Thus goes the headline for a news article available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7364269.stm.
The polarisation in the world of pro- and anti-American stances brings with it an asymmetric outlook on defense which, in my opinion, is the single biggest threat to global stability. One need only consider Russia's complaints against the USA's anti-missile defense system. Russia is worried that an unassailable USA could bring with it an abuse of power leading to an anti-democratic world system in which a minority of people (i.e. the people of the USA) get to dictate to the rest of the world how it should be run. To be fair, those are my words, not Russia's; but the fear is the same: of an over-powerful USA dictating to the world from on high.
It is common knowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel neither confirms nor denies possession of nuclear weapons, but Mordechai Vanunu was kidnapped from Rome by Israeli agents in 1986 and taken to Israel, where he was convicted of treason for revealing to the British press the details of the Israeli nuclear weapons programme. Presumably Israel would not have taken this drastic action if they did not actually possess nuclear weapons.
It is also known that Israel is expansionist: the occupied Palestinian territories. Nor are they pacifist, having had wars with nearly all of its neighbours since 1948. Nor yet are they modest in their dealings with other countries: Israel has a fierce spy machine in Mossad which does not shy away from political assassinations in foreign territories. No wonder, then, that its neighbours are worried. The area is dominated by Israel and its brutal treatment of the Palestinians in order to safeguard land and a high standard of living for its own citizens. Just as the USA has, for over a century, put pressure on its neighbours, particularly in Central and South America, to maintain a USA- and capitalist-friendly attitude (even where that meant overthrowing a democratically elected government in favour of a right-wing dictatorship), one could easily imagine Israel developing a similar policy towards its neighbours.
That brings us nicely to Syria. There is a tendency for anyone in any country to think that their own security is the most important. You might say that the psychology of a country is akin to the psychology of an individual. No-one can feel at ease when there is someone sitting next to them with hostile intent who is also much more powerful. Pride and self-preservation might urge such a person to work out, take self-defense classes and maybe even invest in weaponry - all for the sake of defending oneself and one's family. It may even be that that menacing person is not so menacing, after all - it is the perceived level of menace that is important. Similarly, Syria may want to defend itself. It is important for people in the West to realise that Syria does not think of itself as a failed, evil State (nor does any country). It is a country with an ancient heritage - it makes European culture look positively modern. It is a heritage it is likely to want to defend; and with an aggressive, highly powerful neighbour in Israel, it has to do a lot of working out and invest in a lot of hardware in order to feel more secure. Since Israel has weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that Syria will feel secure until it has the equivalent 'deterrent'.
As with Syria, so with Iran.
When the USA-led Western coalition starts to respect the sovereignty of other nations and their need to feel secure, then there might be the hope of a more peaceful co-existence. Once again, the asymmetric American foreign policy is to blame.
Friday 25 April 2008
Tuesday 22 April 2008
US funds Israel
Someone I know (that I shall call Libby), who is highly intelligent and whom I respect greatly, was recently on a trip to Israel to attend a wedding of an old school friend. She had never been to Israel before and, before going, had preconceptions, imagining that she would be entering a war zone - not surprising given that outside of Israel we tend to hear only about the bombings. She was pleasantly surprised to find a country which she described as 'first world', in stark contrast to Jordan, where she had been earlier, which seemed to lack efficiency or motivation (two things that matter greatly to Libby). She continued that Israel had been fought for by the Jews for a long time; that they had been ejected from Israel by the diaspora of the 2nd century AD; and concluded that they deserved the land that is now Israel given that they had made such a success of it and had fought so hard for it, whereas neighbouring states were not so successful and were probably jealous of Israel's success.
On the face of it, this may seem like a decent enough argument; except that it leaves out some crucial facts. Firstly, the human cost of Israel has been left out. Had Libby visited the refugee camps in Palestine to see the conditions that those displaced by Israelis now lived in, she may have had a more balanced opinion. In terms of Israel's success as a first world country, she might have included in her own musings the fact that the USA has funded Israel since 1949 to the tune of about $100bn to date. The influx of Jews into Israel has attracted some highly educated people - people who were initially educated outside Israel in USA, Europe and Russia. Israel was therefore re-created with a highly educated, motivated population - there is no doubting the existence of the hard-working, highly-intelligent and extremely talented Jew. It must be taken into consideration that Israel was constructed using an already-educated population.
The concept that worried me most, however, was the idea that the Jews 'deserved' Israel because they had fought and worked so hard for it. If fighting hard is the greatest reason for occupying a portion of land, presumably the Palestinians simply have to fight harder than the Israelis to deserve it more? That, certainly, is what everyone in the area seems to think.
So, where does that leave the human race? It seems to me that violence is the least reason for owning something, not the greatest. Admittedly, you cannot fight against blind violence with words and logic; but morally speaking, surely it is the basest reason of all?
The greatest problem I see in the world is the arbitrary attributing of loyalty to something we are born into. If you are born Jewish, you think that Jews are the chosen people. If you are born British, you may think that the British Empire was the greatest force for educating the world there has ever been and put the 'Great' into 'Great Britain'. If you are American, you might imagine that the asymmetric foreign policy that the USA has implemented for the last 50 years is right and just for the simple reason that America is the 'leader' of the 'free world' - which is a spin greatly to be wished for by any government. If you are a Muslim, you might think that the Islamic faith is the entire world, and everything else a creation of the devil that must be extinguished.
Where we are born is arbitrary. That my consciousness is in this body was not chosen by me - I had no free will in it. I had no free will in being born Welsh - nor do I think that I am in any way special for being Welsh. I do not believe in Welsh nationalism (although I am always excited when we beat England in the Six Nations). Being British is more important to me than being Welsh - but it comes at the price of a shame of the British Empire and its arrogance - the remnants of which we still see in our foreign policy. Being European is more important to me still, but only because I love European culture and hope that a united Europe will create peace in a continent that only 60 years ago was ravaged with fierce fighting which we do not want to see again. To fight for some arbitrary grouping seems to me pointless - and these are arbitrary groupings even if they seem so important to those who are members of them. Belief is little more than custom - and to put too great a store on it is to misunderstand the nature of belief.
What is my conclusion? That to put any arbitrary grouping (nationality, religion, profession, skin colour) before the fact of a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being standing in front of you, is the basest, most violent thing of all. Not physically violent, but morally violent. A violence which offends all humanity because it denies a member of that humanity. If you have an arbitrary reason for hating someone (because they are Jewish or Muslim or American or Russian) then they might have an equally arbitrary reason for hating you or your sister or your mother and father. Although there may be much passion - there is no reason in it. Does Israel deserve the land? 'Israel' is a concept created by the arbitrary grouping tendency of the human mind (as is every country); since people are dying for this concept, the answer has to be 'no'.
On the face of it, this may seem like a decent enough argument; except that it leaves out some crucial facts. Firstly, the human cost of Israel has been left out. Had Libby visited the refugee camps in Palestine to see the conditions that those displaced by Israelis now lived in, she may have had a more balanced opinion. In terms of Israel's success as a first world country, she might have included in her own musings the fact that the USA has funded Israel since 1949 to the tune of about $100bn to date. The influx of Jews into Israel has attracted some highly educated people - people who were initially educated outside Israel in USA, Europe and Russia. Israel was therefore re-created with a highly educated, motivated population - there is no doubting the existence of the hard-working, highly-intelligent and extremely talented Jew. It must be taken into consideration that Israel was constructed using an already-educated population.
The concept that worried me most, however, was the idea that the Jews 'deserved' Israel because they had fought and worked so hard for it. If fighting hard is the greatest reason for occupying a portion of land, presumably the Palestinians simply have to fight harder than the Israelis to deserve it more? That, certainly, is what everyone in the area seems to think.
So, where does that leave the human race? It seems to me that violence is the least reason for owning something, not the greatest. Admittedly, you cannot fight against blind violence with words and logic; but morally speaking, surely it is the basest reason of all?
The greatest problem I see in the world is the arbitrary attributing of loyalty to something we are born into. If you are born Jewish, you think that Jews are the chosen people. If you are born British, you may think that the British Empire was the greatest force for educating the world there has ever been and put the 'Great' into 'Great Britain'. If you are American, you might imagine that the asymmetric foreign policy that the USA has implemented for the last 50 years is right and just for the simple reason that America is the 'leader' of the 'free world' - which is a spin greatly to be wished for by any government. If you are a Muslim, you might think that the Islamic faith is the entire world, and everything else a creation of the devil that must be extinguished.
Where we are born is arbitrary. That my consciousness is in this body was not chosen by me - I had no free will in it. I had no free will in being born Welsh - nor do I think that I am in any way special for being Welsh. I do not believe in Welsh nationalism (although I am always excited when we beat England in the Six Nations). Being British is more important to me than being Welsh - but it comes at the price of a shame of the British Empire and its arrogance - the remnants of which we still see in our foreign policy. Being European is more important to me still, but only because I love European culture and hope that a united Europe will create peace in a continent that only 60 years ago was ravaged with fierce fighting which we do not want to see again. To fight for some arbitrary grouping seems to me pointless - and these are arbitrary groupings even if they seem so important to those who are members of them. Belief is little more than custom - and to put too great a store on it is to misunderstand the nature of belief.
What is my conclusion? That to put any arbitrary grouping (nationality, religion, profession, skin colour) before the fact of a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being standing in front of you, is the basest, most violent thing of all. Not physically violent, but morally violent. A violence which offends all humanity because it denies a member of that humanity. If you have an arbitrary reason for hating someone (because they are Jewish or Muslim or American or Russian) then they might have an equally arbitrary reason for hating you or your sister or your mother and father. Although there may be much passion - there is no reason in it. Does Israel deserve the land? 'Israel' is a concept created by the arbitrary grouping tendency of the human mind (as is every country); since people are dying for this concept, the answer has to be 'no'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
