Gaza attack: World nations watch as Israel 'wins'

                                                                                                                Pic: WSJ

The scoreline says it all: 1814-67. Israel 'won', Palestine battered black and blue. This latest round of Israel-Palestine conflict started with the abduction and killing of three Israeli youth in June 30. Israel began a manhunt for the people behind the killing and started bombing what it called 'Hamas targets'. On July 17, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) invaded Gaza and on August 5 withdrew its forces. On Friday, hours before a 72-hour ceasefire was to end, two rockets were fired into Israel by militants from Gaza. Hamas has denied firing the rockets. The Cairo-brokered ceasefire was has come to an end with Israel and the Hamas not reaching an agreement.

After nearly 30 days of violence more than 1,814 Palestinians, mostly innocent civilians, have been killed. On Israel's side, it lost 64 army personnel and three civilians. That's roughly 27 Palestinian lives for every loss Israel suffered.

For those who enjoy the spectacle of warfare this is how comfortable it gets. A news report that is widely circulated and called the 'Sderot Cinema' shows how Israeli residents climb a hillock, sit on chairs and cheer as bombs fall on Gaza. For those who are shaken by its horrors, this is what 21st century massacres look like.

While Israel is guilty of using disproportionate force, Hamas cannot escape blame. Its use of human shields, keeping weapons in schools and firing rockets from densely populated civilian areas has jeopardised the safety and security of Palestinians — who the organisation claims to serve and protect.

Guilty of complacence

World nations have expressed grief at the events and have asked for peace to prevail but have stopped short of condemning Israel for its attack on innocent civilians (however, many nations have condemned the Hamas for its atrocities).

The United States has always showed unwavering support to the Zionist cause and this time also it stood by its ally. However, two instances stood out that showed a bit of insensitivity on Washington's side. First was on July 14 when President Barack Obama hosted prominent American Muslims at the White House Iftar dinner. Obama probably chose a wrong occasion to reiterate Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Hamas, especially at a time when scores of innocent Palestinian children and women were dying. The second was on the next day, on July 15, when a shipment of 4.3 ton US-manufactured arms arrived at the Port of Haifa, Israel.

Former US President Jimmy Carter in an article co-authored with former Irish President Mary Robinson for 'Foreign Policy' said, "There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defence Forces are conducting this war… Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it co-operate in its own demise". Carter and Robinson go on to say that only by recognising Hamas as a political player can the West provide it incentives to lay down arms. But it seems Obama is in no mood to listen to Carter.

 

BRICS leaders at Fortaleza

Playing both sides of the fence

New Delhi, it seems, is playing both sides of the fence. In mid July in a strong-worded statement released at Fortaleza, Brazil, India, along with other BRICS nations, censured Israel. However, a discussion on the Gaza conflict was not permitted in Parliament. Following this, on July 23, India voted in Palestine's favour at the UNHRC.

No friends in West Asia

Though the grand visions of a United Arab Republic and Arab Federation have more or less perished, the fault-lines that drove such ambitions during the mid-20th century are visible. If Arab socialism and nationalism were the threats to the monarchies in West Asia then, today it is democracy and variant Islamic schools of thought. That's why even though Saudi Arabia will not break bread with Israel it will not lend a hand to the Palestinian cause in which Hamas is a player. Add to this Syria's historical claim that Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine are part of Greater Syria (Damascus disapproves the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916) and the hostility the Palestinians have faced from Jordan's Hashemites, the Palestinians have few friends in the region.Read: Militants fire rockets at Israel as Gaza truce expires

John Kerry

So it's not surprising that there was not much condemnation from the Arab world against Israeli action, except for token statements calling for a ceasefire and peace from the Arab League. The 21-member league was, however, critical of US secretary of state John Kerry's meeting with officials from Qatar and Turkey (two countries that back Hamas) in Paris.

Far from a solution

While Israel maintains that it cannot lower its guard, the Palestinians are replete with stories of atrocities and injustice by Israel that 'occupies' its territory. Israel's violation of international norms, especially its spree of new settlements in the occupied territories (in 2013 there were about 540,000 Israelis living here), has made it hard for even its well-wishers to defend its cause. On the other hand, Hamas, which is ruling the Gaza Strip, without shunning its violent ways has not made it easy for the people of Palestine.

                                                                Pic: Twitter

In its zeal to 'protect' Israel's interests the IDF have forgotten the number of innocent Palestinians killed by its mindless bombings. In the din of new settlements coming up Tel Aviv has forgotten UN Resolution 242. Washington has shown double standards in defining human rights, and the world in general has remained a mute spectator. Hamas, which claims to represent the voice of a section of the Palestinian people, has been exposed and has done disservice to the Palestinians.

Israel has retreated to 'defensive positions' around Gaza claiming that its objective of destroying tunnels in Gaza has been achieved. But this is a pyrrhic victory — if at all there is a victor.

If Carter's words are uninspiring and violence is the preferred way, Israel and the US should consider another US president, John F Kennedy's words: Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.

(This article appeared in the Hindustan Times on August 8)

US-Saudi ties: Iran is just one of the elephants in the room

King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Left)
and Barack Obama

United States President Barack Obama really has his task cut out for him. On a three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, he will have to delicately balance human rights issues and realpolitik in Riyadh, where he will be meeting King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. More than 50 representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, have signed a petition asking Mr Obama to publicly address human rights violations in the desert kingdom. One of the suggestions by Amnesty International is that Mr Obama has a female Secret Service personnel drive his car. While there was much debate, and rightly so, about the Twitter ban in Turkey, little focus has been given to the way the Saudi authorities have been harassing citizens who have been critical of the government. A group of three lawyers, who had criticised the legal system, have been sued by the justice ministry and have been accused of ‘defying the regime’.
Though human rights are a major issue the US would like to talk about, it is unlikely that the ban on women drivers or policing of public opinion in Saudi Arabia will be on the top of the list. Washington-Riyadh ties have run into rough weather ever since the former eased up on Tehran over its nuclear programme. Washington’s perceived support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Washington saying no to airstrikes on Syria have worsened the ties. Rebuilding confidence and whittling down differences would be Mr Obama’s priority. Moreover this meeting takes place at a time when there is not one but at least four countries waiting for a power change in the region — Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. The US and Saudi Arabia have varying interests in these countries. Put into the picture the interest Iran has in these four nations and its conflict with Saudi Arabia.

Bashar al Assad (Left), Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani

Mr Obama’s meeting is expected, in ‘word and deed’, to shape a new phase of engagement in West Asia. How well it will succeed is yet to be seen. Peace and stability in West Asia are very important not only for the US but also for many countries, India included. Any tension in the region can cause a spike in oil prices, adversely affecting economies around the world.

A Critique of the United Nations from Within

Kofi Annan, the seventh secretary-general of the United Nations, after remitting office in 2006, was the United Nations and Arab League envoy to Syria for six months until August 2012. He quit frustrated over the UNSC’s failure to come to a decision over Syria. It might seem surprising that a former secretary-general is criticising the UN, but if one were to read his Interventions, it will be clear that he has never shied from pointing out the pitfalls in the UN.
Interventions has eight chapters, each dealing with a different challenge and providing a different insight. Kofi Annan speaks about his role and growth in the UN. Interestingly, Annan gives a 360 degree view of each of the situations, tries to give a point of view of both the parties and makes it appear that though each time a peaceful solution was at reachable distance, it was not attained because of simple reasons.
The prologue is a powerful extract of what the book has to offer. A highlight is the scathing remarks he has for the ways world countries have gone about furthering ‘peace’ and is also critical of the role the UN has played in certain areas.

In statements like “For much of the global community in those days (after the 9/11 attacks)…the greatest threat to world peace came not from Saddam, but from an enraged and vengeful United States” and “Despite the singular contribution of the United States to the UN’s founding and its mission in the decades that followed, after Iraq, America was too often unwilling to listen, and the world unable to speak its true mind”, one can see the frustration Annan has towards Washington’s bulldozing ways. Kofi Annan does not mince his words when he says that the US went into Iraq hunting for WMDs on “highly circumstantial evidence” and doubts Tony Blair’s ability to “act as a credible mediator” during the Lebanon war.
The Ghanaian diplomat regrets to be the first UN secretary-general to endorse military action without the sanction of the UNSC in the 1999 Serbian campaign. He also regrets UN’s failure in Rwanda and Bosnia. A very astute statesman is seen in Annan when he says that if the UN has to achieve its primary role in today’s world, “we would have to acknowledge our past failures and set out a vision for how we would act differently in the future”.
Peacekeeping is a very important role the UN plays around the world. However, it will be hard to believe that before 1992 there were only a few hundreds of UN observers around the world deputed under the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). By 1994, this changed. There were around 80,000 peacekeeping forces around the world. Annan, as deputy chief of the DPKO, was witness to this change—albeit for the worse. He notes how An Agenda for Peace, developed at a January 1992 meeting, changed the nature of peacekeeping missions.
Interventions by Kofi Annan is a must read for anyone who wants to know more about the United Nations from someone who has been a part of the organisation for five decades. It gives an unprecedented view into the workings within the UN. A 2001 Nobel Peace Laureate, Kofi Annan is perhaps one of the few people who have been part of the UN at a very crucial time — conflicts in Rwanda, Somalia, East Timor, Darfur, Kosovo; the global fight against HIV/AIDS; the Millennium Development Goals and the war on terror. It’s not often one gets to see such literature.
(This appeared on December 23 in the books page of The New Indian Express)