politics

by

Gaza Buffer Zone: Impact on Population Density

Early on in the conflict in Gaza Israel unilaterally decided to create a buffer zone stretching from the top right hand corner of Gaza ie. the North East corner by Beit Hanoun down to the Egyptian border. A distance of approximately 48 kilometres. The zone would be 1 kilometre wide so would steralise 48 square kilometres of Gaza territory.

Gaza comprises 360 square kilometres per the CIA World Fact Book which also records a population in the Strip of 2.1m people. This works out at 5,833 persons per square kilometre (ppsqk). This slightly more than London at 5,608 ppsqk but less than Tokyo at 6,362 ppsqk. When the 48 square kilometre’s are taken off however Gaza’s populations density increases to 6,730 ppsqk exceeding that of Tokyo.

Of course the Gaza strip is not a City it is a… territory. If you were to compare with a nearby country, say Israel the population density there is circa 400 ppsqkm.

The reason for the buffer zone is to protect against another 10/7. But there is currently a 20 foot high fence around the whole of Gaza and a blockade of its coastal waters. Will a kilometre wide buffer provide greater security? Or will it just reduce further the land available in the occupied territory?

by

Bad and Badder, Dumb and Dumber

The Conservative leadership process has whittled the runners down to two. This may be as a result of an incompetent attempt to game the process or it may be the will of the Party but the two candidates are vying with each other to appear farthest to the right. The continuous drift in that direction over the past decade has resulted in a number of bizarre decisions. With “One Person Toryism” exemplified by Boris Johnson removing the whip from such giants of “One Nation Conservatism” as Michael Heseltine and perhaps culminating in the appointment of Liz Truss as Prime Minister. Someone whose blind ideological fervour was only excelled by her gross incompetence and lack of personal insight.

At one time this drift to the right would be seen as a strategic mistake. The orthodox view being that there were bedrocks of political support on the right and the left and in order to win, parties had to extend their appeal as far as possible in the direction or their opponents to secure the floating voters who would determine the outcome of the election. This had a moderating effect preventing parties drifting too far away from the centre ground.

It may be argued that this balancing process reasserted itself at the last election. However other “theories” are available to explain this landslide shift. The “pendulum theory” which suggests the electorate just feel its time to give the other side a go. A theory based on young children’s universal appeal to fairness when they have not “had a turn” on the bouncy castle yet. Another is that a party which has been in government for a long time has “run out of steam”. They are “exhausted” and unable to come up with new ideas to address the evolving challenges they face. Again it relies on an analysis which simplifies and anthropomorphises a complex social/political reality.

My own guess is the main driver of the last election was, above all, the complete lack of credibility of the Tories, informed by their spectacular incompetence in managing, public services, the economy, a global pandemic, the national finances, in fact, pretty much anything they turned their inattention to.

Supporters of the Labour party may rejoice at the options being put forward for the Conservative Party leadership. They may feel the option of bad or badder for their opponents is a positive thing as both candidates seem set to push the party further away from the “centre” where elections are supposed to be won.

This view may be too optimistic. If we look across the Atlantic we have in the Republican Party a situation which could be characterised as dumb and dumber but none the less may have a winning strategy. A strategy based on moving the bedrock.

Donald Trump is certainly not the sharpest knife in the draw. His record demonstrates he does not have the moral insight, the intellectual capacity nor the personal interest to address the fundamental problems facing the United States at the moment. His shortcomings are well documented and largely come out of his own mouth.

He does have one real strength however. He has, inadvertently, acted as a lightening rod for the broad discontent which has been building across America for at least the last two decades, but with roots going much further back. The growing awareness that the age of the American Dream has passed and the sense that history might be moving East has created a level of uncertainty about the future which has not existed previously for many Americans. Whilst the Dream may never have existed as promoted, there was a long period of sustained and significant growth in the US which meant it was normal for parents to expect their offspring to be better off than they were.

The tectonic plates of growing inequality, a concentration of economic power and willingness to use this to exercise political influence/control, ignored by both Republicans and Democrats, began to reveal themselves in tensions and fissures in the body politic. This process exploded into sharp relief in the earth shivering event which for short hand was called the credit crunch in 2007/8. The credibility of the political elite was significantly undermined by its response to this crisis created by the purely profit motivated innovations of the banking and wider financial sector. To address the rapidly building catastrophe Main Street was sacrificed to Wall Street. Millions of hard working Americans lost their homes and their life savings whilst the banks were bailed out.

Prolonged austerity, “difficult decisions”, technological change and globalisation seemed to be leaving huge numbers of Americans behind. Low wage, short term jobs replaced the blue collar jobs that had sustained decent lifestyles for millions, their circumstances becoming increasingly challenging and, indeed, desperate if any members of the family fell ill. A widespread feeling they were the victims of processes they did not understand but a strong feeling of unfairness, being ignored and left behind.

Fertile ground for someone to come along with slogan simple solutions. Particularly, ones which focused the blame on foreigners in general and immigrants in particular. This approach has manifest risks both for the United States (indeed their very unity) and the wider world given the pivotal role the nation plays in global economics and diplomacy.

To blame the current problems of the United States just on Donald Trump, even accepting the wide range of personal failings he suffers from, is unfair. The leadership of the conservative right in the US has to accept a substantial proportion of the blame. They have remained dumb when some of their number have turned their back on bipartisan politics and the conventions which resulted and sustained that approach. The refusal of a Republican Senate to confirm appointments to the Supreme Court of the sitting president was a particularly egregious example of this, which happened before Trump was elected.

When you start down this road you are faced with having to rationalise and make sense of statements and policy proposals which are incomprehensible, inconsistent or even contradictory. A lot of very clever people have to race around trying to minimise the damage being done. Ultimately you end up having to support a convicted felon as your candidate for the White House.

Remaining dumb in the face of a clearly unqualified candidates ramblings, or “weavings”, results in a spiral into a realm of dumber and dumber actions which may have existential implications not just for the United States and not just for countries around the world but indeed for the future of the planet.

The party political system has many functions. One of its key functions in the past has been to train and develop political leaders. And, perhaps more importantly to winnow out those who are simply incapable of doing what is a very difficult task. On both sides of the Atlantic the parties of the right have failed in this critical function. Their desire for power has overwhelmed all other considerations. Leaders and political policies have become judged first and foremost on whether they will secure power not whether they will contribute to the welfare or wellbeing of their citizens.

Such a value free environment is set I fear to end badly. Conservatives who should and probably do know better need to stand up and be counted. Easier to propose than to do. Liz Cheney, a person of impeccable right-wing conservative credentials took a very public and brave stance against Trump and paid the price as her party turned against her and ousted her. Indeed there are many Republicans who have made a stand but the Republican party machine is so much in awe of Trump’s ability to shift a bedrock of voters that they continue to boost his credibility by backing him.

Going back to the theory about how the floating voters in the centre of politics are a reassuring stabiliser against extremist positions. This mechanism breaks down if the bedrocks of political support move and the centre ground is shifted to the right or indeed the left. What The Republicans have done in the US has been to shift the centre to the right. This process has been going on for many years however it became supercharged when Donald Trump came to dominate the political landscape. His character, or lack of it, has raised the stakes significantly. His challenge to the rule of law, constitutional conventions, the very notion of rational argument and, indeed, any view of the world other than his own has changed the very nature of politics.

This same process of the centre right being undermined from the far right is evident in the the United Kingdom but has not had a character as egregious as Trump to supercharge it. However problematic they are bad and badder do not constitute the same level of threat to democracy as the dumb and dumber issue that the States face… yet.

It may seem odd for someone on the left to be concerned about the health of the right. However, democracies have to be based on compromise. There needs to be a broad degree of agreement of what is acceptable and what the aims of government, in the broadest sense, are. When this breaks down, whatever the longevity or sophistication of its institutions and conventions might be, democracy is at risk. When this is combined with an unstable demagogue much worse may happen. If Donald Trump is elected in November the Republican Party will have to take responsibility for what follows. They may regret this for a very long time.

by

“Sudden death syndrome”

Alexi Navalnay’s mother has been told that her son died of “sudden death syndrome” (SDS). Alexi would appear to be the latest victim of what seems to be an a growing epidemic of this unexplained cause of morbidity.

It appears that genetics may play a part as it seems to be mainly Russians who suffer from it although there have been non-Russian cases also.

Those researching the disease have noticed it seems to be related to those with an underlying case of “democracy” which itself appears to be quite a healthy syndrome. In fact it is estimated that there are millions of Russians infected with this but do not exhibit any systems publicly and can thus live to a ripe old age.

The problems begin when individuals present with outward signs of democracy. This seems to mark the onset of SDS which, initially may not be fatal. Those with limited symptoms who occasionally parade them in public can suddenly be struck down with severe pains to their back, head and other parts of their body which some have described as like being beaten with a base ball bat.

Others who have gathered together with fellow sufferers have complained of a severe burning sensation in their eyes and nose leading to real difficulty breathing. Often this is accompanied by the pains mentioned above.

Victims who exhibit persistent symptoms of democracy are often taken to local treatment centres and treated with electric shocks and cold baths. This sometimes works although it may leave the victim with long term medical and mental issues and an inability to secure employment. Ironically, in many cases the treatment can lead to an even more virulent version of democracy.

The most unfortunate cases are those where their infection becomes widely known and they become a real focus for the spread of the disease. These individuals are taken to remote, specialist treatment centres. The centres are often in very cold climates presumably as part of the process of attempting to contain the disease. Sometimes individuals need to be kept in total isolation so as to prevent the possibility of cross contamination with other patients or indeed staff at the facility.

It is when individuals exhibit these advanced symptoms of democracy that they become at risk of SDS. At this point the pathology becomes completely baffling as it seems the final step can be triggered by the most mundane of events. Those recorded to date include: catching ones leg on an umbrella, drinking a cup of tea, opening the front door of ones home and various versions of lead poisoning. Some sufferers seem to have to take matters into their own hands by blowing themselves up in their cars or leaping out of apartment windows.

Victims can be struck down in their homes or in the street, within Russia or abroad. They seem to often be subject to an attack in a pubic space, say, somewhere like outside the Kremlin in Moscow.

Occasionally a victim will exhibit symptoms but survive the initial episode. Following this they may be subject to forced removal to a special facility to be helped. Sadly, the victim may still succumb to SDS which may be triggered by something as innocent as a walk in the forrest.

Fortunately, much work is being done by those at risk of the syndrome in attempting to identify how the malignant transformation of benign democracy into malignant SDS occurs. There seems to be a growing understanding of the pathology of the disease and specifically the primary agent causing the transformation. The problem they are wrestling with at the moment is how to eradicate that agent once and for all. We must all wish them luck with that work.

Ed. The above is as credible as any previous explanation of the death of opponents of Vladimir Putin and in the current case, given the previous and various attempts on his life, more credible than any statement that has or will come out of the Kremlin on the matter. According to Wikipedia, in Mein Kampf Hitler talked about the source of the credibility of the colossal lie as being the fact people could not believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”. Clearly Putin has taken this lesson to heart. Whatever happens leaders in the West need to remember this particularly if the unthinkable happens in the United States next year.

One can only hope there is a circle of hell in which Putin spends eternity waking up each day to the knowledge that he will experience a new version of SDS and that it will be worse than the day before.

by

“so it goes.”

In Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut’s character, Billy Pilgrim, uses the phrase “so it goes” every time he comes across a dead body. The repetition of the simple phrase tallies the fatalities of war and illustrates how people become desensitised to death. In Gaza death must now be so familiar that people are becoming numbed by its occurrence.

For most of us the loss of a family member is a shock and source of deep sadness. Particularly intense if it is a child. How does one cope when 10 members of your family have been killed in an instant, including brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers? Worse, when the cause of that sudden loss continues to threaten your own existence.

For those removed from the conflict the rolling news coverage first shocks, then disgusts and then it risks becoming sedimented, “so it goes.”

I have no doubt that the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is working hard to mitigate the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza, the West Bank, and now Lebanon. War in the Middle East would be a disaster for the global economy and for US interests. Not great in an election year.

One detects an increasingly frustrated tone in his comments about the need to protect civilians and focus on the future when Israel ends the war against Hamas. Particularly in view of the fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu not only ignores Blinken but as much as tells him that he will be ignoring him.

Prime Minister Netanyahu may be happy to risk a regional conflict. He may conclude that Israel has previously benefited at the expense of the Palestinians in such events. However, the world is a different place to what it was in the 1940s and 1960s. Prime Minister Netanyahu may be in danger of overplaying his hand.

At the moment there are two players only who can stop what is happening in Gaza. One is Israel. A right-wing prime minister held hostage from the extreme right in a country where many ordinary Jews feel properly aggrieved at the murderous events of 10/7, does not look like a place to find compromise.

The only other player is the United States who could apply pressure through the $3bn per annum military aid it provides to Israel. So far Secretary of State Blinken does not appear to have even threatened to use that leverage in public. We don’t know what he might have said privately. But whatever he has said does not seem to have impacted much on the Israeli government’s plan of action.  

As I have said previously, when this does stop, it is very likely to look like an exercise in ethnic cleansing, whatever the intention. Further, it is going to be difficult for the US and the UK to look shocked and surprised at what has happened. Their credibility in future negotiations with Arab partners after the bombs stop will at best be threadbare.

However much the Palestinians in the West Bank are chased around the strip by bombing campaigns, at the end of the day, they are still going to be there. That reality should be front and centre of any government’s thinking about long term security and screams the need for significant compromise by Israel if they want peace.

Apart from a brief humanitarian pause to secure the release of some of the hostages abducted by Hamas there has been a pretty much continuous campaign of bombing in Gaza. From the start there have been civilian casualties.

On 10/7 around 2,300 Israeli civilians were killed, “so it goes”. Some 240 Israelis, mainly civilians, were abducted, some of whom have since been killed, “so it goes”.  More than 250 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank, “so it goes”. Palestinian deaths in Gaza are well in excess of 20,000, “so it goes.” Of the 20,000 killed, around half have been children, “so it goes”.

The scale of death in Palestine is mind numbing. In three months roughly twice as many civilians have been killed in the Palestinian territories than in Ukraine during almost two years of war, 10,000 Ukrainians, 20,000 Palestinians.

In neither case should we, or more particularly our political leaders, succumb to the dehumanised response, “so it goes”.

However powerful the justification for Israel taking action against Hamas originally, the scale of civilian deaths has undermined the moral force and validity of its campaign. Increasingly the reference back to 10/7 looks more like a rationalisation for something altogether different to a war against Hamas.

If there is no material action taken to apply pressure on Israel to curtail its programme of mass destruction in Gaza there will be no excuses for those that failed to act. The fundamental moral position they have taken will be captured in three words, “so it goes.”