Promised Land of Change: Israel's Elections and Peace

"If you're in Israel today, vote as if your life depends on it. It does."

Scrolling my Twitter feed, I find these rather haunting words from the Hareetz newspaper, half a world away. As far as tactics go for convincing people to vote, perhaps a tad extreme. Such headlines would certainly not work in a UK election. Yet is it an over-reaction of the Israeli state, or a reaffirmation that the Middle East is still a cause for tension, when media attention is attracted to the US and Obama’s inauguration?

So renowned are the disputes between Israel and neighbour Palestine that Western media appears to have all but forsaken any coverage of the issue. Last year when a period of peace was ended, images of rockets, interceptors, collapsing buildings and wounded infants once more flooded the screens of the UK. But the focus was short lived and prompted little in the way of assistance to the two countries.

Last week, as part of his second inauguration, Obama spoke candidly of freedom and warfare in relation to the US. As the leading force in intervention, the American president voiced his opinion that "We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few." Of course, this first and foremost is a sentiment of American equality: a modern revival of a president advocating the American Dream. Yet, it suggests a pragmatic belief in the need for a practical approach in aiding other countries, whose desolate and poor do not have the right to freedom or happiness from constant threat and terror.

The election results in Israeli may in fact go some way to inducing Western aid once more. The mood of the electorate has certainly swung, and in the process of forming a coalition government, the fine balance of parties views will need to be negotiated and compromises and truces reached. Whilst the American politician Tip O'Neill once famously observed “that all politics is local.”, here in Israel, politics is more enmeshed in social-cultural-international relations than in any other region on the globe.

Naturally, it appears that some have heeded the warning to vote in accordance to live. Whilst the incumbent president won the most votes, he does not have a majority. In fact, the real victor may be Mr Lapid’s party, Yesh Atid (There is a Future), running for the first time. He earned 19 seats in the 120-seat parliament, against 31 for the Likud-Beitenu party, led by Binyamin Netanyahu, who is still expected to retain his post. But the centralist party now hold a powerful position in the next term of office.

If the party comes together with Netanyahu, there is prospect for a more proactive approach to peace in the region. In previous elections, the extremist parties had received significant votes. But with Yesh Atid and the Labour party now performing well and instigating a new approach to peace and politics in the region, a lot more has to be done to appease the emerging young middle classes that have temperaments and logical approaches that mirror more closely Western ideals.

Netanyahu told weary but elated supporters early Wednesday he plans to form a government "as broad as possible" and pursue his goals with "many partners."

"I believe the results of the election represent an opportunity to make changes that the people of Israel want to see and that will serve all citizens of the state of Israel," he said. "I plan to lead those changes and to that end we must establish a government that is as broad as possible, and I've already started out on that task."

Should the Prime Minister prove true in his word, this may change the attitude of Western democracies that had written off the Israel question as a futile area of irresolvable conflict. Of course, none of this precludes the antagonism of Palestine and whether they too are ready to engage in a new series of discussions to resolve the theological problems that have blighted two nations for generations.

Of course, the leaders of the EU and the US will remember that it was the Palestinian leadership, under Yasser Arafat, that rejected the generous offer of peace talks and improved relationships by Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton in 2000-2001, and similar proposals were again rejected just a few years ago. Should the Palestinian leadership refuse to host any talks in the light of this new national outpouring of feeling in Israel, both countries will have failed to capitalise on a potentially pivotal moment in the debate.

Progress has been galvanised in Israel, and now the leaders of Western democracy need respond positively. Media should showcase more closely the development of the Middle East crisis to add to pressure for a resolve. In an age of integrated social media, internet and 24 hour news, the Israel-Palestine conflict is still a black hole of non-information. If only we were as determined to vote as though our lives depended on it, maybe we would have more empathy with the citizens of Israel.

The Syria Crisis Continues...

Tensions continue to mount in Syria following further bombings in Homs, and around the country, as voting on a referendum was held yesterday.

The city of Homs remains under fire and troops are reported to be firing artillery, mortars and anti-aircraft weapons at several towns in the Idlib circumference.

Syria is the latest in a string of Arab countries to be tipped into turmoil and the threat of revolution. Whilst the events have not yet been classified as either a civil war or as an uprising, there are threads of similarity to the revolts seen in Libya and Egypt in 2011.

The protests pose the greatest threat to four decades of Assad family rule in the country and a strong military force since March 2011 is starting to fail. While the eyes of the world were on other pressing revolutions in the area over the course of 2011, action was sparked when citizens wrote “The people want the downfall of the regime” on several buildings in the city of Deraa. When protesters were set upon with army force, they accidentally sparked a wave of national movements.

As a great many Westerners remain ignorant of the initial causes and reasons behind the revolutionary action due to more violent unrest elsewhere, here is a summary of some key concerns for Syrian citizens:

·          

•     Fall of the regime: no step down has been forthcoming from Assad.
•         End to the 48-year-old emergency law: although revoked, Syrian forces still open fire at will.
•         Immediate end to extrajudicial killings and torture: the president has revoked claims of crimes against humanity.
•         Release of political prisoners and detained protesters
•         Transition to a democratic, free and pluralistic society

Yesterday saw a mobilisation towards the final objective: a referendum was held across Syria for a new constitution. Of course, whilst the voting was opened and ran according to predetermined regulation, there is concern not only that there will be tampering with results, but that as many significant cities with revolutionary zeal were under fire, the results will be skewed with too few voting in favour of change, either being scared or unable to leave their homes.

The new constitution calls for a multi-party parliamentary election within three months.

Even President Assad himself was seen voting, the leader claiming that he sees the new constitution as the key element in a reform process he says will make Syria a beacon of democracy in the region. Perhaps the president believes that if he is able to curb and appease the uprisings, he will be able to remain in power.

However, the process has been deemed a sham by some countries, who claimed that even the old regime was not too far off Western politics, but leaders chose to ignore its constitution.

Meanwhile, China dismissed US criticism of its Syria policy, branding the claims that continued trade with Syria was “despicable” as laughable; many officials stated that the US had no right to speak for the Arab world after the atrocities seen in the invasion of Iraq.

However, Europe continues to impose sanctions on the country, including:

• a freeze on the European-held assets of the Syrian central bank
• travel bans on seven close associates of President Bashar al-Assad
• a ban on cargo flights from Syria into the EU
• restrictions on the trade in gold and precious metals.

Although French President Nicholas Sarkozy believed that things in the area were beginning to move, and that there was an imminent solution in the offing, the situation remains extremely tense and it may only be with the pressure of sanctions that the country becomes pliable to the whims and demands of the West. Should China continue to support the Arab world however, the violence and unrest could gather a sudden momentum.

With hundreds of citizens killed in the new year alone, it would seem that there is still an equal resilience on both sides of the Syrian crisis, which only poses further confrontation with the Arab world as an example of the latest battle for a new independence.

The Qualities Of A Flawed Leader

In the wake of the death of Osama bin-Laden, it seems appropriate to take a few minutes to consider that whilst the Western world may celebrate at this man’s passing, there are countless peoples in the Eastern world who may have viewed him differently. Whilst this may be difficult for many to accept and raises huge questions of ethical beliefs, we should consider that the most notorious of all leaders were charismatic to their own people at the time. Surely then, bin-Laden had some qualities.

Let me first state that I am not writing to posthumously exonerate bin-Laden, to justify his actions, or for this to be taken as any kind of support. The countless lives and suffering inflicted both directly and indirectly cannot and should not be denied by anyone. However, without dwelling too long on this image that is so popular, it is worth noting that indeed this is ‘the popular image’. Are we ignorant of any other ideas or (somewhat questionably) ideals?

"I can be eliminated, but not my mission." said bin-Laden in an interview with a Pakistani journalist shortly after the US invasion of Afghanistan. If this is to be taken at face value, it would suggest an aim and motive, a course of action and a reasoning in which all these ideas were founded. For his mission to survive his own lifetime, it would have to be one that was supported by a number of people and connected with their strife. No doubt, bin-laden has already established a legacy for himself: or rather he has established two legacies. In the West, his organisation of attacks spanning several decades is looked upon with disdain. Yet he united a great many people in an apparent struggle to rid the Middle East of the occupying forces that terrorised those lands. 

Osama bin-Laden evidently had leadership qualities then. He was able to control masses and ensnare a certain sense of urgency, of panic, of need to react, to revolt, to protest. Furthermore, he attended Universities, with rumours of various degree paths. In this, his main interest was always religion. Spirituality and an influential family combine to form the image of a man who should be of justified opinion. As startling as it may seem, several have described the man as polite in speech and rather mild mannered. Such attributes are somewhat at odds with what would be expected, but they nonetheless demonstrate reason behind his success. He was a relatable figure across all fronts. He was educated, he could boast richness amongst the upper classes, whilst appear to be pious amongst the lower-classes (reports suggest he lived a moderate lifestyle even before his move to the mountains).

Often overlooked is bin-Laden’s work alongside the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Many of his projects were funded by the Americans and his early campaigns against Soviet occupation were viewed with praise. Indeed, upon his return to Afghanistan, he became a popular figure and was an in demand speaker for mosques across the country. It becomes apparent that his combined efforts to lead a life devoted to the betterment of his people were at the forefront of his aims. These are celebrated goals worldwide. However as his opinions began to diverge from those of the West, suspicions were soon roused. Consider his argument that "When we buy American goods, we are accomplices in the murder of Palestinians". Obviously, it may be considered extremist, but also fundamentalist. Support of a force that opposed the country’s aims was obviously contrary to the nation’s growth. 

In his own way, Osama bin-Laden outlined his wish for an equality amongst nations. He could not continue to follow allegiances with those countries that prevented the forward movement of his own. We should recognise that this is the fundamental aim of any developing nation: having to compete with more advanced states only leaves room for total attention to further evolving the country. 

Unfortunately, the passions of a man who had been so promising a figure of democracy and understanding soon came to cloud any justification of action. Whilst using a religious guise, the atrocities suffered under this banner of jihad only led to mistrust of these countries, further invasions and stereotyping of Islam. Not only is it disconcerting to twist religious doctrine in this fashion (although we may point to the Crusades as a similar point in case), but any advances made between Eastern and Western domains have been undermined by the reckless search for ‘equality and justice’.

Defining a terrorist still leaves a great deal to be implied and even vaguer attributes are left unaddressed. If we consider bin-Laden a terrorist, it is because he has been at the forefront of campaigns that have seen countless horrors. Then should we not reach an independent view that his success was in part due to forces that appeared to fill the same description of terrorist to some of the citizens in the Middle East. In this sense, neither side aided the other. Therefore with growing confusion, the need for some form of insurgency would have been deemed necessary. Culpability becomes a worldwide factor: in not reaching a unilateral code of conduct and peace laws, antagonism is only met with antagonism.

Whilst Osama bin-Laden may be deemed a man of many faults then, we should acknowledge him as someone who did terrible things, but was a leader through various appealing means. He had served his country, become educated, led a life that many testified was in keeping with tradition for the most part and was tactful in his announcements. In one final depiction of how his skills are best demonstrated, consider his reasoning for attacks upon America and think how closely it appears to parallel all other declarations of a justified war from the West:

"Allah knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed – when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

– Osama bin Laden, 2004