‘Now the crimson poppy – now the white’

By Marguerite Finn

The ceremonies surrounding Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday have been laid to rest for another year but reverberations linger on in letters and articles in the media. Apparently this year was a record year for the sale of red poppies. It may also be a record year for the number of people questioning the way this country remembers its war dead. Many would say that there has been a shift of emphasis from remembrance of the dead to an emphasis on support of the UK’s armed services – and the iconic red poppy has been compromised by this.

In the week leading up to Remembrance Sunday, a poll commissioned by the Ekklesia Think Tank produced some remarkable results. The poll findings contradict the jingoistic approach taken by Britain’s politicians and the tabloid press. Instead of concentrating on the “glorious” aspect of the soldiers who gave their lives fighting for our freedom and promulgating the belief that war was noble and justified, the majority of people questioned preferred to remember and mourn the totality of war with all its horrors, violence, agony and brutality. In fact, 95 percent of those surveyed said that the main message of Remembrance Sunday should be one of peace and 87 percent agreed that Remembrance Sunday should be about marking the dead on all sides of war and not just the British. An amazing 93 percent also felt that civilians who died in war should be remembered.

Ekklesia’s co-director, Jonathan Bartley, explained: “When Archbishop Robert Runcie remembered the Argentinian dead in a service in St Paul’s Cathedral after the Falklands conflict, he caused a political storm. Now it appears that the overwhelming majority feel that deaths on all sides in war should be remembered.”

Ekklesia says that the time has come for us to update our remembrance traditions and to acknowledge that we cheapen remembrance if we do not recognise the full tragedy of war for everyone – soldiers, civilians, environment and animals – and make an active commitment to peace. This signals a change from the militaristic remembrances of which this year was a good example.

In the years immediately after the First World War, “Victory Balls” were held on the 11^th November to celebrate the successful outcome of the war. These occasions, which commemorated the war with dancing, music and food, attracted much criticism from those who saw militaristic values in such remembrance, rather than a commitment to peace without violence. In 1925, a great victory ball was planned to take place on Armistice Day in the Royal Albert Hall, but it was cancelled and replaced by a service of remembrance instead. The service was arranged by Canon Dick Sheppard, who was later involved in the founding of the Peace Pledge Union. In 1921 the red poppy became the national symbol of remembrance in Britain.

The Peace Pledge Union is the source of the white poppy. White poppies first made their appearance in 1933 when members of the Women’s Co-operative Guild – many of them mothers, sisters, widows and sweethearts of men killed in the First World War – anxiously noted the growing domestic and international tensions. They saw that the so-called ‘war to end all wars’, in which their men fought and died, could be followed by an even worse war. The white poppy was born from their concern and its aim was to spark debate and rally support for resistance to war. Over 300 wars later, the white poppy is still a painful reminder of the world’s failure to prevent war.

The white poppy has not enjoyed a good press. During the 1930s, many women who wore white poppies lost their jobs. In 1986, Margaret Thatcher condemned white poppies in response to an MP’s question. Nevertheless, this year several voices have been raised to suggest that people should be given the choice of wearing a white or red poppy – or both. The white poppy, with the word ‘peace’ at its centre was not designed to be in competition with the Red Poppy. In 1926, members of the No More War Movement suggested that red poppies should have “no more war” inscribed in their centre. The idea was rejected by the British Legion. When a few years later, the Women’s Co-operative Guild created the white poppy, it emphasised their hope for peace, as well as commemorating those who had died in war.

Since their inception, white poppies have caused a mixture of irritation, annoyance and anger amongst those who have interpreted them as a sign of disrespect. However, a crucial difference remains between the red and white poppy. In their refusal to state “no more war” or “peace” red poppies leave space to acknowledge the necessity of war, which white poppies challenge. It would not be right to suggest that red poppies glorify war but combined with the semi-religious language used in remembrance ceremonies, they do suggest the idea that redemption through war is possible. It cannot be denied that the red poppy has taken on both a political and religious meaning. The language of remembrance is full of religious ideology upholding the spiritual justification for war – as in phrases like “the glorious dead” and “they died for God, King and Country”. In some circles there is an obligation amounting almost to political correctness, to wear a red poppy and thereby to imply support for the armed forces whatever they are doing.

This is dangerous in an era of continuing resource wars with new and more sophisticated weapons (eg ‘drones’) threatening to kill more civilians. What is needed in future is a more inclusive remembrance covering opposing sides in a conflict, all the civilians killed and the devastation to the environment through chemical weapons.

The horrors of war should be remembered above all. If, as seems very likely at present with the Middle East – and possibly even Europe – about to go up in flames, then maybe we will not have time to remember the sadness of past wars. We may be too busy coping with present ones. Doesn’t that suggest that, however much red poppies have helped damaged service people, they have not helped to prevent war. Something wrong somewhere.

With acknowledgement to Ekklesia’s report:” Re-imagining Remembrance”

(http:// www.ekklesia.co.uk/research/re-imagining_remembrance

If now is the time for cuts – let’s scrap Trident

By David Seddon

As the election campaign gets under way, it is clear that all parties will need to address the looming budget deficit. Indeed, it may well turn out that how they approach it will determine the results of the election.

Labour promises to reduce the budget deficit by half in the lifetime of the next Parliament, but starting in 2011 to prevent falling back into recession and protecting certain areas; the Conservatives have indicated they would start earlier but cut harder, although they also have 'ring-fenced' key areas for protection and are now talking of foregoing Labour's proposed increase in natural insurance contributions.

The Lib-Dems are 'hard-nosed' about the need for major cuts and ridicule the idea that some areas can be protected, arguing this would mean even deeper, possibly ruinous cuts in 'unprotected' areas. Nick Clegg has referred to the need for 'savage' cuts and Vince Cable has spelled out in more detail than either Darling or Osborne precisely how he would go about it.

Unlike Labour and the Tories, the Lib-Dems have addressed seriously the possibility of major cuts in so-called 'defence' projects. In June 2009, Clegg announced that he "would not renew Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent system with an equivalent modernised system". Hitherto, the Lib Dems had called for a 50% cut in nuclear warheads, but left open the possibility they would support like-for-like replacement for Trident in 2024. Clegg told the Guardian he was making the move because of the rapidly deteriorating public finances and because the case for such a nuclear deterrent in the post-cold war world was "a complete fiction".

He was said at the time to be the first – and only – leading politician to argue openly against a full-scale Trident replacement. But several leading members of the Green Party (including Caroline Lucas, now leader of the Greens, and Sian Berry, former Green Party Principal Speaker) were already on record as opposed to "the danger, expense and folly of renewing Trident". Only the Greens currently propose scrapping Trident.

The cost of replacing the Trident nuclear missile system and bringing into operation two large aircraft carriers could total £130bn. Trident alone could cost as much as £100 billion if replaced on a 'like-for-like' basis, while the cost of the carriers, including the US-made F35 aircraft designed to fly from them, could be as much as £30 billion. Even with three Vanguard submarines instead of four, as has been mooted, the savings would be small (maybe £3 billion).

On 15 September 2009, Vince Cable was reported as suggesting that the Lib-Dems would scrap the Eurofighter upgrade - saving £5 billion - and Trident - and the A400M transport plane. But in fact the Lib Dems have only opposed a full-scale Trident replacement. Clegg has actually considered equipping Astute submarines with nuclear cruise missiles, such as the Tomahawk; he also has suggested Britain, like Japan, could retain a stockpile of safeguarded fissile material that could be turned into a nuclear missile within six to 24 months. So, even the Lib Dems are not prepared to scrap Trident entirely or to abandon the UK's so-called 'independent' nuclear capability.

In fact, 'our' Trident missiles are leased from the US and their warheads based on an American design (the W-76). They are manufactured at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire – a copy of a nuclear plant at Los Alamos and two-thirds owned by American companies Lockheed Martin and Jacobs Engineering. The firing system is designed and built in the US, as is the missile guidance system; the missiles are aimed with the help of US satellites. The subs themselves are designed and built in the Britain, but use American components and reactor technology. Finally, Britain could never use Trident without US approval. So much for independence!

This week, in Prague, Presidents Obama and Medvedev ratified a nuclear arms reduction agreement, replacing the expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, effectively reducing their deployed nuclear warheads by 30 per cent to 1,550. If the USA and Russia can do this, surely Britain can now scrap Trident, thereby doing away with the myth of an 'independent' nuclear deterrent, contributing to global multi-lateral nuclear disarmament, and making great savings at the same time?

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.

The Commonwealth @ 60

By Marguerite Finn

The last four years have been good years for diamond anniversaries: the United Nations in 2005, the local branch of the United Nations Association in 2008 and now in 2009, the Commonwealth is sixty years old.

All three organisations originated in a world reeling from the devastation of two World Wars, to promote common humanitarian values.

The Commonwealth of Nations came into being in 1949. Committed to racial equality and national sovereignty, the Commonwealth became the natural association of choice for many new nations emerging from decolonisation in the 1950s and 1960s.

The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth, which today consists of fifty-three independent member states, representing over a quarter of the world's population. Much of the Commonwealth's excellent work goes on behind the scenes, sharing expertise and quietly helping members along the road to democracy.

The Declaration of Commonwealth Principles was issued in 1971 stating: "We oppose all forms of colonial domination and racial oppression and are committed to the principles of human dignity and equality. We will therefore use all our efforts to foster human equality and dignity everywhere and to further the principles of self-determination and non-racialism".

The Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) meet next month in Port of Spain in Trinidad and Tobago. There will be lots to talk about – including climate change and global economic crises - but behind the bonhomie exist on-going violations of the Commonwealth's core principle of equality. I will focus on just two, which are happening with the connivance of two of its biggest members: Australia and India.

The Australian Government has bowed to the uranium mining industry at the expense of the Aboriginal people, over the issue of mining royalties. Having carved up swathes of Aboriginal land for uranium extraction, the government proposes the mining company pay royalties only if they are making a profit! Senator Scott Ludlam says this will disempower the Aboriginal people, leaving them with a lasting legacy of uranium-contaminated land and no compensation. A recent study shows that cancer rates among Aborigines near Australia's biggest uranium mine appear to be almost double the normal rate, yet a Commonwealth scientist denied that communities living near the mine are being exposed to "abnormal levels of radiation". The Rudd Government appears seduced by the uranium mining industry as it continues to follow the wishes of the Uranium Industry Framework, an unrepresentative, industry-dominated body created by the former Howard Government

A similar situation exists in Orissa in India – involving the British company Vedanta. The British Government demanded a change in the company's behaviour after investigating a complaint submitted by Survival International against Vedanta's proposed bauxite mine on the Dongria Kondh's sacred mountain. The UK ruled that Vedanta did not consider the impact of the construction of the mine on the tribe's rights and failed to put in place an adequate consultation. Vedanta refused to participate in the investigation. Prize-wining author, Arundhati Roy said: "If Vedanta is allowed to go ahead with its plans for mining the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa for bauxite, it will lead to the devastation of a whole eco-system and the destruction of not just the Dongria Kondh tribal community but eventually all those whose livelihoods depend on that ecosystem". Meanwhile, the Indian Government encourages and protects Vedanta.

Here we have two Commonwealth countries in breach of Commonwealth Principles. Could the CHOGM meeting in November put pressure on the Australian and Indian governments to uphold the rights of the indigenous peoples in their countries, showing that principles still count for more than corporate greed?

1969, the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Arnold Smith said: "The Future of the Commonwealth will be what its member governments, its member peoples and those who represent them in member parliaments, choose to make of it". In 2009, are its member peoples playing second-fiddle to corporate interests?

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.

Remembering the atrocities of war

By Juliette Harkin

As I was leaving Paris last week, after a wonderful train and biking holiday around central France, a piercing and frightening sound of sirens interrupted my enjoyment of the sights of the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe. As France commemorated the eve of the 70th anniversary of the 2nd World War, I was reminded of the rusty old Singer sewing machines that I had recently seen in the village of Oradour-sur-Glane.

Oradour had been a sleepy village in the Haute-Vienne region of central France that had come under the control of the French Vichy regime that collaborated with the Nazis. The region, with its dense forests, was also a hide-out for the French Resistance fighters who opposed the Vichy government and the Nazi occupation. After the D-Day landing of 1944 in Normandy the Nazis swept into central and Southern France, in an attempt to avoid further allied advances in France. As part of this advance a Waffen SS unit entered Oradour, and (using the excuse of one of its officers having been seized by the Resistance) rounded up 642 men, women and children. The Nazis separated the men and moved them to locations across the village before shooting them in cold blood. The women and children had been taken by the Germans to the village church. In a brutal act of barbarity the Nazis opened fire on these innocent women and children, sealed the church and set it alight, murdering all but one woman who managed to escape from a window.

Today Oradour remains as it was on that fateful day of 10th June 1944 preserved as a Martyr's Village in memory of those slaughtered. It touched the lives not just of those in the village but in the wider region. Staying in the small village of Blond, our elderly neighbour Lucille recounted her own memories of the Nazis in France. They had swept by the front of her house and executed some men and women at the junction, a few hundred yards from her home. Lucille has never been to Paris, certainly not abroad, but when the war was over she cycled to Oradour and saw for herself what war had visited upon the rural communities in France.

The Germans sought to cover up their atrocity by attempting to burn all the bodies and the village down to the ground. Visitors can see this for themselves today as they walk around the burnt out homes; the signs of the burning and gunshot holes still visible. As you walk past what was once the village bakery and butchery the ovens and tools can still be seen. In the houses Singer sewing machines lie rusting in burnt as a poignant reminder of the families that were wiped out.

The perpetrators of the atrocity were not really brought to justice for this war crime. In the 1950s French soldiers from Alsace, who had been forced to join the German army, were put on trial in Bordeaux for their part in the Oradour massacres, but their sentences were seen as lenient by the local community. And then even those sentences were remitted.

The pain of the loss was intensified because most of the bodies were unidentifiable and the victims could not be given a proper burial, thus allowing a grieving process for the wider community. As a result the local authorities insisted on preserving the destroyed village as it was to aid the healing process and to remind us all of the evils of war.

It's a fitting reminder of how wounds of injustice and war crimes cannot really heal unless they are given an appropriate place in our history and are recognised and commemorated in a way that enables people to feel the long arm of justice.

Identity and Afghanistan

By Lee Marsden

The other day I came across a book on the construction of Japanese identity, which seeks to explain changes in Japan's international role before and after the Second World War. As I considered the changes from a militaristic to a largely pacific nation I was reminded of an old Geography textbook passed down to me as a child. Written in 1913 it described the Germans as a 'hardworking and industrious people', during the Great War someone had scrawled across this description 'naturally warlike and vicious'. In both cases a connection between national identity and worldview is presented but one in which perceptions and identities change over time, resulting in changes in how countries engage with the rest of the world. Although identities are contested, dominant discourses emerge that impact on the foreign policies pursued by countries. Ruling elites present their foreign policy to appeal to these constructed identities.

Why then is it that countries like Japan and Germany are reluctant today to engage in warfare, despite having militaristic pasts, while Britain and the United States enthusiastically embrace war as a means of resolving disputes? Even now is there an Afghan child scribbling in a text book that the British are 'naturally warlike and vicious'? Of course not, you cry, because part of British identity is fair play, support for the underdog, a sense of duty and responsibility to others. When Britain goes to war, unlike other countries, it is always in a noble cause. Indeed, we have been well trained.

Our government appeals to a British identity that eschews naked self-interest to legitimate policies carried out in our name. In order to justify sending British troops to kill people in Afghanistan, for example, citizens need to be prepared and kept on side. The 'enemy' must be demonised and presented as the personification of evil, an existential threat that, unless we act, imperils our own security and way of life. We must be seen to act on behalf of the ordinary people, especially women, and provide them with freedom, democracy and human rights. Our troops must be presented as the best in the world bravely fighting an enemy that simply doesn't fight fair. The sacrifice, in terms of lost lives and limbs, is worthwhile because of the higher goals of bringing peace, stability and freedom to the Afghan people and reducing the terrorist threat to Britain.

Against this there are inconvenient truths which must not be acknowledged and dissident voices which must be silenced. When a government minister says that the campaign in Afghanistan makes absolutely no difference to Britain's internal security, or an incoming army chief warns that Britain's involvement would last for decades, they must be made to recant. Democracy must be seen to be working despite rigged elections, deals made with Taliban warlords, the influence of tribal elders, and the sale of votes. Women’s rights must be seen to be advanced despite only one in six girls in education and laws restricting women’s freedom of movement, attire, and marital rights. We must be seen to be making a difference and defeating the Taliban despite little improvement to the country's infrastructure, and de facto Taliban control of almost half the country. We must not acknowledge that our troops are unable to defeat a poorly equipped but resilient and resourceful enemy. We should not acknowledge that the real bravery and heroism comes from the Afghan people forced to live in a battle zone. Finally, we should not acknowledge that Britain's involvement has everything to do with standing alongside the US in order to enhance our international importance.

Such acknowledgements might after all appeal to a British identity that seeks peaceful solutions, would prefer a foreign policy that serves British rather than US interests, and rejects any more troops dying to prop up the Karzai government.

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.

Confusing religion and politics

By Liam Carroll

The world is full of injustice, tragedy and the horror of war, famine and disease. Much of this sad state of affairs can be placed squarely at the feet of social conflict, both within communities and between communities. Several recent books in Britain and America have held religion up as one of the primary causes of these human ills. Some evolutionists however have recently argued that religion has actually helped human societies bind together and that conflict is in fact a by-product of evolutionary development, of which religion is but a part.

Evolutionary scientists like David Wilson and Pascal Boyer have recently been speculating that religion is a natural phenomenon. Religion, they say, has been so widespread and fundamental to social development that it can only be a product of our natural evolution. We have needed religion, they theorize, to hold societies together; group cohesion and internal ethical structures, as provided by religion, have been necessary for societies to function.

There is good evidence to suggest that forms of belief in the supernatural have evolved over the last few millennia; starting with a mass of supernatural beings (animism), changing to a few supernatural beings (pantheism), before winding up as a single supernatural being (monotheism). The pattern coincides, roughly speaking, with the growth of the size of communities. Large communities require greater cohesion, and therefore they need a more simplified religion with a clearer ethical structure.

The ancient Egyptians were obsessed with religion, possibly way beyond any other. They indulged in a huge amount of ritual and diverted vast resources to the building of temples, pyramids and preserving dead bodies. Despite such seemingly irrational behavior, they had an empire that survived over two and half thousand years, dwarfing the longevity of every other empire since. Interestingly, toward the later years of the empire the Pharaoh Akhnaten tried to introduce a monotheistic religion around a new single all encompassing god, Aten.

The Romans had to adopt Christianity, it can be reasonably argued, to help keep the Empire together, as Christianity had become so popular. The need for religious coherence required the Emperor Constantine to enact a sweeping change from pantheism to monotheism almost overnight, in his pursuit of a more unified Empire.

The Arab world too, propelled itself into a new age of political and scientific success under Islam, a monotheistic religion. Under a diverse pantheon of gods, they had not been so successful.

Religion, in other words, has developed hand in hand with political authority over the years, and thus its many diverse and conflicting forms can be seen to parallel many of the varied political developments over the course of history.

In the The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, the author, bemoans the irrational faith placed in supernatural beings and argues that such faith has been deeply harmful to men's development. Well, maybe, but does he believe that history would have developed along purely rational lines in the absence of religious institutions? What about the non-religious governments of Mao, Stalin or Hitler, were they superior forms of authority?

In God is not Great, the author, Christopher Hitchens mimics the argument of Professor Dawkins, only he tries to lump the secular tyrants, just mentioned, in with religion, on the basis that they involved 'faith'.

To categorize political tyrannies as religions exposes the fact that the two systems share much of the same ground; they are about organizing society around certain principles, principles in which people must have some faith, at least initially. What can seem liberating, however, can of course soon turn to tyranny and in this respect religion and politics have much in common. To deny, though, that religion should play no part in our evolution, as Darwinists like Professor Dawkins do, could in fact, ironically, be to deny the working of evolution itself.

The optimism in Cain and Abel

By Liam Carroll

Humans like stories, and with good reason. Not only are many of them fun, but they are also informative. Psychologist Jordan Peterson has an interesting interpretation of the Genesis stories of Adam and Eve and their two sons, Cain and Abel; it is interesting, in my opinion, because it mixes religion and science, and is both plausible and positive.

When humans were animals, before the development of self-consciousness and rational planning, we lived in paradise. We lived in paradise because we had no thought for tomorrow, no anxiety about what we should or should not be doing; we were instinctive, we lived in the flow of life, moment to moment.

As we evolved, over several hundred thousands of years and underwent rapid brain development we became increasingly self-conscious. Who knows why, or God knows why, depending on your perspective. Either way, it was an evolution; an experiment of nature, or a process of design by the creator.

The emergence of light and the creation of Adam and Eve represents this emergence of consciousness in incredibly compressed form; it's only a page or two in Genesis, about a million years according to geneticists. The snake, curled upwards around the tree, is symbolic of the central nervous system running up the spine with our organs of sight, hearing and smell in the head. This is the information system that makes us alert to our environment. It warns us about physical threats and alerts us to things we need or desire.

The eating of the apple is the moment that Adam and Eve become aware of their nakedness, their vulnerability, their mortality; the fruit of knowledge is knowledge about ourselves and our environment, it is the birth of self-consciousness. We are no longer in paradise, we are no longer ignorant and blissful, we no longer live in the moment, in the rich flow of life. We now have to start preparing for tomorrow, to labour, to plan, to protect and to provide for ourselves, starting with the fig leaf.

Out of Eden we go with the Cherub, our youth, with the flaming sword, barring our return. We now have to plan and work, to store wealth, to prepare for lean times, for unexpected eventualities, and God knows what else.

Cain and Abel, the first sons, brothers, or two aspects of the human psyche, provide the first story of the choices that face us. Abel does everything right, he knows what sacrifices to make to please God and he is happy and God loves him. The love of God, literal or symbolic, depending on your perspective, represents happiness and well being. Although the world can be a cruel and tragic place, those people, according to this interpretation of the story, who behave appropriately, who make the correct self-sacrifices, and do not put aside everything for themselves, achieve happiness.

Cain on the other hand, doesn't make the right sacrifices. He sacrifices something, but in Genesis it doesn't go into detail. God is not happy with him though, and from this we might surmise that what he thinks is a sufficient sacrifice, in reality isn't. His sacrifices, his efforts, are mean and paltry, he wants to keep the best for himself, but he is unhappy, for God, or life even, does not treat him well. Cain's jealousy of Abel's happiness, of the love that he receives from others, as represented by God, is too much for Cain, and he ends up killing Abel. Life for Cain goes even further downhill from there.

The optimism of this interpretation of Cain and Abel, following on the heels of our expulsion from Eden, lies in the fact that there is redemption for humankind, if we make the right choices. Self-sacrifice doesn't mean going without, it means gaining something else.

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.

Obama's war in Afghanistan

By Lee Marsden

This week has seen the removal of America's top military commander in Afghanistan General David McKiernan and his replacement by Lt General Stanley McChrystal, a veteran of Special Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Announcing the departure of General McKiernan, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that "fresh eyes [were] needed" in Afghanistan. The move reflects growing disquiet about the failings of US/Coalition forces in Afghanistan that has seen a resurgence of the Taliban, a growth in the drugs trade, and growing corruption of Afghan government and officials without a corresponding development in infrastructure or security for much of the country. The corresponding Taliban resurgence in Swat province in Pakistan, fuelled by US missile attacks often resulting in civilian deaths, has turned the Afghan war strategy into an AFPAK strategy that is likely to be just as unsuccessful.

As Obama turns US attention from Iraq, which is now regarded as a success because the civilian death toll has fallen to around 300 per month, towards Afghanistan he faces the danger of repeating his predecessor's mistakes. Unlike Iraq, the Afghanistan war is legal in the sense that it was perceived as a legitimate response to an attack on a sovereign country by forces harboured by the Taliban government. NATO troops are present in the conflict at the behest of the democratically elected Afghan government to prevent its overthrow by a resurgent Taliban. Yet the war in Afghanistan, just like Iraq, is being sold to British and American publics on a false prospectus. We are told that the conflict is essential to prevent Al Qaeda launching terrorist attacks against the West, that Taliban and Al Qaeda are one-in-the-same, in short that Britain and America's national security is tied to winning the battle in Afghanistan. In support of such claims Obama intends to increase US troop levels to 60,000 and is looking to NATO countries, including Britain, to increase its deployment also.

And yet such a strategy is disingenuous, built on a myth which has the potential to become self fulfilling prophecy. The relationship between the Taliban and al Qaeda is tenuous at best, a marriage of convenience in adversity as US strategy unites them as 'the other'. In reality the Taliban were reluctant hosts to al Qaeda in the 1990s, regarded the attacks on America as a betrayal of Afghan hospitality, and after 9/11 offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a Muslim country for trial, an offer rejected by the Bush administration which preferred to destroy the Taliban regime in retaliation for the New York and Washington attacks. Today, the threat posed by Al Qaeda is considerably exaggerated. The US intelligence agencies which claimed in 2002 that there were hundreds of Al Qaeda sleepers cells in the United States have failed to find any and have acknowledged that any threat is potential rather than actual. The claim that terrorist groups need a geographical training base to launch operations from, such as could be provided in Afghanistan, is fanciful, terrorist operations can and are planed from anywhere. The capability of al Qaeda and its associates is also considerably overstated, their inability to strike again at America is not due to lack of opportunity but rather capability. Al Qaeda’s attacks on fellow Muslims in Iraq has led to widespread disaffection, demonstrated by the Awakening in Iraq. And yet a few hundred terrorists continue to dominate US/UK thinking. Britain's involvement in Afghanistan, resulting in the death of almost 160 troops, is not based on national security interests but rather a desire to be seen as America's closest ally. Does anyone seriously believe that British troops would remain in Afghanistan one day after US troops withdrew? The Taliban's return is undesirable on humanitarian grounds but let's not pretend that national security depends on winning in Afghanistan.

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.

Community journalism celebrates its fifth anniversary

By Marguerite Finn

I feel like a veteran columnist today, as we celebrate the fifth anniversary of the One World Column! Five years ago, a small but determined group of local peace activists approached this paper for a space for anti-war voices, at the height of the Iraq war. This column owes its existence to the vision of EDP Editor, Peter Franzen, and the unfailing help of Pete Kelley. I take this opportunity to thank them for their patient support, which has enabled us regularly to raise issues as diverse as poverty, oppression, globalisation, resource wars, human rights, international relations and the environment.

Many changes have taken place in the world over the past five years - some good and some utterly disastrous. The pace of change is speeding up. Is our government learning from past mistakes? Or will we be asking in 2055 – like Peter Postlethwaite, looking back from his lonely perch in The Age of Stupid, – why didn't we save ourselves when we had the chance?

There is still time. Humanity and the planet would benefit from a sustained period of global peace and recuperation. But peace is not just the absence of war. For a lasting peace, we need to focus on human security rather than on the state security presently encouraged by the military-industrial complex. Britain has an unprecedented opportunity for a change of emphasis, allowing it to evolve in a more wholesome direction – like getting on with the world community instead of defending ourselves against it. Innovative thinking is urgently required, to move away from the concept of endless war requiring ever more vicious weapons.

The historian Eric Hobsbawm describes the mess we are in: "Britain deregulated its markets, sold its industries to the highest bidder, stopped making things to export and put its money on becoming the global centre of financial services and therefore a paradise for zillionaire money-launderers". He suggests a way forward: "The test of a progressive policy is not private but public, not just rising income and consumption for individuals but widening the opportunities of all through collective action - a major shift away from the free market and towards public action, a bigger shift than the British Government has yet envisaged."

Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies in Bradford, has been looking at Britain's national security strategy. He too is concerned about the slow pace of change in Government thinking: "The indications are that British security thinking is still largely stuck in the past. Much of the emphasis, in terms of spending commitments over the coming decade, will be focused on heavy investment in a new strategic nuclear force and massive new aircraft carriers that will together provide a global expeditionary capability far in excess of anything Britain has had for nearly four decades."

The arms industry is a small part of the UK economy, contributing less than 1.5% of total exports annually. Military-export employment comprises 2% of UK manufacturing employment, yet the sector is heavily subsidised. Jeremy Corbyn MP, says: "We have to challenge the idea that British industry needs big arms contracts to survive and we should be promoting a serious arms conversion strategy." Media informers and politicians need to be convinced that security does not come from weapons of mass destruction, but from a process based on peace - which means preventing the government wasting up to £76 billion on a new nuclear weapons system - which, according to General Sir Hugh Beach, (former Commander-in-Chief of UK Land Forces), "is no bloody use".

There is an opportunity to debate military spending at a meeting on Tuesday 5th May at St Peter Mancroft Church's Chantry Hall, Chantry Road, Norwich (7pm), organised by Norfolk Campaign Against the Arms Trade.

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.