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. 

Conflict Resolution

Most Australian Jews (and Israelis) are either 1^st generation citizens or new immigrants. The significant majority of the American Jewish community is 2^nd or 3^rd generation. Their bond with America strengthened by the belief that it is a safe haven from European pogroms. Anti -Semitic restrictions on daily life and religious freedom. Of course we are only talking about relative safety and relative acceptance. The United States at least (talked the talk) spoke the language of inclusion and it even walked the walk (albeit with a heavy limp).

So our F of R [i] is based on the influences on our life and these are very often by choice, but not always. Theoretically each of us can examine all options and influences in every situation, match it up with our general knowledge and make the connections (e.g. Mother says don’t go out with wet hair, but doctor says it makes no difference. I either listen to the doctor, or wear a hat, if only to make Mum happy). Most don’t and some can’t. Some choose not to choose and are happy with what they’re presented with.

Are we indoctrinated? Invariably yes. Often it is hard to see outside the box and this can be either imposed or chosen.  It is a little “1984”ish.  So what does it all mean?

Frames of References being what they are can only create a subjective and not an objective view of a situation.  This means there is no right or wrong, no black or white; just opinions and various shades of grey; the world is made up of facts and then opinion. Weight of opinion usually wins, but does not necessarily imply that right won, just that the majority prevailed (arguably the weakness of democracy). The inability to accept this basic premise makes cooperation difficult.

We need to learn to walk in the blind man’s shoes.  As an example, May 15 1948 is celebrated by Israeli Jews as Independence days, while Palestinians mark the day as Al Nachbar, the Tragedy. Are either right or wrong? More to the point, does it really matter? Peace and cooperation come with an understanding of the others position, not in order to exploit it, but in order to further the understanding between parties.

Of course that is not to say that there is no legitimacy to either side’s arguments, but that those need to be put aside once it has been decided that the way forward is together. Going forward together doesn’t necessarily mean in harmony, just in understanding. I believe this approach central to all conflict resolution.

---

[i] Frame Of Reference

Palestinian statehood, the UN, and the International Crisis Group « Thinking World Politics

This is a very well argued article which,while I don't agree with 100%, definitely believe it is worth considering

Palestinian statehood, the UN, and the International Crisis Group « Thinking World Politics

Israel’s Growing Isolation in the Middle East | PRI's The World

Israel’s Growing Isolation in the Middle East | PRI's The World

Gillard's insurance policy

Gillard's insurance policy

Gulf Times – Qatar’s top-selling English daily newspaper - Opinion

Gulf Times – Qatar’s top-selling English daily newspaper - Opinion

podcast.radionz.co.nz/mwatch/mwatch-20110724-0906-mediawatch_for_24_july_2011-048.mp3

Talk about conspiracy theories This is from NZ's media watch.
 podcast.radionz.co.nz/mwatch/mwatch-20110724-0906-mediawatch_for_24_july_2011-048.mp3

Israel"s palace coup plotters

I don't always agree with Caroline Glick, although I love reading her. This however is worth a read.

Israel"s palace coup plotters

Fame, not freedom, is the goal of the latest flotilla bound for Gaza

Fame, not freedom, is the goal of the latest flotilla bound for Gaza

Israel's new battlefield: Iranian submarines - Israel News, Ynetnews

An interesting perspective, not often thought about, on the result of the "Arab Spring", or is that the 'Long hot Summer"?

Israel's new battlefield: Iranian submarines - Israel News, Ynetnews

There will be no peace with the Palestinians - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

There will be no peace with the Palestinians - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

The Palestinian Spring? | Foreign Affairs

The Palestinian Spring? | Foreign Affairs

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 Tunisia.

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[i]

          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 has 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 arming the rebels. I believe that this is not covered legally by the mandate, which does not call for regime change. Arming the rebels is supporting 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 his 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.[ii] 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.” [iii]

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.

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.

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 2 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.

---

[i] Take from Ephraim Karsh

[ii][ii] http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/8821534/us-israel-will-soon-exit-middle-east-ahmadinejad/

[iii] Jerusalem Post- December 31, 110 Friday 3 Shevat 3871 0:40 IST

What if Arabs had recognized the State of Israel in 1948? - Arab News

This is written by a commodore in the Saudi Navy. Wow!

What if Arabs had recognized the State of Israel in 1948? - Arab News

Hamas digging ‘terror tunnels’ along border with Israel

The not so changing M-E

Hamas digging ‘terror tunnels’ along border with Israel

West Bank settlements are Israel's nuclear meltdown - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

The author of this piece, Ari Shavit, is in the cente of Israeli politics. Reality what a concept.

West Bank settlements are Israel's nuclear meltdown - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

West Bank settlements are Israel's nuclear meltdown - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

The author of this piece, Ari Shavit, is in the cente of Israeli politics. Reality what a concept.

West Bank settlements are Israel's nuclear meltdown - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Why the Middle East Is So Volatile

Efraim Karsh, professor and director of Mediterranean studies at King's College, University of London wrote this article in 2000, but it gives great insight and background into complexities of the Arab world.

Why the Middle East Is So Volatile

Who Lost Egypt: Not Obama for Sure - By Aaron David Miller | Foreign Policy

Well written and well thought out article

Who Lost Egypt: Not Obama for Sure - By Aaron David Miller | Foreign Policy

Stephen M. Walt | FOREIGN POLICY

This is brilliant. And this guy has been there and done that.

Stephen M. Walt | FOREIGN POLICY

Opinions the Huffington Post Doesn't Publish: Israeli Arab Speaks

Now this is controversial, but something that should be confronting for many westerners.

Opinions the Huffington Post Doesn't Publish: Israeli Arab Speaks

The West's back-flip over Egypt - Unleashed (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

This article encapsulates the Islamist approach to the events in Egypt. Should be worried. I would challenge the very loosely quoted figures in the article as all sources seem to be vague and old for that matter. The claim that the west is only interested in pushing its own interested are no doubt true, but no truer than Mr. Badar pushing the interests of the Islamist movement.

The West's back-flip over Egypt - Unleashed (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Israel News » Revolution in Egypt

Israel News » Revolution in Egypt

Voices from Israel

I hope you get to read my comment in reply to

Voices from Israel once it is approved by the blogges

Jewish Bloggers

Powered By Ringsurf

A Response from the Office of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu

A Response from the Office of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu

Hung and Dried

Well Australia has a hung parliament and may have multi-party government. Australia is in shock, interestingly enough, because most other democracies in the world has seen this happen more often than not. It has always been ridiculous to assume that 3 parties would cover the opinions of the whole electorate. We are after all a multi-cultural society.

Britain has also discovered that the less homogeneous the society, the less representative the two major parties. The more diverse the concerns and interests of the electorate means that it is more unlikely that the major parties will be able to satisfy them.

Each party’s election campaigns concentrated on the areas that they considered their strengths. These however were not necessarily the issues that voters were focused on.  The ETS and health were sidelined issues. Tax was the focus of the Liberals. Now I have been told that their campaign was effective, but it didn’t speak to me.

From the moment Abbot deposed Malcolm Turnbull, he started with his mantra of “ a big, bad tax”.  Having tired of the mantra^, most of their ads had no effect on me. Labour were defensive from the beginning, a problem that started with Kevin Rudd.  From the day Abbot deposed Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Liberal party, Rudd went on the defensive, apologising for a lot of things. He did this while enjoying high personal ratings and sensational public opinion polls. For some reason, a government that was legislating and acting with the support of the general public, imploded.

For this reason and not for any other, Kevin had to go.  Malcolm Turnbull proved to be a man of his word. He lost the Liberal leadership by one vote, because he didn’t vote himself. Abbot of course voted. He further enhanced his name by crossing the floor on the ETS, which only weeks earlier had been supported by over 50% of the Liberal party. Turnbull comes out all of this smelling of roses.

If I had any power within the Labour party I would be looking for new strategists. What a terrible job they did. For some reason when you see a party back pedal as much as the Labour party it is easy to buy into the opposition claim that they are failing as a government.

Of course getting rid of an incumbent Prime Minister through Partycide, is never good for a political party. Julia Gillard may have been the pawn of many lobby groups as claimed by the opposition, but has proven herself to be strong and capable over the campaign.

I personally find Abbot irritating and I’m sure many of his own party agree with me. He doesn’t seem to project anything that would encourage confidence him as a leader.

I love the fact that the fate of the country is in the hands of independents. It reminds me of Israel. The negotiations are the most interesting.  Ex- Country party  members representing communities with specific interests will decide who rules; and why not? I like the fact that they  take this responsibility and that they are open minded.

I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if they side with the Labour party based on the National Broadband plan.  This issue is enormous; it affects health, education, migration and city planning in rural areas.  The rollout plan of the Liberals fall far short of what is demanded by “Rural Australia” let alone “Outback Australia”.  National Broadband leads to better lives to those in the country. Not just by feeling less isolated, but also allowing access to immediate and interactive communication, country doctors can be helped by colleagues in the city or even overseas. It may also see Rural Australia becoming a much more attractive option for immigrants and even city-dwelling Australians.

Do I feel sorry for the investors in mining? No! Will they stop investing here if we whack on a “big new tax”? No! I don’t think anyone bought into the poor old billionaires plights. 

“Big new tax” vs no clear message from Labour except maybe, “beware Tony Abbot could be your PM” and neither had much affect on the elections. It came down to timing. The timing was wrong for the government. They got one thing right. Kevin Rudd had already turned into a political liability, but overthrowing a Prime Minister is rare. No one remembered that a few weeks earlier the leader of the opposition was replaced. We may well get a chance to rectify the stalemate in another election.

What fun!!

The Lure of the coffee shop

I am sitting in a trendy coffee shop on Balaclava Road in East St. Kilda at around lunch time. It is the last week of the school holidays and there is an eclectic group of people in and around.  I never thought I would say this, but the school kids definitely bring down the tone of the place.

Well positioned to watch the passing traffic as well as what’s going on in the coffee shop.  I am sitting at a long table that means it is not exclusive. A couple sit at the same table carrying on a conversation.  Old friends, catching up. She is obviously flirting; he is successfully avoiding her advances while trying to subtly to say no.

My mistake. They were no school children, but Israeli’s on holiday after the army; quiet but dour looking young men. I hope my son is a little more exuberant when he comes to visit. It is a visit I am looking forward to, but with some trepidation. I have not achieved much and what I have achieved, I’ve lost. Still a truism of parent/child relationships is that, it doesn’t matter what age you tend to fall back into the roles. Thankfully we have always had a very good relationship (I think).

I’m glad I took a seat by the window, because there is a lot more action going on out there. A couple of ladies further down the cafe speaking at full volume had been drowning out the music. I hope they start talking again soon.  Hey there goes a Rabbi I know.

 I popped out to speak to him and scored myself a lunch invitation, which brings me to the downside of this very pleasant way to pass an afternoon, the cost. Cafe owners have a vested interest in having computer users sit in their cafes. Firstly they are paying customers; albeit usually minimum payers, but they also give the impression that the place is full.

The woman who was trying to pick up the guy is now sitting next to me on her computer. Across the aisle another woman is working/playing on hers. There is a woman next to her who seems to feel left out so she splits her time between playing on her I-phone and leaning back to read the computer screen of her neighbour as she busily types.  How nosy and rude.

I guess it’s hard to come into a coffee shop by yourself without an “aide” to make it look like you have something to do. Still it’s strange that this woman has no shame. Of course little is she to know that I have been watching her.  

Does this mean I have no shame? Surely not!. I am an observer of human behaviour, a writer, an artist. Anyhow, that’s my excuse.

So why would this woman come an sit in a coffee shop by herself, what is the lure of the coffee shop? Of course, it’s a great place to meet people, but it is especially great for people watching. A sort of social zoo if you will; where you can watch people grazing and going through several phases of the mating ritual.

Fascinating stuff, however my big tip is find a place where you enjoy the coffee and they are not too pushy about getting you to order.

A dangerous silence

This op-piece by Ed Koch, former mayor of New York supports what I was trying to say in my previous post.
(Just click on the title)

A dangerous silence

Obama and Israel

In the lead up to the American election in 2008 one of the main accusations made by the Republicans was that Obama lacked both international and political experience.  Well he’s gaining the experience now, but at a cost. Obama is a visionary, but visions need to be put into action, that requires pragmatists. Pragmatists (as opposed to realists, which seems to be a boast more that a label) can say no, this won’t work and then work toward achieving something like what was wanted or next best thing.

Obama wanted to change America’s standing around the world. In Europe, that wasn’t difficult. Firstly, he wasn’t George. W and secondly the Europeans got caught up in the Romance of the Obama election victory.  They understood both how incredulous the victory was and what the social ramifications could be.

The Arab Middle East is not Europe;  and Middle Eastern politics is a completely different reality. The guy kissing you warmly on both cheeks is as likely to plotting your death as what to offer you to eat.  The modern political states are colonially imposed realities, and now Islam is quickly replacing Arabism as the major expression of self-identity across the region.

Would they like Obama because he is black and his father was a Muslim? Well the fact that his father was a Muslim works against him. His father‘s religion determines his religion according to Islam (and Christianity). He has therefore rejected the religion. Interestingly enough being black doesn’t work for him in an area where the blacks are openly seen as inferior. He was never going to be greeted as a folk hero, but was definitely seen as more amenable to the Arab voice.

Incidentally this amenability does not always generate a grateful reaction and can often be seen as a weakness. Promises for money, is easy money, because those promises are made in English for those people.  The American way of buying approval doesn’t work in the Middle East. Americans deal with the governments. These governments are largely distrusted by the people.  The Arab state that has a modicum of democracy is Lebanon and they are being held hostage by a terror organisation (as is the whole south of the country which had traditionally been the Christian part of the country).

After more than a year in power, Obama’s standing in the Arab countries has not changed. His obvious conclusion was that it must be because of the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict and more specifically Israel. He did not conclude that it might be because in that year in power not only has American not reduced its troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan, in fact the opposite. They have been increased.  Yet Obama seems to believe he has credibility. I suggest that Obama’s posturing has led the Arabs to surmise that they may be able to achieve much by sidling up to him. The question is, who will play who? The wilier side will.

For this reason Obama’s posturing on Israel and Iran has been particularly instructive.  The nuclear issue and Iran is one that is extremely worrying.  Almost 70 years ago a charismatic leader of a nation was seen as using hyperbole when saying he would wipe out the Jews, while flexing military muscle in direct contradiction to the terms of treaties that Germany had signed. As the Sudatenland fell, the world did nothing. 65 years later a charismatic leader of a nation makes the same claim about the Jews (using much of the same language in describing them), flexes his might by developing a nuclear weapon in contempt of the treaty to which it is a signatory. If he threatened to wipe out all Christians, or even infidels, the reaction would be very different. J ‘accuse. The world does not see the threat.

Does the blame lie with Israel, or has Israel been painted into a corner? A country that fits into Tasmania 3 ½ times with a population of 5 million surrounded on 3 sides with 22 Arab states with a combined population of about 200 million. With the West Bank in the hands of the Palestinian Authority, Israel is 14 kilometres across at its narrowest point. This is right across the centre of the country, between the West Bank town of Tulkarem and Israel’s fourth border, the Mediterranean Sea. This is a country that has faced 4 multi-front wars and 2 less-fronted wars, 2 intifadas, 1 war of attrition and ongoing war of attrition up to today, is expected to make concessions.

 Israel justifiably is a little worried about its security. No one else seems to be.  Obama called on Israel to halt all settlements on the West Bank, without defining the terms, or even checking what had been agreed upon in the past. That call was further than any Palestinian leader had gone since their recognition of Israel.  At best this was reckless and irresponsible and worst it could lead to armed conflict.  Hamas declaring an up scaling of its conflict with Israel and Fatah considering a new Intifadah, a sure indication that they feel they have public sympathy.  

An Israel, friendless, despite assurances this week commemorated Holocaust Memorial Day.  It is a  sharp reminder how the Jews were expendable.  This week coming Israel will commemorate Remembrance Day for its fallen soldiers immediately followed by its Independence Day.  All of these days interconnect not just historically, but more importantly they are interconnected in the collective Israeli psyche.

Can an Israel, with this psyche, attempt to bomb Iran nuclear plants?  Yes. Should they? Well, I just say, they shouldn’t have to.  To Obama I say do a bit of reading. Speak to people who know. You have people around you who have been there and done that. Dennis Ross is a good example.  I am sad to admit that after 1 year in power Obama has reduced the trust between the 2 countries to zero.

K-Rudderless.

In one of my previous posts I ridiculed the Liberal Party for choosing an unelectable Tony Abbot as its leader.  Now, although I still believe him ultimately unelectable, he is in there with a chance. Kevin Rudd has somehow managed to turn an imploding Liberal party into a united party by shooting himself in the foot, toe by toe. If he has a spin doctor, he should have his political allegiances’ checked. In this election year, several alarm bells should be going off for our leader.

Firstly, he comes across and still looks like and dresses like, teacher’s pet.  It is not the sort of character Australians necessarily warm to. However they were sick of the ‘class nerd’, Howard.  There is no doubt that Rudd is intelligent. We know he feels at home with diplomats and speaks Legalese, Diplomatese and fluent Chinese. His few attempts to be blokesy or folksy sounded so unnatural they were held up for ridicule It may be unfair, he may be a great guy, but I have to admit, I’d rather have a beer with Tony Abbot.  Even though I disagree with much of what he says and thinks, he comes across as someone you could have an interesting discussion with and not come out feeling like you were being condescended to.

Secondly, Rudd lacks a rudder. He seems to go where the media directs him. He has been reactive rather than pro-active.  Abbot came to power with a party seriously split. Forced to back down from a promise their previous leader had given on the ETS. More than 50% of Liberals supported the ETS. However, Abbot was allowed a Honeymoon period in which he managed to equate the ETS with a “Great Big New Tax on Everything”. There was no attempt to explain the ETS to the public as a response and therefore every Australian today can chant the mantra that the ETS is a Great Big New Tax. The eventual Liberal alternative plan was farcical, but never seized on by the government. It was never compared to the ETS to show that the opposite was in fact true. Liberal spin doctors managed to change the discussion to “Insulation-gate”. It was something that Rudd should have nipped in the bud and Garrett should have been the political collateral sooner rather than later.

The strange apology for not doing enough, or for not doing what he promised, or whatever it was for, left me dumbfounded. After a few days of niggling from the opposition the Prime Minister removed his foot from his mouth to replace it with the other.  It reinforced a feeling that Rudd reacts to his perception of the polls. The problem with public apologies is that they need to be backed up with public action.

The health plan seemed like a grab for headlines. If proposing a federal takeover from the states, the minimal amount of homework would have required him to check in with the states, especially since they are all Labour states.  The Education plan on the other hand, while coming under some criticism from Teachers Unions and schools, but seems to be accepted by the public at large. Perhaps because this is under the control of Julia Gillard who sounds like a Primary school Principal when speaking, or perhaps because she seems to be in control.

This should be Rudd’s third alarm bell. I am not familiar enough with the internal machination of the federal Labour party to know why Rudd holds the stick over Gillard, but I imagine that eventually that will become irrelevant. Rudd is clearly seen in the minds of most Australian as the visiting Australian Prime Minister, while Gillard is seen as Prime Minister of Australia.

The fourth alarm bell was fired off recently by the Liberal party calling for restricting immigration. This call was made on the basis that this year’s number of immigrants was unsustainable as a level of immigration.  I would challenge that fact, but that will be another post, but the obvious answer to that is that there is no data to support the assertion that this figure would be repeated. 

Australia is a country built on immigration. European migrants, who arrived as refugees after World War 2, would not be allowed into Australia under today’s laws.  We are part of a world treaty on refugees as well as many regional ones. We fulfil our obligations under those treaties. That has been true of Australian governments across the political spectrum since 1972.

Immigration should not be confused with the refugee issue. Immigration is the people that we allow in.  Having tried unsuccessfully to bring my wife and son to Australia, I know how difficult it is to immigrate to Australia. The business community were quick to condemn the Liberal policy, but guess what Kevin did. He seemingly backed the Liberals. I am also quite vary that this issue will explode into a race issue in the next election campaign.

Generally speaking Rudd is surrounded by very competent people. It is the redeeming factor of this government.  Gillard, Smith and the very versatile Junior Minister Greg Combet and Lindsay Tanner do their jobs and others.  Luckily for them, Tony Abbot will always be unelectable to some and raise a question mark with many others. He is backed by Julia Bishop who seems to like being deputy to everyone. Joe Hockey, likeable, but not seen to be in Abbot’s camp.

 A party that his healing, but still deeply wounded needs to be put to  the sword by a party in power that would win an election if held today. If I was Kevin I would introduce that great American value of bi-partisanship looking for cooperation outside of the usual committee room, cooperation for the benefit of Australia, thus diffusing the ability if the opposition to attack government policy and exploiting any splinters in the opposition.

My feeling is that Rudd is busy doing something, but doesn’t seem to control the country. He controls the party and shines at question time, where his condescending sarcasm is appreciated. I hope he can change that image or turn it over to the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard.

The Education Curriculum

The Federal government has decided to get more involved in our health and education system. The understood delineation in responsibilities between Federal and State governments has been that the federal government is responsible for things that affect Australia as a sovereign nation, like Defence and Immigration. However, by having Education and Health under State control, there is a problem of standardisation. Is a doctor from Queensland the same as a Doctor from Western Australia?  Is a matriculation in South Australia worth the same as Matriculation in Victoria?

Having worked in Education my whole working life, I feel qualified to at least have an opinion on the issue, as opposed to Health and hospitals, which I will not address in this article. So why is the federal government getting involved in Education?

Standardised tests in Numeracy and Literacy are given to all Grade 3, 5 and 7 across the country and this has led to standardised learning in certain areas. By standardising the rest of the curriculum we ensure that a student moving from one state to another will have no more problems that a student moving from one school to another as the learning material will be the same. That’s great.  How else does it help?

Australia has always been reactive in its policy rather than forward thinking. A shortage of manpower in a particular section of the economy will lead to an adjustment of emphasis in the education system. The effect of which is felt several year down the line.

After Australia largely ditched Technical schools almost a generation ago, we are in the midst of a ‘tradie’ crisis. This affects our immigration quotas as well. The good news for Australia is we no longer have a shortage of hairdressers, much to the chagrin of thousands of want to be migrants who were doing courses that would help their visa applications.

School was meant to prepare you for life and we once had PM who thought “Life wasn’t meant to be easy”.  Yes, back in the “good old days”, we were punished corporally and had to show respect to our elders, stand up on buses for them and for any adult for that matter. And you tell that to kids today and they just don’t believe ya! (with apologies to Monty Python).

Despite the buzzwords, transparency, multiple intelligences, heterogeneous learning and of course, differentiated curriculum, the curriculum is not going forward. It is returning to the past; but it is not going backwards. It is simply readjusting for the time and maybe even recognising some merit in the past way of thinking and teaching.

Grammar is going to be taught as part of English. As someone who has taught English overseas, I believe this is a really positive step. Yet it leaves a very daunting question. Who is going to teach it? Changing the curriculum is great, but the teachers are the ones that have to adapt; Much more so then the students.

Teachers, who have never learnt grammar at school or even during their tertiary education, are now expected to teach it. I’m sure there will be many teachers spending this year staying one lesson ahead of the students in certain areas.

Schools, being in control of their own budgets have been very busy hiring “graduate teachers” as opposed to experienced teachers; as every year experience adds to the teacher’s salary. They are now staffed with teachers teaching a curriculum that is foreign to them. 

Don’t get me wrong. I think the government is getting it right on education. The emphasis on creating a more transparent system, one that will prepare the student to meet the challenges of life in the 21^st century is a step in the right directions. There will be hiccups and quite a lot of pressure on teachers, who will more answerable to school, parents and ultimately their students, but striving to reach a national standard is positive.  It will be interesting to see if that is extended into high school. I believe a national matriculation would be a very positive step.

When I was at uni in the 70’s, competition was a dirty word. We’ve come a full circle since then. I also believe that without going overboard, competition is not unhealthy. The trick with competition is to maintain the competitive spirit and that will be the biggest challenge for the teachers; reign in the leaders and continue to motivate the other end of the spectrum. It’s a tough gig being a teacher.

Dubai and all that Stuff

The enigma that is middle - eastern politics and the middle - eastern mind-set make is so radically different to ours. Too often we apply western values and a western approach when trying to make sense of the middle - east and then find it difficult to understand what is happening. It’s too easy to say it’s a Jewish- Muslim thing. The Arab world and the Muslim world are anything but united.

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, the senior Hamas operative killed in Dubai was not a popular man. There were many that wanted him dead.  Israel, who claims that al-Mabhouh was involved in attaining high grade rockets to be smuggled into Gaza through Egypt, wanted him dead.  Interestingly Jordan and Egypt would want him dead for an extension of that same reason.

Anything that promotes Hamas bolsters the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan and Egypt, both secular, pseudo democratic, dictatorship. Egypt especially keeps the Muslim Brotherhood under the thumb, as they are seen as the biggest threat to the regime.

Fatah, the faction of Mahmoud Abbas, which was evicted from the Gaza strip by Hamas and even within Hamas, where there is a rivalry between the Gazans and those based in Damascus. Of course the other major player in anything untoward is Iran.

Iran who has its satellites, Syria and the Hezbullah controlled Lebanon sitting on Israel’s northern borders, continues to support Hamas, but begrudgingly. Hamas is a Sunni organisation and Iran is Shi’ite and that is usually enough reason to go to war. They are both Muslims, just like the Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland are both Christians.  They may need no other reason to do this, than implicate Israel and deflect pressure from the UN on their Nuclear Program. According to Dubai police 2 of the ‘hit team’ escaped to Iran; not a place Israelis like to go, as you can imagine.

With all the noise being created about this, it doesn’t seem like this man is going to be mourned by very many.  Did Israel do it? Quite probably. Did others do it do implicate Israel? Quite possibly. While the former is most likely, we can still entertain the latter.  Even the few mistakes by the Mossad have made have never been made on this scale. Is this reasonable doubt? In a court of law, I am sure it would be.

However the main story has been the use of passports. It seems that it would be rather foolish of Israel to use passports of real people and especially those of its own citizens that have dual citizenship. Israel is not a ‘stupid’ country. So many people, so many passports and so easily traced, strange. The only people to have been arrested so far are 2 Palestinians, even stranger.

For arguments sake, let’s say Israel did do it? Why is everyone so surprised that 3^rd country passports were used. In every spy movie I have ever seen, the spy opens his bag to reveal a swath of passports from many countries. I assume every spy agency does the same.

So why the shock and horror?  The use of passports of real people seems to be the deviation from espionage norms.  That is what most espionage agencies don’t do, that is probably the best argument for it not being Israel. Of course that then raises the question, how did the perpetrators get into the files of Israel’s interior ministry?

This has got to be worth a movie at least. 

Apprehensively welcoming the new decade.

We enter a new decade with a much greater sense of foreboding than on entering this millennium ten years ago. Of course the big worry then was the Y2K virus; which was going to shut down all the computers on the planet and end life as we know it. And when we needed it, “people”- kind came up with its greatest invention-: The IT guy!

There was the romance of the new millennium, the stupid argument over when the millennium really started and there were the doomsayers who were ready for it all to end. For most of us, though 2000 represented that titillating entity, the Future. It was the standard time set in all early Sci-Fi movies, for being the future. In no small part, because we had modelled inventions on those movies, we entered the millennium with having achieved many of the predictions. Only a few were wrong-: the cars don’t fly and the only people that wear spandex suits, ride bikes.

We were hip and technologically savvy back then, right? Well, maybe not as much as we remember. We used email, today referred to as gray mail, because only old people use it. Some people were still using tapes and cassettes in “Walkmans”, but most of us had “Discmans”. Well of course they are “Sooooo last century.” The first i-pod hit the markets in 2001 and changed the world significantly. We had chat programs and some even had webcam capabilities by 2000. Today the world chats on facebook and twitter and everyone is accessible 24/7.

Could it have been that long ago, when if someone didn’t answer their phone it meant you either had to try later or wait till you saw them. No mobile phones and not even answering machines. How did people do it?

In the latter part of the last century I had the pleasure of being part of a group of people trying to build a kibbutz ( a socialist, commune, farm – based community). Idealists all of us, trying to create a more just society. For the first 5 years I lived there, we had one phone for the whole community. True we were a little isolated and we felt a bit cut off, but socially this little community was alive. Every afternoon we would visit each other. If you stayed at home, people would drop in, if you went out, you would just knock on a door and wait for the invitation.

When phones were introduced we were excited, we could call each other. The interesting phenomena; however was the decrease in social activity. This was not necessarily because of more time spent on the phone either. The phone allowed you to decline visitors; something you couldn’t do if they were standing on your doorstep.

We talk about us being a global village, because all and everyone are accessible 24/7. If something is happening anywhere in the world, except in the most repressive of regimes, we know about it, can watch it and even chat to people on the ground. If we want to call a friend, we can page them or track them down at will.

However, as in the kibbutz scenario, this is not a more social world, just more connected. We can chat to people anywhere in the world, but we don’t sit around over coffee and cake/ wine and cheese/milk and cookies, and discuss. We can’t see the eyes of, nor detect the body language or other nuances of whomever we are conversing with. The less social we are, the less social we are able to be and the less we feel any obligation to participate. Participation can be restricted to random tokenism.

Today, as we enter this new decade, we face an ongoing Global Financial Crisis, likely Global warming and the growing threat of terrorism ( which at the risk of being politically incorrect) the growing threat of Islamism (please note the “ism” . I am not talking about Islam per se). Wars and economic recessions around the world are causing the largest flood of migration since the Vietnam War and maybe even since World War Two.

We live in a world where theoretically we can see each other and speak to each other. Do we though? I don’t think so. I think we observe and then we all make our judgements based on our own “frame of reference” (see first article on blog page). Does familiarity breed contempt? Maybe it does!

Humankind is standing on the edge of the ravine ready to dive in head first. What used to be the “free world” is looking decidedly unsure about its values. Huge waves of migration from Muslim countries have changed the demographic face of Europe. While still ostensibly Christian countries, the demographic is altering. This has led to the rise of the Right, most noticeably with two British National Party members being elected to the European parliament. The outcome is bound to be civil unrest. It is no mistake that Turkey is finding it impossible to get accepted into the European Union. Watch how Germany votes on this issue.

Nationalism and religion are set to set Europe ablaze and many of the western countries seem painfully unaware of how their bowing to the “prevailing” winds, has left them with no credibility. It is interestingly the former Eastern bloc countries that can “Call it as it is”, because they have not being targeted by immigrants and need not pander to any ethnic group in deciding a stance. They truly appreciate the freedom that is offered by being aligned to the West.

Ask any of my former students. I told them in 1997, when I worked it out, and I was still telling them last year-: Following cycles of the last 120 years, I predicted a financial collapse in 2012 ( I could have been wrong, or the worst is yet to come) and World War Three in 2015, which will largely be fought on religious grounds. We are constantly reminded that those who do not learn the lessons of history, are bound to repeat it. Of course the Catch 22 here is that the more something fades into history the less it is considered important.

I would love to finish on an optimistic note. I don’t know if I can, but maybe on a reassuring note. As a species we are survivors and we will survive. It is our most basic instinct. But unlike many other creatures, the human baby has no innate survival mode other than crying. It cannot survive if left alone. This is true, even at quite an advanced stage of motor skills acquisition. We rely on others to survive. We can’t do it by ourselves.

We need other people so that we can survive. That is a truism for us as individuals, nations and a planet. If we take that truism to heart, then maybe we will have cause for optimism

I wish all of my readers well over the Holiday period and a happy, healthy and successful 2010.

Liberal Party Suicide

Tony Abbot, the ‘mad monk’, ‘Captain Catholic’, the man who during the last elections verbally attacked asbestos cancer campaigner while he lay on his death bed, is to replace Malcolm Turnbull as leader of Liberal Party. His one vote coup managed on the back of a double sided fear, the fear of what any ETS scheme would do to business (this despite having negotiated all the amendments they had demanded) and secondly of making K-Rudd look good in Copenhagen.

Interestingly the vote was brought about on the grounds that Turnbull was ignoring the party’s voice. The party voted last Monday by 8 votes to pass the ETS and vote with the government. So who exactly was ignoring the voice of the party? What was clear however was that the Liberal Party today is a fractured, dysfunctional party. It is being held hostage by the ideological right; the same group that was decimated in the last election. A group that is so sure that it is right, it ignores public opinion and prior commitments in order to prevail.

A vote against the ETS in the senate will allow K-Rudd to call for a double dissolution in early 2010. The Liberals can try all they like to look united under a man who is largely considered unelectable, even within the party. Their “street-cred”, much like their leader’s, will be zero. The Liberals are staring into an abyss of 10- 15 years in opposition if they are decimated in the election and Labour gain control of both houses.

Credibility was a trademark of Turnbull, whether you liked him or not. He gained “street-cred” with the Republican campaign and I believe he will have gained even more over his stand on climate change. A stand he first made as Minister for the Environment. Unfortunately , people will say he joined the wrong party. I would argue his party was hi-jacked.

It won’t take much for Labour to capitalise on Abbott, who usually finds that if he put another foot in his mouth he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Abbott will not be able to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the public, without doing another 180 degree turn in stated policy. I would argue that words that come out of Tony Abbott’s mouth are totally meaningless.

One group that will benefit from today’s vote is Stand-up comedians. At least we can then get a laugh out of it too!

Saving the World

Mayan civilisation, one of the greatest in history, should be our first point of understanding when looking at the today’s global crisis. Today’s crisis is economic, or environmental, or it is political, depending on your own particular frame of reference. So why start with the Mayans? Their amazing society was agriculture based, but grew cities that demanded engineering still marvelled at today. As they grew richer and bigger, the rulers built even bigger temples to the gods that had been so good to them. To build these cities and temples, the forest had to be ravaged and the ground broken. The cities overtook the food sources. The starving people rioted and burnt the cities to the ground.

Empire after empire has fallen, from the early Babylonians, Hatites and Greeks to the British, the Communists and now maybe the Americans. Each empire believed that its way of life was the right way of life and that it was an exportable and teachable commodity. That enlightening the unenlightened will be enough to transpose values and gain acceptance. Like Mayan civilisation the growth of Empire usually was economy driven, it a rush for resources, materials and possible cheap labour (out-sourcing is not a new concept). The need for more, overstretching either sustainability or the ability to defend itself or simply maintain order.

For all sorts of reasons we (mankind) are a civilisation that has continued to take from the source without worrying about consequences. It is irrelevant whether you buy into the climate change argument or not ( I personally do), by2050 we will be living on stockpiles of fossil fuels but our known resources will have disappeared.

When the price of oil went up late last year, the price of food almost doubled. Farmers are no less dependent on fuel than the rest of us. So what will happen when we run out of fuel? Do we just stop living?

We have to change our lifestyles now, we have to create electric cars. Green industries will be the new dot coms. We have to expand our ability to utilise renewable energy as well as explore ways of making nuclear energy cleaner and safer.

So yes the ETS scheme we are presented with in Australia is a political document that buys into climate change, its proposals are about maintaining our lifestyles and our world. It is about saving our world. It makes sense on every level except by those who have a knee jerk reaction against the words, ‘climate change’.

Today we are a global community with global responsibilities, but we can still play our political games. China Is investing enormous amounts of money in developing a viable, marketable electric car, because it believes it will be an economic winner. Green is the way of the future and they know it. They are also aware of the massive pollution problem they have. It should not go unnoted that in recent weeks, these leading up to Copenhagen, both China and India have made noises about curbing carbon emissions.

If you don’t believe in climate change (it’s your right) you must still realise that our only way forward is through a greener future. LET’S SAVE THE WORLD.

The Nobel Peace Prize for.....

The Nobel Peace Prize for ….....

The shackles of the Church state, broken by a period we refer to as the 'Enlightenment', a period of philosophers who saw man as the end game and what we did here on Earth relevant to the here and now, rather than to some hereafter (although that was not discounted). Different schools of philosophers approached things differently, the rights of man, the role of religion and God in society. Some went so far as to declare God dead in so far as influencing how we are ruled. The Church lost its role as 'the' power-broker (although maintained its vast lands fortunes) and ultimately control of the military. Nationalism replaced religion. This of course, did not reduce the risk of war, but did allow society to develop differently.

Could it be that the philosophers totally overestimated mankind. It seems that if the 20^th Century saw a massive turn away from religion, the 21^st Century is seeing that trend reversed at an alarming rate and level. Islam is on the rise and promoting itself as the working man's religion, fighting for the underdog. The Church and Judaism especially, who have always seen themselves as the underdog, or at least in that corner, are being painted as the schoolyard bullies.

Europe is behaving like it has gone through therapy, accepting that it had been a bully in the past and going round giving out lollies to all of its perceived victims.

But the victims are playing a game. They put their hand out take the lolly, then kick you in the shin, so hard as to break your leg and runaway, saying they felt threatened by you, because of the past. They do this repeatedly. Luckily there is no shortage of people that want to keep supplying lollies in the “knowledge” that this behaviour was their fault initially.

Today, while we still see value in separation of church and state, radical elements in Islam are calling for exactly the opposite; Shariah law states, like Iran or like Afghanistan was. They want a Calipher through the middle east and Africa and Israel (which fits into Tasmania 3 times) is like a splinter in that vision. It is why non-Muslims in Africa and throughout the middle- east are under threat.

Islam does not see itself as one of the three monotheistic religions. It sees itself as 'the' religion, having superseded both Judaism and Christianity. However, as opposed to other religions, Jews and Christians are seen as 'Children of the book' and therefore, not infidels (depending on who is ranting at the time).

The reaction of the west to what is going on has largely been a return to religion for solace and guidance. In a mainly Christian west, this means turning the other cheek and asking for forgiveness. Of course today's understanding of those words are very different to what was meant. Yet it was the nationalism and philosophy of democracy and 'the rights of man' that have given us the moral guidance and the fortitude to protect what is ours. We should not be doubting the rightness of our way of life.

Interesting lines are drawn in the sand. When then is it okay to interfere in someone else's domestic affairs? Everyone wants to talk about what is happening in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but what about Sudan,Chad,Nigeria,Afghanistan, India and Bali, just to name a few. If you know of cases of domestic violence, do you report it to the police or let everything sort itself out? If you suspect domestic violence what are your responsibilities? The truth is we let it go by most of the time, because it doesn't concern us.

But it does concern us! Everything concerns us. It is after all a global village now. We do have the right to pass moral judgement and feel confident enough to say, while sorry for the past we will not let that interfere with our world view. Of course conciliation is preferable to confrontation; however it requires goodwill from both sides of the table. Naivety led Chamberlain to announce “Peace in our times”!

President Obama could possibly go on and prove a worthy recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize that seems to be based on intentions and therefore, of which I am no less deserving. Iran is a huge test case for this President and his adversary in Ahmedinajad is a wily man. He sees the west as naïve and I am sure he sees Obama that way.

I hope he is very wrong.