FROM BALFOUR TO TRUMP

 

THE PALESTINIANS NEED SOMETHING TOO

A hundred years ago a western statesman intervened in the cauldron of Middle East politics and we’ve been living with the consequences ever since. I fear Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, with no simultaneous effort to broker a general settlement to the Palestinian issue, will lead to another century of conflict.

In 1917 the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declared that Great Britain would look favourably on the creation of a national home for the Jewish people providing nothing was done to prejudice the rights of non-Jewish people. The declaration was made at a difficult time in the First World War when Britain was fighting against the Ottoman Empire which was allied with Germany. There were worries that the Germans were wooing the growing Zionist Movement.

The declaration begged many questions including did a “national home” mean a state? How would Arab and Christian interests be protected? What would the borders be and what would be the status of Jerusalem? 100 years, three wars and much violence later, many of these questions remain unresolved.

So why has Trump acted now? He rightly says it has been Congress policy since 1995 to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem but without prejudicing final status. Previous Presidents have not enacted the resolution because they feared it would indeed prejudice final status talks and give no incentive to Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians who want East Jerusalem as their capital.

The other factor is Saudi Arabia. Although they have joined the rest of the Arab world, the EU and Britain in criticising the move, the Saudis have grown close to Trump. This is because of the President’s tough stand on Iran, Saudi Arabia’s enemy. Trump has calculated that the Saudis will make ritual noises but will not really back a backlash against America.

All that said I have an awful sense that within weeks we will see a terrorist outrage in Israel, Europe or America with the extremists citing this move as the reason for it. They will have no justification for violence. It solves nothing.

What needs to happen is a two-state solution. Jerusalem is the very difficult issue Could it be divided city again with West Jerusalem, the Israeli capital, East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital with the Holy Places under United Nations control?

UNIVERSITIES IN THE CROSS HAIRS.

It is a difficult time for our universities. Vice Chancellor’s pay is under scrutiny and rightly so at a time when their students are racking up big debts.

Most of the coverage has centred on Bath University where the VC’s pay was ludicrous. Apart from Sheffield University’s Sir Keith Burnett £422,700, none of our northern universities VCs are in the top ten. This even though Janet Beer at Liverpool and Nancy Rothwell at Manchester are doing great jobs with huge responsibilities.

But they will be aware of the issues circling around this sector of higher education. With students paying big fees, the degree courses need to fit them for the modern world. The institutions need to be accountable to the communities they serve, and the campuses need to be centres of free speech. That is a challenge for student leaders as well as university staff. No platforms for Israeli politicians or people with differing views on transgender matters are a violation of everything a university should stand for.

 

JE SUIS CHARLIE,BUT…..

..

 

The crazy logic of the people who gunned down the staff of Charlie Hebdo is that it will bring nearer the day of a holy war between the West and the Caliphate.

As the shock and grief continues, we have to ask ourselves if that day is getting nearer.

 

It seems unbelievable in this hi tech 21st century world that I should be writing in language more appropriate to the age of the Crusades or the sixteenth century when the Ottoman Empire was at the gates of Vienna. More poignantly we can go back to 732 when the Umayyed Caliphate nearly took Poitiers in the centre of France during the incredible early expansion of Islam.

 

At the moment the conflict does not take the form of armies confronting each other. The British and American experience in Afghanistan and Iraq has ended that for now. We prefer drones, air strikes and arming the Kurds to boots on the ground.

 

The dreadful events in France have left us in a very dangerous position. Islamophobia and anti semitism are on the rise, our civil liberties are under pressure, and parties of the right are gaining support. Meanwhile the causes of all this are hardly mentioned.

They are in no particular order, the post World War One colonial settlement in the Middle East; the grossly unfair distribution of oil wealth that should have benefited all the people of the region; our ignorance of the complexities of the Middle East when we intervened militarily; the mindset of some Muslims that their religion and way of life should be imposed on all of us and above all our failure to deal with the plight of the Palestinians. Barrack Osama should use the remaining years of his presidency, when he is less beholden to the powerful Jewish lobby in America, to achieve a two state solution for Israel and Palestine.

 

Of course that is very difficult to achieve, but it could be the beginning of unwinding the mounting crisis between the West and elements of Islam. If the terrorists could no longer point to the plight of the Palestinians, then one of the major causes of tension would be ameliorated. This might then lead to a waning of real and tacit support for terrorism upon which organisations like ISIS and Al -Qaeda rely.

 

Finally let me go back to the title of this blog and my thoughts on publications like Charlie Hebdo. Whilst we must all defend free speech, we must recognise that it is not absolute in France or here. There are laws curbing racial hatred and obscenity. Much more widely people of a religious belief are entitled to be offended and angered by blatant mockery of Muhammed or Jesus. Emphatically it does not entitle them to kill or intimidate those that publish such material, but we must acknowledge its effect on the heightened tension we are all feeling.

THE LONG LEGACY OF WORLD WAR ONE

100 years ago the first shots were being fired in the First World War. At the end of it the Ottoman Empire was split up into the states that are involved in the awful carnage that we are seeing every night on our TV screens.

 

The situation is serious and is already affecting us here. My colleague Michael Taylor has addressed the street tension in Manchester over the Gaza issue in his Downtown blog. 500 people from Britain have gone to the Syrian civil war. Some may return to try and practise jihad on our streets. On the business front the fragile recovery could be reversed by more general war in the Middle East and interruption of fuel supplies.

 

There have been many Middle East crises before. This one has two new characteristics. Firstly social media is centre stage in the propaganda and recruitment war. Everything is accelerated. Rumours and lies rub shoulders with the truth and people choose what to believe and what determines their action. Secondly the United States is largely absent. After the unwise involvement of George Bush we now have the isolationism of President Obama. The decision to pivot American foreign policy towards the Pacific might have had a certain logic to it when Obama took office. However as the only world super power you take your eyes off the Middle East and Russia at your peril.

 

There is undoubtedly a paradox in United States involvement in the Middle East. On the one hand it is the hated symbol of Western imperialism and ultimate defender of Israel. On the other hand it retains massive military power and the potential to bring people together (The Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel in 1978).

 

The situation is so bloody and complex that the likelihood is that the Middle East will remain a running sore for decades to come. There may be ceasefires and short term agreements but the heady mix of vast economic disparity among the people, religious fanaticism and unresolved issues of national identity may be too difficult to resolve.

 

In 1919 the world was a different place. One set of Empires: Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and Ottoman Turkey were replaced by another set: Britain and France with the United States beginning to play a role.

 

Lloyd George, Clemenceau and President Wilson met in Paris without the chatter of social media and 24 hour news channels and carved up the Middle East and Africa. Although the superiority of the white man was beginning to be challenged, the western powers still called the shots and huge mistakes were made.

 

It was perhaps regrettable that T.E Lawrence’s idea for a Greater Arabia was not adopted. The secret of the Ottoman Empire was to govern lightly by collecting the taxes but letting local Sunni and Shia leaders run their areas.

 

The Kurds should have been given their own state and it goes without saying more thought should have been given to the implications for the Palestinians of the Balfour Declaration that set in train the creation of Israel.

 

The Palestinian issue is almost intractable but ultimately could a bargain be struck whereby Israel and its settlers withdraw to the pre-1967 borders in return for a demilitarised Palestinian state being set up in the West Bank and Gaza? Jerusalem should become an international city under the control of the United Nations with freedom of worship for all faiths.

 

It is easy to write such a proposal and it will offend many but the alternative seems to be continuing misery for the Palestinians and insecurity for the Israelis.

AFTER SANDY,WHO NEEDS ROMNEY?

 

This blog is about the American election, but before I get started here’s a reflection on the media coverage of Frankenstorm Sandy.

Somehow I must have missed the wall to wall coverage as the storm hit Haiti before moving north to the USA. I don’t remember the TV correspondent’s previews of the disaster about to hit this desperately poor country days in advance. I don’t remember the sight of reporters clinging on to trees as they reported from Port-au-Prince and I don’t remember interviews with Haitians in the aftermath of the storm.

I appreciate millions more people were affected as the storm raked America’s East Coast but does coverage of these disasters have to be so brazenly dictated by the abundance of news crews in New York and their sparcity in Port-au-Prince?

One blessing of Storm Sandy was a temporary lull in the campaign for the US Presidency. It is now back in full swing ahead of Tuesday’s poll as President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney spend the last of the 2bn dollars that they’ve raised for their campaigns.

Does it all matter for business in the North West of little ol’ England? The answer has to be yes because of the huge American economy. Whoever is pulling the economic strings in Washington will have some effect on our efforts to pull out of recession. America’s domination of the world is diminishing in the face of China, India and Brazil but it is still the daddy.

It also matters because American foreign policy decisions could have a profound effect on all our futures. I only need to refer to a possible clash between Iran and Israel to make that point.

The economy is crucial and that should worry Obama in these closing days of the campaign. Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George Bush Snr in 1992 became one term presidents during periods of economic stress. According to recent research 28% of American workers are worried they might lose their job. 48% of homeowners believe their home is worth less than the mortgage.

So has all the hope and zeal that surrounded the election of America’s first black President four years ago vanished? Will Obama suffer the fate of other western leaders who have lost office since the recession began like Berlusconi in Italy and Sarkozy in France?

Possibly not because Mitt Romney has not sealed the deal with many floating voters. His Mormon faith, his opposition to the bail out of the US car industry and the fact that many Republicans are dissatisfied with him as their candidate all mean that victory may elude him.

The main question is what is the right direction for America? President Obama has staked all on his massive reform of America’s health care system and a $768bn package of tax cuts and investment in the economy. Romney would scrap “Obamacare” as he scathingly refers to it and reduce Federal spending.

Romney faces an uphill task because even if more people vote for him in total across America, you have to win 270 votes in the Electoral College to win. Al Gore got most votes in 2000 but George Bush won in the College. The College is made up of state representatives who formally cast their votes in December reflecting the way people voted in their state. California has 33 votes, sparsely populated Montana just 3.

So although the national polls are showing Obama and Romney dead level, the election will be won and lost in a few key states.

Without a further big push by Romney it looks as if the President will get to 271 votes from 21 states, crucially including Ohio. Romney would win 206 votes from 23 states if he takes the key state of North Carolina. To win Romney would have to take three or four of the swing states of Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia. It’s a big ask.
It’s going to be close. Let’s hope it doesn’t all hang on a chad.