The fog of war

If truth is the first casualty of war the question must be, whose truth?

When at his trial in 1895 Oscar Wilde was warned by prosecuting counsel to tell the truth, pure and simple, he replied "the truth is rarely pure and never simple". Truth is generally considered an absolute but in reality that is probably applicable only to theologians, philosophers, mathematicians and scientists. For the rest of us mere mortals inhabiting the grubby, messy so-called 'real' world, it's something of a fluid concept  - relative and rather dependent on one's viewpoint. For politicians, on the other hand, it's an infinitely flexible commodity.

Take, for example, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. At the 78th meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Friday 22nd September he addressed the plenum holding up maps of 'Greater' Israel which appeared to herald his intention to annexe the Gaza Strip. Either the delegates present didn't clock this or they didn't care.

The Jerusalem Post certainly noticed and, to its credit, called it out. In an article published the day after, they criticised Netanyahu for hypocrisy in claiming to have used the map to illustrate his peace plan while it actually showed the opposite. Now, mere weeks later, Israel is poised to send its troops into the Gaza Strip after a sustained bombardment aimed at reducing the Palestinian settlements to rubble. Verified news footage coming out of Gaza seems to show that that objective is close to being realised.

And then what? The suspicion must be that Gazan Palestinians will be driven across the border into Egypt; after all, they have nowhere else to go but the sea. It looks horribly likely that the world is about to witness the most egregious act of ethnic cleansing since the Balkan conflict of the 1990s at the hands of an extreme rightwing government. It also looks likely that it will shrug and blame Hamas for bringing down retribution on its own people. I think we can also be fairly sure that the Palestinians will not be accorded the status of 'innocent' civilians, rather they will be accused of being complicit in their own persecution by supporting Hamas. Blaming the victims is usually a winning strategy.

Any protest in the West against this action - and we saw it unfold in Bradford today - is liable to be construed as support for an illegal terrorist organisation. Dare to wave the Palestinian flag at a demonstration and one risks being branded a friend of Hamas by the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman. Frankly, criticism from that quarter is almost a badge of honour but in this instance it is bound to stifle dissent.

As is the fear of being thought antisemitic. I shouldn't need to state this but, given the febrile state of affairs and the ever-present fear of such an accusation when voicing any criticism of Israel, I feel I must: I unequivocally and unreservedly condemn Hamas' recent actions. They are brutal, barbaric and indefensible, showing utter contempt not just for the lives of Israelis but of their own people, who they are treating as pawns in their dangerous power game.

Having said that, two wrongs never made a right and sending the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) into Gaza to drive out any Palestinians remaining alive after a relentless bombing campaign is unconscionable, as is targeting schools and hospitals and cutting off a civilian population from access to power, food, water and medicine. It breaches international law and is an abomination in the modern world. Vladimir Putin is rightly vilified for his actions in Ukraine and yet Netanyahu is seemingly to be indulged in Gaza. But who will dare censure the actions of the Israeli government and risk being accused of being anti-Jewish - as if the two things were somehow synonymous?

It might be thought that the Arab World will never stand for this situation but which Arab World are we talking about? The Abraham Accords of 2020, negotiated between Israel and various Arab states under the aegis of the USA with a view to "recognise the importance of maintaining and strengthening peace in the Middle East and around the world based on mutual understanding and coexistence, as well as respect for human dignity and freedom, including religious freedom" may not withstand this latest shock. Saudi Arabia, which was due to finalise negotiations to sign the Accords now, unsurprisingly, appears to be getting cold feet.

If Gazan Palestinians are forced to seek refuge in Egypt's Sinai Peninsular, all bets will be off.


Popular posts from this blog

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more

Working to rule

An avowed republican I may be but news of King Charles III's cancer diagnosis is nevertheless a cause of sadness - I might not want him, or anyone else, as my king but I wish the man no harm.  However, Jonathan Swift's opinion that "health is the greatest of all possessions; a pale cobbler is better than a sick king" serves as a timely reminder that ill-health in the monarch is not simply a personal matter, it has constitutional implications. To be blunt about it, Charles' death, in constitutional terms at least, would be no great problem; the king is dead, long live the king. The succession is assured and the crown would pass immediately to the Prince of Wales, who would be pronounced William V. The ship of state would sail on. A long-term or debilitating illness, on the other hand, could have far-reaching consequences for the institution of the monarchy at a sensitive time, coming so soon after the death of Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Charles' mo
Read more