Tuesday 16 April 2002

Middle Eastern Thread

Along with 1984, the film "Threads" has been one of the three big influences on my way of thinking.

Mind you, the 3rd big influence is Romero's Zombies...


I watched Threads last night, which, if you know me, you'll know is not a good idea. Threads is a British film made in the mid 80's which deals with the impact of nuclear war on society (the 'impact' being that it wipes society and most of humanity off the map). The first half deals with the build up to the war (a series of incidents in the middle east provide the flashpoint, and they are inter-cut with various news items and government announcements heavy on phrases such as 'precautionary measure' and 'international condemnation') whilst the second half looks at the aftermath. Anyway, a friend of mine asked to watch it and, in much the same way as people enjoy going on rollercoasters, I enjoy watching a film which infuses me with extraordinary terror. So it was with the mingled sensations of fear, excitement, and anticipation that I pressed the Play button on the VCR. A little over 2 hours later and the shell-shocked face of my friend indicated that the film had had it's desired effect and that she now had the futility of war impressed quite firmly upon her. So I stopped the tape.

On came the news, and on came a number of items dealing with the current violence in Israel. We watched for a short while until we realised that perhaps listening to various people from the Middle East discussing 'precautionary measures' whilst shrugging off 'international condemnation' was not the best thing for us to do post film.

And so it is that I find myself thinking once more of Israel. It's a place that is occupying the thoughts and minds of many right now. Admittedly, a fair few of them only think of it in terms of "Why should I care what happens in Israel?” and should you be one of them then I would advise you to find a copy of Threads, watch it, and then take a few days off work to recover. But the fact remains that the current situation in Israel is very, VERY bad, and whether we like it or not it may well all end up having to care what happens there whether we like it or not.

Before I go any further, I should declare my own personal biases. I despise Ariel Sharon. I believe him to be a warmongering nazi of a man who is sacrificing peace in order to play out his own personal bigotry. I'm also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, by which I mean their right to self ruled homeland that is free of Israeli interference and in turn does not seek to interfere with the running of Israel. All straight forward so far.

That said, certain things should also be borne in mind before leaping to the conclusion that Israel is bad and Palestine is good. We have been hearing a lot recently about suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists. They have been active long before now, with fanatical bombers and terrorists having waged war on Israel for decades. Whilst we tot up the daily death toll of Palestinian people due to Sharon's butchery, we should never forget that Israeli's have lived in the shadow of Palestinian and Arab sponsored terrorism for a long, long time.

Not only that, but since it's creation Israel has found itself in a position of fighting for it's very existence. The Arab and Palestinian states surrounding Israel swore to destroy it. They didn't succeed. But they tried (and in some cases, tried again). When that failed, some saw sense and sued for peace (Egypt, although recently it has severed most diplomatic links) whilst others sought to fund those who wanted to continue the violence. Thus Hamas, the PLO etc found that they had a source of money, which would enable them to wage a war of terror against Israel.

So all in all, it's becoming increasingly clear to see where the Israeli siege mentality comes in. It's easy for the rest of the world to condemn the actions of Israel, but can you think of many reasons why Israel should pay any attention? What did the international community do for Jews before and during WWII? Oh, that's right; there were various statements of condemnation at best, tacit approval at worst. How about during the various short and bloody conflicts of the past 40 years? The international community condemned the actions of Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc in the strongest possible terms...and did nothing more. What about the numerous terrorist attacks that have been aimed at Israel? Yes, more condemnation. No, no real action taken. And currently? Well, Israel is now facing much condemnation. Does Ariel Sharon think that anything will really be done to stop any of the military action? No. Do the Israeli people trust the international community to bring those responsible for the terror attacks on them to justice? No. Can anyone really blame them for thinking this way, under the weight of their short and bloody history? No.

So when I say that I condemn the actions of the Israeli military over the last few weeks, I'm not (as those conservatives who support what Israel is doing would have you think) a simpering liberal who thinks that the Palestinians are on the side of the angels. I'm not (as certain members of the Israeli government would have you believe) an anti-Semite who wants to see Israel wiped from the map. And however much I sympathise with the Palestinian cause, I'm certainly not praising the actions of those bombers and fanatics who have caused carnage in Israel. I feel the need to make that clear as it seems that we have a tendency to assume that by condemning one we support the other. In other words, their is a tendency to see the world in black and white.

That isn't the case of course; there are shades of grey in any dispute, and this one is no different. Yet we are still quick to try and assign the roles of good guy and bad guy. Perhaps this makes things simpler for us. Perhaps we're still hungover from WWII, where one side was clearly in the right and one was clearly in the wrong (and yet even there, a few moral ambiguities existed; try asking a member of the UK Military about the fate of the Karen people in Burma...). Perhaps there are a lot more anti-Semites in the world than I realised. Whatever it is, most people seem anxious to lay the blame with one side or other. Each side has it's apologists who deplore the atrocities committed against them whilst justifying or downplaying those committed against the other side. All perfectly understandable given human nature, but not exactly likely to bring hostilities to an end.

(As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet, who else is there?)

The problem lies in self-interest. Actually, that's wrong; the problem lies in the fact that we are refusing to acknowledge our self-interest. The US are currently particularly interested in solving the problems in Israel. Isn't it funny how they only became interested in a solution involving both sides when it became clear that middle eastern support for it's little Boy's Own war against Iraq was approximately nil due to their speed in condemning Palestinian terror and sloth in condemning that which originates from Israel. The same can be said of the UK and, to a lesser degree, Europe. Various Moslem nations (particularly Saudi Arabia) are now seeking a resolution of the conflict, offering recognition of Israel and normalised relationships (i.e. the official position will no longer be "Death to Israel!"). Yet they were much less interested before their own people made uneasy mutterings about their leaders supporting the US who in turn support Israel who in turn oppress Palestinians. So are the Moslem nations interested in peace for the Palestinians, or are they only interested in holding on to their power?

We only act when it benefits ourselves; that is human nature. But we create high-minded rhetoric (such as 'international condemnation') to make that human nature seem like so much more than it is. I do believe that many people do want to see an end to killing in Israel for humanitarian reasons, but I wouldn't count our leaders among them. Nor would I condemn them for acting in the best interests of their own countries (human nature remember, although I do dislike the fact that we are still at evolutiononary stage where the most important thing in our lives is our own little fief). But I do condemn the fact that we all seem so determined to find somewhere to cast the blame, because that is what justifies the high minded rhetoric and disguises our own self-interest. In Threads, that led to a nuclear exchange. In Israel, it leads to further violence, which may spread beyond what we are currently seeing.

My point is this; it doesn't matter who started the violence, who is historically to blame, or who is a darker shade of grey up to now on the moral scale. What matter is that it needs to stop; Ariel Sharon knows he will not stop the suicide bombs using his current tactics. Whether you support him or not, I think that this is pretty much irrefutable. Nor will Yasser Arafat ever have sufficient authority to be able to stop the suicide bombers. It is in our interests for the violence to stop because it could spread far beyond the borders of Israel. I'm getting tired of seeing people argue over semantics about the terror in Israel; pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, those who seek a secular solution, those who use religion to justify the violence, etc. None of it really matters I'm afraid. The only thing that matters is stopping the cycle of violence and terror. The only thing stopping us is that we don't see how it benefits us. So go and watch Threads. You'll start to get an idea of why I think stopping the violence in the Middle East benefits every living being on the planet.

No comments: