Back Track

The Palestinian Authority has supposedly offered the United States and Israel a deal in which it would freeze all its current plans to achieve full membership for Palestine in various UN agencies until the end of January. In return for this freeze the United States and Israel would have to resume transferring funds (which they have currently halted) into Palestine.

Surprise surprise, once again we see the Palestinian Authority seceding to the pressure mounted on them. This is mainly because the pressure they have received from Israel and the US has been absurd to say the least. It especially absurd considering what the Palestinians are trying to achieve which is simply to be treated as equals (if only by title) on the world stage and therefore being granted basic recognition on par with any other state on this planet.  Nothing too radical or out of the ordinary there.

Though I do not claim to believe the situation the Palestinians find themselves in is an easy or simple one, I do think this move hinders rather than helps their plans. The fact that what they are asking is nothing short of the bare necessities is even more reason for them to stick to their guns and not allow Israel and the US to continue to dictate to them their every move. It is not them who are in the wrong so it shouldn’t be them who should be conceding. Most, if not nearly all, of the UN members are also sympathetic or in agreement with the Palestinians on their quest to be granted membership on the UN.

If the Arab Spring has taught us anything, its that the underdog can prevail.

Follow @WellApparently

 

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Despite speculation that it would heed international calls to end the freeze it imposed on Palestine two weeks ago, Israel has decided to continue to refuse to pay the Palestinians the £100 million in duties it owes them. The £100 million are mainly composed of customs revenues Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinians under the interim agreement. The reason why a freeze was called in the first place was over Palestines application and further acceptance into UNESCO (Untied Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization).

Makes perfect sense doesn’t it. How dare Palestine even think to join this kind of twisted organization, which get this ‘Encourages international peace and universal respect by promoting collaboration among nations’. Pure Madness. Who does it think it is? A state? Seriously, at this point you would think there would be greater uproar at Palestine trying to integrate itself in the world governmental structure than if it was to declare another Intifada of sorts. 

The icing on the cake though had to be the Israeli officials explanation on Israel’s diplomatic approach to Palestinian negotiations which involves ‘both carrot & stick’ … In which of course by carrot he also means stick.

Priorities Israel…..Get them right.

Follow @WellApparently

 

To Fly or not to Fly? That is the Question

This is topic on Libya is a controversial one which has elicited passionate responses. But I think that the question asked in the title is a potent question which is on everyone’s lips. The reason why I have decided to post on this topic is because I am finding that this has become a very decisive issue between people who are ardently for or pro the imposition of a no fly zone. So I’m going to try my best to address some of the points on both sides of the debate as best I can. Though I know many people might disagree with my opinion I hope that this post might make you question or think harder about this subject. Because regardless what people say, this decision is not a clear cut one and is a hard one to address.

I know this post is long and I apologies. But please if you can read it all before you judge my position on the intervention.

First thing I want to point out on the get go is that this situation we find ourselves in is nothing like the situation we found ourselves in with Iraq. The reason why I say this is because of a lot of different aspects.

Firstly, this No fly Zone has the international approval of the UN and the Arab league *though…it is debatable how worthy their opinions are on the matter, since most of the people on the panel are themselves oppressive dictators/leaders*. The Iraq war on the other hand did not have the same kind of legitimating backing.

Secondly, unlike with Iraq, the west was not gunning for Gaddafi’s removal a-prior to this revolution. With Saddam there was a clear sign from the get go that George Bush and Even Tony Blair to an extent, where looking to find an excuse to get rid of him. This issue of Saddam being removed George Bush believed should have been resolved during the gulf crises. So hence why when the devastating events of 9/11 occurred the administration thought that it was a good enough time as any to settle old scores and tie up this loose end once and for all. Obviously there were other factors as well which came to influence their decision to go to war, but that is whole separate issue in itself.

But with Libya the situation was markedly different. Ever since the Iraq war Gaddafi had played nice and renounced all links to ‘terrorism’. This is because he feared if he didn’t he would be the next one they would decide to topple Saddam style. So with Saddam, the situation started off with him being BFFs with the west and then he went rogue. While with Gaddafi, the tables are more or less turned, he started off a rogue bandit and was then ‘rehabilated’ as a friend an ally. But let me get one thing clear here, though Britain was quick to slide into a chummy type relationship with Gaddafi, the USA on the other hand still viewed him warily and was generally more cautious. So hence the lack of similar loved-up pictures of American leaders with Gaddafi as we have seen currently being aired with regards to Tony Blair.

Thirdly, the situation of the importance of oil isn’t really as pivotal as it was with Iraq. If you look at the people who are Libya’s main dealers the USA falls way down the list. The picture below best describes who gains what from relations with Libya:

So the issue of whether or not the west is going in for SIMPLY oil isn’t really as pivotal as the people most benifiting are not the ones intervening as was with case with Iraq. Another point to note is that some people have argued that one of the desires of the west isn’t controlling their access to the oil per say, but just making sure the price of oil does not rise on the world market due to the conflict in Libya. This issue has actually been resolved by Saudi Arabia who have during this conflict stepped in and ‘gracefuly’ upped the oil it pumps out to balance and quell the rise of oil prices. So on that aspect of things, there isn’t a real urgency for the USA to go in guns blazing. Though of course we cannot deny that the sooner this conflict is resolved, the better it is for everyone as it is debatable how long Saudi Arabia can keep up this charade of stabilizing prices. So while oil is an important aspect to this intervention, it is not actually really vital to countries like the USA. It’s more important to countries like the UK & France…who funnily enough have seemed to take a keen interest in this conflict..

But overall, these factors have combined to reflect the USA’s posture on the conflict. Contrary to what people like to believe, the USA was actually not the country that was mainly thrusting for this intervention. It was instead Britain and France that where the main backers of intervention. Obama himself was actually heavily reluctant to get involved in this conflict in the first place. It was why even a day before the UN resolution was to be debated, government official’s in Britain and France where jittery and hesitant over whether or not the USA would actually support their stance. It was actually the people around Obama who greatly influenced or pushed him to back this No fly zone. One of these people was Hillary Clinton who was actually frustrated with Obama personally over his lack of leadership over this issue.

The way Obama saw it was that he didn’t need another war against a Muslim country on his hands. Add that with the current budgetary problems caused by the recession and you find yourselves in a very tricky and therefore reluctant position. The USA has of course currently been the main enforcer of the No fly zone, but it has also been quick to try and absolve its responsibility of this conflict. It want’s Nato to take full charge instead and ideally would like to pull out of the conflict at soon as possible, citing that it hoped this conflict would be resolved in a matter of days.

Another point to address is the confusion surrounding the detail of what the No Fly Zone entails. The No Fly Zone resolution explicitly forbids ANY foreign troops on the ground. It is basically a resolution which only allows artillery attacks to ground Gaddafi’s planes whilst enforcing a humanitarian protection zone over parts of rebel held Libya against attacks from Gaddafi forces.  So no military ground personal will be used in the conflict as was used in Iraq. The no Fly zone is simply making sure that Gaddafi’s forces are no longer air bombing towns whilst hampering his force from attacking rebel held areas. This means bombing their military bases and grounding their flying capabilities. So it is largely a defense situation where it is used as a tactic to try and level the ground for the rebel forces.

But there is of course an inherent interest for the west to bomb military defense targets and weaponry. As in the end, when Gaddafi is hopefully toppled, a new leadership will come into power which will have to rebuild their military and therefore buy new defense systems and weaponry. And guess who’s going to be the main supplier? Yep the west, so it’s win-win.

This is true of course that whatever is bombed will one day be rebuilt and as the main weapon suppliers are the West, they are kind of securing some future revenue for their arms trade. But at the same time, let’s not forget that war itself is very expensive. For example, for each Tomahawk missle fired it costs the USA 1.4 million dollars. Not only that, but it costs the government 13,000 dollars an hour to fly a fighter plane. Now that is a lot of money considering how many missiles have been fired and how many fighter planes have been active in enforcing the no fly zone. So for those arguing that this conflict is simply about monetary gains, the evidence shows that the monetary gains aren’t really extensively that much.

Another point to bring up would be the point brought up by Ken Livingstone during the question time debate. It was the idea that this conflict should be instead left to countries like Turkey and Egypt who are much more legitimate players. I completely agree with that notion. I feel this ‘western supremacy’ argument where the west is only ever perceived as the people to enforce military actions is laughable. But, I do think only the west in this case could have enforced the no fly zone, why? Because firstly Egypt was and still is against intervening military in the conflict. This is because it is currently embroiled in its own problems as Mubarak has only just recently been ousted. This means domestically Egypt has enough on its plate and cannot spare enough time or effort to embark on a war. While with Turkey, I do think it could play a more vital role in the intervention on a whole. But we are all kidding ourselves if we think that Turkey could unilaterally carry this No Fly Zone off on its own. Whether we like it or not, the USA has built up a much superior military force in and around the region and has the much needed technology to enforce this currently.  It is one of the reason why Britain and France needed to drag the USA into backing this and leading the No fly Zone as even Britain and France aren’t nearly as well equipped as the USA when it comes to military and GPS on Libya.

So overall, should this No fly zone be enforced? I personally think yes. I think that this is a hard question for people like us who are sat in the safety of our houses to ponder. But for those people who are sat in Libya, the answer is starkly easier to answer. They want this enforcement of a No Fly Zone because whether we like it or not, they did very much need it at the time of its enforcement. The rebel forces had been pushed to Benghazi and people on the ground were loosing real hope and starting to think that maybe it would be business as usual with Gaddafi in permanent power. I have Libyan friends who have been vocal about wanting this no fly zone enacted because they have family and friends back home who they are very worried about. Libyan people who a week or so ago, where contemplating what form Gaddafi’s revenge would take shape in…and how harsh and devastating it would be. There were also many brave rebels who had fought honorably on the battle lines who were contemplating the very real fact that they would soon be fighting, risking and possibly losing their lives in a lost battle.

But of course nothing in life is simple. The concerns voiced on the anti-intervention side are of course valid. I do not deny that the West is hypocritical in its enforcement of these interventionist policies. I understand the very real problem we have in the world were if it wasn’t for some sort of interest, the west generally wouldn’t give much of a toss about a conflict. This is highlighted in the fact that there are a plethora of conflicts in for example Africa, which have been raging on for years prior to these revolutions in the Middle East where nothing has been done. These conflicts have also become so common in some parts of the world that they at times are barely even deemed newsworthy.

But what then is the answer? Are we not saying if the USA or west wants to be truly fair they should intervene in places like Africa where none of its interests lie? But then are we still not asking the USA to intervene? Is the question we should be asking, not whether or not you should or should not intervene, but when.

When you have seen the devastating events of the Rwandan genocide and read up the facts, you are left thinking, where was the west? You are not left thankful of the west’s lack of intervention, but critical. This highlights how intervention whether we like it or not is an important aspect of foreign policy. The question that burns us most is the hypocrisy of it all. But let’s not let this blatant hypocrisy and criticism blind us to whether or not the west should act in all situations.

I do believe that this conflict is to be won by Libyans and Libyans alone. But I do see no issue with the No Fly Zone helping to level the playing field of the conflict to a more equitable level as it will save a lot of people’s lives. Let us not kids ourselves, If Gaddafi had entered Benghazi and regained control of it, there would have been a massacre and I bet you we would be sat here saying instead, why the hell did no one intervene or care?

I also realize that the reason behind the intervention is not simply one devoid of any interest for the west. This is because the sooner the conflict is resolved the better. After all oil prices would no longer be privy to fluctuation and also Libya is at the doorstep of Europe, so an influx of war immigrants would be stemmed. But just because the Libyans are sat on a reservoir of oil and are situated in the geopolitical place they are in, doesn’t make their lives any less worthy to save. If they did not sit on oil, would the questions asked be similar to those asked during the Rwandan conflict?

I think our role of course should be to criticize the people who hold power, and work slowly towards making sure this integrated nexus of interest and intervention is broken. The hypocrisy of the west denouncing Gaddafi yet courting the Saudi & Bahrani Monarchy enrages me. These are wrongs that need to be righted. And we should vocally make sure that out governments are aware of their wholly unacceptable double standards. We cannot simply agree with their dated concept of ‘look at us we are doing this cause we care’ propaganda that they like to spew.  We should not buy into their lies and their efforts to package this conflict in their favor. But at the same time, we cannot denounce all of the actions they do.

We just need to make the west more accountable to their hypocritical actions and make sure that this privileging of oppressive regimes over others is one day shattered.

So overall, we should work towards a point where the Middle East should be able to police itself and deal with intervention in its region by its own forces. Rather than having the USA intervene because of its military prowess and superiority. But till then, we have to deal with the shabby cards that we are dealt, while making sure we do not loose sight of the motives of the people dealing the cards. They should be held accountable for getting us into this situation and should be monitored closely to make sure they do not once again overstep their mandate as they have done in the past.

Till Next Time,

 

Hot n’ Cold

You change your mind

Like a girl changes clothes

Yea, you PMS like a bitch

I would know

And you always think

Always speak cryptically

I should know

That you’re no good for me

‘Cause your hot then you’re cold

You’re yes then you’re no

If you didn’t know any better you’d think that these words by Katty perry were aimed at the countless Israeli leaders who have come and gone in the past few years. Why you hear me ask is it addressed to them? Because it seems to be a bang on trend for an Israeli leader to be elected on there *tough-hard-won’t-budge-an-inch-to-the-Palestinians-right stance* and then find them claiming to want to do good-by getting caught up in so-called ‘peace’ negotiations. It’s like they want to have their cake and eat it. And so far, they have succeeded in doing just that. Examples I hear you ask? How about Ariel Sharon who once famously quipped and urged Israelis to settle more land fast by “Grab(bing) the hilltops, and stake(ing) your claim” . Simply put he was encouraging the growth of Illegal Israeli settlements. And if you want a more contemporary one, just look at the current Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He heads one the staunchest right-wing parties in the Israeli government and its no secret that he is a staunch supporter of illegal settlements being built and believes their should be no ‘concession on settlements’ .

Now with all that being true its funny how each these leaders have found them self at a time engaging in ‘peace’ negotiations. Now before I broach the absurdity of this subject, let me just quickly recap some small brief facts. Under international law and in the view of the UN and the majority of  member countries the  pre-scribed border for Israel and Palestine is the internationally recognized 1947 borders. Anything built over these lines by Israel are considered illegal settlements as they are built on land that is meant and prescribed for the Palestinian people. Now lets look at a picture of the prescribed 1947 borders and how the map should look today;

Ok, so Israel seems to have lucked out majorly in this little agreement because as far as i can see they have been given the most land. lucky them, guess that means they won’t have to complain about the lack of land …….*glances at current map of Israel*

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh *awkward silence*.

My bad, looks like they weren’t happy with their fairly substantial share. Talk about taking the piss and pushing boundaries. Looks like Israel practically hasn’t looked at a map SINCE 1947 and has kept building thinking sooner or later they will come across a thick border line of some sort. Someone should have told them the line on the map was only an imaginary border, not a physically present one.

Now Regardless of why, how, or when they acquired it the land they have acquired over the borders is ILLEGAL. Its land that belongs to the Palestinians and is land that under any future or current peace deal will be returned to the Palestinians in one form or the other.

So basically, any Israeli leader that enters negotiations KNOWS that this land grabbing will be an issue and if there is to be a successful deal reached this matter will have to be resolved and the land repatriated to the Palestinians. This whole issue of Palestine and Israel has been going on for many many years and each successive Israeli government has engaged in brief talks that if followed through would return that very same land that they had previously laid claim to.

So now back to the present and the issue surrounding the current crisis in the peace talks. The crisis revolves around the settlement freeze that Israeli enforced for over 10 months and which recently ended. Lets not comment on how amazing the timing of the ending of the settlement freeze is as it just comes a mere 2 weeks after talks first started.  Now that it has ended Benjamin won’t reinstate it or even extended it to help facilitate the talks. WHAT THE HELL, they were imposed for a good 10 months or so and as far as I can see Israel is still standing so there is no good reason why it can’t be extended for a few more months for the sake of ‘peace in the middle east’.  The US has literally been working to sweeten the deal for Israeli *and trust me the deal was sweet* to extend the freeze but to no avail. Without the freeze being implemented the negotiations will simply will fall apart. This is because the Palestinian delegation headed by Mahmoud Abbas is already in a weak state and has had to make enough concessions to just get the talks started. It is one of the few conditions they have asked to be implemented for the talks to go on.

This request makes complete sense as if you are coming to negotiate how to give back the land you took you’d think that maybe you’d want to stop taking land. Would make the process MUCH easier. So why in god’s name is Benjamin Netanyahu not extending this settlement freeze for the sake of maybe resolving a crises and conflict which has engulfed the middle east for countless of years?

Answer is, he probably doesn’t care to be the one to resolve this crisis. Because resolving it would mean combating the hard right members of his party and government who got him into power. Whilst also combating the zealot religious right who see the whole of the Palestinian land being rightfully theirs as its their god given right and religious mission to acquire and lay stake to this land. To dismantle their settlements would result in an internal conflict as they have no interest in letting go of this land and going away quietly. To do so would be an affront to their so-called religious beliefs.

Regardless of how hard it is it is something that MUST be done if the conflict is to be resolved. So for this to happen their needs to be a tough no  nonsense leader who cares to actually seriously resolve this crises head on. Till then peace negotiations will simply come and go acting as mere symbolism of Israeli leaders pretending to care about the plight of the Palestinians.

Till Next Time

 

Post Correction: Lebanon-Israeli border clash

So this post is just going to be a post clarifying some details that I posted up on in the last post. I didn’t have access to this information at the time of posting but its come to light that some of the UN findings on this event say that the tree was actually on Israel’s side of the border. Not only that but Israel did convey the message to the Unifil *the UN border patrol monitoring the borders since the ceasefire in 2006* that they would be carrying out this clearing process. Unifil also insist that this message was relayed to the officials in the Lebanese army. Though the investigation is still under way to clarify the rest of the events unfolding regarding the actual shooting.

So I’v learnt a thing or two about hastily commenting on an event without knowing the full details first and in the future will wait a while before adding my titbit of commentary. This saves me from having to post a correction post whilst also bypassing me sounding  like a complete un-informed A hole. I say this because I know the frustration of coming across and reading something which someone unequivocally believes is right whilst all evidence points to the contrary. Not only that but its never smart to jump the gun with events as serious as this because at the end of the day lives where lost and to mis-portray events would be an affront to those who passed.    Plus it does take a bit of the sting out of my argument as once one thing is proven false the rest of it can seem to be less convincing.  So far that I am sorry and I guess that this is first mistake out of many ill be making as I progress and develop this blog onwards. Lets just hope the mistakes are on the low side of things number wise.

But that’s not to say that the whole post should be ignored as the argument  comparing it to the flotilla incident still stands. I do believe that if things where the other way round *as they where in the flotilla incident* Israel would be able to legally justify the events unfolding in its eyes.

But I do wish that governments states and people in power would do the normal human thing and admit they are wrong when they have f***** up. We aren’t perfect, we are human, we have flaws and we make mistakes, it just seems this basic human truth escapes those in power. they believe they are immune to it generally and that admitting they are wrong is a sign of weakness. B*******, the reason why trust in government and people in power is at an all time low is because this people will spew any amount of crap to escape from having to admit they are wrong or mistaken. The only time they do admit it is when they are backed up in a corner and their PR managers have jumped ship and left them with nothing else to say. From the ex-BP oil chief exclaiming that the BP oil spill is small compared to the body of water on earth *really? that’s ALLl you could come up with in defence? really?  Couldn’t go with something less  obviously  irrelevant? Surprised you didn’t bother to work out the percentage ratio to add more grit to your seemingly solid argument* to the Israeli deputy UN minister claiming that the Gaza aid convey was anything but a ‘humanitarian mission’  *obviously his definition of humanitarian is much much much more exclusive* in justification of the illegal raid on the ships whilst still in international waters.

And on that note ill end this post with a quote since I couldn’t find a good enough picture to digitally alter sophisticatedly on my purpose built picture software *minimizes the Paint tab on Microsoft*  to summarise this post:

‘ A man must be big enough to admit his mistakes, smart enough to profit from them, and strong enough to correct them.’ John C. Maxwell.

Till next time

 

Lebanon-Israeli border clash

So the story that interested me today concerned border clashes between Israel and Lebanon. The border between these countries has been tense and on high alert ever since Israel invaded Lebanon in the 2006 war. And with the recent events surrounding Israel and the Turkey flotilla incident tensions have become ever more prickly with that of its continents neighbours. Lets just remind ourselves briefly of this flotilla incident. A flotilla of aid and materials was being shipped unofficially from Turkey by a humanitarian group to Gaza in response to the blockade in Gaza. They where there to assist and provide much-needed materials to the closed off city. Israel had not approved this ship to enter Gaza as it would breach their ‘blockade’. So they met this flotilla in International waters *an important point* and through the following confrontation killed 9 people on the flotilla.

Now lets look at the recent clash between Israeli and Lebanese border troops. The Lebanese say that Israeli soldiers crossed their border to uproot a tree and shrubbery that was blocking their view of a town in Lebanon . The Lebanese claimed to have fired warning shots and where met with artillery fire from the Israeli side which sparked the direct clash which resulted in 3 Lebanese officers being killed along with 1 Israeli officer and a Lebanese Journalist. Now the Israelis say that they where on their side of the border and the troops that were fired on where 300 – 400 meters away from the border watching over their fellow troops as they cut away at shrubbery that was falling on their side.

Now regardless of which side is telling the truth *though i doubt with Israelis recent track record of honesty we have much trouble deciding on the truth* Israel would be hard pressed to be able to defend its actions. This is bearing in mind the fact that they don’t believe they did anything unlawful with their handling of the flotilla incident.  The flotilla was a distance away from the Israeli waters but was still attacked because Israel believed that they would be infringing on their territorial sovereignty even though they hadn’t reached there shores just yet. So using that argument the Lebanese soldiers could easily argue that regardless of the fact that the Israeli soldiers weren’t at their border as the Israelis claim they where close enough to threaten their territorial sovereignty.

And since when did gardening become such a top Israeli priority. Overgrown shrubs? not in my neighbours backyard if i have anything to do with it. it’s all about the scenery, It’s the little details that make a big difference as any keen gardener will tell you. Who knew Israeli border officials had such green fingers.  Aid and much-needed material for the imprisoned Palestinian population in Gaza, not really that necessary. A shrub and a tree infringing on their view or land, Unfathomable. It’s good to see their priorities are in place correctly. Not only that, if it is true that the shrubbery was infringing on their view of a village in Lebanon and which they needed to be able to view for security reasons im pretty sure they could have taken the common courtesy of communicating this to the Lebanese border officials rather than doing what they do best and taking matters into their own hand and lauding about the place as they see fit. Especially with all the recent hoopla over Israelis over-aggressive and i’ll-do-what-i-want-regardless-of-what-anyone-thinks attitude being questioned and criticised in the wake of the flotilla incident.

You’d think they would have wanted to buck the trend this time and maybe take a more diplomatic approach especially considering the tense nature of things in the middle east at present. But no, I guess when a shrub or tree has got to go, its got to go asap. That train ain’t waiting for no one, your either on the green carriage or your left stranded on a shrubbery platform. It’s the kind of can-do attitude people welcome at gardening shows who knew it would blossom so passionately in the Israeli border patrol.

That’s all for now

till next time