The Peninsula Foundation

Category: Israel-Palestine Conflict

  • If This Is What Israel Does, Then Israel Shouldn’t Exist

    If This Is What Israel Does, Then Israel Shouldn’t Exist

    The world and the UN watch helplessly as Israel executes the worst human rights crimes and genocide through killing, enforced famine, and wanton slaughter of innocent civilians, women, and children of Gaza. This is not war but an explicit slaughter no less than what the Nazis carried out in World War 2. Gaza has seen the largest number of journalists and aid workers killed in history, the largest number of children killed n history, and more bombs dropped in a small piece of land than in all of World War 2. Caitlin Johnstone raises a very pertinent question — How can a genocidal and apartheid  state be allowed to exist?

     

    Gaza’s youngest social media influencer has been killed by Israeli forces after touching tens of thousands of lives with her stories of survival in the besieged Palestinian territory. Her name was Yaqeen Hammad. She was 11 years old.

    Israeli forces fired upon starving civilians in Gaza on Tuesday when they rushed inside a facility holding aid, reportedly killing three and wounding dozens more. The facility was operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the latest US-Israeli scheme to bypass normal UN aid distribution and lure Gaza’s population into specific concentrated locations.

    A new report from the Associated Press confirms that Israeli forces have been using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza as a matter of policy. This is actually using human shields in the very real sense of deliberately forcing civilians between yourself and potential enemy fire, not in the fake sense of being somewhere near civilians as per the made-up “human shields” narrative that Israel uses to blame its daily massacres on Hamas.

    A survey of Jewish Israelis conducted by an Israeli polling firm has found that 82 percent of respondents support the total ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and 47 percent believe Israeli forces should kill every man, woman and child in every city they capture there.

    Haaretz reports on the poll’s findings:

    “Sixty-five percent said they believed in the existence of a modern-day incarnation of Amalek, the Israelite biblical enemy whom God commanded to wipe out in Deuteronomy 25:19. Among those believers, 93 percent said the commandment to erase Amalek’s memory remains relevant today’.

    Haaretz.com

    These are just a few reports from the past few days, on top of all the other staggeringly evil things that Israel has been doing this whole time.

    If this is Israel, then Israel should not exist. If what we are seeing in Gaza is what it means for Israel to exist, then it shouldn’t.

    People scream bloody murder when you say this, but it shouldn’t be a controversial position. I’m not saying Jews shouldn’t exist, I’m saying a genocidal apartheid state should not exist. A state is an artificial construct of the human mind, held together by human actions. If the actions we are witnessing in Gaza are the product of the artificial construct of the Israeli state, then that artificial construct should be dismantled, and those actions should cease.

    I would say this about any other man-made construct that is doing the things Israel is doing. If some scientists built a robot that spends all day every day massacring children, then I would say the robot should be unmade. If you drew a Star of David on the robot’s head, it wouldn’t suddenly make me an evil antisemite to say that the child-murdering robot should be dismantled.

    Dismantling the apartheid state of Israel would mean granting everyone citizenship and equal rights, allowing right of return, denazifying apartheid culture, paying extensive reparations, and righting the wrongs of the past. You could still call what remains “Israel” if you wanted to, but it would be nothing like the state that presently exists under that name.

    Would this upset the feelings of some Jewish people? Yes. Would it inconvenience the lives of some Jewish people? Certainly. But that would be infinitely preferable to the daily massacres, genocidal atrocities and reckless regional warmongering we are witnessing from the state of Israel. Advocating the end of this genocidal state doesn’t make someone a monster, advocating its continuation does. The only way to believe otherwise is to take it as a given that Palestinian lives are worth less than Jewish feelings.

    Israel is currently presenting nonstop arguments for its own cessation. Every video that comes out showing Israelis acting in monstrous ways and innocent Palestinians being murdered, tortured and abused in the most horrific ways imaginable is an argument for which there is no verbal counter-argument. Every day that goes by, the genocidal apartheid state of Israel is proving to the world that it should not exist.

    Feature Image Credit:Israel using starvation as means of war to drive people out of Gaza: Head of Rights monitor  aa.com.tr

    Image in article: 11-year old Yaqeen Hammad – independent.co.uk

  • The End of Pluralism in the Middle East

    The End of Pluralism in the Middle East

    A  truly seismic change in the Middle East has occurred.  At its heart is a devil’s bargain – Turkey and the Gulf States accept the annihilation of the Palestinian nation and the creation of a Greater Israel, in return for the annihilation of the Shia minorities of Syria and Lebanon and the imposition of Salafism across the Eastern Arab world.

    This also spells the end for Lebanon and Syria’s Christian communities. Witness the tearing down of all Christmas decorations, the smashing of all alcohol and the forced imposition of the veil on women when the jihadists — who overthrew the government of Bashar al-Assad on Sunday — first took Aleppo a mere two weeks ago.

    The speed of the collapse of Syria took everybody by surprise. Next, a renewed Israeli attack on Southern Lebanon to coincide with a Salafist invasion of the Bekaa Valley seems inevitable, as the Israelis would obviously wish their border with their new Taliban-style Greater Syrian neighbour to be as far North as possible.

    It could be a race for Beirut, unless the Americans have already organised who gets it.

    It is no coincidence that the attack on Syria started the day of the Lebanon/Israel ceasefire. The jihadist forces do not want to be seen to be fighting alongside Israel, even though they are fighting forces which have been relentlessly bombed by Israel, and in the case of Hezbollah are exhausted from fighting Israel.

    The Times of Israel has no compunction about saying the quiet part out loud, unlike the British media:

    In fact, Israeli media is giving a lot more truth about the Syrian rebel forces than British and American media. This is another article from The Times of Israel:

    “While HTS officially seceded from Al Qaeda in 2016, it remains a Salafi jihadi organization designated as a terror organization in the US, the EU and other countries, with tens of thousands of fighters.

    Its sudden surge raises concerns that a potential takeover of Syria could transform it into an Islamist, Taliban-like regime – with repercussions for Israel at its south-western border. Others, however, see the offensive as a positive development for Israel and a further blow to the Iranian axis in the region.”

    Contrast this to the U.K. media, which from the Telegraph and Express to The Guardian has promoted the official narrative that not just the same organisations, but the same people responsible for mass torture and executions of non-Sunnis, including Western journalists, are now cuddly liberals.

    Nowhere is this more obvious than the case of Abu Mohammad Al-Jolani, sometimes spelt Al-Julani or Al-Golani, who, now nominally in charge in Damascus, is being boosted throughout Western media as a moderate leader. He was the deputy leader of ISIS, and the CIA actually has a $10 million bounty on his head! Yes, that is the same CIA. which is funding and equipping him and giving him air support.

    Supporters of the Syrian rebels still attempt to deny that they have Israeli and U.S. support – despite the fact that almost a decade ago there was open Congressional testimony in the U.S.A. that, to that point, over half a billion dollars had been spent on assistance to Syrian rebel forces, and the Israelis have openly been providing medical and other services to the jihadists and effective air support.

    Violates UK Terrorism Act

    One interesting consequence of this joint NATO/Israel support for the jihadist groups in Syria is a further perversion of domestic rule of law. To take the U.K. as an example, under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act it is illegal to state an opinion that supports, or may lead somebody else to support, a proscribed organisation.

    The abuse of this provision by British police to persecute Palestinian supporters for allegedly encouraging support for proscribed organisations Hamas and Hezbollah is notorious, with even tangential alleged references leading to arrest. Sarah Wilkinson, Richard Medhurst, Asa Winstanley, Richard Barnard and myself are all notable victims, and the persecution has been greatly intensified by Keir Starmer.

    Yet Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) is also a proscribed group in the U.K. But both British mainstream media and British Muslim outlets have been openly promoting and praising HTS – frankly much more openly than I have ever witnessed anyone in the U.K. support Hamas and Hezbollah – and not a single person has been arrested or even warned by U.K. police.

     

     

    That in itself is the strongest of indications that Western security services are fully behind the overthrow of the government in Syria.

    For the record, I think it is an appalling law, and nobody should be prosecuted for expressing an opinion either way. But the politically biased application of the law is undeniable.

    When the entire corporate and state media in the West puts out a unified narrative that Syrians are overjoyed to be released by HTS from the tyranny of the Assad regime – and says nothing whatsoever of the accompanying torture and execution of Shias, and destruction of Christmas decorations and icons – it ought to be obvious to everybody where this is coming from.

    Yet – and this is another U.K. domestic repercussion – a very substantial number of Muslims in the U.K. support HTS and the Syrian rebels, because of the funding pumped into U.K. mosques from Saudi and Emirate Salafist sources.

    This is allied to the U.K. security service influence also wielded through the mosques, both by sponsorship programmes and “think tanks” benefiting approved religious leaders, and by the execrable coercive Prevent programme.

    U.K. Muslim outlets that have been ostensibly pro-Palestinian – like Middle East Eye and 5 Pillars – enthusiastically back Israel’s Syrian allies in ensuring the destruction of resistance to the genocide of the Palestinians. Al Jazeera alternates between items detailing dreadful massacre in Palestine, and items extolling the Syrian rebels bringing Israel-allied rule to Syria.

    Among the mechanisms they employ to reconcile this is a refusal to acknowledge the vital role of Syria in enabling the supply of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah. Which supply the jihadists have now cut off, to the absolute delight of Israel, and in conjunction with both Israeli and U.S. air strikes.

    In the final analysis, for many Sunni Muslims both in the Middle East and in the West, the pull seems to be a stronger sectarian hatred of the Shia and the imposition of Salafism, than preventing the ultimate destruction of the Palestinian nation.

    I am not a Muslim. My Muslim friends happen to be almost entirely Sunni. I personally regard the continuing division over the leadership of the religion over a millennium ago as deeply unhelpful and a source of unnecessary continued hate.

    Classic Divide and Rule

    But as a historian, I do know that the Western colonial powers have consciously and explicitly used the Sunni/Shia split for centuries to divide and rule. In the 1830s, Alexander Burnes was writing reports on how to use the division in Sind between Shia rulers and Sunni populations to aid British colonial expansion.

    On May 12, 1838, in his letter from Simla setting out his decision to launch the first British invasion of Afghanistan, British Governor General Lord Auckland included plans to exploit the Shia/Sunni division in both Sind and Afghanistan to aid the British military attack.

    The colonial powers have been doing it for centuries, Muslim communities keep falling for it, and the British and Americans are doing it right now to further their remodelling of the Middle East.

    Simply put, many Sunni Muslims have been brainwashed into hating Shia Muslims more than they hate those currently committing genocide of an overwhelmingly Sunni population in Gaza.

    I refer to the U.K. because I witnessed this first-hand during the election campaign this year in Blackburn [where Murray ran for Parliament.] But the same is true all over the Muslim world. Not one Sunni Muslim-led state has lifted a single finger to prevent the genocide of the Palestinians.

    Their leadership is using anti-Shia sectarianism to maintain popular support for a de facto alliance with Israel against the only groups – Iran, Houthi and Hezbollah – which actually did attempt to give the Palestinians practical support in resistance. And against the Syrian government which facilitated supply.

    The unspoken but very real bargain is this: The Sunni powers will accept the wiping out of the entire Palestinian nation and formation of Greater Israel, in return for the annihilation of the Shia communities in Syria and Lebanon by Israel and forces backed by NATO (including Turkey).

    There are, of course, contradictions in this grand alliance. The United States’ Kurdish allies in Iraq are unlikely to be happy with Turkey’s destruction of Kurdish groups in Syria, which is what Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan gains from Turkey’s very active military role in toppling Syria – in addition to extending Turkish control of oilfields.

    The Iran-friendly Iraqi government will have further difficulty with reconciling the U.S. continuing occupation of swathes of its country, as they realise they are the next target.

    The Lebanese army is under the control of the U.S.A., and Hezbollah must have been greatly weakened to have agreed to the disastrous ceasefire with Israel. Christian fascist militias traditionally allied to Israel are increasingly visible in parts of Beirut, though whether they would be stupid enough to make common cause with jihadists from the North may be open to question.

    But now that Syria has fallen to jihadist rule, I do not rule out Lebanon following very quickly indeed, and being integrated into a Salafist Greater Syria.

    How the Palestinians of Jordan would react to this disastrous turn of events, it is hard to be sure. The British puppet Hashemite Kingdom is the designated destination for ethnically cleansed West Bank Palestinians under the Greater Israel plan.

    What this all potentially amounts to is the end of pluralism in the Levant and its replacement by supremacism. An ethno-supremacist Greater Israel and a religio-supremacist Salafist Greater Syria.

    Unlike many readers, I have never been a fan of the Assad regime or blind to its human rights violations. But what it did undeniably do was maintain a pluralist state where the most amazing historical religious and community traditions – including Sunni (and many Sunni do support Assad), Shia, Alaouites, descendants of the first Christians, and speakers of Aramaic, the language of Jesus – were all able to co-exist.

    The same is true of Lebanon.

    An End of Tolerance

    What we are witnessing is the destruction of that and the imposition of a Saudi-style rule. All the little cultural things that indicate pluralism – from Christmas trees to language classes to winemaking to women going unveiled – have been destroyed in Aleppo and soon perhaps in Damascus and Beirut.

    I do not pretend that there are not genuine liberal democrats among the opposition to Assad. But they have negligible military significance, and the idea that they would be influential in a new government is delusion.

    In Israel, which pretended to be a pluralist state, the mask is off. The Muslim call to prayer has just been banned. Arab minority members of the Knesset have been suspended for criticising Netanyahu and genocide. More walls and gates are built every day, not just in unlawfully occupied territories but in the “state of Israel” itself, to enforce apartheid.

    I confess I once had the impression that Hezbollah was itself a religio-supremacist organisation; the dress and style of its leadership look theocratic.

    Then I came here and visited places like Tyre, which has been under Hezbollah-elected local government for decades, and found that swimwear and alcohol are allowed on the beach and the veil is optional, while there are completely unmolested Christian communities there.

    I will never now see Gaza, but wonder if I might have been similarly surprised by Hamas’s rule.

    It is the United States which is promoting the cause of religious extremism and of the end, all over the Middle East, of a societal pluralism similar to Western norms.

    That is of course a direct consequence of the United States being allied to both the two religio-supremacist centres of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    It is the U.S.A. which is destroying pluralism, and it is Iran and its allies which defend pluralism. I would not have seen this clearly had I not come here. But once seen, it is blindingly obvious.

    Feature Image: nypost.com

    This article was published earlier in scheerpost.com

    It is republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

  • Crimson Cows and Indian Sensibilities

    Crimson Cows and Indian Sensibilities

    That Israel, in addition to being an apartheid state, has gone completely rogue is no longer in doubt. As Israel digs itself into a deeper hole, in the belief that it can kill its way to success, it finds that this year its GDP has collapsed from 4.8% in 2022 to 1.5%, with over 46000 small businesses having shut down. By some estimates, between 500,000 to 1 million Israelis have permanently emigrated.

     

    Approximately 7 million Jewish Israelis and an equal number of Palestinians live cheek-by-jowl between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. The area encompasses Israel, the occupied territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  Nominally, the Palestinians in the West Bank do have limited self-rule, but defacto have no control over the movement of people and goods, or taxes. Agreements signed in the 1990’s, permit the Israeli Government to collect taxes on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which it then disburses to the PA for its use. These taxes make up over 65-70% of the PA’s public budget and have a critical impact on the quality of life of ordinary Palestinians.

    As has been the norm with Israel, it has used every means, including financial control, to inflict collective punishment on the Palestinians at any attempt by them to free themselves from Israeli occupation. In May this year, for example, it withheld disbursal of all taxes collected over the past three months on grounds that Spain, Ireland and Norway had announced they would recognise the Palestinian State. This resulted in the breakdown of municipal services and widespread loss of jobs. Subsequently, in June it indulged in blatant blackmail when it agreed to disburse withheld funds, provided the PA retroactively approved five settlements in the West Bank that had been illegally established earlier, despite condemnation by Palestinians and the international community.

    While the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023, especially their despicable actions against women, children and civilians, has been widely condemned, the fact that over half of the 1200 Israelis killed, were by their own military in pursuant of the reprehensible “Hannibal Directive”, continues to be glossed over. Oddly enough, over the course of that year, prior to the attack, the fact that over 200 Palestinians had been killed by the Israeli military and settlers for a variety of reasons has simply been ignored by the international media and not been seen as the immediate provocation for the attack, especially its ferocity.

    It now emerges, that the numbers of Palestinians killed by the Israeli response has been grossly underestimated. As per a study dated 10 July 2024 in the Lancet, a respectable and authoritative medical journal, an estimated 186000-200,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, directly or indirectly. This is approximately 9% of the total population, the overwhelming majority of them being women and children.

    The Israeli response to this attack was disproportionate, to put it mildly, but it still continues to receive full support from Western Governments. It now emerges, that the numbers of Palestinians killed by the Israeli response has been grossly underestimated. As per a study dated 10 July 2024 in the Lancet, a respectable and authoritative medical journal, an estimated 186000-200,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, directly or indirectly. This is approximately 9% of the total population, the overwhelming majority of them being women and children.

    The difference between these estimates and the official figures released by the Gaza Health Ministry, which presently stands at approximately 43000, is explained by the fact that the Ministry only accounts for bodies that have been found and not for those remaining under the rubble, that the cities have been reduced to. Nor does it account for the indirect deaths due to hunger, non-availability of medical help etc. Studies suggest that these tend to be between 5-10 times higher than the official figures.

    Israel’s inhuman and deliberate response has been decried by experts, governments, United Nations Agencies and NGOs. They have gone on to accuse Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza, and more recently, in the West Bank. What is even more horrific, if that is even possible, are the accusations made by Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, an American trauma surgeon, on his return from Gaza. In his devastating op-ed in The New York Times, titled “65 Doctors, Nurses and Paramedics: What We Saw in Gaza”, he recounts harrowing stories from dozens of healthcare workers and CT scans of children shot in the head or the left side of the chest. The Times called the corresponding images of the patients too graphic to publish. In his words, “44 doctors, nurses and paramedics saw multiple cases of preteen children who had been shot in the head or chest in Gaza… He personally identified 13 such cases in his two weeks there”.

    That Israel, in addition to being an apartheid state, has gone completely rogue is no longer in doubt. In July this year, for example,  a video was leaked of the gangrape of a male Palestinian prisoner by guards of the IDF at the Sde Teiman detention facility in Southern Israel. Commentators in Israel referred to this video as just the tip of the iceberg, but what followed is instructive. Ten soldiers were arrested and faced trial for this act, but not before a mob, led by government ministers, attempted to free them forcibly from detention. Another minister demanded an investigation to identify the individual who had leaked the video so that he could be tried for treason. An MP from the governing Likud Party defended the actions of the guards in Parliament, responding to a question by an Arab-Israeli MP with “If he is a Nukhba (Hamas militant), everything is legitimate to do! Everything!”  Even the Minister responsible for  Prison Services, Ben-Gvir, told Israeli media on the day of the reservists’ arrest that it was “shameful for Israel to arrest our best heroes”.

    This race to the bottom doesn’t end there of course, and as the saying goes, the best is yet to come. As is well known, the Holy City of Old Jerusalem is home to the “Temple”, or as it is now known the Temple Mount. It refers to the two existing Islamic religious structures, the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque, collectively known as Haram al-Sharif, and considered the third holiest site in Islam. However, according to the Tanakh or the Hebrew Bible, prior to these structures, the ‘First Temple’ was supposedly built on that very site in the 10th century BCE by King Solomon, and stood for five hundred years before being destroyed by the Babylonians. Almost a century later, it was replaced by the ‘Second Temple’ built by Cyrus the Great, only for it to be destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. The New Testament holds that important events in Jesus’ life took place in the Temple, and the Crusaders attributed the name “Templum Domini” to the Dome of the Rock.

    However, many Jews see the building of a “Third Temple” in Jerusalem as an object of longing and a symbol of future redemption, as it would announce the arrival of a new Messiah who would unite the flock and lead them to salvation. Incidentally, the promised land would incorporate the whole of Palestine, along with parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

    Thus the religious significance and sensitivity of Temple Mount cannot be underestimated. Fortunately, as things stand Non-Muslims are not permitted to enter the two structures, while Jews are only allowed to pray at the Western Wall that runs along the side of the hill and is thought to be a remnant of the Second Temple. However, many Jews see the building of a “Third Temple” in Jerusalem as an object of longing and a symbol of future redemption, as it would announce the arrival of a new Messiah who would unite the flock and lead them to salvation. Incidentally, the promised land would incorporate the whole of Palestine, along with parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

    But before its construction can be undertaken, it would require purification of the site and of the construction crew. That would, however, only be feasible, by sacrificing a red heifer, specifically bred to meet stringent biblical requirements. It would be required to be burnt alive at the Mount of Olives, adjacent to the Al Aqsa Mosque, and its ashes used to consecrate the holy ground and the people. The stuff of hopes and dreams for a tiny minority, with little hope of fulfilment in the modern world, or so one thought.

    These cows represent a tangible step towards the construction of the Temple and fulfilment of the prophecy.  The next obvious step in this tragedy will be the demolition of the Haram al-Sharif, for which dry rehearsals have already been undertaken. The consequences of such a step in the region are not difficult to visualise, but will it stop the extremists? Very unlikely.

    However, in September 2022, an unprincipled collaboration between extreme Zionist religious leaders, Right-Wing Christian Evangelicals and the present Israeli Government allowed for five red heifers to be flown from Texas to Israel. Ironically enough, despite the Evangelicals being well-known for their antisemitic beliefs. Brought in as pets, to avoid existing restrictions on livestock, they are now kept in an archaeological park in Shiloh, an illegal Israeli settlement, near the Palestinian city of Nablus. These cows represent a tangible step towards the construction of the Temple and fulfilment of the prophecy.  The next obvious step in this tragedy will be the demolition of the Haram al-Sharif, for which dry rehearsals have already been undertaken. The consequences of such a step in the region are not difficult to visualise, but will it stop the extremists? Very unlikely.

    As Israel digs itself into a deeper hole, in the belief that it can kill its way to success, it finds that this year its GDP has collapsed from 4.8% in 2022 to 1.5%, with over 46000 small businesses having shut down. By some estimates, between 500,000 to 1 million Israelis have permanently emigrated. In addition, it finds itself short of weapons, ammunition, tanks and manpower as heavy casualties in the ongoing conflict have taken their toll. Yet, its arrogant leadership refuses to pay heed to that one cardinal rule about tackling insurgencies; they are a political problem and can only be resolved politically.

    The question that it raises for us is do we really need such friends, and more importantly, are our commercial interests so important that we are willing to forego all that we hold sacred?

    Clearly, if Israel refuses to change direction its days are numbered. After all its most steadfast ally, the United States, can only support so many losing causes. With Ukraine on the brink, an ascending Russo-China coalition to deal with and Taiwan increasingly under threat, an intransigent Benjamin Netanyahu is a liability, who may well find himself the target of a drone, be it American or Iranian. This is very likely despite Trump’s victory to become the 47th President of the United States. The question that it raises for us is do we really need such friends, and more importantly, are our commercial interests so important that we are willing to forego all that we hold sacred?

    Feature Image Credit: Middle East Eye
    Image – De Gaza: reliefweb.int
    Children of Gaza Image Credit: Middle East Eye – How Israel’s Genocide in Gaza sparked a protest movement in the UK.
    Wailing Wall and Al Aqsa Mosque: Tourist Israel
    Red Heifer Sacrifice Ritual Image: thetorah.com

  • The beginning of the end of Israel

    The beginning of the end of Israel

    One year later, the flames of genocide still burn, but after decades of persecution and bloodshed, we may well be seeing the beginning of the end of the settler-colonial project in Palestine.

    We have reached a grim milestone. A full year of gruesome Israeli mass murder. A year of epic Palestinian suffering.

    A year of direct Western complicity. A year of continuous media incitement. A year of shameful inaction by international institutions.

    For twelve months, we have seen relentless persecution of human rights defenders across the West, solely for peacefully opposing genocide and apartheid.

    And fifty-two weeks of a horrified global public helplessly witnessing on their screens the first live-streamed genocide in history.

    The carnage of this past year is unprecedented. The destruction is almost unimaginable.

    Still, this genocide will end. The Palestinian people and their besieged nation will undoubtedly emerge from the ashes of genocide, recover, and reassert their inalienable rights in their ancient homeland.

    But international institutions and the global human rights system will be left bruised and battered.

    The political capital expended by the US empire and the broader West in defence of the slaughter, as well as their global standing and reputation, will never be recouped.

    And, almost certainly, this year of cruelty and lawlessness will mark the beginning of the end for the Zionist project in Palestine and, therefore, of the state of Israel as we know it.

    A formula for disaster

    Of course, neither the genocide nor the current wave of slaughter of Palestinians started in October of 2023. The systematic massacre, purging, and erasure of the indigenous Palestinian people began in earnest with the Nakba of 1947-48, and it has not ceased since that bloody beginning.

    And the genocidal threat was always obvious. Any thinking person could see, even prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, that the Zionist project of the West was a formula for disaster.

    First, at the very historic moment when colonialism was being dismantled around the world, and global human rights rules were being adopted at the United Nations, the West carved out an exception for Palestine.

    It was at this moment that Zionist forces chose to attack Palestine, murder and terrorize its population, chase many survivors away in terror, and begin the erasure of the indigenous people, and their replacement with a European settler colony founded by foreign invaders and radicalized by a deeply racist and fundamentally violent political ideology.

    The colony was to be sustained at the barrel of a gun by waging constant war both against the Indigenous people and against the neighbouring states.

    A colonial education system and a media ecosystem were built to dehumanize the Indigenous and neighbouring peoples and to instil a supremacist ideology into the settler population.

    The settler state, its economy, and its society were thoroughly militarized, enlisting all adults in the project of state violence, arming it to the teeth, including with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and even integrating the field-testing of new weapons on captive civilian populations as part of the business model of the colony’s arms industry.

    They ring-fenced the entire project with western-guaranteed impunity, carving out an exception to the application of all rules of international law.

    And they built an all-encompassing machinery of repression, including laws, policies, practices, and technologies to ensure the constant subjugation, dehumanization, and persecution of the indigenous Palestinian people.

    The toxic cocktail was complete.

    Maintaining Western support

    Of course, an artificially imposed European colony in the heart of the Middle East, which is necessarily maintained by force, could never become self-sufficient. Rather, it has always, and will always, rely on massive support from Western states, especially the US. Maintaining that vital support was to become a key goal of the Israeli state and its transnational network of proxy groups.

    As such, in the intervening years, the Israeli regime adopted a strategy of incremental genocide, with simmering persecution and dispossession, punctuated by periodic full-blown massacres and marked by a continuous march of expansion.

    It was a pace, tried and true over 75 years, with which the regime’s Western sponsors were comfortable, allowing them to continue unbroken the flow of military, economic, and diplomatic support without significant domestic pressure at home.

    And it allowed like-minded media corporations, decade after decade, to continuously disseminate pro-Israel propaganda as a smokescreen to obscure the horrific realities being perpetrated against the indigenous people on the ground.

    Expedited genocide

    But when Israel’s current ultra-Zionist government took power last year, it immediately abandoned the strategy of incremental genocide.

    In its place, it moved to expedited genocide (beginning with waves of ethnic cleansing in occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank), betting that its Western sponsors (and their captured politicians and complicit media) would not dare (or care) to take the steps necessary to stop it, even when it launched wholesale civilian slaughter in Gaza.

    They were right.

    So much so that Western countries like the U.S., UK, Germany, and others quickly moved beyond mere acquiescence for the genocide and into direct complicity and participation in it.

    As a result, one year later, we are witnessing unprecedented bloodshed in the region, and the broader world is in deep trouble.

    Axis of Genocide

    Thus, Israel is not alone in its march of terror. It is accompanied, in lockstep, by what has been called the Axis of Genocide.

    Four members of that Axis, Israel, the U.S., the UK, and France, are nuclear-armed states. A fifth, Germany, is a serial genocide perpetrator and a major European economic power. Three (the U.S., UK, and France) have veto power in the UN Security Council.

    Adding to the danger, all of its members share a common ideological grounding in militarism, colonialism, white supremacy, and political Zionism. Most have the stain of genocide on their historical records.

    All have political systems that are deeply compromised and corrupted by the influence of the weapons industry, the billionaire class, and the Israeli lobby. And all are marked by profound societal levels of Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism, and anti-Palestinian bigotry.

    And, in defence of a single, small, oppressive, and violent settler colony in the Middle East, all have quickly abandoned the entire edifice of international law and international institutions built up since the end of the Second World War, and which they once claimed as part of their brand.

    As recent history has shown, these biases, linkages, and incentives have become a formula not only for genocide in Palestine but for catastrophe on a global scale.

    Breaking bones and records

    And, indeed, the cost of Western-secured Israeli impunity has been shockingly high.

    Image Credit: @anadoluagency

    In one year, Israel has set new records for the pace of civilian killing, the rate of destruction of civilian infrastructure, the killing of children, the killing of medical personnel, the killing of journalists, the killing of humanitarian workers, and the killing of UN staff.

    The depravity of Israel’s actions has shocked the world. Collective punishment, a chain of massacres, summary executions, torture camps, systematic sexual violence, starvation tactics, imposed disease, the direct targeting of small children with sniper rifles, and the blocking of humanitarian aid to facilitate starvation.

    We have all seen the images. The methodic eradication of whole neighbourhoods, schools, hospitals, universities, food stores, shelters, refugee camps, agricultural fields, and even cemeteries.

    The mangled bodies of Palestinians, the fear-filled eyes of the children, the terror as bombs fall on bread lines. The cold-blooded murder of innocents, of defenceless children like Hind Rajab, trapped in the family car, terrified for hours and then slaughtered by Israeli soldiers, and of thousands of others like her.

    And we have seen the cold, cruel laughter of the Israeli soldiers, the deranged chants of violent Israeli settlers, the genocidal pledges of Israeli political and military leaders.

    The promise of the Prime Minister to wipe out the Palestinians “like Amalek”, a biblical verse that calls for Israel to “utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

    The calls of Israeli leaders to perpetrate another Nakba, to raze Gaza to the ground, to make no distinction between civilians and fighters. To “bury them.”

    And, by now, we have all memorized the familiar barbarous pattern of Israel’s crimes: target civilians and civilian infrastructure, then target the rescue workers who come to help, then celebrate in Hebrew but switch to English to claim that they were all terrorists, human shields, or collateral damage, then reload and do it again.

    The accumulated criminal guilt of the Israeli perpetrators and their complicit Western partners is staggering. But so too is the historic moral lapse of the wider world, both those who have defended the genocide and those who have remained silent as it has been carried out with their tax dollars, with their government’s political support, or in their name.

    Today, everyone knows. No one can say they were not warned before the catastrophe. And no one can say they did not know of the horrors that followed, broadcast in real-time to all of us.

    Seventy-six blood-soaked years into this colonial enterprise, it is clear to all who will see that what the West has constructed in the heart of the Middle East is not an enlightened project, but rather a rampaging Frankenstein monster that threatens to drag the indigenous Palestinian people, the region, and the world into a conflagration from which it may not recover for generations.

    The darkness spreads

    How long the rampage can be sustained is an open question. But there will undoubtedly be much more darkness before the dawn.

    Israel, drunk with Western-backed impunity, even as it continues its genocide in Palestine, is now spreading its attacks across the region and leaving mountains of bodies and rivers of blood in its wake.

    In a matter of weeks, it has waged terror attacks with booby-trapped communication devices in Lebanon, assassinated leaders across the region, launched military attacks on Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen, has invaded Lebanese territory, and is now seeking to draw its U.S. sponsor into an all-out regional war of conquest and domination.

    For their part, collaborationist governments in the West show little appetite for reining in the rampaging monster that they themselves created in the Middle East, and to which they continue to provide endless flows of arms, money, intelligence, diplomatic cover, legal exceptionalism, and a heretofore impenetrable cocoon of impunity.

    When the reckoning comes, as it must, the accountability of both Israel and its Western accomplices must be secured, lest these horrors be repeated in an endless cycle of atrocity, impunity, and recidivism.

    Israeli impunity is coming to an end

    But there are flickering lights in the darkness, and they are growing.

    The just cause of Palestine and the steadfastness of her people have inspired millions around the world to stand up and fight back. The civilized world is now more mobilized than it has been in generations to oppose the horrific evil unleashed on the world by Israel and its Western sponsors.

    More and more people are escaping from the distorting matrix of Western corporate media and turning to independent media and first-hand sources on social media, delivering a powerful blow to the controlled, pro-Israel narrative of official Western institutions.

    Today, Israel is on trial for genocide at the World Court, and its leaders are the subject of arrest warrant requests at the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, including extermination.

    The ICJ has already issued a series of provisional anti-genocide measures against Israel, and a growing list of countries is lining up behind Palestine and South Africa in the genocide case against Israel.

    A dedicated international tribunal is under discussion at the UN. Cases have already been brought in national courts around the world, and more are certain to follow. Plans are also underway to mandate an international anti-apartheid body to focus on Israel.

    In the meantime, the United Nations, its independent human rights mechanisms, and the leading international, Palestinian, and Israeli human rights organizations have all collected massive quantities of evidence, have strongly condemned Israel for its shocking criminality, and are working to ensure accountability.

    Mass demonstrations against Israel are not only daily occurrences in capitals around the globe, but they are actually growing, undeterred by the often-brutal efforts (especially of Western governments) to suppress them.

    The ICJ has declared the obligation of all states to cut off all recognition, aid, investment, trade, weapons, and support of any kind with Israel’s colonial project in the occupied Palestinian territory.

    Israel is increasingly isolated on the global stage. And the global movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions is growing with every passing day.

    In other words, the age of Israeli impunity is coming to an end, despite the best efforts of the U.S., the UK, Germany, and other complicit Western states.

    And we may well be seeing, after decades of endless persecution and bloodshed, the beginning of the end of the European settler-colonial project in Palestine.

    One year later, the flames of genocide still burn. At this tragic moment, it is hard to see through the smoke that obscures the path forward. But white supremacist settler colonialism was defeated in South Africa, Rhodesia, Namibia, and Algeria. It will be defeated in Israel too. Through struggle and solidarity, with law and politics, in resistance and resilience, this will end.

     

    Feature Image Credit: Palestinian Return Center

    This article was published earlier in mondoweiss.net

  • In Amman, life moves in slow motion

    In Amman, life moves in slow motion

    Amman Protests in April in support of Palestinians. Image from Reuters.

    On a Tuesday evening outside the al-Kalouti mosque in Amman, Jordan, a crowd of men, women and children has gathered. They carry Palestinian flags and hold placards that read: “Food, Water and Medicine are Rights Not Privileges” and “Stop Ethnic Cleansing”. Some display images of Benjamin Netanyahu, Joe Biden and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi alongside condemnatory messages. In a voice close to breaking, a man yells: “We’re sorry, people of Gaza.”

    “It’s like my life is moving in slow motion. Looking at how the world is reacting and how people still justify the killing shows just how much our lives are worth in their eyes.” It triggers many emotions, she said, especially for the older generation that went through the Nakba, or the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

    In Jordan, which shares a border with Israel and the West Bank, a heavy atmosphere has prevailed since October. Over half of Jordan’s population is Palestinian or of Palestinian origin, and in the capital of Amman, that number is far higher. Many have family in Palestine. “People are living in a ghost-like state,” said Jumana Abdin, a Palestinian Jordanian woman who lives and works in Amman. “It’s like my life is moving in slow motion. Looking at how the world is reacting and how people still justify the killing shows just how much our lives are worth in their eyes.” It triggers many emotions, she said, especially for the older generation that went through the Nakba, or the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

    “In Germany, you have to wonder if you might get in trouble for expressing support for Palestine, but Amman feels like a refuge,” said David Ghannam, a Palestinian German working in the development sector in Amman, who travelled to Gaza in early 2023. “There’s a sense of unity in Amman. We’re all collectively mourning the loss of innocent lives.”

    Across Amman, signs of solidarity are ever-present: Palestinian flags hanging from shopfronts and in cafes; watermelon imagery on billboards, clothing and stationery; people donning keffiyehs; daily demonstrations near the mosque. Fundraisers are regularly held for Gaza, and businesses have carried out strikes in solidarity. Starbucks and McDonald’s stores across the city remain empty. In supermarkets, customers are embracing local products, a shift that stems from a refusal to purchase products from countries actively supporting Israel, such as the US and Germany.

    Another byproduct of the war has been a drastic drop in the number of tourists arriving in Jordan. Petra, which used to draw 4,000-5,000 daily visitors prior to October, has seen as few as 400 visitors on some days, according to the regional tourism authority. Bedouin-run shops in the famous archaeological site remain deserted. “We went through difficult days because the Bedouins’ main source of income is tourism,” said Hussein W, who runs the Harmony Luxury Camp in Wadi Rum. “Now the situation is better as visitors who did come spread the word saying things here are safe and stable. But we hope for an end to the war.”

    During the month of Ramadan, Amman’s streets usually come alive with decorations, and a festive air descends as people break their fasts at sunset with a variety of foods. This Ramadan, however, was different. “People are [hesitant] to exhibit any sense of celebration,” said Abdin. “Streets are less busy, restaurants are emptier, and people are staying at home more. On the other hand, fasting for over 14 hours heightened our sense of solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Gaza, who are going days without food or water.”

     

    Feature Image: al-monitor.com Jordanians keep up Ramadan Rallies for Gaza Ceasefire. 

    This article was published in April 2024 in mint lounge 

    The article can also be accessed from the author’s website https://yamunamatheswaran.com

  • West Asian moves and countermoves: Challenges of them spinning out of control

    West Asian moves and countermoves: Challenges of them spinning out of control

    What will the complex calculus of the new Middle East crisis resolve into, and what will be the impact on India?

    ISRAEL has succeeded in diverting world attention from Gaza and Hamas to Iran. This is similar to how Hamas, in October 2023, successfully short-circuited US efforts at normalising relations between the Arab states and Israel under the Abrahams Accord.

    These moves and countermoves are ratcheting up the intensity of conflict in West Asia with serious global implications, including for India. The Indian approach seems to be similar to that in the case of the conflict in Ukraine— to play both sides.

    Countermoves

    Iran’s attack on Israeli soil is unprecedented. It is a response to the Israeli attack on its consulate in Syria on April 1, killing some of its top army commanders. It had warned of a retaliation and that gave Israel and its partners, the US, the UK, etc., time to prepare.

    The US had already moved its forces and prepared its allies in the region to shoot down the projectiles from Iran. Even Jordan apparently participated in this. Israel could take care of the projectiles that managed to reach its territory. So, 99 percent of the projectiles were shot down in the air and there was little damage in Israel.

    The Indian approach seems to be similar to that in the case of the conflict in Ukraine— to play both sides.

    It provided a sense of victory to Israel, the US and their allies. This was US President Joe Biden’s message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and to forestall any immediate Israeli retaliation.

    Did Iran need 15 days to prepare to attack Israel? Could it not have used many more than 300 projectiles to attack to overwhelm Israeli defences? Could the Iranian allies like the Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen not have fired a much larger number of projectiles?

    Clearly, Iran was making a show of avenging an attack on them but did not want to hit Israel. It did not want to provoke an attack on its territory from the much superior US and Israeli forces.

    The Iranian foreign minister stated in a press conference after the attack that the US, Turkey and some Arab neighbours were given advance information about the limited attack. The US has denied that it had advance information.

    Not only were 15 days given to Israel to prepare its defence, the timing of the attack was also conveyed in advance. The drones, which would take six–seven hours to reach Israel, and cruise missiles, which would take two–three hours, were bound to be neutralised given the advance preparations.

    Only ballistic missiles, which take only a few minutes to traverse the distance that exists between Israel and Iran, were a serious challenge, but due to the advanced notice and preparation, even they got neutralised.

    The Iranian army briefing after the attack also mentioned that the attack was a limited one and had achieved its objective and no more attacks would occur unless Israel attacked its territory. Thus, the Iranian attack was for show and not effect.

    The US and the G7 that met in the aftermath of the Iranian attack while condemning the Iranian attack suggested that Israel had won and that it should not retaliate against Iran.

    Some even argue that this presents an opportunity to take out Iran’s nuclear establishments and cripple its nuclear bomb capability.

    Indeed, Israel’s attack on the embassy in Syria was meant to draw the US and other allies into unequivocally supporting Israel. That support had been dwindling due to the ongoing genocide in Gaza which was inflaming world opinion. Israel has succeeded in this aim. Today, the attention has shifted from genocide in Gaza to the global implications of a wider war in West Asia.

    Pressures escalating

    The US, while saying it does not want an escalation and that it would not support an Israeli strike, has also said its support to Israel is “ironclad”. Just as Israel has defied US advice to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza and allow more humanitarian aid to enter, it can defy the current US advice to not escalate the conflict.

    Israel could attack, secure in the fact that the US and the allies would defend it if Iran retaliates substantially in response to the Israeli retaliation.

    Will Israel oblige by not attacking Iran? The ultra-right in Israel is pressurising the government to retaliate. They have been a part of the growing problem created by the displacement of Palestinians from the West Bank, coming up of new settlements and aggressive assertions in Jerusalem. All this has led to rising Palestinian resentment.

    Many Israelis and conservative Republicans in the US are arguing for Israeli retaliation. The Israeli war cabinet said the conflict is “not over yet” and we will “extract a price”.

    Even the moderate leader Benny Gantz wants retaliation, though at a time of Israel’s choosing. The ultras argue that Iran has crossed a red line by attacking Israeli soil and it must pay for that.

    Some even argue that this presents an opportunity to take out Iran’s nuclear establishments and cripple its nuclear bomb capability.

    Hamas’s action was a result of perceived subjugation and atrocities by Israel over a long period, which could not have been anticipated by Israel and the US.

    But, there are limits to such actions since there are other players who may be forced to intervene. Also, it could lead to a wider conflict in West Asia. The Sunni nations, though not allies of Iran, may also be forced to act. Already, some of these US allies have prohibited the use of their air space by the US.

    Limits of shadow fights

    Israel has a huge network of intelligence in not only Gaza but all over West Asia. It has been able to kill its opponents’ leaders in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Recently, it could kill the sons and grandsons of Hamas leader.

    But, the October 7 attack by Hamas in Israel and Hamas still being able to fight in Gaza six months later lays bare the limits of their intelligence. The extensive network of tunnels in Gaza, the troop strength of Hamas and Israel’s inability to get hostages released for six months also point to the same limitation.

    All this points to the limits of shadow fighting in international relations. Hamas’s attack on October 7 destroyed an equilibrium because it was willing to accept the massive death and destruction in Gaza.

    Israel’s attack on the embassy in Syria knowing that Iranians would retaliate has further shifted the out-of-equilibrium position. These instabilities are feeding into each other since one cannot anticipate what nations may do under uncertainty no matter how well a powerful nation may plan.

    Hamas’s action was a result of perceived subjugation and atrocities by Israel over a long period, which could not have been anticipated by Israel and the US.

    The attack on the embassy in Syria was also unanticipated and a result of Israel’s perception that Iran is behind the Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis. Iran’s attack on Israel is also a result of its perception of having been attacked on its soil which required an attack on Israeli soil.

    Conclusion: Rising global challenges

    Now that the world is divided into two blocs, the situation has become more worrisome. Iran is a part of the bloc consisting of Russia and China. It has been supplying drones to Russia for its war in Ukraine. Even though this bloc may not want a second front, it cannot but stand with Iran in case of a Western bloc attack on Iran.

    Its stand on the issue will be a crucial determinant of what happens next. The stance of G7 and NATO will be vital since they have been unsuccessfully trying to restrain Israel. Military mobilisation will rise in key nations. The beneficiary will be the military-industrial complex.

    War in West Asia will impact the petroleum products market. If Iran is attacked and it blocks the Hormuz Strait or attacks oil tankers, petro-goods prices will rise. Shipping through the Suez has already been impacted and may face further disruption.

    India imports 85 percent of its petroleum requirements so the outgo of foreign exchange may increase leading to a deterioration in the balance of payments (BOP), weakening of the Indian rupee and higher inflation.

    Thus, the post-pandemic easing of supply bottlenecks may reappear and create inflation globally, disrupting many economies.

    India imports 85 percent of its petroleum requirements so the outgo of foreign exchange may increase leading to a deterioration in the balance of payments (BOP), weakening of the Indian rupee and higher inflation.

    Foreign investments may slow down. A substantial number of Indians working in West Asia may be forced to return and that will reduce repatriation by non-resident Indians.

    Thus, capital flows may be impacted and further aggravate the BOP. India would need to prepare for these challenges in the midst of the fraught election season where the leadership’s attention is not where it should be.

     

    This article was published earlier in The Leaflet.

    Feature Image Credit: Wall Street Journal.

  • Achieving the Two-State Solution in the Wake of Gaza War

    Achieving the Two-State Solution in the Wake of Gaza War

    Peace can come through the immediate implementation of the two-state solution, making the admission of Palestine to the United Nations the starting point, not the ending point.

     

    The two-state solution is enshrined in international law and is the only viable path to a long-lasting peace. All other solutions—a continuation of Israel’s apartheid regime, one bi-national state, or one unitary state—would guarantee a continuation of war by one side or the other or both. Yet the two-state solution seems irretrievably blocked. It is not. Here is a pathway.

    The Israeli government strongly opposes a two-state solution, as does a significant proportion of the Israeli population, some on religious grounds (“God gave us the land”) and some on security grounds (“We can never be safe with a State of Palestine”). A significant proportion of Palestinians regard Israel as an illegitimate settler-colonial entity and, in any event, distrust any peace process.

    How, then, to proceed?

    The usual recommendation is the following six-step sequence of events: (1) ceasefire; (2) release of hostages; (3) humanitarian assistance; (4) reconstruction; (5) peace conference for negotiations between Israel and Palestine; and finally (6) establishment of two states on agreed boundaries. This path is impossible. There is a perpetual deadlock on steps 5 and 6, and this sequence has failed for 57 years since the 1967 war.

    Two sovereign states, on the boundaries of June 4, 1967, protected initially by UN-backed peacekeepers and other guarantees, will be the starting point for a comprehensive and just peace…

    The failure of Oslo is the paradigmatic case in point. There are irreconcilable differences, such as the status of East Jerusalem. Israeli zealots would force from power any Israeli politician who dares to give up East Jerusalem to Palestinian sovereignty and Palestinian zealots would do the same with any Palestinian leader who gave up sovereignty over East Jerusalem. We should relinquish the continuing illusion that Israel will ever reach an agreement or that Palestine would ever have the negotiating power to engage meaningfully with Israel, especially when the Palestinian Authority is highly dependent on the US and other funders.

    The correct approach is, therefore, the opposite, starting with the establishment of two states on globally agreed boundaries, notably the boundaries of June 4, 1967, as enshrined in UN Security Council and UN General Assembly resolutions. The UN member states will have to impose the two-state solution instead of waiting for yet another Palestinian-Israeli failed negotiation.

    Thus, the settlement should follow this order: (1) establishment of Palestine as 194th member state within a two-state solution framework on June 4, 1967 borders; (2) immediate ceasefire; (3) release of hostages; (4) humanitarian assistance; (5) peacekeepers, disarmament and mutual security; and (6) negotiation on modalities (settlements, return of refugees, mutually agreed land-swaps, and others; but not boundaries).

    In 2011, the State of Palestine (now recognized by 140 UN member states but not yet as a UN member state itself) applied for full UN member status. The UN Security Council Committee on New Members (constituted by the UN Security Council) recognized the legitimacy of Palestine’s application, but as is utterly typical in the “peace process,” the US government prevailed on the Palestinian Authority to accept “observer status,” promising that full UN membership would soon follow. Of course, it did not.

    The Security Council, backed by the UN General Assembly, has the power under the UN Charter to impose the two-state settlement. It can do so as a matter of international law, following decades of relevant resolutions. It can then enforce the solution through a combination of carrots (economic inducements, reconstruction funding, UNSC-backed peacekeepers, disarmament, border security, etc.) and sticks (sanctions for violations by either party).

    The only conceivable border for creating the two-state solution is June 4, 1967. Starting from that border, the two sides might indeed negotiate a mutually agreed-upon swap of land for mutual benefit, but they would do so knowing that the “best alternative to a negotiated agreement” (BATNA) is the June 4, 1967 border.

    It is quite possible, indeed likely, that the US would initially veto the proposed pathway. After all, the US has already used its veto multiple times to block merely a ceasefire. Yet, the process of eliciting the US veto and then securing a large majority vote in the UN General Assembly will be salutary for three reasons.

    First, US politics is shifting rapidly against Israeli policies, given the US public’s growing understanding of Israel’s war crimes and Israel’s political extremism. This shift in public opinion makes it far more likely that the US leaders will sooner rather than later accept the basic approach outlined here because of US domestic political dynamics. Second, the increasing US isolation in the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly is also weighing heavily on US leaders and forcing the US leadership to reconsider its policy positions in view of geopolitical considerations. Third, a strong vote in the UNSC and UNGA for the two-state solution on June 4, 1967 borders, will help to strengthen international law and the terms of the eventual settlement as soon as the US veto is lifted.

    For these reasons, there is a realistic prospect that the UN will finally exercise its international legal and political authority to create the conditions for peace.

    Twenty-two years ago, Arab and Islamic leaders affirmed in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative that the only pathway to peace is through the two-state solution. On February 7, 2024, the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs reasserted that a comprehensive peace will only be achieved by recognizing an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as the capital. The Arab states and the world community generally shouldn’t buy into another vague peace process that is likely doomed to fail, especially given the urgency caused by the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the bad-will accumulated over the past 57 years of a fruitless “Peace Process.”

    Peace can come through the immediate implementation of the two-state solution, making the admission of Palestine to the UN the starting point, not the ending point. Two sovereign states, on the boundaries of June 4, 1967, protected initially by UN-backed peacekeepers and other guarantees, will be the starting point for a comprehensive and just peace not only between Israel and Palestine—and also a regional peace that would secure diplomatic relations across the Middle East and end this conflict that has burdened the inhabitants, the region, and the world, for more than a century.

    This article was published earlier in Common Dreams.

    Feature Image Credit: news.sky.com

    Maps Credit: britannica.com

  • Strategies: hierarchy or balancing Purpose, Aims and Means?

    Strategies: hierarchy or balancing Purpose, Aims and Means?

    At the beginning of his famous first chapter, Clausewitz defines war as mentioned above within a hierarchy of purpose, aims, and means. His renowned formula is related to this definition. At the end of the same chapter, nevertheless, he introduces the consequences for the theory of war from this initial reasoning about the nature of war and states: “Our task, therefore, is to develop a theory that maintains a balance between these three tendencies, like an object suspended between three magnets”

     

    Strategy Bridge
    “The Strategy Bridge concept leads to battle-centric warfare and the primacy of tactics over strategy.”

    At the outset, I would like to emphasise that in war and in violent action, justifiable ends do not legitimate all means. But I won’t solely treat the means applied by Hamas on October 7th, nor that of the Israel defence forces afterwards. Nevertheless, if someone argued that the ends justify all means, this would have to be applied to both sides. I want to highlight more principal arguments concerning the ‘end-aims-means’ relationship by contrasting a mere hierarchical approach, which is, in my view, leading to a reversal of ends and means, and a floating balance of them. The task of coming to a proper appreciation of Clausewitz’s thoughts on strategy is actually to combine a hierarchical structure with that of a floating balance. This article examines the relation of purpose, aims and means in Clausewitz’s theory and highlights that this relation is methodologically comparable to the floating balance of Clausewitz’s trinity. Modern strategic thinking is characterised by the end, way (aim), means relationship and the concept of the ‘way’ as the shortest possible connection between ends and means  (consider, for instance, Colin Gray’s concept of a strategy bridge[1]). This notion stems from a very early text of Clausewitz: ‘As a result each war is raised as an independent whole, whose entity lies in the last purpose whose diversity lies in the available means, and whose art therein exists, to connect both through a range of secondary and associated actions in the shortest way.’

    Nevertheless, here we can detect the fundamental difference in many of Clausewitz’s interpretations, which understand strategy as the shortest way of connecting purpose and means (battle and combat). Within this quote, Clausewitz speaks of war as an independent whole, a notion which he later rejects fervently.   A central distinction is the concept to which the means attaches: the Taoist tradition and Sun Tzu hold that the means connects directly to the political purpose of the war; in contrast, for Clausewitz, the means attaches to an intermediary aim within a war, which must be sequentially achieved prior to the fulfilment of the war’s political purpose. The distinctive feature of the Taoist tradition is that strategy as a “way” effectively becomes tactics, in the sense that there exists no “strategic” aim, in the meaning of an intermediate military “strategic” war aim inserted between the political purpose of the war and tactical combat.

    Battle-centric Warfare: Winning battles and losing the War

    If strategy is nothing else than the direct way of linking the political purpose with the means, understood as combat, this understanding results in a ‘battle-centric’ concept of warfare that privileges tactical outcomes. One might attribute the loss of the Vietnam War, as well as the defeat of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, to this misunderstanding about battle. In the early 1980s, Colonel Harry G. Summers Jr wrote a most influential work about the faults made in the Vietnam War. He observed that the US Army won every battle in Vietnam but finally lost the war. Summers recounts an exchange between himself and a former North Vietnamese Army officer some years after the war. It went something like this: Summers: ‘You never defeated us in the field.’ NVA Officer: ‘That is true. It is also irrelevant.’ [2]Winning battles does not necessarily lead to winning the war, and not only in this case. The same point can be made about Napoleon’s campaign in Russia. Napoleon won all the battles against the Russian army but lost the campaign. It was precisely this observation that led Clausewitz to denounce battle-centric warfare.

    ‘War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will,’ Clausewitz wrote at the beginning of his famous first chapter of On War (75).[3] ‘Force … is thus the means of war; to impose our will on the enemy is its purpose’, he continued. ‘To secure that purpose, we must make the enemy defenceless, which, in theory, is the true aim of warfare. That aim takes the place of the purpose, discarding it as something not actually part of war’ (75). This seemingly simple sentence reveals the core problem: what does it mean that the aim ‘takes the place’ (in German: vertritt) of the purpose? Are they identical or different? To put it bluntly, At the beginning of his famous first chapter, Clausewitz defines war as mentioned above within a hierarchy of purpose, aims, and means. His renowned formula is related to this definition. At the end of the same chapter, nevertheless, he introduces the consequences for the theory of war from this initial reasoning about the nature of war and states: “Our task, therefore, is to develop a theory that maintains a balance between these three tendencies, like an object suspended between three magnets” (89).[4] In relation to the concept of strategy, we must combine a hierarchical understanding of the purpose-aims-means-rationality with that of a floating balance of all three.

    Presenting any of these elements as an absolute would be artificially to delimit the analysis of war, as the components are interdependent. Clausewitz’s solution is the ‘trinity’, in which he defined war by different, even opposing, tendencies, each with its own rules. Nevertheless, since war is ‘put together’ in this concept of three tendencies, it is necessary to consider how these tendencies interact and conflict simultaneously rather than one being absolute. Clearly, if we go to war, there is a purpose for that war, and different purposes for war are possible. Each of these possible purposes is connected with different achievable military aims, and finally, each aim can be achieved by various means. The question, therefore, is whether all three are incorporated into a hierarchy or whether their relationship must be understood as a floating balance among them.

    Purpose, Aims, and Means in War

    Clausewitz explains this dynamic relationship of purpose, aims and means in war in Chapter Two of Book One. At the beginning of Book One, Chapter Two, Clausewitz writes that ‘if for a start we inquire into the [aim] of any particular war, which must guide military action if the political purpose is to be properly served, we find that the [aim] of any war can vary just as much as its political purpose and its actual circumstances’ (90). The consequence of this proposition is that not every aim and means serves a given purpose. The problem of the relationship between purpose and aims is that each element of the purpose-aims-means construct has a rationality of its own, which Clausewitz emphasises in his proposition that war has its own grammar, although not its own logic. He writes, for example, ‘we can now see that in war many roads lead to success, and that they do not all involve the opponent’s outright defeat.’ Clausewitz then summarises that there exists a wide range of possible ways (94) to reach the aim of war and that it would be a mistake to think of these shortcuts as rare exceptions (94). For example, Clausewitz wrote: ‘It is possible to increase the likelihood of success without defeating the enemy’s forces. I refer to operations that have direct political repercussions, that are designed in the first place to disrupt the opposing alliance’ (emphasis in the original) (92).[5]Another prominent example, Clausewitz emphasised, was the warfare of Frederick the Great. He would never have been able to defeat Austria in the Seven Years’ War if his aim had been the outright defeat of Austria. Clausewitz concludes if he had tried to fight in this manner, ‘he would unfailingly have been destroyed himself.’ (94). After explaining other strategies besides the destruction of the enemy armed forces, he concludes that all we need to do for the moment is to admit the general possibility of their existence, the likelihood of deviating from the basic concept of war under the pressure of particular circumstances (99). But the main conclusion is that in war, many roads may lead to success – but the reverse is true, too, not all means are neither guaranteeing success nor are legitimate.[6]

    But the main conclusion is that in war, many roads may lead to success – but the reverse is true, too, not all means are neither guaranteeing success nor are legitimate.

    Why is that so?   Although Clausewitz finishes Chapter 2 of Book I with the notion that the ‘wish to annihilate the enemy’s forces is the first-born son of war’ (99), he emphasises that at a later stage and by degrees’ we shall see what other kinds of strategies can achieve in war’ (99). Nevertheless, he gives us two clues in this chapter. First, that war is not an independent whole but – an extension of the political sphere: that war has its own grammar but not its own logic.[7] Second, in my interpretation of Clausewitz, the difference between attack and defence represents a distinction between self-preservation and gaining advantages in warfare. Already in Chapter Two, he articulates the ‘distinction that dominates the whole of war: the difference between attack and defence. We shall not pursue the matter now, but let us just say this: that from the negative purpose [comes?] all the advantages, all the more effective forms, of fighting, and that in it is expressed the dynamic relationship between the magnitude and the likelihood of success’ (94).

    My thesis is that Clausewitz is trying to combine the Aristotelian difference between poieses and praxis in his writings – an instrumental view of war for political purposes with the performance of the conduct of war, not just with the execution of the political will. Whereas for the early Clausewitz, the ‘purpose’ is a moment within the war, he later opposes this position, emphasising that this purpose is located outside of the actual warfare. With this differentiation of purposes in war and the purpose of war, Clausewitz covers a fundamental difference between various forms of action, which was initially developed by Aristotle and remains even today. The practical philosophy of Aristotle is based on the basic distinction of techne, as based on poiesis and phronesis, and praxis, based on performance and practical knowledge. Techne is technical, instrumental knowledge.

    In contrast, phronesis or praxis of action can be characterised as performance in warfare. If we compare different purposes for going to war with each other, we are close to what Max Weber called the “value rationality” of purposes. Although Max Weber sometimes seems to overemphasise the difference between the rationality of purposes and military aims, his differentiation is useful to shed light on Clausewitz’s theory. Value rationality is primarily about the relationship of different purposes to one another, which can be classified into a hierarchy of purposes. The subordination of warfare to the shaping of international order, as Clausewitz puts it, is ‘value-rational’ as defined by Max Weber. By contrast, “action rationality” is a principle of action exclusively oriented to achieving a particular military aim through the most effective means and rational consideration of possible consequences and side effects.

                Clausewitz initially makes a two-fold distinction between the purpose-aims-means relationship: first, as a value rationality, in which we find a hierarchical relationship starting from the purpose at the top, with aims and means subordinated respectively; second, as a process rationality, in which the military aim as the object of practical action is the output of the purpose-aim-means relationship.

    He made this distinction at times only implicitly based on the different connotations of the concept of purpose. In part, Clausewitz differentiates between the purpose of war and the purpose in war. He used the same terms throughout, providing various contents from which this distinction could be deduced. Henceforth we need to have a further look at his use of terms and concepts.

    Beginning with his earliest writings, Clausewitz asserted that war has a purpose. In his Strategie (Strategy), written in 1804, he wrote that the ‘purpose of the war’ can be: ‘Either to destroy the enemy completely, to remove their sovereignty, or to prescribe the conditions for peace.’ The destruction of the enemy forces is the ‘more present purpose’ of war. If the purpose of war, however, is the destruction of the enemy forces, is it a purpose that is realised within warfare?[8]  The problem is that the destruction of the enemy moves from being a means to an aim in and of itself. In contrast to such an understanding of the purpose-aims-means rationality, for Clausewitz, the military aim within the war is an intermediary dimension between purpose and means. In his later writings, Clausewitz replaces the term’ purpose in war’ through the terms’ aims’ and ‘goals in warfare’ [(he uses the same German term Ziel for both aim and goal).

    The late Clausewitz emphasises that the purpose of war lies outside the boundaries of the art of warfare. He argues that one must always consider peace as the achievement of the purpose and the end of the business of war. (215) ‘Even more generally, the consideration of the use of force, which was necessary for warfare, affects the resolution for peace. As the war is not an act of blind passion but is required for the political purpose to prevail, this value must determine the size of our own sacrifices. Once the amount of force and thus the extent of the applied force is being so large that the value of the political purpose was no longer held in balance, the violence must be abandoned, and peace be the result.’ (217)

    Additionally, one has to take into account the counter-actions of the opponent. Clausewitz emphasises this difference in his chapter about the theory of war, Book Two: ‘The essential difference is that war is not an exercise of the will directed at inanimate matter, as in the case with the mechanical arts, or at matter which is animate but yielding, as in the case with the human mind and emotions in the fine art. In war, the will is directed at an animate object that reacts’. (149). Hence, Clausewitz’s final achievement is not a strategy that could be applied to all kinds of war but a reflection on the art of warfare, the performance of warfare within a political purpose.

    If, as it seems to Clausewitz, the purpose of war lies outside of warfare and war is determined only as means for this purpose, then a technical, instrumental understanding of the war is thereby intended. But this is not the whole of Clausewitz. He also emphasises praxis, performance and practical knowledge. If the purpose lies within warfare, this does not contain a complete identity of the goal of martial action with its execution. In this case too, the purpose is not war for war’s sake. My conclusion is that Clausewitz is really trying to combine the Aristotelian difference between poieses and praxis in his writings – an instrumental view of war for political purposes with the performance of the conduct of war, not just with the execution of the political will.

    Further dimensions of the concept of Purpose in Clausewitz

    According to Herfried Münkler, Clausewitz makes a distinction between an existential and instrumental view of war. If purpose exists at the top of a hierarchy in the purpose-aims-means relationship, there is an assumption that war is instrumental, in the sense that there is a choice between different purposes, thus identifying the purpose in terms of Max Weber’s value rationality. However, if war is “existential”, in that the only purpose is the survival of the state, the hierarchy of the relationship is reversed, as the means by which the enemy is defeated gains primacy, which accords with a process of rationality. Clausewitz summarised the difference between both concepts of purpose: ‘Where there is a choice of purpose, one may consider and note the means, and where only one purpose may be, the available means are the right ones.’[9]

    A pure process of rationality can lead to the fact that the military aim and means of warfare become the purpose in themselves. It is for characterising war in this manner, as an instrument facing inwards on itself, rather than outwards to a wider political purpose, that the early Clausewitz can be criticised. He adopted the Napoleonic model from Jena, trying to seize its successes systematically and, without considering the social background of France, to generalise it as an abstraction. In his critique of Clausewitz, Keegan wrote that the military develops war cultures, which correspond with their social environment. If, however, war is seen as purely instrumental and the connection to this environment is cut, then the danger of blurring the military boundaries threatens potentially endless violence. In this view, the roots of Clausewitz’s image of war refer back to the origins of the modern age, which was characterised by the full possession of civil rights, the general right to vote and compulsory military service, all of which completed the portrait of the citizen soldier and the ‘battle scenes’ of the people’s army.

    The question for today is whether the revolution in military affairs as well as fourth and fifth-generation warfare (5th generation warfare is partisan warfare applied by states or state-like entities like Hamas) are tempting to a primacy of the means and aims over meaningful purposes, a primacy of tactics over strategy and the ‘art of war’, which is in Clausewitz’s view even surpassing strategy.

    The French model was, in fact, adapted for the Prussian circumstances: a revolutionary people’s army in the service of the raison d’ état – but without ‘republic’ (meaning a democratically constituted system of government). In this form, Clausewitz’s theory was proved and began to be used later for multiple purposes. It started its triumphant advance through the general staff throughout the war ministries of the world. In Keegan’s view, the result of this process was the general armament of Europe in the 19th century and its excessive increase in the 20th century.[10] Keegan left unmentioned that Clausewitz’s theory of war had yet to be bisected to fulfil this function, especially by the German general staff in the First World War. Nevertheless, his criticism revealed a fundamental problem of modern war: the separation of potential options for warfare from socially meaningful purposes. In World War I, tactics replaced strategy.

    Although the understanding of the strategy of the early Clausewitz was, in fact, one of an aim or goal independent from the political realm within warfare, the definition of purpose of the later Clausewitz is based on the political purpose outside of warfare. There are still passages in the final version of On War in which Clausewitz does not differentiate clearly between purpose and aims. The question for today is whether the revolution in military affairs as well as fourth and fifth-generation warfare (5th generation warfare is partisan warfare applied by states or state-like entities like Hamas) are tempting to a primacy of the means and aims over meaningful purposes, a primacy of tactics over strategy and the ‘art of war’, which is in Clausewitz’s view even surpassing strategy.

     

    Notes:

    [1]   The relevant discussions may be found in the following books: Echevarria, A. 2007. Clausewitz and Contemporary War. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Gray, C. 1999. Modern Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Herberg-Rothe, A. 2007. Clausewitz’s Puzzle: The Political Theory of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Keegan, J. 1994. A History of Warfare. London and New York: Vintage; Simpson, E. 2012. War from the Ground Up: Twenty-First Century Combat as Politics. London: Hurst; Strachan, H. 2007. Clausewitz’s OnWar. Atlantic Monthly Press, New York; von Ghyczy, T., Bassford, C. and von Oetinger, B. Clausewitz on strategy. Inspiration and insight from a master strategist. Hoboken: Wiley; Heuser, B., 2010, The Evolution of Strategy: Thinking War from Antiquity to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Heuser, Beatrice 2010, The Strategy Makers: Thoughts on War and Society from Machiavelli to Clausewitz. Praeger Security International:

    [2]   For details, see Herberg-Rothe, Andreas, Clausewitz’s puzzle. Oxford University Press: Oxford 2007. Clausewitz, Carl von; 1990.  Schriften, Aufsätze, Studien, Briefe, vol. 2, ed. W. Hahlweg. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.; Clausewitz, Carl von, 1992. Historical and Political Writings, ed. P. Paret and D. Moran, 1992. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Clausewitz, Carl von,  Politische Schriften [Political Literature], ed. H. Rothfels. Munich: Drei Masken Verlag.  1922.

    [3]   The numbers in brackets are references to Clausewitz, Carl von, On War. Translated and edited by Peter Paret and Michael Howard. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1984. As translation is a highly tricky process, I have tried to make some translations of my own only in some cases, especially in trying to distinguish the German terms „Zweck“ and „Ziel“. These terms have been translated as purpose, object, objective, ends, and as aims, goals and sometimes even ways by Howard and Paret. My main intention in this article is to distinguish between purpose and aims. It might be that the great variety of the translations has contributed to the underestimation of the difference between the purpose of the war and the goal within the war. Although they are closely connected with each other, I follow Clausewitz’s assertion that the same purpose could be reached by pursuing different goals.

    [4]   With this notion, we can explain the difference between Clausewitz’s real concept of the trinity and trinitarian warfare, which is not directly a concept of Clausewitz, but an argument made by Harry Summers, Martin van Creveld and Mary Kaldor. In trinitarian warfare, the three tendencies of war are understood as a hierarchy, whereas  Clausewitz describes his understanding of their relationship as a floating balance In my view, each war is differently composed of the three aspects of applying force, the struggle or fight of the armed forces and the fighting community the fighting forces belong to; based on this interpretation I define war as the violent struggle of communities; see Herberg-Rothe, Clausewitz’s puzzle.

    [5]   This reference seems to strengthen the difference made by Emile Simpson between the use of armed force within a military domain that seeks to establish military conditions for a political solution on one side and the use of armed force that directly seeks political as opposed to specifically military outcomes; Simpson, War from the ground up, p. 1.

    [6]   The confusion about the difference between Zweck (purpose) of and Ziel (aims) in warfare concerning Clausewitz might be additionally caused by his own insufficient differentiation in this chapter.

    [7]   For Clausewitz’s concept of Policy and politics, see Herberg-Rothe, Clausewitz’s puzzle, chapter 6.

    [8]           Clausewitz, Carl von, Strategie aus dem Jahre 1804 mit Zusätzen von 1808 und 1809 (Strategy from the Year 1804 with Additions from 1808 and 1809). In EB, Verstreute Kleine Schriften (Small Scattered Writings), pp. 3-61, here pp. 20-21.

    [9]   Clausewitz, Carl von, Historisch-politische Aufzeichnungen von 1809 (Historical-Political Records of 1809). In: Clausewitz, Carl von, Politische Schriften (Political Literature), p. 76.

    [10]         . Keegan, Kultur des Krieges (The Culture of War), in particular, p. 543; Naumann, Friedrich, An den Ufern des Oxos (On the banks of the Oxos). John Keegan corrects Carl von Clausewitz. In: Frankfurter Rundschau from 17.6.98, p. ZB 4.

     

    Feature Photo Credit: Dennis Jarvis – War on the Rocks

  • The Morals of Hamas and Israel — A Dharmic Perspective

    The Morals of Hamas and Israel — A Dharmic Perspective

    In this analysis of the catastrophic destruction unleashed by Israel on Gaza in response to the Hamas’ attack on October 7th, Dr Seshadri Kumar poses very pertinent and valuable questions to the Indian policymakers and the audience in general.

    This article was published earlier in medium.com

    I have seen a number of Indians try to draw a moral equivalence between the attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians that precipitated the ongoing war in Palestine and the retaliatory attacks of the Israeli Defense Forces on Gaza civilians. Both are equally wrong, these people say. Cruelty and barbarism are wrong, whatever the circumstances, they say. And they also say, therefore, that the Palestinians deserve the brutal bombardment that Israel is inflicting on them because they acted brutally by attacking first. Basically, they asked for it. The fact that the Palestinians are Muslims, a minority that is hated by the majority of Hindus (and, as I am finding out, Christians as well) in India, helps in developing this response.

    But are these two actions equivalent? Most of my friends are Indians, and Hindus at that, so I will draw upon Hindu mythology, which is revered in India, to answer this.

    First, one must understand what the Palestinians have gone through. The very creation of Israel was an injustice to the Arabs living in Palestine, as they were forcibly removed from their homes and forced to be refugees. Initially, all the other Arab countries supported them and fought many wars with Israel. But they lost every time, and the Palestinians lost more and more land each time.

    But the Bible is not history, and even if Jews used to live in that land centuries ago, brutally uprooting people living in Palestine in 1948 was a gross human rights violation. By this logic, the Chola kings of South India were once in control of Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and Thailand, so India is entitled to invade those countries and expel their populations from their lands.

    Some people say that the land that forms the state of Israel was once populated by Jews if we go by the Bible, and therefore Israel has a right to that land. But the Bible is not history, and even if Jews used to live in that land centuries ago, brutally uprooting people living in Palestine in 1948 was a gross human rights violation. By this logic, the Chola kings of South India were once in control of Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and Thailand, so India is entitled to invade those countries and expel their populations from their lands.

    After a lot of conflict over decades, the Israelis gave two parcels of land to the Palestinians to live in and self-govern, but the Jews control the lifelines to both areas — the West Bank, ruled by Fatah, and the Gaza Strip, ruled by Hamas.

    Palestinians are routinely terrorized and humiliated by Israel. Their demand for a Palestinian homeland has come to nought despite years of negotiations. Israel is a brutal occupation force in Palestine.

    If all this were not enough, even the small area still occupied by Arabs is constantly encroached upon by Jews. Jews build settler colonies in Palestinian areas, taking away more and more of the little land the Muslims own. Muslim families living in Jerusalem are often forced at gunpoint from their own homes to make way for Jews. The number of Jewish settlers in Palestinian areas was just over half a million in 2010; today, it is just under three-quarters of a million. This increase has happened because of explicit support and encouragement of forced settlement policies by various governments in Israel, including the current Likud-led government of Benjamin Netanyahu and by the US. Another reason for this is that Jews anywhere have an automatic right to become Israeli citizens, and this has led to a huge influx of Jewish immigrants into Israel. Any protest by Palestinians is met with disproportionate retaliation. Children who throw stones are met with machine gunfire. A single rocket is replied to by a hail of bombs from aircraft. Collective punishment of Palestinians is and has been the norm. Israel has been deliberately provoking the Palestinians more and more, and the US has been openly partisan, as when President Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

    If this were still not bad enough, the Palestinians seem to be losing all their Arab friends. There seems to be Palestine fatigue in the Arab world. Egypt normalized relations with Israel long ago. More recently, other countries, including the UAE, Sudan, Bahrain, and Morocco, have normalized relations. Even Saudi Arabia is on the cusp of normalizing relations with Israel. Clearly, there is nobody left to stand up for the Palestinians.

    A peaceful resolution is clearly not getting the Palestinians anywhere. Despite condemnation by the UN, Israel is continuing its settlement policy. At this rate, the Palestinians will all be begging for a living on the streets.

    How should Palestinians fight for their rights? Talks have failed. How should they “fight” Israel? By engaging in a direct military confrontation with the far superior Israeli army, using primitive weapons, and without an air force — to end up with a guaranteed defeat?

    So, if you say you are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, you are giving them only three options:

    1. Have round after round of negotiations, which don’t get anywhere.
    2. Fight a direct war with a far superior army and an air force, which will lead to complete defeat.
    3. Watch Israeli civilians encroach on what Palestinians still consider their land, until nothing is left, and end up as slave labour for the Jews.

    It is worth noting that the Palestinians living in the West Bank, under Fatah rule, have not indulged in violence all these years. Yet, what has it gained them? Israel withdrew all its settlements from the Gaza Strip in 2010 but is briskly building new Jewish settlements in the West Bank. This is what Fatah got by being peaceful.

    People become terrorists when they have no other option. Asymmetric warfare is the weapon of the weak. When one has a just cause, and all acceptable and peaceful ways of securing one’s rights have come to nought, then one adopts unacceptable and violent ways. In other words, the ends justify the means.

    Hindus can understand this by reading the great Hindu epic, the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata is the story of a conflict between two sets of cousins, the Kauravas and the Pandavas, for control of a kingdom, Hastinapura. In the Mahabharata, the principle that any means are acceptable in order for a just end to prevail, referred to as the principle of Brihaspati, the preceptor of the Gods, is invoked by both sides.

    The operative portion of the story in the Mahabharata starts when King Vichitravirya dies. He has two sons: the elder, Dhritarashtra, is blind, and therefore is passed over for the kingship. His younger brother, Pandu, is crowned king. But King Pandu is cursed by a dying sage during a hunting accident, loses interest in the kingdom, and abdicates, upon which Dhritarashtra is crowned king by default. The children of Dhritarashtra are called the Kauravas, and the children of Pandu are called the Pandavas. Both the Pandavas and Kauravas therefore have a legitimate claim to the kingdom — the former are the children of the last legitimate king, who was the younger brother, whereas the latter are the children of the elder brother who is the current king, albeit by default.

    Duryodhana, the eldest of the Kauravas, believes that the entire kingdom should belong to him, and that the Pandavas do not have a legitimate claim to “even a needlepoint of land.” The Pandavas, on the other hand, are amenable to a split of the kingdom, with half going to their cousins and half ruled by them.

    Duryodhana hates the Pandavas because they are rival claimants to the kingdom. He tries to have them poisoned and then and burned to death. When all that fails, Dhritarashtra tries to achieve peace by partitioning the kingdom. Duryodhana then cheats the Pandavas for their share of the kingdom by winning a rigged game of dice. The condition of the game is that the Pandavas must go into exile for 13 years. When the Pandavas return from exile, Duryodhana refuses to return their portion of the kingdom to them. He justifies all his actions to his father by quoting Brihaspati — that one may take any steps necessary for the elimination of a powerful adversary.

    The Pandavas decide to fight for their right in the great war of Kurukshetra when Duryodhana refuses to return to their kingdom.

    In the setting of the Mahabharata, there are rules by which one is expected to fight on the battlefield. One must not attack someone who is not fighting them. One must not attack an unarmed opponent. One must not strike below the waist. No fighting at night, except by prior agreement. These rules are referred to as the “dharma” (right conduct) of battle. Violation of these rules would be called “adharma.” (Violation of dharma was viewed in the same way as we view human rights violations today.)

    Now the Pandavas can regain their kingdom only by defeating the Kauravas in battle. But the Kauravas are invincible in battle. They have great warriors who have never been defeated in war: Bhishma, the grand-uncle of the Pandavas and Kauravas, a student of the great Parashurama, the greatest warrior the world has known; Drona, the martial teacher of both the Pandavas and Kauravas, another disciple of Parashurama; Karna, the son of the Sun god, born with impregnable armor, and yet another disciple of Parashurama; and many other great warriors such as Bhurishravas. Duryodhana himself is invincible when fighting with his favourite weapon, the mace or bludgeon.

    While the Pandavas themselves have great warriors, notably Bhima, the second of the five Pandavas, the strongest man of his time; and Arjuna, the third of the Pandavas, the greatest archer of his time; even these cannot kill the undefeated warriors on the Kaurava side.

    But the Pandavas also have on their side Krishna, who is an incarnation of the God Vishnu in human form, who wants to help the Pandavas win because he is on the side of justice and fairness, and he believes that the Pandavas are on the side of dharma.

    Krishna knows that the Pandavas can never beat the Kauravas in a fair fight. So, he resorts to dishonourable tactics, or adharma, to win.

    Bhishma has taken a vow that he will never fight a woman. There is a warrior on the Pandava side, Shikhandi, who was born a woman, but who underwent a gender change and became a man. However, Bhishma still considers this warrior a woman, and his code of chivalry will not allow him to fight Shikhandi. But Shikhandi is incapable of killing Bhishma. So Krishna instructs Arjuna to position himself behind Shikhandi and shoot arrows at Bhishma. Bhishma will not shoot at Arjuna because Shikhandi stands in between, and so allows himself to be killed by Arjuna. This is clearly a violation of dharma by the Pandavas — attacking a foe who is not fighting you.

    Drona is told a lie that his son, Aswatthama, has been killed. On hearing this, Drona loses all interest in life and goes into meditation. When he is thus unarmed and defenceless, a warrior named Dhrishtadyumna chops off his head. Another violation of dharma.

    Karna, similarly, is killed by Arjuna when his chariot is stuck in the mud, and he is unable to fight Arjuna. Dharma would have required Arjuna not to attack Karna when he was unarmed and not engaged in battle with him. But upon Krishna’s urging, Arjuna kills Karna from behind when he is engaged in removing his wheel from the mud.

    Similarly, Bhurishravas is engaged in a fight with another warrior when Arjuna cuts his hand off with an arrow from behind. A disillusioned Bhurishravas goes into meditation, at which point his opponent beheads him while he is unarmed and in meditation.

    In the final battle of the war, Duryodhana and Bhima are fighting with their maces, and Bhima is finding the going tough, because Duryodhana is unbeatable with the mace. At this point, Krishna signals to Bhima to strike Duryodhana below the navel, a violation of the rules of war. Bhima strikes Duryodhana’s thighs and mortally wounds him. More adharma.

    Krishna justifies every one of these transgressions of dharma by saying that the ends justify the means. A dying Duryodhana accuses the Pandavas of violating the rules of war to defeat him. Krishna recalls all of Duryodhana’s evil deeds, and says that without violating the rules of war, without adharma, the Pandavas could never have avenged the great wrongs done to them. Adharma was required to defeat adharma.

    And so, the Mahabharata is a deeply pessimistic story, because it says that the virtuous can never defeat the wicked by following fair play in war. They must resort to trickery, unfair and illegitimate tactics — adharma — in order for dharma to prevail. After trying to follow dharma their entire lives, even not retaliating when their wife Draupadi was disrobed in the great assembly of Hastinapura by the Kauravas during the game of dice, after patiently enduring multiple assassination attempts, after being deprived of their kingdom by fraud, after enduring 13 years in exile, the Pandavas finally come to the realization that they can get their rightful inheritance only through evil and unfair means, through adharma. Even to ensure the victory of virtue, one must embrace vice.

    Similarly, the Palestinians have not gotten justice for 75 years by appealing to dharma, and today Hamas is pursuing the path of adharma. The injustice of the Palestinians began in 1948 with the nakba, the forced expulsion of more than 700,000 Palestinians from the new state of Israel and the destruction of more than 500 villages. Some 5000 Palestinians were massacred by Israel at the time. The injustice has only grown worse in the last 75 years.

    If the present adharma of Hamas is wrong, then the actions of the Pandavas in the Mahabharata were also wrong. And if what the Pandavas did was right, then what Hamas has done is also right. In both cases, adharma was committed to securing justice and fairness. Hindus must decide which course of action they find morally right — but they must choose consistently.

    A system where dharma is never respected and followed can only result in adharma. We have no choice but to accept this reality.

    Had Dhritarashtra upheld dharma when the Pandavas pleaded for their rights with him, they would never have had to engage in adharma to get their rights. If we claim to value dharma, then we must be consistent in upholding it. Otherwise, we are engaging in adharma ourselves.

    Had the world listened to the anguished cries of the Palestinians over the last 75 years, a just solution would have been worked out for them and some of them (i.e., Hamas) would not need to engage in terrorism today. But by turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to their suffering, the West has forced Hamas to engage in the only way that the West pays attention to — terrorism.

    It is not enough to say that you condemn both the violence against civilians by Hamas and the state terrorism of Israel equally. By doing so, you are only enabling the powerful terrorist state of Israel, because your condemnation means nothing to them — they have been engaging in state terrorism for 75 years and getting away with it scot-free. The only people to face consequences for their terrorism are the weak — in this case, Hamas, and in decades past, the PLO. They are blacklisted, their assets are frozen, they are put on Interpol arrest lists, whereas the terrorists who rule the state of Israel roam the world as royalty.

    The world is not equal and fair. The powerful have more privileges. And so, if you value human rights and freedom, you must not condemn equally. If you genuinely care about justice, you must side with the weak, not be even-handed.

    Be like Krishna. Not like Dhritarashtra.

    Feature Image Credit: www.lapresalatina.com

     

  • Perpetrators and Victims: Ways Out of Violence?

    Perpetrators and Victims: Ways Out of Violence?

    Franz Fanon had sharpened the problem in such a way that the colonised would only really liberate themselves through violence and the killing of the colonialists because only in this way could they free themselves from the humiliation they had suffered.

    the real evil is humiliation – and many civilisations and peoples of the world have not only been exploited in colonisation but, perhaps more importantly, humiliated.

    violent action changes one’s own soul.

     

    I would like to emphasise from the outset that many readers of these lines will, of course, think that this is the writing of a Western-influenced intellectual, especially a German, who is marked by the guilt of the Germans for Auschwitz. Indeed, I am. Nevertheless, I want to address several issues beyond the current conflicts.

    An explanation of the causes of violence can very quickly turn into an understanding, and this into a legitimation of violent action. Although the boundary between these three concepts is fluid, it does not follow that identifying the causes of violent experiences legitimises all forms of one’s violent actions. Thus, while one can legitimise the violent resistance of the Palestinians and the establishment of their Palestinian state, one cannot legitimise all forms of one’s use of violence. The Queen of Jordan is indeed absolutely right when she accuses the West of double standards in the application of morality – but the need for moral recognition of the opponent as a human person is in no way invalidated by the Western double standard. In my view, there is no difference in principle whether Palestinian or Israeli children suffer. But the suffering of children on one side does not justify the suffering of children on the other side. At the moment, we are also in an information war in which precisely this is being conveyed – my own experience of violence as a victim legitimises the use of violence by myself. In his anticolonialism impulse, Franz Fanon had sharpened the problem in such a way that the colonised would only really liberate themselves through violence and the killing of the colonialists because only in this way could they free themselves from the humiliation they had suffered. This assumption, however, turned out to be highly counterproductive because violent action changes one’s own soul. While I fully agree with Jacques Vergés that the real evil is humiliation – and many civilisations and peoples of the world have not only been exploited in colonisation but, perhaps more importantly, humiliated. Here the distinction between a biological human being and a legal-moral person took on its nation-destroying dynamic and became a double standard – moral-legal qualities were granted only to Europeans, all others were degraded to half-monkeys, uneducated primitive peoples, or sub-humans (the Jews to the Nazis). This degradation did not kill the body, but like all rape, it killed the soul.

    Perhaps we need to get away from reducing every form of violence to its purpose – violent actions can also become independent. You can’t use violence the way you use cutlery and plates at dinner – after you wash up, everything looks the same, but people have gotten used to violence taking on a life of its own. The surviving fighters from the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Syria, and Iraq form a group of some 40,000 mercenaries who fight each other in ever-changing constellations. The 2012 “Tuareg” rebellion in Mali was also supported by such independent fighters, who returned from Palestine and helped themselves to the weapons stockpiles of the collapsed Ghaddafi regime. Chechen fighters, in turn, were a central part of the IS leadership; today, they are fighting on both sides in Ukraine. A tragic consequence of these developments is the inversion of the perpetrator-victim relationship. Many victims of violence have such fragmented souls that they use violence themselves to prevent themselves from ever being victims again, even at the cost of becoming perpetrators. Ideologies and political goals then become an indiscriminate source of legitimation for one’s violent actions, which ultimately only serve the purpose of no longer being a victim.

    Discourses of history: Throughout the Islamic sphere of influence, as in all colonised countries, there is a pronounced discourse of victimhood – the problem is that while the people concerned were indeed victims to the extent that the Western world still finds difficult or impossible to admit, a discourse of victimhood leads to legitimising even one’s own most horrific forms of violence by saying that one was a victim. Stalinism and Nazism, as well as the ideologies of al-Qaeda, Daesh/IS, the Taliban, and Hamas in Gaza, derive their legitimacy from this discourse of victimhood. At a training course in Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust memorial, this victim discourse, the reversal of the victim-perpetrator relationship, was very vividly presented – not by me, but by the Israeli leaders of the training course. The symbol for this is the desert fortress Massada, where the last Jewish defenders committed suicide in order not to be humiliated as slaves by the Romans.

    But the consequence was the motto: Never again, Massada!

    And the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and Islamic Jew-hatred are not a distant past for Israelis but part of the present discourse – just as for many Palestinians, the Nakba is an ongoing part of the present. In Arabic, the Nakba refers to the flight and expulsion of some 700,000 Arab Palestinians from the former British Mandate of Palestine. It took place between the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine and the 1949 armistice following the Palestine War, waged by six Arab states against the state of Israel, which was founded on May 14, 1948. In the historical narrative of Palestinians, other Arabs, and anti-Zionists, the Nakba is usually described as a pre-planned ethnic cleansing by the Israeli military; in the historical narrative of Israel, it is generally described as a voluntary flight in response to Arab calls. In my lecture at the World Peace Museum in Kyoto, Japan, I also wanted to talk about the crimes of the Japanese Empire in the 20th century. The colleague who invited me responded, at first incomprehensibly to me, that this could not be made a topic: He meant that you Germans were lucky, you had your Hitler. To my incomprehension, he explained that the Germans could blame the Holocaust entirely on Hitler and his few comrades, which, according to recent research, is not valid. But if he had to talk about the crimes of the Japanese army, he would speak of his father, but really about himself. He found himself unable to distance himself even minimally from his father. Although the greater sense of family in many non-Western societies can be a useful corrective to Western over-individualisation, the danger lies in the repetition of age-old conflicts. To my surprise, even the famous peace researcher Johann Galtung had postulated at a conference in Basel that 3 million deaths in the “Killing Fields” of the Red Khmer were compared to 3000 years of oppression. The undisputed experience of oppression led him to relativise a crime against humanity.

    The problem, however, is that for every terrorist killed, General Abi Zaid, the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, estimates that five new ones grow. After the violent excesses of Hamas members, it is “understandable” that the relatives of the victims want to kill them, but this will most likely only multiply the number of violent and militant supporters.

      Even with regard to the Holocaust, Hannah Arendt had distinguished between the unforgivable act and the perpetrator, whom one must be able to forgive. But “forgiveness” depends on the admission of guilt. And this admission is made virtually impossible by the victim discourse. In addition, it is difficult to come to terms with one’s own violent actions. Many of these people will never be able to return to civilian society – this could be observed, for example, in the case of US soldiers who, decades after the Vietnam War, still had to “play” the war over and over again in the Nevada desert, because the violence they had committed had filled their identity entirely. There is a drug that is more quickly and deeply addictive than even heroin – and that is violence. Violence eats the soul. And even if Arendt distinguishes between the perpetrator and the act, what to do with perpetrators who cannot distance themselves from the act is problematic. In a study of the recruitment of IS supporters in Iraq, it was found that the main recruitment base for IS was the prisons there. Even in Western prisons, petty criminals often turn out to be serious criminals. Sometimes, you have to admit that the only way to deal with people who are entirely violent is to kill them – like the IS supporters who abused Yazidi women as sex slaves. To this day, it is difficult to understand why the neighbouring states did not put an end to the violent excesses of IS earlier since it would have had no chance against a functioning modern army. The problem, however, is that for every terrorist killed, General Abi Zaid, the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, estimates that five new ones grow. After the violent excesses of Hamas members, it is “understandable” that the relatives of the victims want to kill them, but this will most likely only multiply the number of violent and militant supporters.

     Both Hamas and the religious extremists in Israel and the settlers in the West Bank are obviously trying to turn a political dispute into a religiously underpinned clash of civilisations, or, as Samuel P. Huntington better calls it, a clash of civilisations. Hamas is not only a liberation movement, as it is often ascribed in defence of its actions, but at least a religious movement oriented toward an eschatological struggle – just like the religious extremists in Israel. Both rely on the construction of identity that Huntington also advocates: we know who we are when we know who we are against. Although there is a renaissance of religion around the world, and it is often very violent, this does not mean that religions per se are violent. But religious belief necessarily excludes other beliefs. It is different from the civilisations associated with them. While religions exclude others, civilisations are much more likely to include others. This difference also explains why the followers of the great monotheistic religions, while claiming to be peace-loving, have been responsible for unparalleled excesses of violence throughout their history. The Islamic wars of conquest, the Crusades, the Ottoman conquests, the Thirty Years’ War, Islamic and Atlantic slavery, and, finally, worldwide colonisation leave a single trail of blood. And this, of all things, from two world religions that considered themselves peace-loving. The traditional explanation is no longer valid: these excesses of violence had nothing to do with religion but only with socio-historical conditions, which themselves were oriented towards eternal peace. This is certainly true for these civilisations (even if the concept of civilisation has been distorted by European colonisation), but not for the religions (which is why the Global Ethic project has failed so spectacularly, contrary to its own claims because it has not gone beyond a minimal consensus).

    Huntington’s liberal critics had argued not only that there should not be a clash of civilisations but also that there could not be one – because, in their eyes, there was only one civilisation, the Western one. The others are religions or cultures, but not civilisations. It is time to abandon this liberal and Western conceit, and the replacement of Eurocentrism with ethnocentrism or religious centrism is not an adequate response to the problems of exploding violence.

     At first glance, a dialogue of the world’s civilisations seems unrealistic in the face of worldwide explosions of violence. On the contrary, it is necessary to prevent political disputes from becoming a clash of civilisations. Huntington’s liberal critics had argued not only that there should not be a clash of civilisations but also that there could not be one – because, in their eyes, there was only one civilisation, the Western one. The others are religions or cultures, but not civilisations. It is time to abandon this liberal and Western conceit, and the replacement of Eurocentrism with ethnocentrism or religious centrism is not an adequate response to the problems of exploding violence. Instead, the appropriate response to the increasing number of wars and excesses of violence worldwide must be to separate the hardliners discursively, politically, and militarily from the population, not to drive the population into the hands of the hardliners. In the latter case, we would only be threatened with a new “bloody century” like the first half of the 20th century. A dialogue among the world’s civilisations is necessary, if perhaps only modest, step to avoid this. For in the mutual recognition of the world’s civilisations, both sides will be bound by their own civilisational principles.

    Feature Image: Nakba of 1948 – Palestinians being forced out by Israelis – arabcenterdc.org