Will We Remember Them?

Two minutes of lost time seemed more than some customers could handle.

Observing a two minutes silence for the war fallen each year seems a logical and traditional manner to commemorate and remember the sacrifice of our countrymen. Two minutes in which to take solace, stock and thank those who gave up their lives so young is, in fact, not very much by way of a remembrance.

Yet, whilst at work on Sunday, I couldn’t help but notice customers agitated by the two minute delay to their day. It seemed unthinkable that men who had died in a country not so far away, in a part of the world we are quite accustomed with, could roughly rob them of 120 seconds. Many shuffled around, sighed, and launched forward at the till points once an announcement declared the time 11:02.

Watching people behave with such disregard shocked me. How have the British become so desensitised to the Remembrance Sunday tradition, and unobservant of this most remarkable occasion to honour the dedication and service of veterans, old and new?

Could it be that the idea of war has become synonymous with twenty-first century lifestyle? Internet access and dedicated news channels have ensured that conflicts over the past decades are under constant scrutiny from a plethora of different outlets and sources. The conflict in Syria is believed to be the most reported news item this year. Whether on social media, the radio, television or in newspapers, scenes of warfare have come to dominate from all around the globe: be that in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or countless other territories torn by fighting.

The inundation of information is as confusing as it is unending. In his work, ‘A Tragic Legacy’, Glen Greenwald reasonably argues that “The fact that war is the word we use for almost everything—on terrorism, drugs, even poverty—has certainly helped to desensitize us to its invocation; if we wage wars on everything, how bad can they be?” 

Greenwald’s extension as to how negative war actually is may be a push too far, but it does reflect on an interesting phenomenon. There is increasingly less support for war, and consequently we often try to completely distance ourselves from the events. 

Following the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that have dominated the first decade of the 21^st century, support for intervention in the Syrian conflict has dwindled. While a May Gallup Poll of the US found that 59% and 82% of the population supported those respective wars, only 36% are in favour in the case of Syria, versus 51% against. The sentiment is echoed by Britons, with 56% believing that military intervention in the area is not the answer.

It is difficult to imagine then that the World Wars drummed up so much support – of course, largely through propaganda. The threat to the public in the UK was a very real and very palpable one, with attacks on the country a constant reminder of the ongoing fight for freedom. With such little first-hand interaction into modern warfare in the last 50 years, it would appear that Britons have forgotten how crucial an army is to maintaining freedoms.

David Cameron is calling for some change to that, announcing plans for a larger remembrance on the centenary of World War One. However, Jeremy Paxman branded the PM a “complete idiot” as a result of this suggestion, arguing that “people [will] get the idea that somehow this is going to be celebrated. Well, only a complete idiot would celebrate such a calamity.”

Downing Street have demanded an apology for the comments, and rightly so. Indeed, celebrating war itself would be a calamity, but celebrating the lives of young men and boys who died for their country is nothing short of justified. There is much to be said for the courage and valour of men who, with little knowledge of the war and not wholly in support of the fighting, still went to meet certain death.

Only last week, we have seen the remarkable act of remembrance for unifying a nation under a single emotional banner as hundreds of strangers turned up to mark the funeral of soldier Harold Percival. It demonstrates our resolve to stand up for what is right and to intervene to protect social and cultural liberties. It is our respect for these men that unites us every 11 November as a testament to British resilience under adverse pressure; something that resonates with many nations following a century pocketed with war.

After all, while only a complete idiot would celebrate the calamity, it would be a far greater fool who did not remember history and commemorate its lessons.

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.