Mind Your Media

By Mark Crutchley

In a few hours time the Bahrain Grand Prix will take place and the ruling monarchy will have won a publicity battle to show the world that all is well in their kingdom. Really? That is what we are told in the media, but it seems to me it couldn’t be further from the truth.

Unwittingly, Formula 1, through its desperation to follow the money and ensure the event took place at all costs, has actually brought more attention to the ongoing human rights abuses in Bahrain than could ever have been achieved by domestic protestors or a few of the more intrepid journalists. It provided both a focal point for local protest and the international media circus to report on it.

Sadly though this highlights the way in which the media distorts the prism through which we all experience the world. Short of having contacts around the world, virtually all of us are dependent on our media for our view of international events, and it is well for us to remember that the view we get is far from an impartial one.

“We don’t like Syria” so the unrest there is covered extensively, while in Bahrain “who are good trading partners” protests go unreported. Granted the situation in Syria is far more advanced and serious than in Bahrain, but is that any reason to ignore the latter? Just ask yourself, how many times did you hear about the political situation in Bahrain on the news in the year before this grand prix?
 

The selective reporting of what is considered newsworthy has an enormous impact on public opinion and that as we know is deeply important to our politicians. It’s just one of the ways in which our press in particular play a disproportionate role in setting the political agenda.

What is scary (in my opinion) is the degree to which the media and the press in particular, has allowed itself to become a vehicle for the public relations industry. I would highly recommend anyone to read Flat Earth News by Nick Davies, which exposes the way the print media has, in many ways, abdicated responsibility for checking or even originating stories in favour of rehashing press releases or running items picked up from the newswires.

Perhaps even more important though than how some events are reported is the fact that so many are not. Keeping something out of the media can be even more important than getting the right coverage, bringing us back to the case of Bahrain. It is also the ultimate expression of power, typically by the state, to be able to tell the media what it can and cannot report.

It is too much to ask that the media should suddenly change and offer us a wider and more balanced perspective on the world, so the emphasis has to be on each of us to seek out alternative views to flesh out our understanding of what is really going on. The internet gives us that opportunity in a way that has never before existed, but it also offers a lot of opinion served up as fact, so we need to stay sceptical at all times.

There is good information out there and if you spend a little time you can find some good reliable, alternative sources. Even Twitter, fatuous though much of its content may be, can be an excellent source of information if you follow the right people and organisations.

Cartoons from QW Magazine

The Democracy Movement in the Arab World

By David Seddon

At last, after 18 days of mass protest by ordinary Egyptians across the country - notably in Tahrir (Liberation) Square in the capital, Cairo - President Hosni Mubarak has resigned. After several attempts to cling onto power, he was forced by the overwhelming commitment of the Egyptian people to demands for real political change and the end of his regime, to go. Efforts by his Vice President and sections of the army high command to persuade the people to accept an increase in salaries and wages and largely cosmetic political reforms proved to be in vain. Now the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is in control and has supported the meeting of a Constitutional Council, including judges and other supposedly impartial figures to develop a framework for moves towards a new Constitution and political dispensation.

While the future of Egyptian politics remains unclear, there is good reason to believe that the democracy movement has achieved a significant objective – the overthrow of a 30-year old authoritarian regime inherited from President Sadat and the beginnings of a new, more open politics. The army has agreed to lift the state of emergency that has been in place for decades, as soon as the situation quietens down and there is every sign that they will respect whatever arrangements the Constitutional Council devises for an orderly transition to a more democratic system. The international community has, also at last, accepted the inevitable and broadly welcomed the prospect of a more democratic Egypt, although there are real concerns as to the medium term effect on Egypt’s policy towards Israel, with whom President Sadat made peace, much to the anger at the time of the Arab league and the Arab World as a whole. The Israeli authorities in the meanwhile remain anxious about the prospects of an Egypt that may become a slightly less acquiescent partner in US Middle Eastern policy – although it seems unlikely that there will be any radical change in Egyptian foreign policy in the immediate future.

Elsewhere in the Arab world, where events in Egypt have been closely followed through all of the media now available (radio, TV, blogs, twitter and social networks), there are indications of a similar desire on the part of ordinary people for greater freedom and democracy. In Tunisia, for example, where mass demonstrations earlier in January led to the overthrow of the long-standing authoritarian regime of strong-man President Zeine ben Ali (who fled to Saudi Arabia) , there is continuing support for major political reforms and greater freedoms. There too, the democracy movement is alive and well, and apparently making significant advances, for the moment at least.

In Jordan, King Abdullah moved swiftly in the face of popular protest in the streets of Amman to dismiss the prime minister and replace him and his government, and to promise ‘significant reforms’, largely as a measure to pre-empt pressure for more radical change. In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad signaled, after the mass protests began in Tunisia and Egypt that ‘he understood the need for change’, but calls or demonstrations against the regime – a ‘day of rage’ - last weekend (5-6th February) – were insufficient to generate the large scale popular protest that was manifest elsewhere. It seems unlikely that there will be significant reforms in Syria in the near future, but the impact of the Arab democracy movement is hard to predict.

In Yemen, street protestors in the capital, Sana’a, and other cities were able to wring some important concessions from President Ali Abdullah Saleh – notably, that he would not stand again for the presidency after the end of his present term and that his son would not succeed him, as well as some economic reforms. So far, however, they have been unable to topple the 68-year old President, who is also supreme commander of the armed forces of Yemen, and on Friday he chaired an expanded meeting of the National Defence Council, political leaders and the Security Committee, to discuss the modernisation of the armed forces and security as well as improvements in the salaries and financial allowances of government staff and the armed and security forces. They also reviewed ways to reduce expenditures and raise incomes and revenues. This looks like an attempt to strengthen the forces of repression rather than to meet the demands of the demonstrators, but again, the future of the democracy movement here too is difficult to predict.

Finally, in Algeria, where demonstrations in the early part of January in response to increases in the price of basic goods resulted in government moves to moderate the price increases and make changes to certain aspects of economic policy, there were plans for large demonstrations this weekend (12-13th February) – following the success of such demonstrations in Egypt - in opposition to the continuing control of Algerian politics by the FLN and the army – but so far (as I write this column on Saturday morning) they have met with heavy repression and have been effective kept under strict control. It may not prove so easy, however, to contain the Algerian people after decades of repression and a 10-year long and brutal struggle against the Islamists in which thousands of Algerian civilians (and security personnel) lost their lives.

Lessons of the Iraq Enquiry

By Lee Marsden

It is now seven long years since George Bush and Tony Blair launched their war for regime change in Iraq under the guise of searching for non existent weapons of mass destruction. This anniversary coincides with the second parliamentary elections in Iraq. Meanwhile in the UK, the Iraq Enquiry trundles on. It is worth reminding ourselves of the purpose of the enquiry which was to 'identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict. Already it is becoming clear what those lessons are for the Labour party and incoming governments.

When called to account for dubious foreign policy decisions:

1. Stick to your story. Regardless of evidence to the contrary never admit that the decision to go to war was based on anything other than the best of intentions. Yes, of course they believed there were weapons of mass destruction and were seriously concerned about Saddam Hussein's human rights record. Don't admit that the real reason for sending troops into battle was to be seen as America's closest ally (sorry Israel) and that UK foreign policy is now subordinate to this strategy.


2. Appoint a deferential committee of establishment figures. Chilcott Enquiry members are ideal, handpicked for the occasion, guaranteed to politely ask the easy questions and not forensically examine and challenge the evidence presented. They are much too deferential and polite to cause a fuss and after all, if you have helped write Tony Blair's major foreign policy speech setting out his interventionist instincts, as Professor Freedman did, then you don’t want to rock the boat too much.


3. Ignore public opinion. Public opinion counts for very little if you simply ignore it. What does it matter if opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to troop deployment? Why should one and a half million people marching against war matter, when they can simply be dismissed as well meaning but ignorant dupes? Ignore mass demonstrations and those naive enough to believe that governments can be persuaded to change policy become disillusioned and vow never to march again. The anti war millions may win the moral high ground but policy remains unchanged and governments can go onto win elections.


4. Claim victory. Ignore the death count. In fact, don't count the dead. Probably only around three thousand people will die violent deaths in Iraq this year, the lowest figure since the invasion. Democratic elections have taken place, Iraq hasn't disintegrated into civil war and British troops have left having successfully contributed to this happy state of affairs. Do not mention that the final months in Basra were spent ignominiously under fire, hunkered down at the airport, confined to barracks, as the Americans and Iraqi army dealt with the Mahdi army. British troops were unable to deal with the problem because their presence was the problem.


5. Insist that the ends justify the means. Even if there were no weapons of mass destruction, at least Iraq is a better place than it was under Saddam Hussein as John Chilcott has helpfully reminded Brown and Blair. Don't ask 'better for whom'? Better for the families of over one hundred thousand who will never see their loved ones again? Better for the hundreds of thousands who have been maimed? Better for the two million refugees who had to flee the country? Better for millions of internally displaced Iraqis? Better for thousands of children born with severe birth defects as a result of the detritus of war? Perhaps it is better not to mention that for many Iraqis the war will never be a price worth paying.

Fortunately, for all those who opposed the Iraq war the forthcoming election provides an opportunity to use the ballot box to give those who took us into the Iraq war a very different lesson.

From Norwich: eyewitness Gaza

By Rupert Read

My friend Peter Offord, an artist and local 'Stop the War' leader, has just recently returned from a historic visit to the Gaza strip, part of Palestine. 'Historic', because it is almost impossible to gain entry to Gaza, if the Israelis don't like what you intend to do there. As peace activists, Peter and his colleagues were considered a threat… Peter wanted to enter Gaza to be able to work with the traumatised local inhabitants there, in his capacity as an art therapist.

Why are so many Gazans traumatized?

The Israeli siege of Gaza began in 2005 when Israel withdrew its illegal settlers, and tightened in 2006 when Hamas won 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian Assembly, leading to collective punishment of the people of Gaza by Israel. The siege severely restricts the entry of food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities through all the legitimate border-crossing-points into Gaza.

Just after Christmas 2008, Gaza fell victim to a viciously disproportionate attack by Israel. Gaza suffered 1,400 dead during the next month including 412 children, and 5,300 injured. By contrast, just 13 Israelis died during the attack. Israel pretended that this was a war; and Hamas, not wishing to appear cowed and humiliated, went along with the pretence. But this wasn't a war. It was a massacre.

One is reminded of the words of one of Israel's most famous ever war-leaders,
General Moshe Dayan, who once said "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous 
to bother."

So: Peter sought, along with a thousand other peace activists from across the world, to enter Gaza, last month, as part of the Gaza Freedom March, to offer help to the Palestinian people. Shamefully, the Egyptian government sought to stop them, revoking previously approved coach permits, and banning all protests. When Peter managed to proceed 'incognito' too close to the Gazan border, he was placed under house-arrest by the Egyptian police. The situation only changed when Suzanne Mubarak - the Egyptian President's wife, and chair of the Red Crescent (the Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross) - intervened, angering the Egyptian government but persuading it to allow into Gaza 100 people carrying humanitarian aid for the desperately suffering Gazan people.

Peter and his colleagues then had just three days to do all that they were trying to do, in Gaza. Peter managed for example to visit a centre for war-traumatised children who are using art materials to draw their experiences. They then describe these to their class (which takes place in devastated building) in order to try to reframe the terrible sufferings that they have undergone.

Earlier this month, Osama bin Laden said, "America will never be able to dream of living in peace unless we live it in Palestine. It is unfair that you enjoy a safe life while our brothers in Gaza suffer greatly." So long as the inhuman siege of and state-terrorisation of Gaza continues, Israel and its allies such as the USA (and UK) provide a ready-made excuse to bin Laden and his vicious minions for their savage campaign of violence against Western targets. For bin Laden continued his remarks: "Therefore, with God's will, our attacks on you will continue as long as you continue to support Israel." If we want to be tough on the causes of non-state terrorism, then we have to be tough on state-terrorism. That means, at minimum, calling time on our government's backing for Israel's cruel siege.

Well done to Peter Offord and to all his fellow activists for being brave enough to put their bodies on the line, and to make their way into Gaza despite the pressure put on them not to do so, by Israel and its Egyptian lackeys. If only our government could now be one-tenth as brave.

It's the climb

By Juliette Harkin

As we tuck into our festive dinner and settle down to watch TV this Christmas, Peter Offord, a Green Party councillor from Norwich, and a qualified art therapist, will be preparing to join over a thousand people on the Gaza Freedom March. This non-violent march will take place on the 31st December and marks a year since the Israeli military assault that killed and injured thousands of Palestinian civilians.

Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi have shown us that non-violent protest can deliver justice. In the fight for freedom, Mandela focused on the tough climb for recognition: "I have walked that long road to freedom. I have tried not to falter; I have made missteps along the way. But I have discovered the secret that after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. […] I dare not linger, for my long walk is not ended."

The marchers will enter Gaza from the Egyptian border and join hands with Palestinian students, teachers, doctors and academics to peacefully break the siege on Gaza. Gaza's borders are sealed by the Israeli military, creating prison-like conditions for the 1.5 million inhabitants.

Why do the activists care so much and why this conflict, when there is so much injustice around the world? Well, no western state supports the excesses of Mugabe's regime. We turned our backs on Apartheid South Africa and criticisms of the Sudanese government have been rightly very vocal.

On the other hand, Israel is positively aided and abetted by the US, the British and the European Union. The West provided the bombs, some of which were not used legally, including the use of white phosphorus bombs in civilian areas of Gaza. As we all ushered in 2009 Israel recklessly bombed a highly populated area that contained civilians. Sometimes Israeli leaflets or phone calls told citizens to leave their homes and yet they were locked in this tiny stretch of land and, unlike refugees fleeing war the world over, had nowhere to walk to safety. Israel bombed built up areas housing, schools and hospitals and it fired at ambulance crews. Civilians were beheaded or blown to pieces by illegally used weapons, or, if they were 'lucky', just mangled and crippled for life.

As far as the Israeli soldiers were concerned every Palestinian man, woman or child in Gaza was a potential terrorist. There were no civilians or humans, just the enemy.

What Israel did was as morally corrupt as the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Sovereign states, including ours, have a responsibility to act within the law, or else our world will never be a safe place free from terror. Israel gained its statehood to the detriment of the indigenous people and, as historian Avi Shlaim says, has subsequently chosen land-grabs over peace.

It is a sad indictment of our world's political system that we actually have to have rules for war – for war is surely a failure of politics – but we do and one of the world's most militaristic states, Israel, has been flouting them since the day it was born. Blair and Bush have set the bar so low now – complete disdain for international law and human rights - and guess what? Some rather unpleasant regimes around the world have jumped on this sordid bandwagon.

The organisers of the march, The International Coalition to End the Siege on Gaza, say that the "conscience of humankind is shocked", but this is not enough. The aim is clear: to "quicken" the conscience of the world towards a just solution for the Palestinians.

To understand more about what the march is all about and to see how you can support and help the marchers visit the website at http://www.gazafreedommarch.org/.

No we can't?

By Lee Marsden

This time last year the world celebrated the incredible victory of America's first African-American president. Barack Obama mobilised popular support and ran an impressive campaign which promised change. The not-Bush candidate with his soaring rhetoric and youthful good looks charmed American voters and interested onlookers around the world, promising a brighter future, one where internal and external divisions would be healed. One year on the Obama gloss is beginning to wear off as vested interests demonstrate that it is once again business as usual. A Washington Post opinion poll in January gave Obama a 79 percent approval rating, today this has fallen to just 57 percent. In making few guarantees, while encouraging voters to put their hopes in him, unrealistic expectations were generated that Obama is unable to deliver. Increasingly US voters and audiences around the world are beginning to realise what the Nobel Peace Prize selection panel did not, that it is one thing to promise the earth quite another to deliver it.

Obama started off with great gusto, reaching out the hand of friendship to the Muslim world, promising to withdraw from Iraq, close Guantanamo Bay, and work to achieve an Israel-Palestinian peace settlement. The best of intentions have still to produce results and those ambitions are being thwarted by vested interests. The hand of friendship has resulted in a warmer attitude towards America in majority Muslim countries. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Report, Egyptians' favourable attitudes towards the US have risen in the last year from 22 to 27 percent. Turkish favourable attitudes have also grown from 12 percent to 14 percent, not very high for a NATO member. While Pakistani favourable attitudes have actually declined from 19 percent to 16 percent and in the Palestinian Territories 75 percent express no confidence in US policy. Admittedly, Obama himself enjoys greater approval ratings, but a change of president without a significant change in foreign policy does not suggest that the hope for the future emphasised by the Democrat candidate in 2008 will be realised by the Democratic incumbent in the White House.

Taking the battle to Al Qaeda has involved becoming embroiled in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While Iraq was Bush's war, Afghanistan and the undeclared war on parts of Pakistan by unmanned drones, is Obama's war of choice. Faced with different opinions by his army advisors, the vice president, state department and the Pentagon, Obama has dithered for two months unable to decide on a clear strategy for Afghanistan, whether to follow his general’s advice and significantly increase troop levels by 40,000 or pursue a counter insurgency strategy aimed solely at Al Qaeda. As part of that strategy he is paying the Pakistan government $7.5 billion over the next five years to wage war on their own citizens in Swat and North Western Province. What is clear is that a strategy for withdrawal is very much off the agenda. The promise to withdraw from Iraq within sixteen months and close Guantanamo Bay by the end of the year will not be achieved, with US troops set to remain in a training capacity in Iraq well into any second term the president may enjoy.

The prospects for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are receding by the day as Benjamin Netanyahu the Israeli prime minister outmanoeuvres the US president at every turn, ignoring Obama's pleas to halt settlement construction, and removing East Jerusalem from any US constraint, with Obama apparently unable, or unwilling due to the Israel Lobby, to constrain his closest ally. Palestinians are losing confidence in Obama's ability to bring Israel to the table and bring about a two-state solution. For all the talk about hope and change in terms of US foreign policy it remains business as usual.

Blair set to become EU President

By Lee Marsden

The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by Irish voters has paved the way for the possible installation of former Prime Minister Tony Blair to the new post of EU president. The position is that of figurehead and answers Henry Kissinger's famous question of "who should I ring if I want to speak to Europe" the answer, as early as the end of this month, could be Tony Blair. Officially, the post involves representing the views of the 27 member states, chairing the European Council and, rather ambiguously, driving its work. The post could become as significant as the incumbent chooses to make it. A charismatic figure such as Tony Blair could have great sway in being able to influence the future direction of the EU, particularly in its relations with the outside world. The salary of £242,000 pa, personal staff of twenty, £37,000 pa housing allowance, chauffeur and other perks are unlikely to be the main motivation for a man who has, according to his biographer Adam Boulton, earned over £15 million since leaving office two years ago, but will undoubtedly help. European publics will have no say in the appointment, which is based on a vote of the 27 heads of state with support for Blair apparently coming from Sarkozy, Brown and probably Angela Merkel.

Blair's appointment would certainly increase the EU's international profile but at what cost? While Jonathon Powell, his former chief-of-staff, touts his friend's credentials around Europe as an international statesman, Middle East envoy, pioneer for climate change and Africa and founder of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, others may recall a rather different Tony Blair. A Tony Blair who misled the British public and parliament about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his non existent weapons of mass destruction. A man who is to be a key witness into the Iraq War enquiry, which will take place, if appointed, during his first term of office. A prime minister who led the country into wars at the behest of the United States and was once dubbed by Nelson Mandela as the "US Foreign Minister". A leader who promoted the neoliberal economic policies that resulted in the global economic crisis. A Middle East 'peace envoy' who in two years has visited Gaza just once and failed to speak out about the Israeli invasion less than twelve months ago. A man who avoided being implicated in the MPs expenses scandal because an official 'accidently', we're assured, shredded his expenses claims. Although we do know that he claimed £7000 in roof repairs on his constituency home just two days before leaving office, and earlier remortgaged the same house for £296,000 in order to pay the deposit on his £3.5 million Connaught Square town house with the added benefit of being able to claim one third of the interest payments on expenses.

Since leaving office, the man who did 'not do God' while in power has converted to Catholicism and started a faith foundation to increase religious influence on political processes. In a Europe which has grown increasingly secular over the past century Blair's religious fervour strikes a discordant note more in tune with the United States than the European Union. Which of course, apart from the undemocratic nature of the appointment, is the main problem of any Blair presidency, the willingness to subjugate British (soon to be European) interests to those of the United States. A close aide was quoted in The Times (3 October) as saying "if there was a genuine sense that people wanted him I think he would be up for it". Many thousands of people across Europe are busily signing a petition at http://stopblair.eu/ to send a message that he is not wanted.

Peace with justice

By Nicola Pratt

Last week, I sat at the Dead Sea in Jordan and admired the beauty of the rolling hills of the Palestinian West Bank on the opposite shore. The next day, the boom of Israeli jets breaking the sound barrier overhead reminded me that conflict continues to blight this beautiful area.

President Obama aims to resolve this situation. At the UN General Assembly meeting this month, he hopes to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. For almost two decades, the US has brokered several rounds of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The first round led to the signing of the Oslo Accords, in 1993, under the auspices of then US president Bill Clinton. In this agreement, Israel allowed the establishment of a Palestinian National Authority (with similar responsibilities to those of Norfolk County Council) in the West Bank and Gaza Strip - Palestinian lands that Israel occupied illegally since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. In the second stage (which was not reached), Israelis and Palestinians would negotiate issues such as the final borders of Israel and an expected Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and the future of Palestinian refugees displaced by the creation of Israel in 1948. This agreement was widely heralded as historic since this was the first time that Israel agreed to negotiate with the PLO, which it had previously labelled as terrorists. However, whilst the Oslo Accords got the two sides talking, it created a problematic framework for peace since it forced the Palestinians to negotiate for rights that, in international law, should be already guaranteed.

Imagine that you wake up one morning, look out of your window and see that a group of strangers have built a house in your garden. Not only do they refuse to leave (despite the fact that their presence is against the law) but they invite their friends to also build houses. They stop you from entering your garden. They siphon off your water supply. All this time, the police do nothing. You obviously get upset and decide that, if no one is going to evict these people, you will have to take the law into your own hands. So, you use violence to get the intruders off your land. The intruders retaliate with even more violence and manage to force you out of your house. Finally, the government intervenes to stop the fighting. However, rather than removing the intruders from your land, they instruct you to accept them and to renounce the use of violence against them. For their part, the intruders have to accept you but they do not have to recognise your rights to your land, or even to renounce the use of violence against you.

Imagine that you are Palestinian and the intruders are Israeli. This, more or less, characterises the various rounds of peace negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Today, President Obama, with the EU, is pressuring Israel to stop further settlement building in the West Bank (which is already home to half a million Israelis). For the Palestinians, the settlement freeze is a prerequisite to restart negotiations. This is a good first step. However, there cannot be a lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without recognition of the rights of the Palestinians. Israelis feel that having their own state is international recognition of the injustices perpetrated by Europe against the Jewish people - particularly, the Holocaust. However, it is unjust for the international community to make the Palestinians pay the price for European atrocities. The Palestinians deserve justice too and the US and its allies must recognise this and pressure Israel to do so too. Glaring double standards create violence and hatred. We all have an interest in ensuring that Israelis and Palestinians make peace – but a lasting peace based on justice and not merely a photo opportunity for politicians.

Nuclear double standards

By Nicola Pratt

August 6 was the 64th anniversary of the explosion of the first nuclear bomb by the United States over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This was followed by another nuclear explosion over Nagasaki on 9 August. These are the only nuclear attacks ever conducted in history and the scale of destruction wrought is almost too terrifying to comprehend. In Hiroshima, the bomb laid waste to two thirds of the city and killed up to 180,000 people (out of a population of 350,000). In Nagasaki, almost one quarter of the city was destroyed and up to 100,000 people died. Approximately half of those killed, the vast majority of whom were civilians, perished on the days of the bombings - from the effects of the intense heat and fires, from flash burns, trauma, radiation burns and radiation sickness. Since 1945, hundreds have died from cancers attributed to exposure to nuclear radiation. Norwich CND, like many other peace groups around the world, marks the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings annually by calling for global nuclear disarmament to prevent another nuclear tragedy.

Given the horrors of nuclear warfare, why do some countries still possess nuclear weapons? Our own government has committed to replace the Trident nuclear arsenals, estimated to cost £76 billion. Other countries possessing nuclear weapons are the United States, Russia, China and France - all of whom are signatories to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This means that these countries are committed to negotiating in good faith to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the treaty was signed in 1970 and the Cold War ended in 1989, there is only limited progress towards this goal - notwithstanding last month's agreement between Washington and Moscow to reduce their nuclear weaponry by as much as a third. Until now, the Treaty has failed to halt proliferation of nuclear weapons beyond the 'big five'.

Contravening the NPT, the US has transferred between 150 and 240 nuclear weapons to Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. Meanwhile, Israel, India and Pakistan have not signed the Treaty, yet possess nuclear weapons. North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003 and has tested nuclear weapons on several occasions (the last time being less than three months ago). Iran, a signatory to the NPT, was deemed by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be failing to comply with the treaty in its development of nuclear energy for civilian use. Although the agency did not find any evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, there remained "uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran's nuclear programme", according to Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA director.

The debate over nuclear non-proliferation reveals the hypocrisies that exist in world affairs. Those who have led the imposition of sanctions on Iran, for its alleged potential to develop nuclear weapons, include the US - the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons - as well as Britain, who is trying to renew its nuclear capability, rather than reduce it in line with its NPT commitments. The anti-Iran chorus also includes Israel - a country that has not only failed to sign the NPT but has also refused to admit to possessing nuclear weapons, and which kidnapped and imprisoned for 18 years a former nuclear technical assistant (Mordechai Vanunu) for revealing the existence of a nuclear programme to the press. My aim is not to defend the Iranian government as a shining beacon of peace. Rather, I highlight the current double standards because they undermine possibilities for an agreement on global nuclear disarmament and provide new incentives for a nuclear arms race in the most volatile regions of the world.

Next May (2010), there will be a review of the NPT. To pressure our government to make serious steps towards nuclear disarmament, sign the petition at ipetitions.com.

Stop exporting death and destruction

By Nicola Pratt

This week, Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), a UK-based group with a lively branch in Norwich, will be calling on the UK Department for Trade and Industry to stop using British taxpayers' money to help private companies sell arms, as part of its 'Stop' week (14-21 June). In the current economic downturn, it may seem unrealistic to call for an end to official support for a multi-million pound UK industry, which employs over 300,000 people. Between 2003 and 2008, the UK was the second biggest exporter of arms in the world. Some people may ask, isn't it better that countries buy their weapons from the UK rather than our competitors, such as the US, Russia and France? The government, which underwrites arms sales made between British companies and foreign governments, has rules against providing licenses to sell arms to countries where they may be used for internal repression, to increase regional instability or cause human rights violations. Nevertheless, in the first nine months of 2008, the government licensed arms exports to Israel worth over £27 million. It is difficult to believe that none of this equipment was used by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip earlier this year, where over 1,400 Palestinians were killed, a third of whom were women and children, and 4,247 homes were destroyed.

Even if the government was to follow its own rules on arms sales, in today's world, it is increasingly difficult to know the destination of all arms sales or to guarantee that they are not being used against civilians. Globalized production means that the UK sells parts to other countries, such as the US, to include in assembling weapons which are sold on to other countries. Meanwhile, wars are increasingly fought in civilian-populated areas, rather than between two national armies on the 'battlefront'.

What is equally worrying is that arms sales may increase the chances of conflicts escalating. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the volume of weapons being exported to the Middle East has risen by more than 33% overall in the past four years. During 2004-2008, 34 per cent of all arms sales to the Middle East went to the small Gulf state of the United Arab Emirates, while Israel received 22 per cent and Egypt 14 per cent. The UAE and other Gulf countries have long been significant importers of western-made weaponry. High oil prices until last summer helped to fuel expenditure on arms imports amongst the UAE and other Gulf states. The other main driver is the previous US administration's desire to support its allies in the Gulf against Iran. Indeed, the UAE and other Arab Gulf states have been historically concerned about the possible threat from their large Iranian neighbour across the Persian Gulf and these concerns have risen since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, resulting in a destabilization of the region's balance of power. Pieter Wezeman, a SIPRI, researcher commented, "While we are a long way from the levels [of imports] reached in the early to mid-1980s, this is still a worrying trend in a region beset by multiple sources of potential conflict and limited intergovernmental trust and transparency". Large arms imports to the Gulf are more likely to be aggravating the security situation, rather than lessening tensions. It is possible that Iran's development of nuclear technology is spurred on by the fact that it is surrounded by countries either armed or occupied by the US and its allies (the Arab Gulf states, Iraq and Afghanistan).

As taxpayers whose money helps to support the UK arms industry, we have an ethical obligation to hold our elected officials to account over arms exports and to prevent the global insecurity that our government helps to create.

Many thanks to Christine Wilson for her help with this article.

Understand contemporary Syria

By Juliette Harkin

The prominent Syrian activist and journalist Michel Kilo was released from prison last week. Nearly 70 years old now, he had served a full three-year sentence for 'undermining national sentiment'. Kilo's 'crime' was to have spoken out about a need for a radical change in the relations between the Syrian and Lebanese states. He, and other Syrian intellectuals, had signed a declaration calling for Syria and Lebanon to exchange ambassadors and for Syria to recognise Lebanon's independence. Whilst he was in prison his demands became a reality. It seems timing is everything.

Kilo's calls coincided with international pressures on Syria as a result of the assassination in Beirut of Lebanon's former prime minister, Rafiq Hariri. The US and France pointed the finger at Syria and the long reach of its military and intelligence arm into Lebanon. To date there has been no conclusive evidence to support these accusations and we may never know.

During my visits to Lebanon I had heard heavy criticisms of Hariri and the downside to what had been his policies of indebting the country to build a new Lebanon that mainly benefited the elites. Nevertheless his murder deeply affected the national psyche and resulted in the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

I had the pleasure to meet and to work with Michel and with Lebanese journalist and writer Samir Kassir during my work for the BBC in Lebanon and Syria in 2003 and 2004. Kassir was a vehement critic of the Syrian regime and wrote, as did Kilo, in a leading newspaper in Lebanon known for its anti-Syria stance. Samir was blown up by a car bomb outside his home in Beirut on June 2, 2005, shortly after he was visited by intelligence figures in Lebanon and after the publication of another critical article, his last, this time about the Syrian ruling party. I still remember receiving the news of his death by phone and the shock I felt about something as utterly senseless as his murder was.

Kassir's political views are reflected in his book, Being Arab, which has now been published in English translation from Arabic and French. In it, he rejects western double standards in the Arab world, in reference to the injustice of the war on Iraq and of the West's approach to Israeli colonialism in historic Palestine. He discusses the Arab malaise that has set in across the region and harks back to the cultural Nahda (renaissance) that got under way in the region in the 19th century as the world was caught in the grip of modernisation.

Kassir's book is an angry and critical appraisal of the arrest of this historical Nahda and the political and cultural stagnation that he feels has set in within the Arab world. It is a view shared by other intellectuals who draw on western political thought and concepts of nation-state to call for a new Nahda that is allowed to emerge free from the political constraints of authoritarian regimes.

But despite Samir's tragic death at the hands of murderers and for Michel's cruel incarceration, I do not doubt that change is happening in Syria. As I feel relief for the release of Michel, I also wonder how we can really seek to understand contemporary Syria. In some ways our focus on one intellectual and his or her views can actually blinker us to other shifts that may be occurring within a society.

Whilst western commentators hope for an unlikely regime change in Syria and president Obama fails to make a break from the confines of America's neo-conservative policies on Syria, we miss a chance to deepen our knowledge of Syrian politics and society. As I finish my research into the Syrian media at Oxford University, I am still seeking a path that allows us to condemn the imprisonment of journalists and bloggers whilst still seeing value in the examination of the social and political changes that are happening within Syria today.

Don't forget Gaza

By Nicola Pratt

Next Saturday, thousands of people, including a delegation from Norwich, will march in London to remember Gaza. Armed conflict between Israel and Hamas, in which Israel killed more than 1300 people, a third of whom were women and children, whilst Hamas rockets killed 13 Israelis, ended with a ceasefire in January. However, the misery continues. As a result of Israel's bombardment, thousands of Palestinians were injured and a UN envoy has reported widespread anxiety and stress amongst children. Human rights organizations have accused both Israeli forces and Hamas fighters of war crimes. Of particular concern, is Israel's illegal use of white phosphorous, which causes deep skin burns, as well as the long-term effects of Israel's bombing of homes, schools, factories, agricultural land and essential infrastructure. International donors have pledged $4.5 billion to rehabilitate the Gaza Strip. However, Israel's continuing siege makes reconstruction and humanitarian relief there almost impossible. Ban Ki-Moon has said he is "very disturbed" that life in the Palestinian territory "remains extremely difficult" more than three months after the January ceasefire.

There is a tendency for public opinion to be mobilized against the Israeli-Palestinian conflict only in periods of heightened violence, such as January's fighting. What is less widely reported are the everyday consequences of Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since 1967. Since that date, Palestinians have faced increasing restrictions on their ability to live ordinary lives - build houses, to farm their land, to work, to go to school and university, to worship at their holy sites and to visit friends and family. These restrictions have actually increased since 1993, when Israel began so-called peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Since 1993, Israel has increased the rate of settlement building in the Palestinian territories, contrary to international law. There are now half a million settlers living in the West Bank and their dedicated system of bypass roads slice up the West Bank. Settlements are built on land confiscated from Palestinians and use water resources at a rate four times higher than those used by Palestinians. The seizure and demolition of Palestinian land and homes have affected more than 50,000 people since 2000. Israel makes it difficult for Palestinians to move freely throughout the West Bank and between the West Bank and Gaza Strip by putting in place a system of checkpoints and closure. This significantly increases travel times, impacting upon the economy and education, as well as causing daily humiliations. Israel also controls the borders of the West Bank, making it difficult for international visitors—as I discovered the other week, when Israel refused my entry to lecture at Birzeit University.

In 2002, Human Rights Watch concluded that the restrictions imposed by Israel "are so extensive and protracted and so injurious to the basic health and welfare of civilians that they amount to a form of widespread collective punishment, in clear violation of international human rights and humanitarian law". The situation has been exacerbated by Israel's building of the separation wall, begun in 2002, ostensibly to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from entering Israel but ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice since it cuts deep into land that is understood to be part of a future Palestinian state. The barrier separates Palestinians from their land, schools, hospitals and even divides some villages.

These restrictions make it increasingly difficult for Palestinians to live in dignity and help to make peace negotiations look futile, whilst the hard-line stance of Hamas looks more effective. In order for peace to become a credible alternative, we must make our voices heard in calling for an end to the injustices suffered as a result of Israel's occupation. That is why it is important to march in London next weekend.

For more information, contact The Greenhouse or phone 01493 664499.

Easter in the Holy Land

By Nicola Pratt

This weekend, the Christian church celebrates one of its most important religious feasts—the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In celebration, thousands of Christians are making pilgrimage to Jerusalem. It is well know that Jerusalem is not only holy to Christianity but to Judaism and Islam too. For Jews, the city is their spiritual centre and the original site of the two temples as well as the Western Wall. For Muslims, Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam, being the place of the Haram al-Sharif, consisting of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, from where the Prophet Muhammad made his heavenly ascent. The city has been home to communities of Christians, Jews and Muslims for thousands of years.

Following the 1967 war, Israel captured and annexed East Jerusalem—the location of key religious sites for the three faiths. The international community considers this annexation to be illegal and, according to international law, Israel should not move its civilian population to the annexed area, nor make any permanent changes there. Nevertheless, Israel has used its control over Jerusalem to gradually 'Judaize' the city. Under Israeli military rule, Palestinians have had to prove that Jerusalem constitutes the 'centre of their lives' in order to acquire a permit to live there, resulting in many Palestinians who are originally from Jerusalem being denied Jerusalem IDs because they were temporarily away from the city for reasons of marriage, work or study.

At the end of 2008, a European Union mission wrote that, "Long-standing Israeli plans for Jerusalem, now being implemented at an accelerated rate, are undermining prospects for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and a sustainable two-state solution." According to the report, it is almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain building permits in Jerusalem, resulting in the destruction of over 400 Palestinian homes since 2004. Meanwhile, Israel continues to expand and to build new Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. Since the Annapolis peace talks at the end of 2007, almost 5,500 new housing units for Israelis were submitted for public review, almost 3,000 of which have been approved. The majority of these are in large settlement blocs in East Jerusalem but there is also settlement activity in Palestinian areas of the Old City. Israel has almost completed building the 'security barrier', which cuts off East Jerusalem from the West Bank, making it so difficult for Palestinians without Jerusalem IDs to access Jerusalem that it has become almost prohibitive for them to do so. East Jerusalem is the location of important services for Palestinians, as well as being a cultural, religious and commercial centre. This means that Palestinians who do not have Jerusalem residency must apply for permits to go to hospital, to study and to visit holy sites in Jerusalem. During busy periods, it takes approximately an hour for Palestinians to cross the four checkpoints between Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.

The issue of Jerusalem has been a major concern in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state. Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its capital - contrary to international law and its obligations as part of the peace process. If the international community is serious about Middle East peace, it must place serious pressure on Israel, not merely weak expressions of concern, to stop all settlement building in the occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, and it must allow Palestinians to live their lives in dignity, including having freedom of access to their holy sites and their institutions in East Jerusalem. People like you and me can also make a difference by boycotting Israeli-made goods and Israeli cultural and academic institutions until Israel realises that it cannot continue to ignore international law.

Last chance for a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict

By Lee Marsden

Apart from the economy Barak Obama's biggest challenge on entering the White House earlier in the year has been to address the seemingly never-ending Arab-Israeli conflict. With the swearing in this week of new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the prospects for a resolution of this conflict have reached an all-time low. Netanyahu, who leads a government of national unity consisting of Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu, religious parties and Labour, has a track record of supporting settlements in the occupied territories in defiance of international law and opposing Palestinian statehood. He has appointed Avigdor Lieberman, a man who campaigned on a platform of forcing Israeli Arabs to swear an oath of allegiance to the Israeli state and the transfer of Israeli Arab towns to the Palestinian Authority, as foreign minister.

Netanyahu is not averse to peace and stated earlier in the week that peace was an "enduring goal for all Israelis and all Israeli governments – mine included. This means I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace". The problem is that he wants peace on Israel's terms or not at all. Successive Israeli governments have pursued a policy of peace negotiations based on the Palestinian Authority being responsible for preventing attacks on Israel while simultaneously changing facts on the ground by either actively encouraging or failing to prevent the increase of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

A precondition for any meaningful dialogue with the Palestinians according to chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat is the halting of all settlement activity and a public commitment to a two-state solution. A problem compounded by Lieberman and Netanyahu's deal to build 3000 new settlements around east Jerusalem. Facts on the ground with around half a million Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem make a two-state solution ever less likely without significant diplomatic and financial pressure from the US government.

President Obama has been waiting for the outcome of the Israeli elections before engaging with the problem. In his pending tray when he turns to Israel/Palestine is a recent bipartisan report presented to him by the US Middle East Project which considers 2009 as the last chance for a two-state solution. The report is written by leading foreign policy specialists including Paul Volcker, Obama's senior economic advisor.

The report substitutes a land swap taking into account areas heavily populated by Israelis in the West Bank for Palestinian demands for a return to June 4, 1967 borders. There is to be no right of return for Palestinians to Israel but rather financial compensation and resettlement assistance instead. Jerusalem is to be divided into ethnically determined Israeli and Palestinian controlled areas, with special arrangements and unimpeded access for both communities to the holy sites.

The report envisages a non-militarised Palestinian state fully responsible for its own security affairs within fifteen years. In the meantime a UN mandate would authorize NATO peacekeeping force under US leadership and including Israeli, Egyptian and Jordanian forces to be responsible for security. Such a solution, it contends, offers the most realistic prospect of a peaceful resolution of conflict that allows for a viable Palestinian state while addressing Israel’s security concerns.

If such a report represents the best US thinking on a two-state solution the prospects look bleak indeed. The Israeli policy of settlement building and partition walls appears to have succeeded in Washington at least. The new Israeli prime minister will have little incentive to change policy unless Obama can be persuaded to use economic and diplomatic pressure to end Israel's settlement building programme now and commit Netanyahu to a two-state solution which removes all Israeli settlements from the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Anything less condemns the cycle of violence to continue and puts a political settlement beyond reach.

What do elections mean for post-war Iraq?

By Liam Carroll

"Elections are an opportunity for substantial improvement or for things to become substantially worse," notes senior US analyst Steven Biddle in reference to last months provincial elections in Iraq.

This decisive view is not unlike US ambassador Ryan Crocker's assessment on leaving Iraq two weeks ago; "almost anything is possible here" declared the diplomat.

The recent provincial elections in Iraq have generally been hailed as a success in terms of procedure and levels of participation, and some optimism for the future of the country has been derived from this flicker of democratic hope.

Further referendums on a military agreement with the US, the final status of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and crucial parliamentary elections are also scheduled to be held this year. If all goes well the foundations of a new democratic state may well have been laid.

Analyst Biddle and ambassador Crocker are seasoned observers of the state-building process however and their warnings of potential trouble are not without good grounds.

Elections may determine which parties assume office, but elections in and of themselves offer no guarantees that the big national issues over the distribution of oil revenues and the distribution of power can be speedily resolved.

Middle east oil analyst Yahia Said explains that the long awaited oil law "can and must be part of the solution to Iraq's broader instability and is an essential part of the way forward, but only after thorough discussion."

Difficult constitutional issues over the right balance of power between the central, regional, provincial, and local levels of government also have to be made. "These are issues that are very important and touch at the core of what Iraq is and what Iraq will be," declares Said, and adds, "but this is a process that is very hard to short-circuit or to complete in a short time period."

Unfortunately however speed is of the essence, as a lack of essential services is now the biggest concern for most Iraqis, who still live without clean water, electricity, sewage services and healthcare. The need for improved sanitation to forestall the spread of cholera and typhoid, for example, is not an issue that can be deferred for long.

Furthermore, with more than 2.8 million people displaced in Iraq and another 2 million outside Iraq, analyst Biddle remains concerned that there needs to be "a judicial process where rights of return to property are established and compensation is offered," but fears that "the government of Iraq has zero administrative capacity to do that."

The returning refugees, representing one fifth of the country, will also stretch government capacity "in terms of public health, in terms of housing, in terms of education infrastructure, in terms of just plain sewage," he adds. "There are going to be serious issues, and the government won't be able to meet them. And when that happens, the government's legitimacy is further derogated, and that in turn creates instability."

In the face of failure to meet these "enormous challenges", ambassador Crocker fears "a collapse of faith in the nascent Iraqi state." Opinion remains divided on where this collapse might lead but most analysts take note of the growing power of the Iraqi security services under prime minister Nouri al Maliki.

Steve Biddle thinks that prime minister Maliki could build support for the government "by providing actual services in places like Sadr City" but fears that instead "his natural instincts will be to suppress by military force" expressions of discontent.

The US has spent billions developing Iraq's security forces, and the central government, analysts say, has been on a massive defence-sector buying spree. A strong military may well be needed, but at a time of fractured politics and weak governance, it could also form the base for the next military strongman.

A new generation of student activists from the flames of Gaza

By Juliette Harkin

Hundreds of students have staged occupations of university buildings around the country in solidarity with Palestinian citizens against Israel's brutal attack on Gaza. Young students, some of whom who have never been involved in political activism, have been moved in large numbers to express the outrage that British people feel about the mass carnage in Gaza. In doing so the myth of student apathy has been completely debunked and it looks like a new generation of activists are here to stay.

Participants in the occupations of building at the universities have come under fire by critics claiming that their actions are disruptive for other students and a form of bullying that is not acceptable in our higher education system. These critics have misjudged the strength of feeling about the injustice visited upon Gaza and chosen to ignore the noble history of student protest which played a part in ending South Africa's apartheid regime and condemned the Vietnam war.

I was one of the students involved in occupying the Clarendon building of the historic Bodleian library of Oxford University. As I returned for a new term at Oxford, I wondered what kind of a world do we live in where it is 'normal' to hear about fathers watching as their daughters are beheaded by explosions in front of their eyes and their sons die because the ambulances were refused access? In the face of this horrifying terror visited on a civilian population as our governments look on we have to ask is this right? Is it right that students be angry that they have the inconvenience of not being able to access a building or of being disturbed by the calls for justice for Palestine? Is it right that some universities resort to the law to forcibly remove students who feel so passionately about justice?

We as students and humans had a moral obligation to act and it was one that far outweighed the restrictions that criminalise direct action when international conventions are being ignored, or the rule books of our great universities. Attending a lecture on Palestine in Oxford University last week, we were reminded that our governments have failed to reign in what Professor Avi Shlaim stated clearly was a "rogue and pariah" Israeli state that was exhibiting the signs of "fascism" in its behaviour. A word that the Israeli professor would not use lightly.

The list of sheer wanton destruction of Gaza that was read out by Dr Karma Nabulsi was in no way exhaustive... 1,325 civilians killed of which 446 were children, 110 women and 108 elderly, 5,320 injured many of them very seriously, 10,000 farms damaged or destroyed, the fishing port, UN compounds and schools and food warehouses all bombed to destruction, Gaza's largest university attacked... the list goes on. Many of us speak out and say this is wrong and we must do something. The situation is desperate and our politicians, with few honourable exceptions, refuse to condemn Israel's reign of terror over occupied Palestine.

By occupying the buildings the students gained national media coverage and alerted students and staff and the British people to the urgency of the Gaza crisis. The occupations highlighted the brutality of Israel's assault on a civilian population. Students from across the political spectrum have come together to make their voices heard and they have acted honourably. This is just the beginning as students now organise and work with the Stop the War Coalition and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign to keep the pressure on our government to act responsibly.

The students and activists deserve our support.

The roots of the Middle East conflict

By Nicola Pratt

Much mainstream reporting of the recent episode of fighting between Israel and the Palestinians neglected, like previously, to explain the historical background to this conflict. As a result, members of the public are left to think that this is a never-ending fight between Arabs and Jews, who are unable to live together in peace.

The problem is not that Arabs / Muslims are fundamentally unable to coexist with Jews. Arabs - who are Muslims and Christians - and Jews coexisted for centuries in the Ottoman Empire, which ruled much of the Middle East until its downfall after WWI. Indeed, the Ottoman Empire gave refuge to many Jews fleeing pogroms and persecution in Europe.

The conflict in the Middle East is the result not of historical enmities but of a grave injustice committed by the British government in the early twentieth century and perpetuated ever since by the failure of the international community to implement a just solution.

During WWI, the British government sought to improve its position within the Middle East as a means of defeating its Ottoman enemy. Towards this end, in 1917, Britain responded to lobbying by a relatively recent and minority movement amongst European Jews called Zionism, and recognised the Jewish claim to a homeland in a part of the Ottoman Empire called Palestine (the Balfour Declaration). Britain had also promised independence to the Arabs under Ottoman rule, in return for Arab support in the war (an episode of history made famous in the film, Lawrence of Arabia).

When the Ottoman Empire collapsed after WWI, Britain took control of Palestine and allowed for an increase in Jewish immigration. They put down the growing unrest by the Arabs of Palestine, who were unhappy with British domination and the rapid growth in what was a predominantly European Jewish population.

After WWII, and in the wake of the Holocaust, the international Zionist movement pushed for an independent Jewish state immediately to enable unrestricted migration of European Jews to Palestine. This demand was strongly supported by the United States, which emerged from the war as a world power.

Unable to deal with both Jewish and Palestinian resistance, Britain handed the matter to the newly created United Nations. In 1947, a UN commission recommended partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. This was vehemently opposed by the Palestinians and Arab governments since the Jews, making up 33 per cent of the population, would get 57 per cent of the land, including the fertile coastal region. However, the US and USSR supported partition since they were both keen for Britain to withdraw from Palestine.

The declaration, in 1948, of the State of Israel sparked a war between Israel and its Arab neighbours. The Arab armies, divided and weakened by their dependence upon their colonial masters, were defeated by Israel. Israel succeeded in establishing a state in 77 per cent of Palestine and almost two thirds of Palestinians (780,000) were displaced to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and neighbouring countries.

In the wake of the war, rather than attempting to implement UN Resolution 181 (the partition plan), the UN oversaw the negotiation of ceasefire agreements between the belligerent parties. This informally confirmed the borders of the new Jewish state. The UN also passed Resolution 194, calling on Israel to either allow the return of the refugees to their homes or to give them compensation. However, Israel, with the backing of the US and Britain, refused to implement this resolution and hoped that Palestinians would be resettled in other Arab countries.

Today, the world has forgotten these resolutions and instead the Palestinians have been forced to bargain for even the remaining 23 per cent of historic Palestine. Therefore, is it surprising that some Palestinians resort to violence to put forward their long-standing claims for self-determination?

A hunger for peace

By Rupert Read

The recent critically-acclaimed film Hunger brought home powerfully to many of us the brutality of the regime that faced republican hunger-strikers in Northern Irish prisons back in 1981. Fast forward a generation: who in the early 1980s would have thought that Northern Ireland would now (in 2009) be at peace?

I was a witness to one small part of the earliest stages of that real-life drama, the drama of the Northern Irish peace process.

Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, first rose to prominence as a result of the hunger-strikes recently dramatized in Hunger. He was elected an MP in 1983, but refused to take his seat in the House of Commons, because he did not accept the legitimacy of British rule over Northern Ireland. In 1984, he was seriously wounded in an assassination attempt by 'ultra-loyalists'. In 1987, while I was in my last year studying at Oxford, he was invited by my friend Simon Stevens, then President of the Oxford Union, to speak in a major debate over 'terrorism'.

The invitation was extremely controversial. Adams had only recently been allowed onto British soil at all, being considered persona non grata by Thatcher's government. This was to be his first major speech in Britain as an MP and Sinn Fein’s Leader. Many did not want the visit to go ahead.

I helped Simon work on ensuring the visit could successfully happen after all. I vividly recall several phone calls discussing the arrangements, during which we heard various clicking noises on the phone – phone-tapping was a less sophisticated operation, in those days…

Simon had to go through a great deal more, to get things straightened out. He was taken to secret meetings with Sinn Fein officials in safe locations; so fearful were they for the safety of their leader after what had happened to him a few years before.

Before the Oxford Union debate, I met Gerry Adams, and noticed the way he walked, still affected by the bullet lodged in his body. At dinner, I sat beside one of his bodyguards, a man from a background so different from my own, that, by the end of the meal, I felt I could start to understand why someone might take as hard-line a position on the possible use of violence - as a means of resisting what they saw as an occupation - as he and Adams did.

The debate was a little landmark, an early public moment in the slow journey towards negotiations and then, after a decade, peace.

Why rehearse this history? Because my mind is on the terrible conflict in Palestine / Israel. Ireland was colonially occupied by British people, much as Palestine was colonially occupied last century by Jewish (now Israeli) people – therein lies the root of the trouble(s). Decades of violence however seem hopefully to have come to an end in Northern Ireland; not so in Palestine / Israel. Might one dare to hope that, if we fast forward a generation, there could be peace there, too?

But first, there must be a real peace process. That means, for starters, that we all have to be willing to talk to Hamas, the democratically-elected government of Palestine. The Israelis say they will not speak with Hamas until Hamas recognises Israel. But why should Hamas recognise Israel, when Israel occupies Palestine and will not recognise Palestine as a state?

To overcome this mad impasse, it is necessary to talk. If there is ever to be a 'Good Friday Agreement' in Israel / Palestine, then the US, UK, EU and Israel must be prepared to talk with Hamas. After all, if our government is willing to parler with Israel, which has just killed a thousand Palestinians, then should it not be prepared to parler with Hamas, too? Let's hope that Obama sees sense on this and agrees to open up a dialogue with Hamas.

Hamas are allegedly 'terrorists', Israel allegedly not. But: were not the IRA terrorists? Hamas are the elected government of Palestine. After Adams and some of his colleagues were elected, we talked with them. And we talked even with the IRA, who were never elected by anyone.

If there is to be peace in the Middle East, there needs to be enough hunger for it that one is prepared to parler with people who one doesn’t much like. Even with people who kill civilians. As Israel has cruelly killed many hundreds of civilians, in Gaza, in the last month. The dozens of police officers it has killed: civilians. The people sheltering in schools and basements that it has killed: civilians. The hundreds of young children it has killed: civilians…

Visit Rupert's new website: http://www.rupertread.net/.

Burying hope in Gaza

By Liam Carroll

Hovering in the background of the current war in Gaza lie the extreme views of the two main opposing camps; hardliners in the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and the hawks in the Israeli national security state.

On the Hamas side, Nizar Rayan, recently assassinated by an Israeli bomb in Gaza, had allegedly proclaimed "we will never recognize Israel. There is nothing called Israel, neither in reality nor in the imagination."

In the opposing Israeli camp Yitzhak Shamir, Israeli prime minister from 1986 to 1992, believed that moderation "should relate to the tactics, but not to the goal (to reestablish Biblical Israel in the remnants of Palestine)".

By contrast the international consensus recognizes the 'the right to existence and security of all states in the region', including Israel, and 'justice for all the people's', which implies the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people (1980 European declaration).

In view of the failure to achieve these 'rights' for Israel or Palestinians, either through violence or through a political process, the conflict persists. From the Israeli point of view the problem is clearly Hamas which is described by Ron Prosser, an Israeli ambassador as "toxic for Israel, toxic for the Palestinians, toxic for the region and for anyone who really wants to achieve peace."
For Hamas member Dr Naser El-Din Al-Shaer the problem is the inability to achieve Israeli disengagement from the Palestinian West Bank: "If there is any attack on the Israelis, they speak of terrorism and terrorism, and more terrorism. If Hamas and Islamic Jihad and all of these armed groups cease attacking Israel, then Israel will say: 'Look, they've lost their power; and they can do nothing against us, so we are not going to give them anything.' So by which means will Israel give our land back to us?"

For some of Israel's supporters, such as ex-US administration official Barry Rubin, there is really only one long term solution, "the biggest peaceniks—and this is true in Israel—know that Hamas must be defeated if Israel is ever to make peace with the Palestinian Authority (PA)."

Sir Lawrence Freedman however reminds us in his recent book on the Middle East A Choice of Enemies that such talk has been heard before, only then it was about the Palestine Liberation Organisation, "The constant line from Yitzshak Shamir as the PLO sought to render itself respectable was that this was all a sham, a propaganda exercise designed to convince the feebleminded that there was hope for peace, when with such people there could be no peace."

These ruminations beg the question then as to whether or not Israel may be prepared to try and defeat Hamas militarily. Barry Rubin thinks that in the current assault on Gaza "It would be nice to believe that Hamas will be overthrown and less extreme Palestinians will take over," but, he adds, "these are not real options. No one should have any illusions that this conflict is going to go away." Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni concurs, "this is a long war against terror", clearly aligning the policy with outgoing president Bush's 'war on terror.'

Interestingly a recent Pentagon commissioned study by the RAND corporation has just delivered a damning report on the policy, describing it as "at best inadequate, at worst counter productive, and, on the whole, infeasible." Looking at some 90 conflicts since World War II, the report concludes that establishing "representative, competent and honest" local government is the way to defeat 'terror'.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) agrees, though it may be too late they say, "A massive intervention that in effect topples Hamas is looking increasingly possible. But who will take over on the back of Israel's occupation? How could a then discredited PA assume power? Even crushing military victory ultimately might not be that much, or that lasting, of a political win."

The ICG believes that, "Palestinian reconciliation is a priority, more urgent, but also harder, than ever before." They lament the international community's reaction to the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections when it "demanded Hamas turn from militant to political organisation without giving it sufficient incentives to do so," and the subsequent US-Jordanian training and arming of the rival Palestinian group, Fatah, in preparation for a rejection of Hamas rule. "As little of this was secret," claims Sir Lawrence Freedman, "Hamas was alerted to the coming power play" and fighting ensued.

This was the moment which led to the Hamas takeover of Gaza, and the subsequent tragic events of the last few weeks. One can't help but worry about the future prospects too.

The ingredient missing from Gaza: mediation

By Marguerite Finn

Acres of print have been devoted to the plight of the citizens of Gaza and the disproportionate actions of the Israeli Government, which places the latter squarely in breach of the 4th Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law. However, little has been said about the failure of mediation by members of the Quartet – Europe, US, Russia, and the UN – or what might account for this.

The current attacks on Gaza are being presented as though Israel suddenly lost patience with the Hamas government, when the six-month 'cease fire' expired on 19 December, and decided to wage war.

But it didn't happen quite like that.

Aware that 'regime change' in Washington would take place in early 2009 and desirous of one taking place in Gaza before that happened, Israel formulated a PR strategy designed to win broad international support for its forthcoming actions in Gaza. A new body, known as the National Information Directorate, was set up eight months ago to 'sell' the Israeli position. The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said his government knew exactly what was coming: "The signs that Israel was determined to strike Hamas in Gaza were clear for the past three months. They practically wrote it in the sky". But the international community failed to act on the signs. Why?

To find out the answer, we are fortunate to have access to the End of Mission Report (2007), written by Alvaro de Soto, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Envoy to the Quartet, a job that put him right at the heart of things and should have guaranteed him access to all the main players. However, he found his efforts to speak to representatives of Hamas and Syria blocked for reasons he was never fully given. De Soto believed that contacts with Hamas, Syria, Iran and Turkey were vital to bring about peace but his report shows how America's blind support for Israel continually hindered efforts to broker a peace deal and how the Quartet failed to hold Israel to its obligations under the Road Map or UN Resolutions.

When Hamas won an overwhelming victory in the Palestinian elections in January 2006, De Soto tried to influence the Quartet to adopt a common, constructive approach to the new government. Hamas wanted to establish a broad-based government including members of the defeated Fatah party. This might have been achievable within a month had the US not led the Quartet to set impossible demands and opposed a National Unity Government in principle.

De Soto argued that the UN was best fitted to open a channel of dialogue with Hamas and that the Quartet should collectively register its concern about Israel's creation of conditions on the ground, which impinged on the achievability of a future Palestinian state, but, as he noted in his report: "Predictably I was unsuccessful in these endeavours; hence the punitive tone of the statement issued on 30 January 2006, which effectively transformed the Quartet from a negotiating-promoting foursome guided by a common document (The Road Map) into a body that was all-but imposing sanctions on a freely elected government of a people under occupation, as well as setting unattainable preconditions for dialogue."

Another interesting fact to emerge from his report was America's influence in fostering what De Soto calls a culture of "self-censorship" within the UN when it comes to criticism of Israel. Because of this the Quartet gradually lost its impartiality. In his words: "The fact is, that even-handedness has been pummelled into submission in an unprecedented way since the beginning of 2007."

This is why mediation by the Quartet did not work then and cannot work now.

Handicapped by their self-imposed ban on communication with Hamas, international 'power-brokers' found themselves without a presence in Gaza and consequently had no influence to prevent the descent towards war. UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, recently admitted to the UN Security Council in New York, that the Gaza crisis "is an indictment of our collective failure – all of us – over a long period."

Could this be a sign of a new realism and a signal of the UK's desire instead to be part of Obama's 'change'? We must wait and see.

It is to be hoped that the UN will extract itself from its disastrous involvement with the Quartet and play a truly independent role in the region. It is to be hoped too that a new breed of diplomats from neighbouring countries like Turkey, Quatar, Egypt and Syria will broker a peaceful and satisfactory solution to the Israel-Palestine question. The Quartet had its chance at mediation and it blew it.