Has A Deal Been Done?

If the explosions in Iran yesterday are the Israeli response to the Iranian attack on Israel it is ominous for the population of Gaza.

The response is uncharacteristically limited. It raises the question of whether a deal has been done with the US providing a green light for a ground invasion of Rafa in return for a limited response to the missile attack by Iran.

If that proves to be the case it will be a perfidious betrayal of the interests of Palestinian civilians. But if, as expected it leads to a blood bath it will further undermine the credibility of Israel’s claims for moral authority and that of their ally the United States.

This is not good for anyone but, as always, innocent Palestinian men women and children will pay with their lives.

Changing the Middle East

The mediaeval barbarism of 7 October 2023 was cruelly twisted to secure maximum terroristic effect by having its atrocities filmed and then made available to the world, and thus despicably, to the victim’s relatives. Horror shows of murder, mutilation and abduction displaying a disregard for human life and revealing a visceral loathing for Jews.

It is not surprising that this action would instil fear in a nation built to protect its Jewish citizens from precisely this kind of merciless and violent persecution. Something Jews have experienced over the centuries culminating in Hitler’s effort to annihilate them in an industrial attempt at genocide.

Given all this, a strong, not to say fierce, response from the Israeli Government via the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) was inevitable. Actions to defend Israel and secure retribution against the perpetrators was and is justified. Securing some justice for the innocent victims and recovering the hostages was and remains a justifiable goal. However, the scale and the nature of the response has raised questions and concerns from the start which have only deepened and multiplied over time.

Following the attack, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that Israel was at war with Hamas and it would not end until the group was completely eliminated from Gaza and the safety of Israel was secured.

The United States quickly got behind this goal followed by the UK and a range of other Western nations. This was seen as a war against a terrorist organisation which had carried out a 9/11 type outrage and was thus legitimate.

In addition to this specific if ambitious target, Prime Minister Netanyahu also spoke about how Israel’s response would “change the Middle East”. A much more ambiguous goal but, as the campaign has progressed, an increasingly ominous one.

An ever-mounting civilian toll has eaten away at the unwavering support promised at the outset. The increasing unease of Israel’s allies has resulted in ever more complex circumlocutions about the support and its being tied to care to minimise civilian casualties. With good reason.

Given the atrocious actions of Hamas that triggered the current war, Israel could adopt the moral high ground and very quickly did. At every opportunity it has justified its actions as self-defence by graphic reference back to the bestiality of what Hamas did on 10/7. Everything that Israel has done since then and all the civilian casualties of the Israeli action has been placed at the door of Hamas.

To be clear the actions of Hamas are inexcusable. They are war crimes that need to be brought to justice. However, that does not make them inexplicable. The actions were not irrational, motiveless violence. They have causes in a 70-year confrontation between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. If this history is ignored it is unlikely a viable way forward will be found.

Not only are they not inexplicable but neither do they justify the level of sustained and indiscriminate bombing of civilian Palestinians.

The IDF claims it is only targeting Hamas. However, when one looks at the level of destruction wrought across the North, Central and finally Southern Gazza one can only conclude that the IDF are awfully bad shots. In truth the claim is not credible. In an area which is one of the most densely populated on earth it was inevitable that the scale of the bombing carried out would have a massive civilian toll.

The IDF blames this on the fact that Hamas adopted the morally despicable act of using their own citizens as human shields. However, the efficacy of human shields depends on the humanitarian values of those they are used against. The immoral act of using defenceless civilians as a shield is morally matched, not opposed, by the act of shooting through them.

The moral high ground is a slippery place and the actions of the Netanyahu government from the very start of the offensive indicated very unsure footing. Actions that included the closing of the borders, stopping food and medical supplies, the turning off of power and water to 2.3m people, ordering c1.m residents of Gaza City to move South within 24 hours.

The claims of moral authority because residents were warned to leave and go South ring hollow when those that do are bombed on their journey and again when they arrive in the “safe” South. They are then told to go West, toward the sea. The 2.3m population of Gaza appears to be being herded into a smaller and smaller fraction of the small pocket of the territory they live in.

All of this in order to prosecute a war against c40-60k Hamas fighters is difficult to see as proportionate or in accordance with international humanitarian law.

The treatment of prisoners of war further undermines the moral position of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government and the IDF. Palestinian men stripped to their shorts and filmed in a grossly choreographed display of walking forward with hands above their heads to place weapons on the ground. The weapons, carefully ringed by the IDF to ensure they are not missed. What do they think this demonstrates?

The claim is they had to be stripped to ensure they did not have suicide vests on or hidden weapons. Who do they think believes they could not be searched and have their clothes handed back to them. This was not about security, it was about humiliation. Humiliation filmed and broadcast to the world.

When one looks at what Prime Minister Netanyahu’s forces do it looks like the aim to “change the Middle East” is primary.

What Prime Minister Netanyahu’s war has done is displace pretty much the whole of the population of Gaza making them refugees in the territory they have been confined as refugees in over the past 70 years. He has destroyed Gaza’s economic infrastructure, its health facilities, its educational infrastructure, and many of its religious and cultural buildings. He has humiliated its men and starved its women and children. Worst of all he has achieved this by killing c 33k of its citizens, many of whom are women and children.

This through a campaign of bombing which, at the beginning of December, had inflicted a higher level of damage to buildings than the allies achieved in Dresden and Cologne in World War 2. According to the same source in the Financial Times “Gaza will go down as a place name denoting one of history’s heaviest conventional bombing campaigns.”

Set aside whether you can win any conflict against groups like Hamas with bombs you certainly cannot do it without massive collateral damage. The sustained and comprehensive nature of the bombing seems precisely judged to do just that.

The whole of the population of Gaza has been traumatised unable to find the so-called safe areas they are directed to by the IDF. Desperate to secure food and water for their families they are forced to fight and scramble for any relief that gets through.

What can they look forward to? Suppose the IDF managed to kill all the members of Hamas tomorrow, then what? No homes, no jobs, no functioning health, education, security or other state service. Continued dependence on international relief.

There are three possible responses. First, resign yourself to the fate of a refugee in the largest open prison in the world. Second, seek to escape to somewhere else where you might be able to create a life for yourself. Third, create Hamas 2.0. Someone once said, if a person has nothing to live for they will soon find something to die for.

The West, but more specifically the United States and the UK, have stood shoulder to shoulder with their ally Prime Minister Netanyahu. They have believed his assurances about minimising the harm to the civilian population. As the death toll has mounted and the level of physical destruction become more and more apparent the allies have become increasingly uneasy.

The gap between what PM Netanyahu says he will do and what he does has become so wide that not even the most faithful ally can ignore it. Further, his adamant rejection of advice from his allies has prompted irritation amongst Western leaders which had begun to boil over.

When the killing stops the true numbers of those killed, injured and displaced will be far higher than anything that has been seen in the Middle East since the Six Day War in 1967. Arab losses in that war were roughly 20,000.

The level of physical destruction will be way beyond what might be justified by the doctrine of proportionate defence. The treatment of prisoners of war discussed above. The shooting of Israeli hostages, stripped to the waist waving white flags and shouting in Hebrew, by the IDF does not instil confidence that the IDF rules of engagement will have protected many Palestinian civilians.

In the end what this may look like is what a UN Commission defined as ethnic cleansing “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

It is almost certain it will be perceived as that by Palestinian and Arab citizens across the Middle East, which should be a matter of concern to Israel. But what should perhaps be of more concern is the potential spread of this perception to a wider, developing nation cohort across the world and indeed to many citizens in developed nations watching the carnage on their screens.

The strategy of containment which has been pursued towards the Palestinians in recent years is clearly over. The events of 10/7 demonstrate it does not work even on its own terms. What appears to have replaced it is one of making Gazza unviable as a place to live. This is not new. Back in 2015 a UN Report set out the manifold ways in which the Palestinian territories viability was constantly undermined by Israel’s actions.

When this military campaign ends what happens?

Firstly, there will be a global focus on the area greater than there has been in many decades. Unless the civilian death toll is pure Hamas propaganda and the pictures of bombing devastation are deep fakes Israel will be perceived as having committed a whole host of crimes against international humanitarian law. These will be the focus of years of litigation and argument and will undermine the moral authority of Israel.

When it ends, someone will have to administer Gazza. If Israel takes on responsibility or they hand it to the Palestinian Authority the legitimacy of its governance will likely be zero, particularly if there is no prospect of a two-state solution.

If the Israeli blockade and economic strangle hold is maintained it will be a running sore and one which has much greater visibility than it has had in the past. Since its establishment in 1948 Israel has proved pretty much impervious to “international opinion” and has continued that position throughout the current war. Its ability to do this has been because its closest ally has been the richest and most powerful force on the earth.

Israel seems to take the support of the US for granted and abuses that position with apparent scant concern for the risk it might change. This is a mistake.

If Israel does not engage in good faith in a two-state solution what is the future? The plight of the Palestinian people will provide an excuse for new or re-established terrorist organisations to carry out atrocities against civilians in a country increasingly dominated by security. Provoking further state violence against civilians in territories with no security.

Global powers will seek to use the conflict to promote their own interests with merely rhetorical regard for the interests of the Palestinians, but also perhaps increasingly for the state of Israel.

The tit for tat ratchet between Israel and Iran has now been engaged. This may well achieve PM Netanyahu’s goal of changing the Middle East. But, as the saying goes, “be careful what you wish for”. The change might be one which brings continuing misery for the Palestinians but also growing insecurity and isolation for the State of Israel. No one can want eikther of these things.

Will Israel Retaliate?

Yes. PM Netanyahu will respond with interest, publicly in furtherance of the defence of Israel but also as part of his stated agenda of changing the shape of the Middle East. And meanwhile the civilians of Gaza are starving.

“Sudden death syndrome”

Alexi Navalnay’s mother has been told that her son died of “sudden death syndrome” (SDS). Alexi would appear to be the latest victim of what seems to be an a growing epidemic of this unexplained cause of morbidity.

It appears that genetics may play a part as it seems to be mainly Russians who suffer from it although there have been non-Russian cases also.

Those researching the disease have noticed it seems to be related to those with an underlying case of “democracy” which itself appears to be quite a healthy syndrome. In fact it is estimated that there are millions of Russians infected with this but do not exhibit any systems publicly and can thus live to a ripe old age.

The problems begin when individuals present with outward signs of democracy. This seems to mark the onset of SDS which, initially may not be fatal. Those with limited symptoms who occasionally parade them in public can suddenly be struck down with severe pains to their back, head and other parts of their body which some have described as like being beaten with a base ball bat.

Others who have gathered together with fellow sufferers have complained of a severe burning sensation in their eyes and nose leading to real difficulty breathing. Often this is accompanied by the pains mentioned above.

Victims who exhibit persistent symptoms of democracy are often taken to local treatment centres and treated with electric shocks and cold baths. This sometimes works although it may leave the victim with long term medical and mental issues and an inability to secure employment. Ironically, in many cases the treatment can lead to an even more virulent version of democracy.

The most unfortunate cases are those where their infection becomes widely known and they become a real focus for the spread of the disease. These individuals are taken to remote, specialist treatment centres. The centres are often in very cold climates presumably as part of the process of attempting to contain the disease. Sometimes individuals need to be kept in total isolation so as to prevent the possibility of cross contamination with other patients or indeed staff at the facility.

It is when individuals exhibit these advanced symptoms of democracy that they become at risk of SDS. At this point the pathology becomes completely baffling as it seems the final step can be triggered by the most mundane of events. Those recorded to date include: catching ones leg on an umbrella, drinking a cup of tea, opening the front door of ones home and various versions of lead poisoning. Some sufferers seem to have to take matters into their own hands by blowing themselves up in their cars or leaping out of apartment windows.

Victims can be struck down in their homes or in the street, within Russia or abroad. They seem to often be subject to an attack in a pubic space, say, somewhere like outside the Kremlin in Moscow.

Occasionally a victim will exhibit symptoms but survive the initial episode. Following this they may be subject to forced removal to a special facility to be helped. Sadly, the victim may still succumb to SDS which may be triggered by something as innocent as a walk in the forrest.

Fortunately, much work is being done by those at risk of the syndrome in attempting to identify how the malignant transformation of benign democracy into malignant SDS occurs. There seems to be a growing understanding of the pathology of the disease and specifically the primary agent causing the transformation. The problem they are wrestling with at the moment is how to eradicate that agent once and for all. We must all wish them luck with that work.

Ed. The above is as credible as any previous explanation of the death of opponents of Vladimir Putin and in the current case, given the previous and various attempts on his life, more credible than any statement that has or will come out of the Kremlin on the matter. According to Wikipedia, in Mein Kampf Hitler talked about the source of the credibility of the colossal lie as being the fact people could not believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”. Clearly Putin has taken this lesson to heart. Whatever happens leaders in the West need to remember this particularly if the unthinkable happens in the United States next year.

One can only hope there is a circle of hell in which Putin spends eternity waking up each day to the knowledge that he will experience a new version of SDS and that it will be worse than the day before.

Democratising Democracy

Given the current state of US politics this book is incredibly timely. It builds on and develops themes set out in their earlier work “How Democracies Die” published in 2018.

They begin by identifying the way in which “strongmen” leaders, once elected turn the institutions of democracy against itself. Creating laws which seem to be general but are actually aimed at undermining opposition. Playing “constitutional hardball” by manipulating the dead letter of the constitution to kill its living spirit.

Critically such leaders are facilitated by those who may previously have played by the democratic rules of the game, and indeed protest that is what they continue to do, whilst actually supporting actions which are the classic actions of wannabe dictators.

Undermining the independence of the judiciary is one of the key actions in the despot’s playbook. An example of this was the refusal of the Senate Republicans to allow Barack Obama to appoint a Supreme Court Judge in his last year in office. Whilst all done strictly legally it went against a 150 year old precedent that no Senate ever stopped an elected president from filling a Supreme Court vacancy.

In essence the Tyranny of the Minority is about the way the checks and balances established in the US Constitution, written in the 18th Century, have become all check and no balance. Worse the checks work in a partisan manner tipping the balance of institutions towards the Republican party. Shifting a constrained majority rule towards unconstrained minority rule.

They point out that the US Constitution is treated more like the Tablets of the Laws handed down by an omnipotent being rather than a political document forged in compromise at a time where the very existence of the nation was under direct threat. They compare it as the oldest written democratic constitution with that of Norway, the second oldest.

The US has been amended its constitution 27 times since its ratification in 1788. Of those amendments the first ten were ratified together in 1791 becoming known as the Bill of Rights. The last amendment was ratified in 1992. By way of contrast the Norwegian Constitution was amended 316 times between 1814 and 2014.

The limited amendments to the US Constitution was not through lack of effort. Since its adoption there have been 11,848 attempts to make amendments. Why the difference? Because the US Constitution is very difficult to amend. It requires a a two thirds majority in both the House and the Senate and then be ratified by three quarters of the States. In Norway a two thirds majority is required in two successive parliaments but that is it.

Does it matter? Well when the US Constitution was adopted America was a predominantly agricultural and rural society. Slavery was still in place and was reflected in the Constitutions “three fifths clause” which meant slaves counted for legislative apportionment despite their having no rights whatsoever. Whereas Norways Constitution has evolved to address a radically different social, economic and political environment, the American Constitution has not.

Checks which were baked into the constitution consciously to protect against tyranny by the majority have over time evolved into mechanisms which tend to support tyranny by the minority.

The credibility and legitimacy of any democracy depends on state authority being exercised by those that secure the majority of votes. Genuine checks and balances and the occasional change of administration of provide for a process where ruling parties respect the interests of those that did not vote for them. However, the system must be seen as a level playing field and when someone wins they must be allowed to govern.

Levitsky and Ziblatt see the current stalemate in American politics where effective government is impossible as caused by two key problems. First the manipulation of the electoral system which has now reached such proportions, with the collusion of a super-conservative Supreme Court, that it effectively disenfranchises significant numbers of people from specific groupings. Most notably black Americans.

The second issue is to update a number of Constitutionally embedded institutions to ensure that they produce a more democratic outcome than they do at the moment.

Amongst the change they propose a key one is a constitutional amendment establishing a right to vote for all citizens. Who knew this was not in the Constitution? This would be accompanied by the restoration of Federal level voting rights protection. In effect reinstating the 1965 Voting Rights Act which wqas eviscerated by the Supreme Court 2013.

They also propose that electoral administration should not be within partisan political control. Rather an independent electoral administration should be established with non partisan officials. In parallel with this there should. be the equivalent of our independent boundaries commission to prevent the often egregious examples of gerrymandering.

Other key institutional changes include abolition of the Electoral College. In a modern democracy those that get the majority of the popular vote should become leader. The Electoral College means this is often not the case.

Reform of the structure of the Senate which provides two senators per State irrespective of the size of the State. This builds in a rural and agricultural bias which is significantly out of line with and an urban industrial/post industrial nation. Something which more accurately reflect the size of the population of States.

Abolition of the Senate Filibuster. This mechanism which means that 40 out of 100 senators can prevent any proposed law getting on to the statute book however big a majority it received in the House of Representatives and however popular amongst voters.

Establishing term limits for Supreme Court Justices who currently serve for life. Appropriately structured this could ensure all presidents get to appoint the same number of Justices in their term in office. This woudl avoid the situation as now wher there is a super conservative majority in the Supreme Court which is manifestly out of touch with majority American opinion on many issues.

Finally, and possibly the most crucial proposal is that the method of amending the Constitution be made simpler by removing the requirement for any amendment to secure ratification by three quarters of the individual States. This would bring it into line with most modern democracies and provide for the Constitution to become living document growing with its people, reflecting more accurately the needs of a modern polity.

There are a range of other proposals put forward by Levitsky and Ziblatt but these give an indication of the depth of change they are proposing and also the difficulty such change might face. It is a really well argued case and given the recent experience of the Disunited States particularly between 2016 and 2020 it is an important one.

Political paralysis undermines belief in democracy with potentially extreme consequences. It is clear something has gone wrong when the almost certain Republican candidate for the presidency encourages Russia to attack treaty allies.

If I have a criticism it is that the analysis is very much focused at the institutional level.Whilst this is vitally important there is a socio-economic set of issues structured around inequality which need to be addressed. It could be argued that the current challenges to American democracy would have got very little traction had not civil society experienced a long period of growing inequality. Stagnation and even decline in real standards of living for many. Neglect of public services and reducing welfare provisions.

Having said this what Levitsky and Ziblatt do is illuminate critical weaknesses in the US polity which are putting its democratic future at risk. They make sensible proposals about how to address these problems. They do this with clarity and illustrate their arguments with examples from around the world and from history. It is a great book for understanding some of the structural forces underlying the current travails of the United States. The coming election probalbly makes it vital reading.

Tyranny of the Minority: How to Reverse an Authoritarian Turn and Forge a Democracy for All. S Levitsky, D Ziblatt. Penguin Viking 2023.

Alexi Navalny RIP

The death today is yet another example of what happens to critics of Vladimir Putin. An incredibly brave and industrious searcher for truth. His humanity and commitment to democracy in sharp contrast to that of the man who had him locked up and murdered after his first assassination attempt failed.

This is the man that ex President Trump said could do what he wanted to those states in NATO that did not invest 2% of their GDP in defence! If ever two threats to democracy deserved each other.

Here’s an example of Alexi’s work exposing the corrupt excesses of Putin world. It illustrates the enthusiasm and raw energy of a genuine patriot who cared for his country and ultimately gave his life trying to preserve it from the predatory gangsters led by Putin.

This is a sad day for Russia and the Russian people.

UNWRA

The current controversy around the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNWRA) is dfifficult to make sense of.

On the strength of allegations by the the Israeli Government that 190 employees of the agency are members of Hamas or Palestinian Jihad and, even more seriously, that 12 of it employees were active participants in the atrocities of 10/7 some of its major donors have suspended their funding of UNWRA.

This is funding to an organisation of 30,000 employees who operate across Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon providing a range of welfare services including health, education and relief for people displaced by decades of conflict in the region.

More specifically it is currently engaged in providing food, water and health services into Gaza where the Israeli government’s war on Hamas has cost over 25,000 Palestinian lives and displaced 85% percent of the territories 2.2m inhabitants.

The speed with which the USA and the UK suspended its payments seemed remarkably swift. It was based on the allegations contained in a 6 page dossier which the Israeli Government would not provide to UNWRA. It is still not clear if these allegations have been independently corroborated.

It is not as if the allegations have emanated form an independent source. The allegations came shortly after the International Court of Justice found it plausible that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide in relation to its operations in Gaza. Trying to undermine the work of UNWRA might be seen as consistent with attacking the Palestinian civilian population as opposed to Hamas.

But even if we assume the allegations are eventually proved to be true. Is the response of the US and the UK appropriate?

If we add together the 190 accused of membership of Hamas and the 12 accused of engagement in 10/7 it amounts to 1.5% of UNWRA’s workforce in GAZA. Hardly definitive evidence that the Agency is systemically infiltrated by Hamas.

As soon as the allegations were made the head of UWRA preemptively dismissed the twelve employees accused prior to any independent investigation into their guilt or otherwise. Further, he referred the allegations to the UN’s Investigations Department for a thorough, Independent review of them.

Whilst UNWRA does carry out background checks on its employees, it also provides a list once a year to the Israeli government of the names of all its employees in Gaza and the West Bank.

An agency which acts in such a manner seems to be behaving precisely as you might expect and it is difficult to see what more it could do. Particularly as it is operating in a very challenging environment and has had 133 of its staff killed in Gaza since 10/7 as they struggle to support the 85% of the 2.2m Palestinians that have been displaced by the Israeli bombing.

In any circumstances a more appropriate response from our government and that of the US would be to set out their concerns and seek to ensure that a thorough and independent assessment of the allegations is carried out. If it proves to be true that 1.5% of UNWRA’s staff have gone rogue but that sensible precautions to avoid this have been taken then it should be a “lessons learned” exercise. UNWRA should set out how it would seek to prevent this in the future. This can never been anything other than best endeavours.

Only if it were to be proved definitively that the leadership of UNWRA were actively engaged in supporting the activities of Hamas should further action be taken.

But of course if UNWRA did not exist it would have to be invented. The needs of the Palestinians will not go away. Israel is not going to support them. Is Britain or America wanting to take on the role themselves?

After some very harsh words there seems to be some drawing back. The US pointing out that the vast bulk of its funding has already been paid to UNWRA. That they have money until the end of February. That the UN Investigation should be carried out in record time. Investigations that normally take months are to be completed in weeks.

It may have started to occur to the US and Britain how this is going to play around the world if relief via UNWRA stops. They will look even more complicit in the destruction of one of the last remaining homelands of the Palestinians. In a changing world this is not just morally indefensible it is diplomatically crazy.

“so it goes.”

In Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut’s character, Billy Pilgrim, uses the phrase “so it goes” every time he comes across a dead body. The repetition of the simple phrase tallies the fatalities of war and illustrates how people become desensitised to death. In Gaza death must now be so familiar that people are becoming numbed by its occurrence.

For most of us the loss of a family member is a shock and source of deep sadness. Particularly intense if it is a child. How does one cope when 10 members of your family have been killed in an instant, including brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers? Worse, when the cause of that sudden loss continues to threaten your own existence.

For those removed from the conflict the rolling news coverage first shocks, then disgusts and then it risks becoming sedimented, “so it goes.”

I have no doubt that the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is working hard to mitigate the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza, the West Bank, and now Lebanon. War in the Middle East would be a disaster for the global economy and for US interests. Not great in an election year.

One detects an increasingly frustrated tone in his comments about the need to protect civilians and focus on the future when Israel ends the war against Hamas. Particularly in view of the fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu not only ignores Blinken but as much as tells him that he will be ignoring him.

Prime Minister Netanyahu may be happy to risk a regional conflict. He may conclude that Israel has previously benefited at the expense of the Palestinians in such events. However, the world is a different place to what it was in the 1940s and 1960s. Prime Minister Netanyahu may be in danger of overplaying his hand.

At the moment there are two players only who can stop what is happening in Gaza. One is Israel. A right-wing prime minister held hostage from the extreme right in a country where many ordinary Jews feel properly aggrieved at the murderous events of 10/7, does not look like a place to find compromise.

The only other player is the United States who could apply pressure through the $3bn per annum military aid it provides to Israel. So far Secretary of State Blinken does not appear to have even threatened to use that leverage in public. We don’t know what he might have said privately. But whatever he has said does not seem to have impacted much on the Israeli government’s plan of action.  

As I have said previously, when this does stop, it is very likely to look like an exercise in ethnic cleansing, whatever the intention. Further, it is going to be difficult for the US and the UK to look shocked and surprised at what has happened. Their credibility in future negotiations with Arab partners after the bombs stop will at best be threadbare.

However much the Palestinians in the West Bank are chased around the strip by bombing campaigns, at the end of the day, they are still going to be there. That reality should be front and centre of any government’s thinking about long term security and screams the need for significant compromise by Israel if they want peace.

Apart from a brief humanitarian pause to secure the release of some of the hostages abducted by Hamas there has been a pretty much continuous campaign of bombing in Gaza. From the start there have been civilian casualties.

On 10/7 around 2,300 Israeli civilians were killed, “so it goes”. Some 240 Israelis, mainly civilians, were abducted, some of whom have since been killed, “so it goes”.  More than 250 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank, “so it goes”. Palestinian deaths in Gaza are well in excess of 20,000, “so it goes.” Of the 20,000 killed, around half have been children, “so it goes”.

The scale of death in Palestine is mind numbing. In three months roughly twice as many civilians have been killed in the Palestinian territories than in Ukraine during almost two years of war, 10,000 Ukrainians, 20,000 Palestinians.

In neither case should we, or more particularly our political leaders, succumb to the dehumanised response, “so it goes”.

However powerful the justification for Israel taking action against Hamas originally, the scale of civilian deaths has undermined the moral force and validity of its campaign. Increasingly the reference back to 10/7 looks more like a rationalisation for something altogether different to a war against Hamas.

If there is no material action taken to apply pressure on Israel to curtail its programme of mass destruction in Gaza there will be no excuses for those that failed to act. The fundamental moral position they have taken will be captured in three words, “so it goes.”

Moving People

Our Defence Secretary, Grant Shaps, was asked whether the British Government thought it was possible for 1 million people in the North of Gaza to move to the south in 24 hours. He started by saying the British government agrees with the Israeli government that Hamas needs to be removed from the scene but then went on to qualify this by saying it should be done “in a manner that does not affect the Palestinian population as far as is possible”.

Pressed on the point about how feasible such an ultimatum was he then talked about how dreadful Hamas are and how unspeakably vile its actions were in its attack on Isreal. On all this I think most people would agree with the Defence Secretary.

However, interviewer, Michelle Hussein tried to bring him back to the question she started with about the feasibility of moving 1 million people in 24 hours, including the elderly and the sick, across a war zone, where relentless missile bombardments have destroyed large parts of the transport infrastructure, with fuel, food and water scarcity.

The Defence Secretary refocused saying the warning the Israeli army was giving was important and that this was something Hamas had not provided. Well yes, I guess that is why the British Government have declared Hamas a terrorist organisation. But that does not answer the question at the heart of this. Is the order issued by the Israeli military consistent with acting in “a manner that does not affect the Palestinian population as far as possible”?

Indeed in the introduction to the piece, Michelle Hussein, reported the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, as having asked the Israeli government to take “all possible measures to protect ordinary Palestinian citizens”.

Just to give some scale to the Israeli Army’s order. Liverpool has a population of just under 500,000 people. Manchester has a population of just over 500,000 people. Try and imagine what would happen if they were both told they had to move every person in both cities to Warrington within 24 hours and the M62 was destroyed and no trains were running.

Does this sound like a strategy consistent with “not affecting” or “protecting” ordinary Palestinian citizens?

Saturday 10/7 was a black day, one which, as they said about Pearl Harbour, “will live in infamy”. There can be no excuse. The fear must be that one despicable act, killing hundreds of innocent civilians will spawn a response killing hundreds of other innocent civilians. And on and on and on.

This is a process which has moved from horrendous to terrifying and risks armageddon. It is premised on the false assumption there is a military solution to the problems of the Middle East. Only one thing is certain there is no likelihood of any solution being found before hundreds, possibly thousands more innocents are killed.

Victory?

The atrocities of Hamas in Israel on 10/7 certainly bare comparison with those in the United States on 9/11. Some form of retribution is justifiable and in reality inevitable.

The question is, will the scale and nature of the retribution bring a lasting solution to a the awful situation closer or will it push it further away.

Benjamin Netanyahu claims the Israeli response to the murder and abduction of its citizens will “change the Middle East”. The British Foreign Secretary might have pointed out we have tried that and it does not work.

Attempting to eliminate c30,000 Hamas fighters by starving 2.4m people of all services is likely to have all the long term success of the arbitrary, imperial line drawing of Sykes Picot.

The Middle East is a victory free zone. There are periods when those who impose greater losses on “the enemy” claim a win. But that is only a temporary “win” planting the seeds for bloody reprisals whether immediately or at some point in the medium term.

Neither side ever truly safe. Always living in fear and with a constant need for security.

Sadly, now is not a time when talk of peace or reconciliation will gain any traction. Realistic engagement will only be possible after much innocent blood has been shed. This should be a source of everlasting shame to all those involved, and that includes the imperial powers who lay the border foundations of this whole mess.

When the next moment of exhaustion provides some space there should be a determined efforts to support a locally negotiated, internationally brokered way forward with resources.

Until then, even we committed atheists can only pray actions on all sides over the next few weeks or months are constrained by some common humanity. I only hope the power of prayer is stronger than I expect it to be.