Have you ever found yourself desperate to get somewhere to find out what is going on, but at the same time terrified of what you might find? Right now, that person is me; the place - just over the water from France...
I was supposed to go to bed 1hour ago. But then a news bulletin came over the radio, and pushed into my head again the terrible situation in Lebanon: 393 civilians dead in 2 weeks (375 in Lebanon, 18 in Israel), 100 Israeli air-strikes and 80 Hizbollah rockets in one day, $1Bn damage to infrastructure, 750,000 Lebanese displaced by the fighting
(source: The Independent, 26th July)This started a rapid chain-reaction in my head... how out of touch i am right now with news, how frustrated with the government back home for their response, even onto questioning how our political system could repeatedly allow a leader to be so out of touch with his public. So i am still here, still reading on the web, and still writing to you, trying to make sense of all the thoughts in my head.
So i stood by him through minimum wage, University tuition fees, Afghanistan, NHS reform, Section 28 repeal, civil partnership registration - many of which attracted criticism from left & right. But it seems that in the last few days Tony Blair has lost the plot.
In the face of continuing attacks, including
the bombing of a UN post that killed 4 officials, and a potential humanitarian disaster Tony Blair has once more fallen into line behind George Bush in refusing to call for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon. The reasoning, from what i can gather, that it is considered more important for one country to be given time to take steps to defend itself against
potential attacks in the future, than for another to be able to help its cititens who are injured, starving, homeless, etc,
right now.
Am i alone in finding this absolutely staggering?!! All the more so given that Blair has been so vocal in preaching the need for greater humanitarian work in the developing world. Why is he less concerned about that need now? For several years i have been irritated by the double-standards of the White House in relation to Israel, but believed until now (usually correctly) that the British government was willing and able to be more objective and more balanced. But in the wake of the current capitulation by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary - the 2 individuals seen to be representing the interests & views of the UK towards the rest of the world - i am shocked, embarassed, and deeply worried.
How can it be that the destiny of 60million people is now determined by - as one British journalist noted - an American evangelist cowboy and an Australian businessman? (Rupert Murdoch owns the main satellite tv company, as well as the most popular tabloid newspaper)
The reassuring thought in all of this is that the public does not seem willing - this time - to swallow the pro-Israel propaganda that is thrown at them.
A petition has been sent to Downing Street signed by major charities, Muslim Councils and a large Trade Union. Will it have the desired effect - certainly not. Does it convince me that the whole world has not gone insane - possibly.
I have always somehow refrained from talking much about the situation/problem/crisis/injustice (i have heard all of these terms used many times) in the Middle East. During my time & travels in AIESEC I have been able to discuss - among other things- crime & punishment, role of education, marriage, homosexuality, drug & alcohol addiction, prostitution, conflict in Northern Ireland and the Balkans, reality of growing up in an Eastern Bloc country. Yet - and i find this pretty astounding - i cant recall one discussion about Israel/Palestine. Not only that, i just realised that in 11 years of compulsory and 5 years of optional education,
one hour was devoted to this topic!
So i wonder, what is about this subject that makes it so taboo? Is there are a plot to try to cover up the mistakes of our previous foreign policy, is it deemed unimportant, or is it assumed that people are just not interested in learning about it. Have people in other countries also experienced this? Or is there another reason why we seem unable to talk about it?
And how can we bring the dialog out into the open, and discuss the
actual problem and not just the latest bouts of fighting (i find any armed conflict a terrible situation, but surely only those caught up in it are short-sighted enough to believe that the current problems are the true problems) I found
this article very interesting, also from The IndependentEnjoy, digest, reply... I have to go to bed now. The political system discussion will have to wait for another day. One final teaser though - if Tony Blair was a Federal Councillor of Switzerland, would he have sent the army into Iraq knowing that 50% of the public was against it...?
Good night ;o)