What follows below is a bit of a ramble but I have a big personal question to address: whether to stay with the Liberal Democrats. As it turns out, as so often in life, one question evolves into another.
Have you ever thought about what the definition of a military superpower actually is? Unless one is a student of either international politics or military global strategy, probably not. I am a student of neither but I have from a young age have always been aware of the effects that superpowers have over us. These are best documented in maps. When I was young, I used to pore over maps, especially those parts which were barred to me. Russia, the Black and Caspian Seas. The vast steppes of the Soviet Union and the Russian Far East Pacific. All these places would be forever closed.
Meanwhile my father travelled. He was a marine engineer. There were parts of the world to which he seldom went and others he would never go. Russia, of course, was one of them. It was the Cold War after all. Surprisingly enough, America was another. Not that he was ever barred officially but before he worked with what turned out to be his long-term employer, he did jobs for smaller companies wherever he could. Thus in the 1960s he ended up in Mao's China and shipping supplies to North Vietnam. After that, if the vessel he was working on won contracts to the USA, he would usually be transferred after the first trip, and definitely no more than two.
The Cold War was on a global basis and there were two superpowers: Russia and the USA. They were given this label because both claimed to be able to fight two major wars, simultaneously, anywhere on the planet. I say claimed because, thankfully, it was never put to the test. One would think that ownership of nuclear weapons would be enough to make one a superpower but apparently not. It is the capability to field forces simultaneously in different regions. That is why Britain was a superpower before WWII and has never been since.
The US capacity during the 1960s was, on paper at least, to retain capacity to fight two and a half major conflicts simultaneously. That is why Vietnam was such a shock the the American psyche. How could the greatest superpower lose to a local army? It was a lesson in losing through losing the people, and not just the Vietnamese. America lost their own people too: at home through the imagines being sent back on the news reporting and in the war zone itself, where very often the conscript troops would simply refuse to obey orders of senior NCOs and officers. This is a reality which has yet to be depicted in any Hollywood movie I am aware of.
It was Nixon that did away with conscription, moved away from the two-and-a-half major conflicts capacity, and also increased reliance on nuclear weapons, especially with ICBM missiles armed with multiple warheads. As Vietnam wound down, hope that Carter would come to an accommodation with the Soviet Union during the SALT II talks were dashed with the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Carter himself was undermined by the Iranian Revolution and the taking of the embassy hostages.
Also during the 1970s, less publicised at the time, the Israelis achieved nuclear capacity with its (now ageing) Samson nuclear missile system. This meant the end of formal wars between Arab states, such as Syria and Egypt, against Israel and more of war-by-proxy using guerrilla and informal forces such as the PLO its offshoot, the Abu Nidal organisation. It is worth noting though that both organisations are secular, very different from that which was to follow.
A few things to remember about Afghanistan. The Russians did not invade: they were invited in by the socialist government in Kabul. True, the Socialists had themselves benefitted from a coup, and their reforms were unpopular with the old conservative landowners, who despite their apparent devotion to Islam were making a good living by charging interest on loans.
The Afghans themselves are made up of disparate peoples; each independent and with a turbulent history but often unified under a strong ruler. When the central power weakens, often there is rebellion and this was the case several times during the 1970s.
I am no theologian but it is my understanding that the original meaning of the term "jihad" means a defence of one's own home against an invader. It was this religious twist to the guerrilla armies that was introduced by the Americans and their allies the Saudis, when organising resistance to the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan. The Taliban arose in the brutality of the Afghan refugee camps of the Hindu Kush. "The Students" is an ironic name: educational facilities in the camps were next to none and they were environments where the strong ruled. It must have been relatively easy to recruit an army of young men, provide them with a version of warrior Islam and send them forth, armed with the latest technology in light American weaponry, in order to sweep their homeland clean of the godless Russian invaders. It was not only the Afghan Mujahideen that arose, but their Arabic allies who were keen to fight against secularism. One such faction was led by a charismatic rich kid from a major Saudi family: the bin Ladens. Osama became the black sheep but where was the harm? He was fighting Russians. These Arab fighters started to define the modern meaning of Jihad - after all, they were not fighting in defence of their own homes but on behalf of those they identify with as co-religionists.
After the Russians withdrew, these new Jihadists found there were many other injustices to apply their energies to. One tends to wonder now whether George Bush Senior was pretty smart in not overturning Saddam Hussain after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Saddam probably thought it was his just reward for waging a bitter, decade-long war against Iran. Throughout this time he was supported by the West, even in the illegal destruction of international shipping destined for Kharg Island at the top of the Persian Gulf. My father was running what became known as Exocet Alley at the time. It was no idle threat: other vessels owned by his employers had been hit and colleagues killed. As chance would have it, he was on board another ship which departed Kuwait a mere eighteen hours before Iraqi forces rolled into town.
At the time, many people asked "Why don't the Americans finish the job?" It seemed that was not the mission. The Republican Guard were not targeted and Saddam was allowed a free hand in brutally suppression of Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs to the south. Both peoples had been promised support and liberation if they rose up against Hussain. Having previously being head of the CIA, perhaps Bush knew more than most what would occur if Iraq was dismantled. It seems the aim was to keep intact the borders established by the great colonial powers.
Post-Iraq War, things looked pretty hopeful for those of us in the West. The so-called Peace Dividend was promised. Thank God we could reel back military spending. There was the Balkans Wars of course. Europe was particularly ineffective in stopping that. Intervention, which was used by Liberal Democrat leadership on this week's vote as an example of good military intervention, was probably the only way to finally halt the predation of Serbia. All people of the region suffered but the maps changed. Yugoslavia, created by the victorious Great Powers after the First World War, no longer exists. The people of the region, through the combination of war and diplomacy, have created the border that exist today. This is an important point.
Not that the Americans were dormant during this time. Taking advantage of Russia's weakness, NATO was extended eastwards into the former Warsaw Pact nations. When the Soviet Union fell, they had asked that the nations of central Europe remain militarily neutral. It was agreed at the time but informally so. Unfortunately for the Russians, a gentleman's agreement is worth even less than a non-binding UN resolution. It was a lesson that will not be forgotten.
What is the big deal about NATO expansion? In principle, once the Soviet Union fell, so did the reason for NATO's existence. There was only one reason for NATO to expand and that was arms sales. All the Warsaw Pact nations had plenty of serviceable military kit, mostly Russian-supplied but also home-grown. Part of the conditions of joining NATO was that, in order to fully integrate with existing members, the newly independent nations of the east would have to buy western equipment.
There was a huge outburst of sympathy for the USA after 9/11. We all understood when the Americans wanted revenge for the 3,000 murdered that day. If they said that the bombers were trained in bases in Afghanistan, okay. Perhaps, given the history of the place it may not have seem such a smart idea for a full invasion but hell. This was no trivial attack. America had been sorely wounded and they are our friends.
That genuine and heartfelt sympathy lasted approximately a year, until the world realised that America under George Bush Junior wanted to invade Iraq, using the September 2001 attacks as a premise. The propaganda of the time would have had us all that the recently discovered Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussain were hand-in-glove. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hussain was indeed a loathsome dictator but the Baath parties of Iraq and Syria were equally loathed by the modern Jihadist movements. It was as likely a scenario as the Tea Party getting into bed with the Greens. Hussain played up to his reputation as the Middle East hard man who stood up to the Imperial West. When it came to it, he was a straw man. This time the West (primarily the USA supported by the UK) unleashed it's full force and the armies of Iraq were blown like husks on a burning wind. George W. Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln under the banner that read Mission Accomplished.
I remember the build up to that war. I was in Egypt in February 2003 and one could cut the atmosphere like a knife. Everybody knew war was coming. It was just a question of when. When I got home the protests were in full flood. Those of us, like the Liberal Democrats, who were against the war were called "wobblers" by The Sun. I particularly remember a phone in on BBC Radio Scotland: it was the Lesley Riddoch radio slot. It was never stated why she was not available that day but the reason soon became obvious. The male presenter who replaced her was only there to whip up backing for the war. It was the most blatantly biased bit of broadcasting I have ever heard, including the crap put out by Fox News. Sky News were doing character assassinations on us "wobblers" too. I was so proud that Charles Kennedy led the party against that war. The legality of it did not matter so much. It was wrong. What the real worry was over what came after. We were right to worry.
Today, after all the billions upon billions of dollars spent on that war, Iraq is still an open sore. Following the Arab Spring, now too are Libya and Syria. Notice that all three nations were ones that resisted the West. Over a million are dead but, we are told, that the answer is more bombing.
During my previous blogs, Drones, and US, The Middle East and a Bar in Haifa, I described encounters that showed me at least that currently the United Kingdom totally at one with the real politick of US policy: to integrate with US and Israeli armament technology and to further the aims of US policy, which is to continue the War on Terror. The actions of the US shows that they are using the ongoing wars to destroy nations the West do not control. I am not claiming that Cairo or Jeddah are controlled by the US on a day-to-day basis, but rather the US are propping up the current ruling elites through illicit subsidies of military supplies.
That is the UK's current position, without any shadow of a doubt. What I need to know, really need to know, is that that also the position of the six Liberal Democrat MPs that this week decided the back the UK military intervention in Syria? By voting with the government last night, they justified the continuing UK backing of the War on Terror. Was this or was this not the intention? Is this the kind of grown-up decision that it is necessary to take in order to be trusted with government?
The reason why I am asking these questions is that they are important to me and, I think, to a growing number of people in the UK. The biggest change between today and, say, The Falklands War, is the development and expansion of the Internet. In 1982, there was only the BBC, ITV and newspaper reporters available to us. Unless one really made an effort to look outside the nation (and it was an effort in those day) it was impossible to have any other news source of a conflict. That is not the case now. Information is available in directions unimaginable thirty years ago. While on the topic of the Falklands though, and this idea just came to me, is I wonder if some kind of deal was done? Now I know that the British naval task force received help from the US Navy in term of refuelling en route to the South Atlantic. Was there a deal that the UK would thereafter support America in whatever conflict arose? If so, we are paying a high price after twelve years of constant engagement.
Back to the point however. Not everybody has had the privilege that I have enjoyed of seeing the world (albeit by the back door) over the past twenty-or-so years. I have been able to see such places and talk to folk first-hand. You would not believe how much people talk. They are normal people, doing a job just as I was. By bloody hell it was an education. The truth is is this: there are no angels, no good guys. There are plenty of good people but when it comes to real power the systems in place and the momentum of economics and vested interest makes change very difficult indeed. Even more so in a liberal democracy where power is spread throughout the interested elites. Individual people like you and me have very little real power and that is where political parties come in, or ought to.
With the introduction of the Internet, it is increasingly important that citizens are told the truth, or as much truth that can be released without endangering lives. Now this directly contradicts Political Science 101 - that rulers lie to the citizens for both the good of the state and of the citizen. Don't believe me? Check out your Plato. It is easy to see that since the beginning of time that this has been abused for the benefit of the rulers. It is the most common complaint that politicians are in it for themselves. For some that is undoubtedly true. My experience of party politics is that people who put themselves forward for political activity are a mixed bunch but overall, like most folk, are good and decent. No matter the intent though, the deeper one gets into real power the harder one finds it to achieve real change. This is normal: in a democracy power is devolved to other bodies, the courts, press and media, trade unions, businesses to name but a few. On the whole though, it is the politicians that carry most of the responsibility and almost all the blame. Misleading the public is more difficult today because of the Internet, though that does not stop the mass media from trying and, often, succeeding.
I am sure you all have plenty of your own examples. Below I'll cite one of my own examples, which also returns us to the question of warfare.
These things always seem to take place in bars. I had just come off a rig in Norway. The hotel, some way from the airport, was dead. Besides, one appreciates the luxury of walk after several weeks on any rig. Ending up at the SAS Radisson, I took a beer and a bar meal. Across the way was a large group of British oil workers and for want of anything else I found myself tuning into their conversation. One guy was talking about his son who was in the Finnish special forces. Ever notice that piracy around the Horn of Africa seems not to be in the news so much nowadays? There is a reason for that. According to this person, all the northern nations special forces were invited to do tours of duty at the massive east African military base at Djibouti. From there they would undertake missions which was basically search and destroy. Anything that looked like a pirate vessel, or in other words anything local and floating was sunk. Usually from helicopter gunships. The idea that any nation who wanted their special forces troops blooded would be welcome to book a place and take part.
Now I didn't even know there was a western military base at Djibouti. So I did what everybody else would do and Googled it. Sure enough, up it came.
So, what do we have? A military base, no more reporting of piracy on the media and a plausible explanation as to what caused the piracy to stop: the pirates had been killed, probably along with a whole load of innocent fishermen. How was this reported? A few months ago s BBC journalist, speaking on From Our Own Correspondent, referred to the reduction of piracy in the region and attributed that it to increased naval patrols. I swore at the radio. Somebody in that position must know what really happened but chose not to tell us. To my mind, increased naval patrols conjures the picture of warships ploughing through the waves escorting merchant shipping and deterring piracy through their presence. I don't think it is me being particularly naive; this image would occur to most of us. Given the circumstances, would the public understood the actions taken if reported? The region had become unsafe, vessels captured and ransomed, along with their crews. Some of the crew had been murdered. There was no effective law enforcement on land. The situation could not have been allowed to continue. Perhaps the extreme military response, after years of naval patrols failed, was necessary.
War is never good but sometimes justified. Which allows me to return to the question: what is politics for and what is my role in it? Am I to stay with the Liberal Democrats? If so, is it the intention of the party leadership to back the US War on Terror? To my mind is an unjustified war designed to be open-ended.
I have been asked to stay by some in the local party. Which is nice. Of course, I have to ask myself what the options are for me if I were to leave the party. Emotionally, now is not a bad time for me to leave. The current downturn in the oil industry is probably going to be long-lasting. While it is possible I may still find work, one must face the probability that my time in the industry has come to an end. I joined the Liberal Democrats a few weeks before I stumbled into the industry; leaving would have a pleasing symmetry to it.
What to do afterwards? Would I join another party? Another friend said that any party would be lucky to have me. The vote on Wednesday showed some parties united against the war but I do not share their other aspirations. Perhaps I am deluded but I like to think that I am not a political chancer. It did also show me that other parties were split on the Syrian intervention, which goes to show that understanding of the situation is across the political spectrum. Besides, it would feel like a betrayal to move to another party.
Another option is not to join another party at all. If somebody paid me to write on politics and world affairs, that would be a tempting option indeed. Like my politics though, I have never earned a penny from my writing.
What is it to be? I am minded to stay but I need to know the answer to that question. Is the leadership signed up to the US-led War on Terror? That is what they voted for on Wednesday night but was that their intention?
Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts
Sunday, 6 December 2015
Monday, 30 November 2015
US, The Middle East and a Bar in Haifa
I have sat on this blog for a long time. With renewed calls for British military campaigning in the Middle East, perhaps now is the time to tell the story.
It was late 2012 and work must have been heavy that day for I fancied a beer straight after. Not in the hotel bar though. I would inevitably be joined by colleagues, one beer would turn into two, three and I would be lucky to get out of there by nine o'clock for something to eat. True, when compared to the UK, many restaurants in Haifa do open late. All I wanted was one beer. Slipping away, I walked around the corner and popped my head around the door of Charlie's Bar. Apart from a single customer, whom I did not recognise, the place was empty. Wonderful.
Charlie's Bar is the narrowest of strips so there isn't a lot of choice when it comes to seating. Parking myself a few stools away from the stranger, I nod to him and order a Carlsberg. It's true, a prospect of an Ice Cold In Alex can keep a guy going.
A bit to my surprise, the stranger starts talking. He asks my business and I tell him that I am part of the team for gas exploration offshore Israel. He seems satisfied. I ask him who he is and what bring him to Israel?
The guy hesitates then asks the question "You are not anyone are you?"
The question sends me a bit sideways. If I was just being polite previously, now he has my full attention. But I don't show it. After all, I had just told him what I do for a living. Really, I am not anyone. I therefore pull a long face downwards.
The gentleman is an American. He asks me what do I know about the US forces in Afghanistan. Not a lot but I know that the troops are there. He then tells me that his ship is in the harbour and it is part of resupply convoy destined for Turkey. I tell him that I have heard that supplies used to go via Pakistan but the Hindu Kush had been closed by the Taliban. He seems a little disconcerted but agrees. So I ask if the supplies now go overland from Turkey. He says that this is the case. The Silk Road has effectively been reopened.
Then I make the observation. "But we are not in Turkey are we?"
"No," he agrees. "We are not in Turkey."
There is a tension in the room.
I shrug. "Friends will help friends." I say.
He relaxes. "Yes." He takes a pull of his beer.
"Before I wasn't here, I wasn't in Egypt either."
Now my mind reeled. Earlier in 2012 Muhammad Morsi had been democratically elected president of Egypt. I knew that instant that if the Americans were still secretly supplying the Egyptian military, the Arab Spring in Egypt was screwed. Morsi was indeed overturned in a military coup the following year.
During 2004, I turned forty and was on a beach in Bulgaria with the family. My choice of reading that summer was Robert Fisk's Great War For Civilisation: The Conquest of The Middle East. In 1982, during Israeli invasion of Lebanon, a Hellfire missile was flown into the back of an Lebanese ambulance, killing six people. Local people gathered the fragments of the rocket and brought them to Fisk, who lives in the country. He did a routine check on the serial numbers and was surprised to find that instead of being issued the the Israeli Defence Force, the weapon belonged to the US Marine Corp. The question was therefore how was a Marine Corp Hellfire missile come to be launched from a IDF gunship into the back of Lebanese ambulance?
His research showed that the US military task forces active in the Persian Gulf was sail home via the Suez Canal. Instead of turning left and heading straight home through the Mediterranean, there would be a slight detour to the Northeast. Unused consumables, including weapons, would be offloaded in Haifa. The warships would return to their bases empty and would be resupplied at the expense of the US taxpayer. The process was a secret subsidy to Israel.
I knew that my encounter in Charlie's Bar not only confirmed Fisk's story but enlarged it. It seems that Israel is not the only nation to benefit from American largesse. Arms and supplies officially bound for US forces in Afghanistan were instead being sent to Egypt, Israel and goodness only knows what other US-backed nations en-route.
We come to today. The UK is facing calls to take part in the bombing of Syria. After the murderous outrages in Paris, the French have little choice. In the UK, we do have a choice. My experience in Israel has left me deeply cynical about the whole of the Middle Eastern wars. It seems that the US is backing, either openly or in secret, many sides in the region. Therefore adding to destruction will not in any way create peace. It seems to me that the wars are a profit-driven venture.
Britain could instead start to genuinely act as an honest broker in the region. This however would need a complete reversal to the policies currently being pursued. Make no mistake here: as I outlined in my previous blog Drones, Britain is deeply embedded into arms research with Israel and the US. This is wrong.
As such, I call upon my all friends and colleagues in the Liberal Democrats to have nothing further to do with these wars and not support the bombing of Syria.
It was late 2012 and work must have been heavy that day for I fancied a beer straight after. Not in the hotel bar though. I would inevitably be joined by colleagues, one beer would turn into two, three and I would be lucky to get out of there by nine o'clock for something to eat. True, when compared to the UK, many restaurants in Haifa do open late. All I wanted was one beer. Slipping away, I walked around the corner and popped my head around the door of Charlie's Bar. Apart from a single customer, whom I did not recognise, the place was empty. Wonderful.
Charlie's Bar is the narrowest of strips so there isn't a lot of choice when it comes to seating. Parking myself a few stools away from the stranger, I nod to him and order a Carlsberg. It's true, a prospect of an Ice Cold In Alex can keep a guy going.
A bit to my surprise, the stranger starts talking. He asks my business and I tell him that I am part of the team for gas exploration offshore Israel. He seems satisfied. I ask him who he is and what bring him to Israel?
The guy hesitates then asks the question "You are not anyone are you?"
The question sends me a bit sideways. If I was just being polite previously, now he has my full attention. But I don't show it. After all, I had just told him what I do for a living. Really, I am not anyone. I therefore pull a long face downwards.
The gentleman is an American. He asks me what do I know about the US forces in Afghanistan. Not a lot but I know that the troops are there. He then tells me that his ship is in the harbour and it is part of resupply convoy destined for Turkey. I tell him that I have heard that supplies used to go via Pakistan but the Hindu Kush had been closed by the Taliban. He seems a little disconcerted but agrees. So I ask if the supplies now go overland from Turkey. He says that this is the case. The Silk Road has effectively been reopened.
Then I make the observation. "But we are not in Turkey are we?"
"No," he agrees. "We are not in Turkey."
There is a tension in the room.
I shrug. "Friends will help friends." I say.
He relaxes. "Yes." He takes a pull of his beer.
"Before I wasn't here, I wasn't in Egypt either."
Now my mind reeled. Earlier in 2012 Muhammad Morsi had been democratically elected president of Egypt. I knew that instant that if the Americans were still secretly supplying the Egyptian military, the Arab Spring in Egypt was screwed. Morsi was indeed overturned in a military coup the following year.
During 2004, I turned forty and was on a beach in Bulgaria with the family. My choice of reading that summer was Robert Fisk's Great War For Civilisation: The Conquest of The Middle East. In 1982, during Israeli invasion of Lebanon, a Hellfire missile was flown into the back of an Lebanese ambulance, killing six people. Local people gathered the fragments of the rocket and brought them to Fisk, who lives in the country. He did a routine check on the serial numbers and was surprised to find that instead of being issued the the Israeli Defence Force, the weapon belonged to the US Marine Corp. The question was therefore how was a Marine Corp Hellfire missile come to be launched from a IDF gunship into the back of Lebanese ambulance?
His research showed that the US military task forces active in the Persian Gulf was sail home via the Suez Canal. Instead of turning left and heading straight home through the Mediterranean, there would be a slight detour to the Northeast. Unused consumables, including weapons, would be offloaded in Haifa. The warships would return to their bases empty and would be resupplied at the expense of the US taxpayer. The process was a secret subsidy to Israel.
I knew that my encounter in Charlie's Bar not only confirmed Fisk's story but enlarged it. It seems that Israel is not the only nation to benefit from American largesse. Arms and supplies officially bound for US forces in Afghanistan were instead being sent to Egypt, Israel and goodness only knows what other US-backed nations en-route.
We come to today. The UK is facing calls to take part in the bombing of Syria. After the murderous outrages in Paris, the French have little choice. In the UK, we do have a choice. My experience in Israel has left me deeply cynical about the whole of the Middle Eastern wars. It seems that the US is backing, either openly or in secret, many sides in the region. Therefore adding to destruction will not in any way create peace. It seems to me that the wars are a profit-driven venture.
Britain could instead start to genuinely act as an honest broker in the region. This however would need a complete reversal to the policies currently being pursued. Make no mistake here: as I outlined in my previous blog Drones, Britain is deeply embedded into arms research with Israel and the US. This is wrong.
As such, I call upon my all friends and colleagues in the Liberal Democrats to have nothing further to do with these wars and not support the bombing of Syria.
Thursday, 22 January 2009
What Does Israel Want?
I like trivia. Especially quizzes. And the one in the Jerusalem Post that morning in early December was particularly tough. I only got four out of ten correct. One of the questions stuck with me though as particularly curious. “Outside which town is the proposed site of the new Palestinian airport.” I didn’t have a clue. Ramallah perhaps? Isn’t that the capital of the West Bank? No, the answer was Netanya. Now I know that Israel is really a small place, but I’ve been there and that is definitely still in Israel and not the West Bank. A curious fact which I have been pondering since.
* * *
By a telephone call, I had just been snatched from working on my house, again, flown overnight from Edinburgh via London to Tel Aviv and frankly I was pessimistic. My driver Momi was pumping me with questions “Martin, will they find anything? Is there gas there?” Having just left the rig six days previously, I had seen no indication of the major find that was about to take place. But that is the nature of exploration: one day there is nothing, the next the whole world wants to be your friend.
Gas was not the only thing on Momi’s mind that morning. “Our attack in Gaza will be a failure if the Hamas leadership survives. But what do they do? They hide under the hospital! We don’t want to kill civilians. Why can’t they hid somewhere else?”
Perhaps they weren’t very enthusiastic about being killed, I thought to myself. What did people expect? Hamas to move into a field so that they could be decently bombed?
“But Momi,” I said. “All the Arab states have said that if Israel retreats to the pre-1967 borders, there will be peace.”
“Why can’t these people accept that they lost! We won, they lost. Get over it and move on!”
The attack on Gaza is now over. Momi didn’t get his wish: the Hamas leadership did survive. But the effect on the people and the city are terrible and it will take years to rebuild. Personally I don’t think that matters much to Israel, even less now that the Tamar gas find is looming larger and larger in the public consciousness. The Saudi’s have already pledge $2 billion worth of aid to rebuild the territory. As I outlined in my previous article “Israel and Gaza – it’s a gas!”, the Palestinians could be a lot richer than they are if Israel had not been consistently blocking the development of the gas fields offshore Gaza. But on the grounds that profits would go to finance weapons for Hamas, negotiations were ended with BG Group and the company closed it’s offices in Tel Aviv in 2007. That was not the end of the story however: talks were restarted in 2008 in an attempt to convince BG Group to sell their stake in the Gazan gas fields to a new consortium, the Israel Electric Corporation (IEC).
Israel needs gas in order to secure water. The chosen method is the building of new desalination plants which are very energy-intensive. So Israel wants energy in order to deal with the effects of global warming. There is even an alternative to this however. Since I last commented upon this issue, I have been contacted by Terry Spragg who has been kind enough to outline to me a new technology for moving large volumes of fresh water across oceans without the need for container vessels, potable water tankers or laying pipelines. Known as the Spragg Bag, each individual section can hold up to 17,000 tonnes of fresh water, with what is claimed to be the world’s strongest zip fastener linking together up to five of these bags. The real smart trick however is that these bags can then be towed by a vessel as modest as a standard-powered tug boat. I can certainly see the value of this remarkable technology, especially in emergencies such as the one that Gaza is facing at this moment. Whether the Israelis will go for it to solve their own water issues, that is a matter which shall be considered in a moment.
By a telephone call, I had just been snatched from working on my house, again, flown overnight from Edinburgh via London to Tel Aviv and frankly I was pessimistic. My driver Momi was pumping me with questions “Martin, will they find anything? Is there gas there?” Having just left the rig six days previously, I had seen no indication of the major find that was about to take place. But that is the nature of exploration: one day there is nothing, the next the whole world wants to be your friend.
Gas was not the only thing on Momi’s mind that morning. “Our attack in Gaza will be a failure if the Hamas leadership survives. But what do they do? They hide under the hospital! We don’t want to kill civilians. Why can’t they hid somewhere else?”
Perhaps they weren’t very enthusiastic about being killed, I thought to myself. What did people expect? Hamas to move into a field so that they could be decently bombed?
“But Momi,” I said. “All the Arab states have said that if Israel retreats to the pre-1967 borders, there will be peace.”
“Why can’t these people accept that they lost! We won, they lost. Get over it and move on!”
The attack on Gaza is now over. Momi didn’t get his wish: the Hamas leadership did survive. But the effect on the people and the city are terrible and it will take years to rebuild. Personally I don’t think that matters much to Israel, even less now that the Tamar gas find is looming larger and larger in the public consciousness. The Saudi’s have already pledge $2 billion worth of aid to rebuild the territory. As I outlined in my previous article “Israel and Gaza – it’s a gas!”, the Palestinians could be a lot richer than they are if Israel had not been consistently blocking the development of the gas fields offshore Gaza. But on the grounds that profits would go to finance weapons for Hamas, negotiations were ended with BG Group and the company closed it’s offices in Tel Aviv in 2007. That was not the end of the story however: talks were restarted in 2008 in an attempt to convince BG Group to sell their stake in the Gazan gas fields to a new consortium, the Israel Electric Corporation (IEC).
Israel needs gas in order to secure water. The chosen method is the building of new desalination plants which are very energy-intensive. So Israel wants energy in order to deal with the effects of global warming. There is even an alternative to this however. Since I last commented upon this issue, I have been contacted by Terry Spragg who has been kind enough to outline to me a new technology for moving large volumes of fresh water across oceans without the need for container vessels, potable water tankers or laying pipelines. Known as the Spragg Bag, each individual section can hold up to 17,000 tonnes of fresh water, with what is claimed to be the world’s strongest zip fastener linking together up to five of these bags. The real smart trick however is that these bags can then be towed by a vessel as modest as a standard-powered tug boat. I can certainly see the value of this remarkable technology, especially in emergencies such as the one that Gaza is facing at this moment. Whether the Israelis will go for it to solve their own water issues, that is a matter which shall be considered in a moment.
There are a few more apparently random thoughts that I would like to add to the mix before struggling to some kind of conclusion. The first is Israel’s recently built security fence, or apartheid wall as it has been called by it’s critics. I think there is truth in both labels. As far as security is concerned, it seems to have worked. Well I was here in 2000, people were a lot more nervous. I was in a bar in Natanya which was then bombed the following week. Security was very tight within Israel. Now it is a lot more relaxed. But there are negatives to it as well. The routing of the wall was little more than a blatant land grab in many places. It’s main function however is to control, absolutely, the movement of people and goods into the Palestinian West Bank.
Likewise the withdrawal from Gaza. It was true that Israelis did withdraw people, but that is nothing like the same as granting the Palestinians within autonomy. The reason being is that the supply of goods and services remain in control of the Israelis. The bombing of the supply tunnels were justified on the grounds that these were the routes by which weapons were smuggled into the territories. Probably true, but they were also the way that most other supplies moved into Gaza too. Laying siege is not the same as granting freedom.
We finally return to the proposed Palestinian airport and why I love trivia. If the airport is built outside Netanya, it is obvious that Israel intends to remain in full control of the movements of people and goods into the West Bank. Just as in Gaza. Just as it was unhappy with the attitude of BG Group and is now pressing that company to sell out it’s stake to the Israeli-controlled IEC. What Israel wants more than anything else is total control over it’s land and resources. The political implications are even more obvious: there will never be a viable two-state solution because an independent Palestine will be outside the control of the Israeli government and this can never be tolerated.
Let us return to water. The gas is so valuable to Israel because it will allow the planned desalination plants to be powered independently of Egyptian supplies. The is an alternative however in the form of mass-importation of water from Turkey (a close ally of Israel) via giant water bags. But we have already seen the case for Israel’s love of control. I therefore think that importation of such a vital resource will not be looked upon favourably by the Israeli government. The only ray of hope I can offer Terry Spragg is this: it is Israel’s stated aim that the planned desalination plants are intended not only to supply the country with it’s water but are also to be used to replenish the depleted aquifers beneath the land. What if the fast-track to refilling the aquifers was not the desalination plants but by limited term importation from Turkey? This would mean that the desalination plants would not have to produce so much water and that the new finds off Haifa will last the country even longer. Hell, it would even be good for the environment!
Selected sources
IEC control
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2133287/?relatestories=1
Spragg Bags (and photo credit)
http://www.waterbag.com/
Please refer to my previous article “Israel and Gaza – it’s a gas!” for other references.
Likewise the withdrawal from Gaza. It was true that Israelis did withdraw people, but that is nothing like the same as granting the Palestinians within autonomy. The reason being is that the supply of goods and services remain in control of the Israelis. The bombing of the supply tunnels were justified on the grounds that these were the routes by which weapons were smuggled into the territories. Probably true, but they were also the way that most other supplies moved into Gaza too. Laying siege is not the same as granting freedom.
We finally return to the proposed Palestinian airport and why I love trivia. If the airport is built outside Netanya, it is obvious that Israel intends to remain in full control of the movements of people and goods into the West Bank. Just as in Gaza. Just as it was unhappy with the attitude of BG Group and is now pressing that company to sell out it’s stake to the Israeli-controlled IEC. What Israel wants more than anything else is total control over it’s land and resources. The political implications are even more obvious: there will never be a viable two-state solution because an independent Palestine will be outside the control of the Israeli government and this can never be tolerated.
Let us return to water. The gas is so valuable to Israel because it will allow the planned desalination plants to be powered independently of Egyptian supplies. The is an alternative however in the form of mass-importation of water from Turkey (a close ally of Israel) via giant water bags. But we have already seen the case for Israel’s love of control. I therefore think that importation of such a vital resource will not be looked upon favourably by the Israeli government. The only ray of hope I can offer Terry Spragg is this: it is Israel’s stated aim that the planned desalination plants are intended not only to supply the country with it’s water but are also to be used to replenish the depleted aquifers beneath the land. What if the fast-track to refilling the aquifers was not the desalination plants but by limited term importation from Turkey? This would mean that the desalination plants would not have to produce so much water and that the new finds off Haifa will last the country even longer. Hell, it would even be good for the environment!
Selected sources
IEC control
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2133287/?relatestories=1
Spragg Bags (and photo credit)
http://www.waterbag.com/
Please refer to my previous article “Israel and Gaza – it’s a gas!” for other references.
Thursday, 20 September 2007
The Dark Divide
Viewed from the sea, the border between Israel and Gaza is a subtle affair; quite unlike the Israel Lebanon border where the no-man’s-land snakes over the hillsides in a broad stripe before dwindling into the distant east. Gaza from the sea looks just like another city which can be seen dotting the coast of the Mediterranean at regular intervals. True, maybe more high-rise towers, more densely packed than it near neighbours but nothing to especially draw the eye.
That is during the day. At night the scene is completely changed. While the coastal towns of Israel are shining with light, there is no sign of the city of Gaza. A passing ship may see the occasional headlamps of a car and imagine that one or two small villages and scattered homesteads occupy the land south of Ashdod. The tower blocks, the buildings, the streets; all become invisible. It is as if Gaza never was. The only clue that there is a border at all is a negative one: a strip of utter darkness that lies between the citizens of Israel and their near Palestinian neighbours.
That is the closest I have been to Gaza and although the view I describe is now several years old, I am certain that it has not changed. Indeed, from what I hear in the media it is worse now for the population of Gaza than it was then. The two-state “solution” that arose from the peace initiatives of the 1990s are now dead. Former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, stated as much this week. Now, I am not in the habit of agreeing with Mr. Bolton on many topics but in this I’m sure he is right. I do not, however, agree with his proposed solution: to carve up the remaining Palestinian populations between existing states, with Gaza going to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan. I’m sure that the Israeli government would be more than happy with this; after all it has long being the policy of Israel to drive the Palestinians off the land claimed by Israelis and let the neighbouring states cope with the refugees should they choose to.
There are several objections to the Bolton suggestion. The first is the right to self-determination. These people are neither Egyptian nor Jordanian. They are Palestinian and I doubt that Palestinians of Gaza would be queuing up to join the repressive police-state that is Egypt. Secondly it assumes that Israel’s neighbours can swallow large numbers of new population, especially people that have been brutalised for many years. Egypt might be able to cope but I doubt that Jordan could. There are already hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees living in poverty in the country. Jordan has already closed its border to more. Maybe the assumption is that these people will be able to return home one day. Looking at the long-lived refugee camps of Palestinians in Lebanon, I have my doubts. Iraq has been trashed for a generation and those who have already left will not be returning soon. To bequeath another population on a fragile Jordan may well tip the balance for the country with the resulting in failed states running across the Middle East all the way from Israel’s eastern border to the western border of Iran, a truly horrific prospect.
It is perhaps time for Israelis to consider that which their policies have long attempted to avoid: what will happen if the Jewish people become minorities in their own state? For the citizens of Israeli, Gaza and the West Bank to live in one country and with equal rights under the law. Unrealistic and infeasible? At the moment, yes it is. Against the Zionist dream of a Jewish state? Yes. Would the majority of Palestinians have to renounce their claims on the land they have been driven from? Yes. Will the Jewish religion have to be granted special rights in the constitution of the new state of Israel-Palestine? Yes, that too. There would have to be much work to be done to bring this notion about and it would take time: a lot of time. Probably another forty years. It is not impossible though. Things have happened in my lifetime I never thought would happen: the fall of the Iron Curtain; Sinn Fein and the DUP in Northern Ireland working together in government. I know that these conflicts are not the same as Israel and Palestine. The point is that all conflicts have an end and despite the rhetoric on both sides, peace is seldom enforced by military means.
We all must work to break down the darkness that separates people.
That is during the day. At night the scene is completely changed. While the coastal towns of Israel are shining with light, there is no sign of the city of Gaza. A passing ship may see the occasional headlamps of a car and imagine that one or two small villages and scattered homesteads occupy the land south of Ashdod. The tower blocks, the buildings, the streets; all become invisible. It is as if Gaza never was. The only clue that there is a border at all is a negative one: a strip of utter darkness that lies between the citizens of Israel and their near Palestinian neighbours.
That is the closest I have been to Gaza and although the view I describe is now several years old, I am certain that it has not changed. Indeed, from what I hear in the media it is worse now for the population of Gaza than it was then. The two-state “solution” that arose from the peace initiatives of the 1990s are now dead. Former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, stated as much this week. Now, I am not in the habit of agreeing with Mr. Bolton on many topics but in this I’m sure he is right. I do not, however, agree with his proposed solution: to carve up the remaining Palestinian populations between existing states, with Gaza going to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan. I’m sure that the Israeli government would be more than happy with this; after all it has long being the policy of Israel to drive the Palestinians off the land claimed by Israelis and let the neighbouring states cope with the refugees should they choose to.
There are several objections to the Bolton suggestion. The first is the right to self-determination. These people are neither Egyptian nor Jordanian. They are Palestinian and I doubt that Palestinians of Gaza would be queuing up to join the repressive police-state that is Egypt. Secondly it assumes that Israel’s neighbours can swallow large numbers of new population, especially people that have been brutalised for many years. Egypt might be able to cope but I doubt that Jordan could. There are already hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees living in poverty in the country. Jordan has already closed its border to more. Maybe the assumption is that these people will be able to return home one day. Looking at the long-lived refugee camps of Palestinians in Lebanon, I have my doubts. Iraq has been trashed for a generation and those who have already left will not be returning soon. To bequeath another population on a fragile Jordan may well tip the balance for the country with the resulting in failed states running across the Middle East all the way from Israel’s eastern border to the western border of Iran, a truly horrific prospect.
It is perhaps time for Israelis to consider that which their policies have long attempted to avoid: what will happen if the Jewish people become minorities in their own state? For the citizens of Israeli, Gaza and the West Bank to live in one country and with equal rights under the law. Unrealistic and infeasible? At the moment, yes it is. Against the Zionist dream of a Jewish state? Yes. Would the majority of Palestinians have to renounce their claims on the land they have been driven from? Yes. Will the Jewish religion have to be granted special rights in the constitution of the new state of Israel-Palestine? Yes, that too. There would have to be much work to be done to bring this notion about and it would take time: a lot of time. Probably another forty years. It is not impossible though. Things have happened in my lifetime I never thought would happen: the fall of the Iron Curtain; Sinn Fein and the DUP in Northern Ireland working together in government. I know that these conflicts are not the same as Israel and Palestine. The point is that all conflicts have an end and despite the rhetoric on both sides, peace is seldom enforced by military means.
We all must work to break down the darkness that separates people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)