put aside their personal view of the Palestinian situation, just for the moment and walk a mile in the shoe of an Israeli.

Israel as a modern country has existed for 63 years and been through 4 major wars and several major military operations in that time. Size wise, Israel fits in Tasmania 3 ½ times and the total population is that of greater Sydney. It is surrounded by 22 Arab and Muslim countries, 18 of whom are still officially at war with Israel, 2 have a long lasting peace treaty with Israel (although the peace with Egypt is possibly under threat now) and 2 gulf countries that have de facto relations with Israel. The fact that much of the world sees Israel as an aggressor in the region increases that sense of isolation. Israelis in the south face the daily threat of missile attacks and of course are targets for terror, but the world seems to see all of this as, if not right, at least understandable.

As a country that was born under threat of war (The Arab world declared war on the State of Israel minutes after it was announced and attacked shortly after), Israel has always had conscription, with all citizens, male and female, serving in the army. I would argue that rather than make Israel a militaristic state (a la Troy) it has created a citizen army. As a democracy, the army is subjugate to the government of the people. Of course the army plays a major role in everybody's lives. It has long been a tenet of the Israeli army, an obligation laid at the feet of the government, that no comrade will be left in the field. That comrade will be someone's son, cousin, nephew, friend, neighbour, etc. Any death is felt like a ripple effect in a country as small as Israel. This is a tenet that allows soldiers to go into battle and parents to let their sons go, with at least a modicum of confidence that they will return safely.

Another tenet of the government of Israel is not to negotiate with terrorists. In the past, these two often conflicting tenets have led to distasteful exchanges with terrorist organisations in order to return soldiers alive and dead, but Israel was always in a position to bargain; and while there have been massive exchanges in the past, the line has been drawn at prisoners with blood on their hands, i.e. convicted murderers/terrorists. The Shalit deal was different and the emotions of the masses reflected the conflict for the government.

The kidnapping of the Beaumont Children in the early 60's, the Tasmanian shooting spree, the Russell St. bombing and Bali are incidents all etched in the minds of Australians. Israelis similarly remember each terrorist attack and each military death. As I said earlier, these incidents go through a small country with a ripple effect; If you didn't have a personal connection to the victim, then there is a good chance that you knew someone who did. On top of that, when it came to victims of terrorism, even if you had no connection to any victims, there was the feeling of "There but for the grace of god……" (or for atheists: "It could have been me")

Gilad Shalit was kidnapped over 5 years ago and secreted over the border to Gaza. Obviously there was internal pressure within the army and government to return Gilad Shalit home, but what symbolized this story was a well managed public campaign to keep Shalit in the public eye from the beginning. A lesson perhaps learned from the quiet approach taken by the family of Ron Arad, captured in Lebanon in the mid 80's. Every so often, awareness of Arad would rise only to fall away to no result. After years of reported sightings and hope, it all ended in the realisation that he was dead. There was a feeling that to a degree, this was a failure of the governments of the time.

"Bibi" Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel is on the right wing of the political spectrum and has always been one of the most steadfastly opposed to any negotiations with terrorists. His brother, the only Israeli death in the daring raid on Entebbe Airport in 1976, was also commander of the raid. The current Minister of Defence (and former Prime Minister) Ehud Barak was second in command of that operation. For these two, any deal over Shalit was a last option.

So how did things conspire to turn this particular political choice into a 'no-brainer'

Even before the Occupy Wall Street Movement, the streets of towns around Israel were filled with "tent cities" of protesters over the price of living, housing costs and well, you know the script by now.  Israel continued with the building of new housing in already existing settlements in the face of international calls for at least a temporary cessation.  Netanyahu took on President Obama when the latter tried to kick start peace talks.  The Palestinian push for UN recognition even further isolated Israel internationally. While playing tough had earned him some kudos among his natural constituency and further in Israel, the increasing feeling of isolation had the electorate worried. The situation in Egypt since the removal of Mubarak from power was, from an Israeli point of view, unstable at best. Egypt, together with the Germans, was involved in the negotiations between Hamas and the Israeli government. Seemingly time was running out on the Egyptian front as well.

Clearly this was the time to make a deal, both for Hamas and for Israel. But could they?  Hamas needed a massive release of prisoners with no credit going to Fatah/PA. For Israel and particularly for Bibi it was far more complicated. Any sizeable exchange was always going to be controversial in Israel, but the scale of this deal and the fact that so many of those released had blood on their hands and remained unrepentant about that, meant that this was never going to be an easy or comfortable decision. Moreover it railed against all of Bibi's instincts, not to mention his political constituency. Yet underpinning all of this was the pressure to make the deal was coming from a well-orchestrated public campaign which was backed heavily by the Israeli media. The name of Gilad Shalit was constantly in the public eye (and ear) for the last 2 years. He became a cause celebre, one that most Israelis could identify with and support. It is worth pointing out here that while most Israelis were aware that any deal for Shalit would involve a large number of prisoners being released, they didn't know, or consider, who those prisoners would be.

The push to release Shalit and the keeping of his name in the public's mind didn't just benefit from a public campaign and the media. Israel had also applied diplomatic pressure and so as to make sure that there was a worldwide campaign to release him. Two governments that took it upon themselves to help in the negotiations were the Egyptian and German government. The deal was negotiated by the Germans and the Egyptians as if it were a deal between two governments, with legitimate demands and rights. The Israelis of course regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation. And of course Hamas were negotiating over the release of a soldier that had been kidnapped in a terrorist raid into Israel.

However Bibi, whose brother had been part of the Entebbe Operation, was faced with a massive dilemma. One failed attempt to rescue Gilad Shalit nor did Operation Cast Lead help in locating Shalit and the military and intelligence had no clues. It ruled out a military option.

In agreeing to the deal Bibi Netanyahu knew that this was going to  do wonders for him politically, but that it may be a very temporary brush with popularity. While almost 80% of Israelis supported the exchange, it was clear to all that this was an incredibly high price to pay. Not only were 1027 prisoners being exchanged for 1 solitary soldier but also terrorists responsible for the most notorious terrorist acts on Israelis were released. Bibi lost some creditability as a hardliner for having negotiated with a terrorist group and

for being seen as having capitulated to their demands. He also will live in fear of any of those released committing terrorist acts again, a scenario which is not far - fetched. Certainly noise out of the Palestinian camp calling for "another Gilad" (another Israeli captive) and for more kidnappings, throws focus on yet another consequence of this deal. These consequences were known and anticipated as they must be in any deal, however with Shalit there are hidden consequences.

Gilad Shalit is going to be a major political focal point for a long time to come and here I am talking about Gilad the person, not the deal. On his release Shalit was forced into an interview with Egyptian TV. This was arguably inappropriate, but at least confirmed for Israelis, who were riveted to TV's and radios, that Shalit was alive and mentally alert (more than the Egyptian interviewer who asked Shalit why only one video was released of him in his 5 years of captivity, inferring that it wasn't really fair of him). Shalit clearly said that he hoped that his release would signal a push in the peace process. Netanyahu more or less had his hands tied in making the deal and he had no choice but to gamble that Shalit won't become a political foe. Shalit certainly would be a formidable acquisition to either side of the political equation in Israel.

The deal however did not actually represent complete capitulation on the part of Israel. Most of those with blood on their hands are either being sent to other countries (Egypt and Turkey), or if they are from Gaza, they are being released into the West Bank and visa versa. In fact both sides would argue they came out smelling of roses and so far that is true.

In my opinion the most important thing that could come out of this deal, in Israel at least, will be the weight that Shalit will carry on the political scene. I believe it will be “heavy”.

Do We Need A Carbon Tax

Up to 2 years ago there were enough anomalies in data and amongst the scientific fraternity (small as they may have been) for “Climate Sceptics” to be able to claim some legitimacy. Today there is much more consensus about Global Climate Change and more importantly, Man’s role in it.

This debate is not going on anywhere in the world, except Australia and the head of Lord Mockton. In Australia the debate is not going on amongst scientist, but the wider community. And when I say wider community, I must include the extremes. The Greens, yes the Greens and the rednecks that Tony Abbot appeals to (in both connotations of the word).

Not long ago, in one of his press conferences, Tony was asked why people shouldn’t take up arms against the Australian Government. Please read that again and absorb the implications! An Australian citizen was asking the Leader of the Opposition of Australia why he shouldn’t take up arms against the government. He was looking for understanding. He got it. Tony said, “I understand your anger”. I guess to his credit he followed with, “We are a peace loving nation”. I don’t think that cuts it.

I would have preferred to hear something like, “I’m sorry, but I don’t condone any such action and I would like to see this as a political and not a personal issue”. Unfortunately, Tony needs it to be a personal issue. It is basically his only card and it is quite a strong one.

Are we too quick to do this? What about the rest of the world? Why should we lead the way? The question we don’t hear is whether Climate Change is real, because that is an argument that only exists in Australia and certain pockets of the American right. We will not be world leaders as many countries have implemented or about to implement their own versions of the Carbon Tax, with the ultimate goal of a global Emissions Trading Scheme. Certainly the opposition is doing everything it can to delay the passing of the bill and has threatened to annul the bill when they come to power. History has shown a reluctance for any government to annul bills that ensure them revenue, especially when they can blame the other guy for its existence. Tony Abbot does not seem to accept the scientific evidence, although others in his party definitely do. I think it was US senator Dan Monihan who said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts."

One of the more macabre results of Tony Abbot's "people's revolution" against the Carbon Tax is the level of verbal violence in and around the political arena and the issue. Death threats have been made to some of Australia's leading scientists. The government has gone ahead and introduced the “Clean Air Bills” after almost 2 months of acrimony, and vitriol aimed at them by the opposition. Maybe now the debate, will move from the personal to the actual topic itself.

Assuming we accept the data in front of us, there is no question that a price triggered, market base mechanism is needed to place a price on carbon production. With a  trading scheme that allows companies to buy more right to produce carbon. The idea is that the price must be high enough to encourage expansion into alternative energy sources, but low enough not to upset production and the vital role it plays in the Australian economy. The need for the world to embrace renewable energy and move towards harnessing and create new industries that grow out of these industries is obvious. These industries will have to slowly but surely replace carbon and fossil energy.

The government had determined that the Carbon Tax is the best way to achieve this goal and it allows the government to cushion the population from the costs of the tax, by compensating them in other areas and by determining a price on Carbon that will not scare business to much, but allows the country to head towards and ETS. The oppositions alternative which they call Direct Action, is more akin to inaction and by all estimates would prove to be less effective, more expensive to the consumer.  I agree with the government that the tax is the best way to go, with the least amount of cost to all sides of the equation.

The New Middle East

So much has happened in the last two months it’s hard to know where to start. Egypt, the People, Mubarak, the Middle East conflict and how that changes in the light of Egypt and LIbya

I read an interesting article claiming that there was a cold war in the Middle East (excluding Israel) and this was between Tyrannical Despots and Muslim regimes. Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt did little to redress the balance, as the “People’s Revolution” has only managed to install military juntas in both countries. The puppets (albeit powerful puppets) have gone and the military remains the ruling body.

Egypt could be the exception to the rule.  It has defied all expectations and this has been reflected in the changing responses coming from world leaders. While Tunisia was pro-western, it was not a major player in US policy or EU policy. Egypt was and possibly still will be. 

Mubarak was a major player and certainly a lynchpin in the “Peace Process”. He maintained a peace treaty with Israel against the tide of popular opinion in the area and even his own country (although it was supported in a national referendum in 1979). He was a middle-man for both Israelis and Palestinians in dealing with day to day issues without having to meet face to face.

Will this peace treaty stay in place now that Mubarak has gone? This is now a real test of American Foreign Policy and its influence. American influence has dwindled since the end of the Cold War and of course to argue that the US controls the world now flies in the face of all the facts.

The Cold War was a numbers game where the end justified the means. So both the Americans and the Soviets supported regimes that were ideologically repulsive to them, just so long as they remained within their sphere of influence. The legacy for America was that it found itself supporting many a tyrannical despot whose claim for support was their strategic importance. Only two US presidents have made an issue of Human Rights with these despots, Jimmy Carter and interestingly enough, George W Bush (in his second term). Several despots remained important to the Americans and especially in the Middle East, where an ideological ally (Israel) was under constant threat of war and Muslim hegemony in the area that Muslim’s believe is theirs exclusively (once again a view that flies in the face of historical facts).

Over the last 10 years the “Arab/Israeli conflict” has been transformed by the western media and western world into the “Israeli/Palestinian conflict”.  There is a vast difference between the two and it is fundamental to how you approach Middle East politics. Certainly it has proven to be so in the west, where the average citizen is starting to adopt this approach to the area.

For some perspective, Israel is a country that fits into Tasmania 3 and half times. It has a population of 7 million of which 5.8 million are Jewish. It is surrounded by 22 Arab and Muslim countries that covers 66000 the land mass of Israel and has a population 100 times larger.  Of those 22 countries only 2 have signed a peace treaty with Israel, and 3 others have de-facto relations with Israel. Most are still officially at war with Israel. Only 2 recognise Israel’s right to exist and one is calling for the total obliteration of Israel.

As to where Palestine fits into this equation for Israel, it is an interesting question and no less interesting as to where Palestine fits into the equation for other Arab countries. Interestingly enough there was no Palestinian problem before the state of Israel. Palestine was not an Arab state and never had been. Israeli rule to Roman rule, to Turkish rule to British rule, Palestine (so named by the Romans) was a land which had always had both Arab and Jews living there.

Despite historical revisionism, it is generally recognised that the local Arab population in Palestine were told to vacate their houses until Arab armies had crushed the new Jewish state. The number of Palestinian refugees is equal to the number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries over the ensuing ten years.

Ephraim Karsh suggests that the goal of the Arab armies was to destroy Israel, but then to divide up the area between the Egyptian in the south, Jordanians in the east, Syrians in the north east and Lebanon immediately north, with no intention of creating a Palestinian state

With this in mind it is impossible for Israel to view its own situation in the narrow format of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but must necessarily view it as part of the larger regional conflict which is Arab/ Israeli conflict.

The events of the last two months only goes to emphasise the regional issues in the Middle East have little to do with what is happening between the Israelis and Palestinians. Palestinians, as per usual, have no united approach to what is happening in the Middle-East, but both sides of the Palestinian camp are worried about protests and mass movements.

One event in the last 2 months that did not receive as much publicity as it might have, had the Middle East been quieter, is the UN Security Council vote calling all settlement in the West Bank illegal and a hindrance to peace. This was the only time in the last 2 months that the US has remained consistent with past policy and also supported an ally. American allies have been hard hit in the Middle East and the US finds itself with a diminishing sphere of influence.

The Americans had always said that the Security Council was not the place to decide how a peace should be negotiated. To that extent it was not a surprise to anyone, but the vote was interesting for the fact that it carried with it the weight of 130 signature countries. It was a vote made to embarrass the US internationally, to make her a pariah. However timing makes all the difference and this news got swallowed up in the rest of the Middle East news.

Why did America “stick phat” with Israel? Had they voted with everyone else there would have been enormous pressure on Israel to halt all building in anything considered a settlement. Why is that bad? Wouldn’t that lead to peace?

The Americans had not been doing so well by their allies in the Middle East, with Mubarak gone in Egypt, Tunisia also. Allies in Saudi Arabia and Jordan would have been sweating profusely at the lack of support shown by the US. Standing by Israel helped alleviate those fears.

While Bahrain had threatened to blow out of control, it, like most of the regimes in the area, its government is regaining a semblance of control. Libya has provided quite a different scenario.

Libya and Gaddafi were often held up by the intellectual left as a model society. Gadaffi’s Libya sat on the UNHRC inner sanctum that felt its duty to constantly lambast Israel. Gadaffi was the darling of the left and courted by the Europeans despite his direct and known connections to terrorism (especially the Lockerbie bombing). And yet no one was really surprised that this madman threatened to let the streets run with the blood of the rebels.

The response from western countries was encouraging. They took the threat seriously, unlike the threats against the Jews by Hitler in World War 2. The need to protect the innocent from slaughter was backed by NATO, the UN and a “coalition of the willing” for want of a better phrase. Most importantly it was backed by the Arab League.

 I believe had the Arab League not been prepared to back this call, the US would not have taken an active part. Obama is concerned about how the US in viewed in the Arab world and I would venture to say he has been spectacularly unsuccessful in this area. Despite the hatred for George W Bush, there was no doubt in anybody’s mind that the US had its agenda and worked according to that. Today US policy is the Middle East is on hold and rudderless. Every move is a reaction to events. But Obama is also worried about how this plays out at home, committing even more soldiers to action.

It is for this reason that NATO is in charge of the mission. The British, but more specifically the French have taken a pro active role in the whole escapade. The mandate given these forces allows them to do all to prevent the slaughter of civilians. There is of course a reticence to send in foreign troops and so this is talk of the alternative was arming the rebels. I believe that this was not covered legally by the mandate, which did not call for regime change. NATO certainly wanted regime change.

The Arab league initially called for intervention, but the chairman (not chairperson in this case) who is a candidate for the Egyptian presidency, suddenly got cold feet when Gaddafi started showing film of civilian dead in Tripoli. However they got back on the horse and decided to back the intervention. My personal belief is that if there is to be a military presence introduced, then the soldiers should be that of a combined Arab League force. The west doesn’t need to be called colonialists or oil-interested sharks for carrying out what is ultimately a humanitarian mission.

One area of concern is who the rebels actually are. The Europeans have already moved quickly in accepting the legitimacy of a leadership that is largely unknown. They even invited a representative to a military debriefing and policy session in Paris.

Despite Gadaffi's ravings about the rebels being Al Quaieda, there is some basis for this. The initial Al Quaieda fighters, fighting the Americans in Iraq were from Benghazi. It is an Al Quaieda stronghold. This by no means that they control the rebels, but it means that caution is required.

On February 11 Ahmedinajad said that as result of changes in the Middle East, Israel would soon cease to exist.  Could he be right? I don’t think so and certainly not because of the changes taking place in the Middle East at the moment.

I would love to believe, like most westerners that the “social revolution” or “jasmine revolution” were powered by the youth craving democracy and freedom; and that these people would go onto form government. Unfortunately I remain cynical about the ability of the youth to translate the momentum to political acumen and the ability to govern. I’m sure they never planned that far ahead and for that reason, the traditional opponents of the regime, whether they had been a legal or oppressed opposition, will form the basis of any new government. Because the regimes that have fallen and/ or are about to fall, have largely been friendly to the west, it is therefore safe to assume that the new regimes will definitely be less so. The US has no colonial guilt, but the Europeans do. For some reason they think they can fix things now. The Arabs still blame colonialism for everything. In an interview of President Assad of Syria-:

“Mr. President, why is it so difficult for this region since hundreds and hundreds of years to find peace?

Very simply, in one word, because of the occupation. We have been living in very difficult circumstances during the centuries; but if you look at the social fabric, it is always peaceful; you do not have civil wars, except for Lebanon for the last three decades. Look at Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine and this entire region

where we did not have any internal conflict. All the conflicts were because of the occupations: the British, the French and now the Israeli. That is why we do not have peace. We see desperation that leads to extremism. That is why we do not have the peace.” 

Syria is going to be the test ground for how much of a revolution is really happening in the Middle East. Both Syria and Iran slaughter innocent civilians in much the same way that Gaddafi said he would. They both have proven track records in this area, but the west feels no compunction to intervene. This may change as things develop, but I am not hopeful. Assad feels protected, knowing that China and Russia will prevent any major condemnation of Syria getting through the Security Council.

In Lebanon Hizbullah, still recognised by most western countries as a terrorist organisation as ascended to government and rule in Lebanon, allowing them to completely squash the UN report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri, which pointed the finger directly at Hizbullah. Where the south of Lebanon was once a Christian stronghold, it is now firmly in the hands of Hizbullah and they sit on the border with Israel with Iranian supplied rockets. It is worthwhile noting that the Lebanese Army works separately from Hizbullah forces, yet Hizbullah now have theoretical control of both.

Turkey has interestingly decided to opt out of Europe and align with their Muslim brothers. The Turks are Muslims, but not Arabs. They were last in the Middle East as colonial masters. I imagine that they see themselves playing a significant role and as a counterbalance to Iran, another non-Arab country. They remain part of NATO and are therefore involved in several conflicts in the region as well. Turkey still has diplomatic ties with Israel, at least officially. Until very recently they had military ties as well. They remain an unknown commodity as a player in the region, but I believe they will take a populist view of things and move further and further away from Israel.

Lastly I would like to address how all of this impacts on Israel. As I said above, Israel sees itself as part of the Middle East and the conflict it faces is an Arab/ Israeli conflict. Its decisions must be based on the realities of the day. With a change in leadership in Egypt and despite the ruling generals saying the peace treaty with Israel would remain intact and effective, Egypt Air has already cancelled all flights to Israel, which now no longer appears on their map of the Middle East. There have been attacks on the Israeli/ Egyptian gas line and more worrisome is the apparent renewal of tunnel activity from Gaza into the Sinai, smuggling in weapons (specifically rockets) and all sorts of military hardware from Iran.

As I write this, the Palestinians are declaring themselves a sovereign state via the good offices of the UN and while it is not expected to pass the Security Council, it will overwhelmingly pass through the General Assembly. This will certainly change the dynamics and mindset, while not necessarily providing changes in real terms.  Israel has a conflict with the Palestinians that it wants to resolve. The majority of Israelis still believe that there is no choice other than a two state solution, but how does that happen. The Palestinians have two states, both ruled by people whose term in government has expired. Both have legitimacy issues and can’t hold elections until there is a peace between Fatah and Hamas (an increasingly unlikely prospect). There is also the western supported Fatah as opposed to the Iranian supported Hamas, making this an issue of consequence in terms of Middle East balance. Hamas does not recognise Israel’s right to exist, so the only alternative is to negotiate with a “western puppet” government that has no street credibility and the same amount of legitimacy.

Israel is told that by resolving the Palestinian equation they would solve the whole mess in the Middle East. The last few months have made a mockery of that and of the notion that the main conflict in the area is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. We live in interesting times.

So with the Middle East ablaze in revolution and conflict where the Palestinians were not the centre of attention. To make sure that they remain at the centre of world attention they are pushing for statehood at the UN. This brazen step doomed to failure in legal sense as it will be vetoed in the Security Council by the United States and possibly some of the European powers. It will however receive an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly and this will at least provide the Palestinians with a moral victory.

Interestingly enough the 2 parties that form the leadership of the Palestinians hate each other as much as they despise the Israelis. Hamas and Fatah need to stick together for there to be any real progress made from this step at the UN, but it is unlikely they will succeed.

It would be remiss of me not to mention that the government of Bibi has not done much to improve things in the region. At best it was trying to maintain the status quo which is like living in vacuum in today's Middle East. At worst they have tried to sabotage any progress, with ill timed statements and what seemed to be contempt of the Obama administration.

Israel however will have been handed a fait accompli and be expected by the rest of the word to now negotiate with the government of Palestine, half of which does not believe in Israel's right to exist. The Middle East today is less stable than it was! The influence of the United States is now minimal and their allies have been let down by lack of support. The western world is embracing green energy and the power of oil will continue to shrink. This will be a continual frustration to Arab nations that have built their whole economy on oil.

I think we are going to see a very interesting year and a half in the Middle East and hopefully the focus will be elections rather than war.