Recent Middle East Articles
Why Britain should play an active part in arming Syrian rebels
If the UK government is considering arming Syrian rebels, it should also consider embedding British personnel with rebel forces.
This arms supply method was developed by Fitzroy MacLean in his dealings with the Partisans in WW2. It is accounted for in MacLean’s famous book Eastern Approaches.
The reason for embedding personnel, with our equipment, is partly that we can then be sure who is using our arms, but also in order that we have a relationship and an influence, both now and in post-conflict Syria.
In WW2 the Balkans were just as bloody as Syria is right now, if not more. Whole villages were executed as Nazi punishments. Engaging the Partisans, MacLean would often dissuade them from responding in kind. “A modern country would not do that kind of thing.”
He was reminding them that after the war they would be expected to join the international community, as a nation, not a barbarous tribe. MacLean probably averted a considerable number of massacres and atrocities, but he was only able to do so because he was present.
British influence, of this kind, would be felt by the Syrian rebels, if we were arming and amongst them.
Most of the reports concerning the character of the rebels comes from Turkish and American intelligence in Syria. The problem with this intelligence is not that it is wrong, but that it paints a picture of the rebels unaffected by a relationship with us. They long ago gave up on the west as allies. We have little influence, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar has considerable clout.
My point in describing the MacLean system is to draw attention to the humanitarian benefits, which cannot be replicate by sitting on the sidelines and saying “Nothing to do with us. We’re not responsible.”
Do we achieve innocence through inaction? If a man is drowning and we stand by and watch, are we not responsible for his death, due to our lack of action? If a doctor watches a man die, knowing that the medicine in his bag which could save him, has that doctor done nothing wrong, by his inaction, of has he killed the man by his failure to act?
If the rebels demonstrate themselves as barbarous, while under the influence of the Saudis, are we not at least partly responsible, by our refusal to enter and engage?
By embedding our personnel, we can pick and choose which militia can use our technology.
We can encourage talks and cooperation between factions, acting as honest broker. We can influence a peaceful outcome and avert further tragedy. That is the type of player we should be.
Meet Israel’s new, supposedly ‘left-wing’, governing coalition
Immediately following Israel’s election in January, some Israel lobbyists spun the results as representing a victory for the so-called ‘centre’ or even ‘centre-left’.
Now an Israeli government has finally been formed, let’s take a look at some of the views represented in the new cabinet:
Trade and Economics Minister Naftali Bennett supports the annexation of most of the occupied West Bank (he’s not the only member of the cabinet with this position).
Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon has said that “the Palestinian threat harbours cancer-like attributes”. The track record of his deputy minister includes a proposal for obtaining an ID card to be conditional on a declaration of loyalty to the state.
Another minister, Uri Orbach, wrote in a national newspaper in 2008 that “we, the Jews, have no intention to commit suicide and lose our Jewish State in the name of our democratic values.”
Minister Yair Shamir’s views on the West Bank: “The Arabs there who call themselves Palestinian, they’ll stay or go, but we’ll definitely stay. We need to keep building in the land.”
Minister Yuval Steinitz has previously backed legislation denying citizenship to Palestinian spouses in order to protect the “demographic balance.”
Those are just a few examples. In addition, note that the new speaker of the Knesset, Yuli Edelstein, is a West Bank settler who believes the Arabs are a “damaged nation”. Which isn’t so bad compared with the Knesset’s deputy speaker, Moshe Feiglin, who was banned from entering Britain in 2008.
Remember the response of the EU to the participation in Austria’s ruling coalition of Jorg Haider’s Freedom Party? Or the current justified anger at what is happening in Hungary? So why should an Israeli government of racist, international-law defying ministers be exempt from diplomatic isolation and other appropriate measures?
The Pro-Palestine protests ARE standing up for free speech
by Josiah Mortimer
Though billed as a ‘public’ event, Thursday’s controversial visit to the University of York by the Deputy Ambassador of Israel was anything but. Open to only students and staff, the lecture, ‘Israel and the situation in the Middle East’, was announced less than a week before the event itself, with the location itself given just a couple of days before.
So, contrary to Matt Hill’s analysis on this site, it was in the spirit of free speech that campaigners decided to protest.
The protest was lively, peaceful and upbeat, and never had the intention of shutting down the lecture. Instead, the aim of the dozens there was to ensure the Palestinian’s side of the story was heard, a perspective almost never heard in mainstream media debates or in lecture halls across the country.
Indeed, if the Israeli and the Palestinian causes were given equal treatment, there would be no need last week’s protest. But given no platform to debate with Roth-Snir, we created a platform to ensure the reality was heard – that over half of Palestinians are refugees, that Israel’s 230 illegal settlements devastate the livelihoods of millions of poor Palestinians, and that Gaza is still recovering from last November’s siege by Israel, which resulted in the deaths of 158 Palestinians, many of whom were children.
The true purpose behind the ambassadorial university visits over the past few months has been anything but transparent.
A University of York statement said the Deputy Ambassador “wasn’t invited. The Embassy contacted the University and asked if a representative could speak”. Since Operation Pillar of Defence – the 2012 War on Gaza – Alon Roth-Snir has been touring campuses – the last being the University of Essex, where students there too stood up to attempts to legitimise serious war crimes.
The Deputy Ambassador visits are never debates, are announced at late notice – self-invited – and there is no opportunity for Palestinians’ voices to be heard. The Palestinian Solidarity protest, then, was fundamentally a free speech issue.
Far from a desperate need “for supporters of the Palestinians to take a principled stand against attempts to silence advocates of Israel”, as Hill claims, there’s a much more urgent need for Palestinian supporters to take a stand against the gross freedom of speech violations Israel conducts, and its Ambassadors defend – the more than 4000 political prisoners – including nearly 30 Palestinian MPs, the penalisation of boycott supporters, and the victimisation of pro-Palestinian academics in Israeli universities, among countless more examples.
Pro-Palestinian activists wholly welcome debating with defenders of Israel’s actions. But the Deputy Ambassador’s campus visits come to put forward one side of the story, with little opportunity – save a few token questions – for engagement.
—
Josiah York is from University of York Palestinian Solidarity Society, and one of the main organisers of the protest.
Pro-Palestinian activists are wrong to shut down debates by pro-Israelis
Last night pro-Palestinian activists tried to disrupt a lecture by Israel’s deputy ambassador to the UK, Alan Roth-Snir, at the University of York. According to a student newspaper, protestors from the University of York Palestinian Solidarity Society tried to break in to the hall where Roth-Snir was speaking, but were prevented by police.
And last month a talk by Roth-Snir at the University of Essex had to be cancelled, after protestors pushed their way into the lecture hall and drowned him out with chanting.
The incidents seem to be part of a coordinated attempt to prevent Israeli officials from speaking at university campuses in the UK. Protestors have been egged on by anti-Zionist activists like Ben White on Twitter.
Ironically, the protestors have justified their actions on the grounds of free speech, with one saying: ‘The university has argued that this is a case for freedom of speech. What we are concerned about is the freedom of speech and other human rights of the Palestinian people.’
For those in need of a recap, ‘free speech’ is supposed to apply to all kinds of views, not just those you agree with.
Free speech also covers the right to protest, of course. Which is why demonstrators are within their rights to protest a university’s decision to invite Israel’s deputy ambassador to speak, or its failure to invite a representative of the Palestinians. They are also within their rights to protest Israel’s policies in the West Bank, its obstruction of the peace process, or anything else they oppose.
But it’s time for supporters of the Palestinians to take a principled stand against attempts to silence advocates of Israel.
When pro-Israeli groups in the US tried to stop a talk by pro-Palestinian writer Judith Butler from taking place at Brooklyn College last month, their efforts sparked justified outrage. And significantly, some of the strongest condemnations of attempts to censor the talk came from those who stated their opposition to Butler’s views while supporting her right to be heard.
There’s a growing trend, on both sides of the Israel-Palestine debate, to try and silence the other side by presenting its views as not merely wrong but illegitimate.
So here’s a radical idea for those of us who support Palestinian liberation. When we encounter views we oppose, how about countering them with reasoned debate rather than shouting them down?
George Galloway’s hypocrisy in boycotting an Israeli in debate
I’m not sure there’s an awful lot to say about George Galloway’s astonishingly stupid decision to storm out of a debate at Oxford University when he discovered his opponent was an Israeli.
Not an Israeli government official, mind you. Not a spokesperson for the regime or a paid functionary of the occupation. Just a young man, called Eylon Aslan-Levy, with an Israeli passport and uncongenial views.
When challenged about his behaviour on Twitter, Galloway replied: ‘No recognition of Israel. No normalisation. Christ Church never informed us the debate would be with an Israeli. Simple.’
Galloway’s words echo the mantra of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Whether or not you agree with the aims or tactics of that campaign (and pro-Palestinian activists like Norman Finkelstein have criticised it heavily) it’s worth noting that BDS calls for boycotting ‘products and companies (Israeli and international) that profit from the violation of Palestinian rights, as well as Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions’.
By personally extending the boycott to include anyone of Israeli nationality, Galloway has taken it to an extreme that is as baffling as it is nasty.
The irony is that when Galloway is criticised for travelling to Iraq in 1994 to salute Saddam’s Hussein’s ‘courage’, ‘strength’ and ‘indefatigability’, he claims, falsely, that he was addressing the Iraqi nation – and says his critics should be able to see the difference between the people and the regime.
It’s odd that Galloway is so keen on this distinction when praising a blood-stained dictator, but seems unable to make it in the case of a young student at a university debate.
But it long ago became clear that Galloway is prepared to discredit everything he claims to stand for in order to advance his one true cause: himself.
The current sanctions against Iran are an utter failure and only hurt the people
by Luke Watson
As long ago as 2007, US diplomats were entertaining thoughts about dealing directly with the Iranian people, professing admiration for Iranian history and culture, and expressing a sincere desire to have a thriving and mutually beneficial relationship.
The current sanctions are widely held to target the people not the government and do little to hamper Iran’s ability to import fuel and other resources. The net result is that they have helped Ahmadinejad unite his people to resist intrusive US actions against its nuclear program.
The Iranian regime is relatively immune to sanctions and indeed may benefit from them by using them to engender something of a siege mentality amongst the population. During the Salman Rushdie affair, many argued for greater trade relations with Iran rather than the opposite.
Difficult as it was to make the case for dealing with a regime purportedly prepared to kill a British novelist, it was soon understood that the offer of improved trade relations with Iran would serve to increase economic cooperation between both countries, to the extent that Iranian dependence would prevent hardliners from jeopardising bilateral relations.
It is a strategy which would likely prove beneficial – it would at a stroke demonstrate our commitment to improved relations with Iran, and help to nurture the very middle class entrepreneurial spirit that would challenge Ahmadinejad’s supporters.
Ending embargoes would have benefits in many areas: they would remove the ability of right wing groups such as the IRGC to profit from the black market in hard-to-find goods. It would open the Iranian market to foreign companies, thus engendering a reduction in IRGC monopolies, and it would encourage the development of an emerging middle class which is traditionally closely allied to the presently restrained democratic movement.
Economic and business contacts would give the Iranian regime something to lose, and would be a motivation for continued good relations, and for further reforms.
The West’s reliance on confrontational and punitive rhetoric, rather than more constructive attempts to understand Iran and distinguish between the state and the nation, fails to take account of the complexities it represents. Britain and the West need to free Iran from ‘rogue’ status and come up with a better ‘idea of Iran’.
As Tam Dalyell put it some years ago, ‘The demonising of Iran should be something of the past […] the more locked in we are in commercial relations, the harder it will be for the hardliners to wreck relations’. Labelling Iran as ‘rogue’ and part of an ‘axis of evil’ demonstrably unites the population behind the leadership in defending Iran’s reputation.
In turn, punitive trade sanctions give Iran nothing to lose and serve only to strengthen the hand of the hardliners in the regime. If we continue to punish and to alienate the Iranian government with suggestions of an ‘Axis of Evil’ and the like, we risk strengthening the hand of the neo-conservative proponents of arbitrary rule.
We need to recognise the willingness of much of the population, and sectors within the polity, to pursue a path towards becoming a legitimate member of the international community.
—
Luke Watson tweets from here: @WatsonPolitics
The Iraq War protests had huge impact – don’t let anyone tell you otherwise
by Chris Doyle
Back in February 2003, a BBC producer invited me for an interview on Iraq. What were my views? My attempts at nuance were brought to a grinding halt and I was offered an unappealing choice: “Listen, do you support George Bush or George Galloway?”
I responded, “How about George Clooney?” Never having been a disciple of either of the ‘Georges’ meant that the BBC rescinded the invitation to be interviewed. Amazingly, opposing both Saddam Hussein’s regime and the proposed war did not fit the required narrative.
Most British Muslims and Arabs I have spoken to see the 15 February 2003 protests only in terms of failure. They argue that the protests did not stop Blair and Britain still went to war. Many even ask, “What sort of democracy are we living in when a government can ignore such huge opposition?”
But that is not the whole story.
Firstly there was a huge impact on the British establishment.
It was never likely that a determined Prime Minister with a majority of 165 and the support of the main opposition party was going to concede, yet arguably one more Cabinet resignation would have forced Blair to step down. It was that close.
I am certain that when Blair started envisioning and planning a war on Iraq he did not expect such a backlash, such opposition and ultimately such personal hostility towards him. He had fought many other wars with little impact on his personal standing and prestige.
Blair’s eventual resignation was largely brought about by his failure in Iraq having lost the confidence of so many of his colleagues. He may never recover his reputation – extraordinary for a man who won three consecutive general elections.
As a result, subsequent leaders have been more reluctant to be seen as gung ho and interventionist. It will be in the minds of any leader considering intervention in Syria and Iran. Over Mali, it is noticeable how nervous ministers are about any deployment of UK forces.
Secondly, the criteria for British involvement in future conflicts have changed. There is much clearer preference for getting UN Security Council backing, as in Libya, and for ensuring that there are solid legal grounds for action. In addition there is a far greater suspicion of untested intelligence and relying solely on that for intervention.
Any intelligence-based report on Iran is met with acute scepticism. It has even been argued that an aversion to foreign interventions has gone too far and that perhaps for example, there should have been humanitarian intervention in Darfur.
Aside from the policy impact, what about the protesters? A global movement was effectively created, with protests in around 60 countries. Three million people marched in Rome alone, a world record. This global movement revealed a new conscience about international affairs. In Britain, the British Muslim and Arab communities for the first time marched side by side with all other parts of British society.
But there are lessons to be learnt from these protests. As a lobbyist, I was painfully aware of how few demonstrators had actively engaged their MP. To this day when asked by those still depressed about the Iraq war, I counter with the question: “Did you write to your MP or seek to meet them? Did you write to the Prime Minister? Did you write to newspapers?” Imagine if Tony Blair had had a million hand-written letters!
Finally, the other great failure of the anti-war protests was not to speak out more clearly about the evils of Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was a vile genocidal power with whom the West should never have dealt and should never have armed.
Many MPs told me that they had concerns about the plans for war but were nervous of being linked in any way with Galloway. They wanted the comfort of more ‘reasonable’ figures to ally with. Events in the Middle East should rarely be depicted and debated in such black and white terms much as the media may prefer it. Choosing between the two Georges should not be the only option.
—
Chris Doyle is Director of @Caabu (Council for Arab-British Understanding).
Why is there no backlash when Benjamin Netanyahu focuses on “the Jews”?
by Steven Hynd
Last week I criticised the Liberal Democrat MP David Ward for his sloppy, unhelpful and inaccurate use of terminology.
This week it is my turn to attack the Israeli Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu for remarkably similar sloppy, unhelpful and inaccurate terminology.
In short, I criticised Ward for using “language to suggest that all Jews were responsible for the crimes that are being committed by the state of Israel”.
In Sunday’s Observer, Netanyahu was quoted as saying, “The Jewish people, [who have] suffered boycotts and persecution, should be a light unto other nations”.
On the flip side of Ward’s comments sits the equally ludicrous assertion that ‘Jews’ in their entirety should be “a light unto other nations” because they have “suffered”. This is a big conceptual leap that needs to be challenged. Why would suffering lead to an expectation for all Jews to “be a light” or (as Ward suggests) to “have learnt lessons”.
Those who spend their days defending Israel and everything associated with it might well jump to Netanyahu’s defence saying that his comments were not an attack on Jews the same way Ward’s were. Different context, different sentiment, and so different conclusions they would argue.
However, I would argue that Netanyahu’s comments are unhelpful in a comparable way to Ward’s.
Netanyahu (inadvertently) plays into a collective absolutist discourse of ‘The Jews’. This is the same discourse that is used by anti-Semites to attack ‘Jews’ regardless of religion, politics or other affiliations. It is fundamentally a crass discourse that fails to celebrate the diversity within the Jewish population.
Netanyahu’s comments are based on an idea that ‘the Jews’ have some sort of special role to play because of their history.
Imagine, two boys growing up in London – one Jewish, one not. I wonder if Netanyahu could explain to me why the Jewish one should be ‘shining a light’ while he doesn’t expect the non-Jewish one to be?
Just as I asked Ward “what does he want us to learn [from the Holocaust] that is applicable to the current situation in the occupied territories” so I have to ask Netanyahu – what does he think ‘The Jews’ should have learnt from ‘persecution’ that would lead them (collectively – all 13 million of them) to be a ‘light unto other nations’?
It might seem like an obvious thing to write, but I am astonished how often it is missed. ‘Jews’ in their entirety are no more perfect or evil than any other group that so messily brings together thousands of years of history, culture and religion.
This acknowledgement is the basis on which to pull the rug out from under the anti-Semites feet. It doesn’t help if Netanyahu is firmly stood on the same rug.
—
Cross-posted from Steve Hynd’s blog
Why are LFI working against a two-state solution?
This week the foreign secretary William Hague announced in FCO questions that the two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine is slipping away, largely as a result of settlement construction.
He also talked about exploring “incentives and disincentives” to settlement construction, but failed to elaborate on what these might be.
Meanwhile, as Israelis went to the polls to elect their next parliament, the UK’s largest pro-Israel lobby group BICOM (Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre) hosted an election night party for the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem Friends of Israel at Skyloft in Millbank tower.
Organisers of the event were publicising the Israeli company SodaStream (a fizzy drinks makers), having the company’s carbonators on hand to provide soft drinks. Sodastream was name-checked by Israeli Ambassador Daniel Taub from the platform and BICOM was thanked for promoting a great Israeli export.
Except that Sodastream’s ‘principal manufacturing facility’ is located in Mishor Adumim, which is the industrial zone of one of the largest illegal settlements on the West Bank, Ma’ale Adumim.
Last October, 22 European NGOs published a report on the effects of settlement construction on the Palestinian economy and prospects for statehood.
That report included a section on Sodastream and how it pays taxes directly back into the settlement enterprise and intentionally mislabels its products ‘Made in Israel’.
BICOM has form on not caring a great deal about illegal settlement construction on the Palestinian West Bank. They have repeatedly played down the importance of settlements in articles on their site and at the Telegraph and Huffington Post.
Furthemore, BICOM’s Chairman and primary funder, Poju Zabludowicz has significant investments in a mall in Ma’ale Adumim settlement – and has property on the West Bank himself.
But Labour Friends of Israel prides itself on the slogan “working towards a two-state solution”.
So how can anyone claim to be working towards a two-state solution in Israel while supporting the very settler economy which makes such a solution impossible? Labour Friends of Israel are contributing towards greater instability in the region with such alliances.
Why the rise of Asian countries poses a deep problem for Israel
by Jonathan Kent
Ten years ago I watched Malaysia’s then Prime Minister deliver a speech to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference that was intended to be his swansong but ended up sending him off in a storm of controversy.
Mahathir Mohammad observed that fifty years of fighting had won the Palestinians nothing, whereas the pro-Israel lobby had won the country powerful friends and invaluable backing.
But then he went on: “The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”
As soon as Western reporters heard blanket references to ‘The Jews’ ruling the world it was game over in the international media. The echoes of thirties fascist rhetoric were too strong. Yet, in the hall, there was almost universal acceptance of Mahathir’s characterisation of the influence of ‘The Jews’.
I was reminded of the speech because with Israel poised to elect a government even more right wing than the last it’s clear it has an emerging dilemma.
For the last sixty five years Europe’s collective guilt, not just over the holocaust but over 800 years of often virulent anti-Semitism, has bolstered support for the state of Israel.
Sections of the pro-Israel lobby have become quite adept at conflating criticism of the Israeli authorities with anti-Semitism, often enraging those on the European left who want to see Israel thrive but who also want redress for the Palestinians.
But as the world’s power centre shifts Eastwards during the 21st Century it simply won’t be possible to play that card to any great effect. There is simply an almost complete absence of sensitivity in Asia, and not just amongst Muslims, to Jewish history. As Mahathir observed, the holocaust wasn’t an Asian problem, it was a European problem.
The unquestioning anti-Semitism that I found infecting Malaysia (the main ruling UMNO party sold copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its bookshop) developed in a cultural and historical vacuum; there is, to all intents and purposes, no Jewish community in Malaysia. With no one to challenge the craziness the craziness gets accepted unthinkingly. It wasn’t just Muslims who bought into the ‘Jews ruling the world’ line – it was parroted by ethnic Chinese Buddhists, ethnic Tamil Hindus and Christians of all backgrounds just as readily.
When, in the decades to come, decisions are taken in Beijing and Delhi on Middle East policy they’ll be taken for purely pragmatic reasons. There will be none of the sense of history and responsibility felt in Europe or America.
China and India may well take Israel’s side, but if they do so it’ll be because it suits their national interests. And if their political leaders find themselves having to take sides in an intractable stand-off between Israel and the Palestinians they may see a choice between being friends with 8 million Israelis or with 1.5 Billion Muslims because it may not be possible to be friends with both.
And, should either of those rising superpowers decide that Israel’s interests conflict with their own, charges of anti-Semitism will neither register, nor influence matters one iota. Nor will protestations that Israel is a democratic island in an autocratic sea.
The pro-Israel lobby is going to have rethink and seek a solution to its current situation that will withstand the shifting sands of global power.
—
Jonathan Kent blogs at: Land of Oak and Iron
35 Comments
48 Comments
21 Comments
49 Comments
4 Comments14 Comments
27 Comments
16 Comments34 Comments
65 Comments
36 Comments
17 Comments1 Comment
19 Comments
46 Comments
53 Comments
64 Comments
28 Comments
12 Comments5 CommentsNEWS ARTICLES ARCHIVE