Israel's gift to Assad

Since the Arab Spring reached Syria in March, the security forces of dictator Bashar Al-Assad have killed some 1200 people. Those attending marches, rallies and funerals have been ruthlessly gunned down by snipers, tanks and infantry in a grim throwback to the days of Bashar's father Hafez - who once once slaughtered as many as 80 000 residents in the city of Hama during a single crackdown.

Undeterred by the brutality, brave Syrian citizens are continuing to try and bring about the downfall of the regime, aided somewhat by growing international pressure. Yet in the midst of such internal and external opposition, Benjamin Netanyahu's Israeli administration has stepped in and unwittingly handed Assad a timely political gift. By killing some twenty Syrian and Palestinian protesters who were marking "Naksa Day" (the Day of Defeat) in the occupied Golan heights, Israel has provided the Syrian dictator with an opportunity to detract regional and international attention from his own crackdown whilst potentially endearing himself to Syria's half-million Palestinian population as well as the vast majority of Syrian citizens who sympathise with the Palestinian struggle.

Like many Arab rulers (including the thugs in control of Gaza) Assad has long used the spectre of Israel -especially the occupation of the Golan Heights- to channel internal hostility away from his own violent and corrupt rule. By needlessly gunning down civilians at the time when opposition to Assad is at its highest point for years, the Israeli political and military elite have given credibility and substance to such propaganda. The frankly inane and unacceptable nature of the incident was underscored by the fact that those killed appeared to be civilians posing no threat. Despite Israeli rhetoric about an "angry mob" and a weak US defence based Israeli's right to defend itself video evidence shows unarmed demonstrators who though approaching the border fence are no match for the well-equipped Israeli troops on the other side. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of those killed was just twelve years old.

Tonight the Netanyahu administration claims that reports of the incident in Syrian state media are "an attempt to divert international attention from the bloodbath" being caused by Assad's crackdown; this is undoubtedly true but misses the point that it was the Israeli army who provided the very chance and the content for such a diversion. Like on so many other occasions, a willingness to resort to uncessary violence has caused Israel to become its own worst enemy.

Dissent against Assad's rule on the streets of Syria will doubtelessly continue and in all likelihood will grow further still. After all - resistance against the dictator and opposition to Israeli state violence are by no means mutually exclusive. However, today's bloodbath will inevbitabley be spun and worked up by the regime in order to take off the heat both internationally and domestically - at least for the coming days. The potential for it to divide or weaken the opposition movement or strengthen Assad to any extent at all - will be harmful to the both Syrian people and ultimatley to Israel as well.

Netenyahu's recent failure to deal with the issue of settlements and refusal to acknowledge the 1967 borders of Israel are dangerous hardline positions that can only serve his region and state badly. Today's killings - a crime in themselves - take this sorry state of affairs further still, by damaging the chances of democratic reform on Israel's border. Those responsible must be held accountable not only for each individual death...but for the wider consequences.

Exploiting the Crescent

Wikileaks is still undoubtedly the word of the week in international politics- with the the vast array of US correspondence published causing diplomatic headaches from Italy to North Korea. Whilst debate ranges over whether the site’s director Julian Assage should be commended or hunted down - most politicians, commentators and members of the public are all broadly agreeing on one thing: some serious issues have been thrown up by the documents.

Of course, many are trivial or even amusing (think Colonel Gaddafi’s blonde Ukrainian nurse) but others could have serious ramifications. Not least amongst these – though surprisingly under reported- are suggestions that the Iranian Government made use of the formally neutral Iranian Red Crescent Society, during conflicts in various states including Lebanon, Iraq and Bahrain as well as the Balkans. Perhaps the most damning allegation is that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard used Red Crescent convoys to enter Lebanon –in possession of weapons and ammunition supplies – during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. That conflict cost the lives of almost 2000 Lebanese Civilians, over 40 Israeli civilians and over 50 others including foreigners and UN personal; it also left Lebanon in ruins, military losses on both sides and –perhaps most significantly – a bitter political aftermath that has resulted in tensions on the Lebanese boarder and threats of further clashes ever since. As well as potentially indicating a grave violation of the Geneva Contentions, the memos therefore have the additional effect of piling further grievances and antagonism onto an immensely damaging legacy.

Furthermore, the situation looks set to significantly hinder the actual humanitarian activities that Red Crescent societies carry out. Israeli authorities have long presented deliberate hindrances to these – particular those of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society whose ambulances have been delayed, denied access and even fired upon. Whether such actions stem from a genuine paranoia that the Red Crescent provides cover for militants, a malicious programme of oppression using this as an excuse, or a combination of both – is the subject of intense debate. What is clear however, is that regardless of the motive – supposed evidence that Iran used a Red Crescent Society to aid attacks on Israel –will only increase the official Israeli disruption of genuine Red Crescent humanitarian and relief work.

For this reason a prompt, thorough and transparent enquiry by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies –possibly in association with the UN or OIC- would greatly assist the various national societies, in addition to reigning-in some of the growing political tensions. Conclusive proof that the Iranian Red Crescent Society was not used for military action – or a comprehensive response including international prosecutions of those responsible if it transpires that it was – would primarily protect the integrity of Red Crescent Societies and resultantly leave the Israeli authorities with no veneer justification for impairing their work (potentially leaving anyone who does so liable for prosecution themselves).

In a region where humanitarian crises are regularly exacerbated by political manoeuvres – it would be a disaster for prominent, neutral and effective humanitarian organisations to be dragged into the fray (either in practice or in accusations) and further prevented from their vital duties. Immediate action is essential.

Settlements or peace

Three weeks along- the latest round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are in crisis. At midnight on Sunday, a 10 month moratorium on the construction of new Israeli Settlements in the West Bank came to an end. Within hours bulldozers and cement mixers moved in as construction resumed and cheerful settlers flocked around news cameras to express their delight at the further encroachment into what, under international law, is Palestinian territory.

Debate over the history of Israel's formation and where its borders legitimately lie fills hundreds of books and articles with little consensus; but its hard to see how the specific issue of West Bank Settlements can be justified. The land was occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and categorically falls outside the 55% of the British Palestinian Mandate allocated to Israel under the UN Partition Plan (or indeed the 78% that Israeli forces actually took control of when the state came into being). Since then, Israel has settled some 430 000 of its citizens there- in direct violation of international legal prohibitions on settling occupied territory (as the West Bank and Gaza Strip are recognised to be).

The network of checkpoints and 'settler-only' roads that come as part of the package wreck havoc on the lives of Palestinians, frequently cutting them off from their farms, schools and medical facilities - forcing them to add miles to their daily journeys and subjecting them to the humiliation and harassment of searches and long waits whilst trying to go about their lives. Meanwhile acts of violence by Settlers against Palestinians (of which there were 429 in 2008 alone including beatings, shootings and destruction of crops) regularly go unchecked by the Israeli security forces.

It is little wonder then, that there are now fears of the Palestinians withdrawing from the talks. Israeli President Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whilst calling on the settlers to show restraint (with little tangible effect) is, at the same time, peddling the tenuously weak line that an extension of the moratorium was never a precondition for talks and that therefore Palestinain Authority President Mahmoud Abbas should stay at the table. He may be factually correct but he cannot honestly believe that talks can continue in good faith at the same time as Israel physically and brazenly furthers its violation of international law and increases its unjustifiable restrictions on Palestinians in the West Bank. "Settlements or peace" is a phrase that no one wanted to hear, but it is fast becoming a reality.

Of course this is not the only or even the greatest obstacle to the talks that Obama, perhaps naively, suggested could lead to a Palestinian state peacefully coexisting alongside Israel within one year. Even if the talks were to succeed, the next enormous challenge will relate to Hamas- the abhorent radical Islamist group that rules the Gaza Strip, does not recognise Israel's right to exist and us not even indirectly involved in the current negotiations.

However, the Settlements issue is the immediate danger that threatens to derail any hope of an agreement. If it is properly addressed by an Israeli administration willing to make sacrifices for peace, then it could in fact be early triumph for the talks and result in a working relationship that could ultimately facilitate overall agreements. If this happens, and is supported by ordinary Palestinians, then even the likes of Hamas will struggle to retain their current uncompromising position. On the other hand, if the construction is allowed to continue and thus scupper dialogue, the talks could go down nothing more than the latest in a long line of failed attempts to bring peace to this troubled region.

Soon every side will have to compromise- but right now the ball is in Israel's court.

Israel, Rwanda and the politics of permissiveness

Just like the use of chemical weapons on Palestinian civilians last year, the killing of at least nine activists by Israeli commandoes has sent shockwaves around the world. But, just as in 2009, much of the criticism has been in muted tones.

An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council has been called, and no one is denying that the matter is being taken incredibly seriously, but it's hard not to feel that were this any other state- say Iran, Lebanon or Zimbabwe, the response of ‘the West’ may have been much stronger. So far William Hague has merely called for Israel “to act with restraint and in line with international obligations”, whilst a White House spokesman has stated that the US "deeply regrets the loss of life" and is "currently working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy". It's hardly a robust reaction to the state-sanctioned killing of civilians transporting aid.

There are obvious reasons for this. Facts are still emerging about exactly what transpired– and there is no doubt that physical resistance was put up by the activists (though it’s difficult to see how this could merit the fatal shooting of nine people or, indeed, why Israel felt it necessary to storm the boats with armed commandoes in the first place.) Then of course there’s the fact that Israel is a key 'Western' ally in the Middle East and thus a rather mild opposition to its actions is to be expected.

But there’s another factor that always means 'Western' criticism of Israel is often somewhat toned-down; namely its tragic history and vulnerable political situation. The regional hostility that Israel has faced since its creation, the horrendous terrorist attacks that it has been subjected to (both on its own soil and abroad in incidents such as the Munich massacre) and, of course, the fact that it was formed as a safe haven for Jews in the wake of the Holocaust- all combine to foster a widespread reluctance among 'Western' states when subjecting it to scrutiny.

It reminds me of something that an aid worker told me at a conference last year concerning the human rights abuses in today’s Rwanda. She pointed out that, despite suppression of political dissent, gross misconduct in the justice system and restrictions on media freedom, the international community is very hesitant to criticise President Paul Kagame and his party-the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) because these are the very people who stepped in and stopped the nation's genocide while the rest of the world stood idly by. This claim is upheld by Richard Dowden, the Director of the Royal African Institute, who goes as far as saying that Rwanda is given “free reign” because of what he terms “Rwandan guilt.”

It is, perhaps, a natural stance to take. World leaders feel sympathy and regret for what a nation has been through – and attempt to make up for this by dampening down any criticism. But this is a very dangerous path to go down. After all – Robert Mugabe and the Iranian Islamist regime both overthrew oppressive governments who had subjected their people to terrible abuses – but this shouldn’t (and doesn't) stop us from criticising them.

Simiarly, we should celebrate Kagame’s victory over the perpetrators of genocide but still be free to harshly criticise his regime when Rwandan journalists are thrown into jail without trial. We should support Israel’s right to exist – and sympathise with the hardships it has faced- but still be free to strongly condemn it when aid activists are shot dead or civilian areas are bombarded with white phosphorous. Whilst recognising that the wider political context is always important, human rights must be viewed as basic, universal and fundamental.

And that means unrestrainedly criticising abuses wherever they occur, whoever they are committed by.