The first in a number of annoying columns about the situation in the Middle East:
Just to be clear from the start, what's happening over in Gaza is not a 'war' nor a 'conflict'; it is a massacre.
Let's do away with the analogies and reasoning. If there is one clear rule in war anymore, it is to not target civilians. What did Israel think was going to happen when they started dropping thousands of pounds of bombs on to apartment blocks, schools and housing projects in one of the most densely populated areas in the world? Where is the term 'collective punishment' to be found in a supposedly enlightened democracy's vocabulary?
As of this writing, 820 people had been killed in Gaza, half of them civilians and a third children.
There is no imminent threat to Israel's status. Hamas' rockets kill less people per year than meteorites or lightning strikes. Even its most bitter enemies admit that the Jewish state is not being 'wiped off the map' any time soon. So why launch such a devastating, brutal war on a mostly civilian populace?
The cynical answer is the forthcoming election. More on that in a future column.
For now, I wanted to discuss what I see as the most egregious issue that has emerged during this crisis; that of the inability of the international community to put a stop to the offensive. The meaning of the already vague term 'international community' has been rendered meaningless. The events and escalations over the past month are proof positive that the 'international community' is a toothless non-entity; a theoretical concept to be discussed in political science classes but with no relevant practical role in the real world.
The EU, NATO, the United Nations, Russia, China, these supposed global powers have not been able to prevent 'all-out war' in Gaza, nor have they been able to broker talks or settle any of the innumerable issues both sides are fighting about. It's these root causes that are most crucial in improving the situation. What will be the status of Jerusalem? Will the Palestinian diaspora ever be allowed to return?Can a Palestinian government ever guarantee that Israel will be safe from any attacks launched from its soil?
Stretching my argument back to the days of 9/11 and the War on Terror, the international powers were totally powerless in their opposition to the War in Iraq, towards wrestling control over carbon emissions and fighting climate change, in coordinating effective responses to the Darfur catastrophe, or even in preventing the current financial crisis.
My question is thus: If they can't do any of these things right, what good are they?
Can anyone make a persuasive argument for giving any supposed international 'power' creedence?
Despite much talk of the globalization of power, the rise of second-tier states and our entrance into a multi-polar, economic-fueled, soft-power political era, the world still is utterly helpless in the face of crisis.
If it were not for one nation with the economic, military and political power to enact real change and influence on the rest of the world, the world would be a free-for-all.
The EU may have growing political power. East Asia and the Gulf States may have vast amounts of financial clout. And Russia and Canada may have the natural resources. But When it comes down to it, more than any of these things, it is the political will and military capability of the United States that can stop wars, prevent financial chaos, save people from genocide or famine and impose a sense of security and stability.
Understandably, this is a bitter pill to swallow for most leftists and Bush-bashing anti-imperialists. Admitting that places like Palestine, Afghanistan and South Ossetia need the help of the United States is difficult, but who else could possibly intervene?
My concluding point is: a global hegemon, or world power, is not often liked, but it is often needed.
=//Turnquest
