LATE last year as Israel’s war in Gaza intensified, the former British ambassador to Lebanon, Tom Fletcher, delivered a certain diplomatic truism about the Middle East.
“Intervene in the Middle East, it bites you back. Fail to intervene, it bites you back. Swing between the two, it bites you back,” observed the man who wrote the acclaimed book, The Naked Diplomat.
As a long-term up-close Middle East watcher, I can’t help but recognise Fletcher’s characterisation of the region when it comes to international response and diplomacy in times of crisis.
Heaven knows there has been no shortage of historical precedents that have proved such an observation accurate.
The unmitigated disaster that was the Iraq War and the West’s response to the Arab Spring uprisings being only two of many that come to mind.
READ MORE: Speaker continues to face pressure as almost 70 MPs sign no confidence motion
In fact, it’s probably fair to say that so often has the West been bitten in the Middle East – albeit largely of its own making – that when faced with any flare-up there, our response has been whittled down to two equally negative options.
For either we tend to wade in with a knee-jerk recklessness or the opposite is true and the Middle East’s “bite” induces a kind of diplomatic paralysis. Either way it’s the innocents caught up on the ground that end up bearing the brunt of the pain. And so it is with Gaza.
In going on 40 years of covering foreign affairs, especially the Middle East, I don’t think I can recall a more shameful episode in the region than what is going on right now with the West’s response to the genocide that is unfolding in Gaza.
And can I also say from the outset, I don’t use that word “genocide” loosely, having often encountered its inappropriate or misuse in other global crises.
For the inescapable fact, as Amnesty International has recently reminded, is that over one month on from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordering “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services, Israel continues to defy the ICJ ruling.
But knowing Israel’s track record with the Palestinians and given the toxic complexion of its government right now I can’t say that surprises me.
And before anyone thinks that this is purely a result of political high office, consider for a moment the latest shocking data compiled by the Israel Democracy Institute, which shows that 67.5% of people oppose Israel allowing humanitarian aid to reach Gazans through international organisations unconnected to Hamas or UNRWA the relief and human development agency millions of Palestinians depend on.
I can’t say I’m surprised either by the West’s diplomatic inertia or impotency, even if I confess to being gobsmacked by the breathtakingly hypocritical low it has now reached.
As the Palestinian-American journalist and editor of The Palestine Chronicle, Dr Ramzy Baroud, rightly observed the other day, and this is in no way hyperbole, “the Israeli genocide in Gaza will be remembered as the moral collapse of the West.”
As Baroud points out, for far too long, but especially since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, Western governments, starting with the US, “have violated every last set of ethics, morality and laws that they themselves developed, drafted, promoted, even imposed on the rest of the world for many decades.”
In short, currently, they are practically dismantling their own laws, and the very ethical standards that led to their formation. If ever one singe act exemplified the West’s hypocrisy in action then it was the sight of those US planes airdropping humanitarian aid by parachute to desperate Gazans. On every conceivable level this was a monumentally crass example of what not to do.
Yes, I understand the argument that it’s vital to get food to Gazans any way we can. I get too the argument that this is no time for political niceties and it’s all very well for someone not experiencing the hunger plaguing countless Gazans to get on their political high horse about Western hypocrisy here.
If those airdrops save one life then that’s well and good. But even humanitarian professionals admit that this cannot meet soaring needs.
Then there is the question of who it reaches. I’ve spent enough time in famine-hit countries to know for a fact how difficult it can be to get food aid to the people that need it most and not simply into the arms of thugs, gunmen gangsters and profiteers.
But all these issues aside, the airdrops flag up other woeful shortcomings in that they represent the failure of comprehensive and solid diplomatic efforts to ensure a climate whereby the vast humanitarian needs of Gazans can be met on the ground.
Even worse, these US airdrops hide the shame of Western complicity in Israel’s evisceration of Gaza and the Palestinians who live there. Drop a few crates of food or other essentials and the world might think we’re doing all we can to ease the suffering of Palestinians goes the cynical thinking behind it.
No doubt too in Washington and London’s corridors of power there are those thinking that with any luck too it will help divert attention from the planeloads of arms from the US and UK delivered to Israel’s right-wing government who seek to annihilate Gaza and its people.
More than any other issue, the lack of aid illustrates the impotence of the US and its Western allies in pressuring Israel to change the course of its war. The time has long since passed when US and Western support should be unconditional to Israel.
If US president Joe Biden or Rishi Sunak and other Western leaders were serious about helping the Palestinians, then the arms supplies would stop. They would support Palestine’s full membership of the UN, work towards a two-state solution, and reverse the appalling decision to suspend funding for UNRWA.
Above all else, they would make it clear using every diplomatic and economic lever at their disposal to tell Netanyahu that enough is enough in Gaza.
Yes, Fletcher, is right when he says that the Middle East has a habit of “biting back,” whatever the West does or doesn’t do. But that’s no reason for the diplomatic impotency that shamefully prevails right now when countless more lives are at risk.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel