The Old Men in charge have failed

A flare-up of bloodshed and horrifyingly cruel violence between Israelis and Palestinians is something which comes round with the sad inevitability of an unloved season. The onlooker who has no dog in this fight is reduced to wondering whether, and how, the cycle can ever stop.

It is not my intention to re-litigate all the old arguments about the creation of Israel, the outcome of its founding war in the late 1940s, or of the wars of the 1960s and 1970s which resulted in the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. I assume my readers will have some awareness of these issues, and their own points of view, and I do not seek to persuade, because this is a trap. These old arguments about Zionism, the ownership of the land, how it came to be in Israeli hands, the legal status of Palestinians, the continued building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and so on, go round and round in various echo chambers, and it does no good to rehearse them. You will not persuade either group to change their minds.

The situation in Gaza, today and for many years past, is that this small, crowded ghetto, containing over 2.2m people, resembles an open prison whose occupants live in poverty and squalor behind a guarded wall which puts the old Iron Curtain in the shade.

When a population, especially one which is so very young, is kettled behind a massive wall, they are bound to be resentful. It is not surprising if some of them turn violent against their oppressors. That doesn’t make it right, but as I say, I’m not here to discuss it in right-and-wrong terms. You already have your views on that. We might compare the situation with Northern Ireland. A few of those in the minority Republican/Catholic community, subjected over many years to restrictions, disempowerment, discrimination, and occasional violence, and with a sense of historical grievance, turned to killing, but the blood they shed does not wash away the respectable arguments for a united Ireland.

The laws of war are based on the concept of uniformed armies lined up against each other, like at the battle of Waterloo. They could kill each other all day long, with hardly any civilian casualties. They could be chivalrous and even gentlemanly to the enemy, and treat prisoners humanely. This model works in a more-or-less even fight, but in an asymmetric conflict between coloniser and colonised, oppressor and oppressed, the underdog cannot compete in that way. Therefore they hide among a background population, carry out sneak attacks and sabotage, using whatever weapons are to hand. Necessarily, they will tend to aim at the softest targets; they lack the capability to attack the well defended ones. It is always the side with the superior force which dictates the terms of the fight and how nasty it gets. The underdog tends to mirror the level of cruelty and atrocity used against them.

When France was occupied by the Germans in 1940, most French decided to keep their heads down and make the best of it. A few organised as the Resistance. When they carried out some action, the typical German response was a mass shooting or similar atrocity; it was quick and simple to carry out – with no requirement to identify the individuals responsible – and collective punishment undermined popular support for the Resistance (who were, of course, referred to by the Germans as terrorists).

Similar dynamics can be found in any asymmetrical conflict, which takes in almost every war of decolonisation (including, to some extent, the conflict in British mandate Palestine with the early founders of Israel, who were, of course, referred to as terrorists). The conflict we call the Indian Mutiny of 1857 (the Indians, of course, see it in a different light) ended with the rebels put down, with many of them executed by being tied across the muzzle of a cannon. The Mau Mau war saw an awful level of savagery and cruelty. In each case, the outcome was not determined by the language used (terrorist/freedom fighter), the level of cruelty and atrocity, or indeed by who was right or wrong. As the saying goes, wars do not determine who is right, only who is left.

Whenever there is a flare-up, the Israeli response tends to be an over-reaction, to ensure that substantially more Palestinians than Israelis die. It is about to happen again; indeed, at the time of writing, more Palestinian children (never mind adults) have already died than the 1400 Israelis killed on 7^th October. Perhaps, in a triumph of hope over experience, the Israelis believe that eventually, the Palestinians will learn that they are always defeated and always suffer greater losses, and give up the struggle. History suggests otherwise. Hamas, on the other hand, are not seeking a negotiated peace or a two-state solution; they want to destroy Israel completely, but lack the ability to do any more than the occasional massacre. Perhaps they aim to provoke a war involving all of Israel’s enemies; Hezbollah and Iran for a start. If so, it’s a monstrous aim.

I’ve never been quite sure what the Israelis actually want, or expect, the Palestinians to do. Go away, perhaps? But where? Into the Sinai desert? As if Egypt wants 2m refugees on its territory. Or are they supposed to just live perpetually in poverty and subjugation? Who would? There is absolutely no pretence, in any of this, that Palestinian lives might be worth as much as Israeli or Anglo-American lives; indeed, many Israelis deny the very concept of a Palestinian people.

The current position taken by Israel (and for many years) seems like that of an abusive husband, beating his wife and then saying “Look what you made me do now!” or “you brought it on yourself!”. They blame the victim and claim victimhood for themselves. They oppress the Palestinians until some of them lash out – whether in a suicide bombing or a mass rocket attack – then call them “animals” and proceed to slaughter them all, like animals. But, of course, they are not animals, but people who live in an unbearable situation.

While Western politicians race to condemn the cruelty and bloodshed of Hamas and to express their support for Israel, in a display of mass virtue-signalling, once again they are behind the people. I’ve not spoken to anyone who doesn’t see this in shades of grey rather than the black-and-white it is shown in Western media; that there is right and wrong on both sides and that eventually the underlying situation has to be fixed in a way everyone can live with.

Israel may assume that, because they have the overwhelming upper hand, they can always stay on top. Israel has nuclear weapons; the Palestinians in the street, sticks and stones. Israel has F16s; Hamas has powered paragliders. Israel has billions in aid from the US and plenty of tanks and artillery; Hamas has whatever it can smuggle in from Iran or Ukraine (yes, that deeply corrupt country into which we have poured weapons with no accountability). But, America spent 20 years and trillions of dollars, in Afghanistan, and still lost to the Taliban. A war doesn’t even determine which side has the most expensive weaponry.

If the West (US and Europe) really wanted peace in the Middle East, we could begin by stopping the flood of weapons into the region. We could take responsibility for our post-colonial mess, undertake to support Gaza, removing it from the clutches of both Israel and Hamas, and give the people who live there a life and a future. If Gaza can be put on a sustainable footing, so could the West Bank. Once the principal sources of long-running grievance are addressed, a new mindset might take hold of the region. Is any of this likely? Sadly, it seems no external powers are particularly interested in peace. The US remains resolutely one-sided in its view.

We now have two regional wars going on which could easily escalate into something bigger. In each case, external powers are pulling the strings and supplying the war materiel. If China sees its chance to grab Taiwan, there will be three wars with the US backing one side in each. They will struggle to fight in three regions, even via proxies; if China takes its chance, the US will have to make a difficult choice as to which war it gives priority. 

The rest of the world now faces a higher risk of escalation to a direct, hot war between nuclear armed powers than at any time since the Cold War. The US backs Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It was struggling when the fighting was limited to just Ukraine; it would not win if three such wars happened at once. You might think the US would show just a little more interest in promoting peace. The US-led West is supporting Israel; the global south and the rest of the Muslim world is more or less uniformly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Did we really need to deepen this new division of the world?

There is a spectacular effort going on in the US and Europe to manufacture a consensus in favour of Israel, and in favour of an overwhelming and brutal response. From tactics as crude as projecting the Israeli flag onto public buildings at night; to the stampede of politicians to express support for the Israeli side, in terms which effectively green-light any level of bloodshed and revenge the Israelis choose to inflict; to the prohibition of public expressions of support for the Palestinians. These measures go even further than the measures to drum up support for the war in Ukraine. Once again, the Guardian has led its online coverage with a “what we know on day 10” kind of header; as if the conflict between Israel and Hamas only just began, and nothing that happened before 7^th October is relevant. We are being gaslit into thinking that nothing that occurred before this month, matters.

By cutting off vital supplies to Gaza (including water), and kettling the population, while dropping bombs on them, Israel is committing major crimes. This is nothing new; Israel has long enjoyed a free pass from the rules of both war and peace. What is striking is the degree to which the world of politics and the media are so one-sided, while ordinary people show much greater understanding of the situation and the history. Our political leaders appear constrained to follow the pro-Israeli line and no leading figure dares to express the widespread sympathy which exists for the Palestinian predicament. The official narrative equates any such sympathy as support for the violence of Hamas – which is plainly ridiculous – and excuses any kind of revenge by Israel as rightful self-defence, which is equally ridiculous. Some of our politicians cover their backs by suggesting that Israel’s response should be in line with international law, but they know very well that it will not be.

Our public figures line up to urge Israel on when it sends in its army to purge Gaza of Palestinians. Yet, the public are way ahead and do not support a frenzy of mass killing and mass expulsion. It is a timeless situation; ordinary people do not ask for, or want, war, but leaders and the interests they serve, make war anyway. Our government (and ruling class) always claim to act in the national interest, but make no attempt to explain how we benefit from siding exclusively with Israel. Many of us believe our national interests lie in peace, with whatever justice is possible, in the Middle East. Also, we are much too familiar with the consequences of going to war without a long-term plan. If Israel flattens Gaza, what then?

Despite the pretence that the attack by Hamas came out of the blue, people know this isn’t the case. The attack must have been a long time in preparation, but it was immediately preceded by two provocative events. Last month, Netanyahu showed, to a UN General Assembly meeting, a map of the Middle East without Gaza, the West Bank, or East Jerusalem. The impression was clear that Israel’s right-wing government seeks to wipe the concept of Palestine and the Palestinians, literally, off the map. (One can only imagine the reaction if someone were to display such a map without Israel).

Secondly, hundreds of Israeli settlers entered the Al-Aqsa mosque on 5^th October, beating Muslim pilgrims and offering the clearest insult to the Arab and Muslim world, while Israeli police did nothing to restrain them.

Perhaps it was with these events in mind that Hamas launched its planned attack shortly after, with such ferocity and cruelty. I don’t claim to know what they thought, or expected to result. Hamas is no more able to destroy the state of Israel than the IRA could have invaded and conquered Britain. But they have shown an ability to create havoc on the grand scale.

Underlying the Western response is a fundamental dishonesty. Over the decades, various attempts have been made to create a “peace process” leading to a two state solution. The problem is – they never really meant it. No meaningful progress has been made toward a Palestinian state. It is just like the dishonest Minsk agreement which should have settled the issues in Ukraine without war: one side meant it, but the other, did not. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is based on the idea that nuclear-armed nations will move in good faith toward nuclear disarmament. Of course, they don’t mean it. International diplomacy is based on too much of this kind of dishonesty. Normal, ordinary people would not work this way. We never consciously vote for that kind of thing. We know that, unless there is an honest commitment to resolving the long-standing issues between Israel and the Palestinians, the cycle of bloodshed will only go on and on. Many Israelis recognise that their own long term security depends on addressing this issue and reaching a solution. The 1978 Camp David agreement with Egypt promised self-government in the occupied territories, and the 1993 Oslo accords with the PLO promised resolution (assumed to be a two state solution) of the issues by the end of the last century. These two agreements offer what is still likely to be the only viable basis for peace, but moderates allowed hard-liners (on both sides) to derail the process. That is the role Hamas play on the Palestinian side. On the Israeli side, Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo accords, was murdered and Netanyahu came to power, who never believed in the Oslo process. And so, it failed; and the rest of the world – including the sponsors of both sides – allowed it to fail. We all share some responsibility.

Our politicians should remember, as the public do, where dishonesty leads. We remember the disastrous military adventures which followed 9/11. The Iraq war was the result of the notorious lies about WMD and the false claim that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11. Our involvement in Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya has been calamitous. People aren’t stupid; we’ve been led by liars into too many wars which only made things worse. But the democracies have a common problem; there is nobody we can vote for who will change anything. Too much of the world is led by a generation of old men. Vladimir Putin (71), Xi Jinping (70), Joe Biden (80), Benjamin Netanyahu (74), Mahmoud Abbas (87), Ayatollah Khamenei (Iran, 84), Narendra Modi (India, 73), Arif Alvi (Pakistani, 74), Recep Erdogan (Turkey, 69). All of them are well past the normal retirement age; none will give up power. It is long past time for the torches to be passed to a younger generation, and perhaps it’s time that one or two women might get a look in? The old men have failed; how long must we wait for them to go?