Resetting British Culture.

 

Introduction

Rioting is nothing new on Britain's streets; many experienced the violent clashes in Notting Hill in 1958, a racially motivated series of riots between white British residents and newly arrived Afro-Caribbean immigrants, the 1991 Tottenham riots, sparked by the death of a black man in police custody, and others over the years. But this time, the recent riots have a different context and underlying causes.

What started as a protest against the murder of three little girls in Southport has swept the country for days, fuelled by the spread of misinformation on social media. The cause of the anger is sharply contested. For some, they are racist far-right agitators, and opportunist thugs whipped up by populist politicians and commentators. For others, they represent a more profound unease about successive immigration and social policies, which have left people feeling ignored, marginalised, and even despised by politicians and mainstream media. The ideological divide is between those who see 'diversity as strength', believing that a diverse society is stronger and more resilient, and those who think unlimited tolerance breeds its own intolerance, arguing that excessive tolerance can lead to the acceptance of intolerant views. For all the images of burning cars, racist graffiti and violent looting, there is another side to the story: those who help in the clean-up, who show solidarity with their Muslim neighbours, and who make clear their opposition to racist hatred.

One of the vital issues to the cause of the riots is that many of those taking part are working class who feel they are the ones who are paying a heavy price for immigration. Successive governments have stopped listening to their grievances, and peaceful demonstrations are not doing it and giving unfair advantages, for instance, in housing and welfare, while the working class see the deprivation of their neighbourhood deteriorating. These grievances and concerns were often mistaken for racist views and ignored. Successive governments for the last twenty years have stopped listening to a series of peaceful demonstrations. The economic problems lowering the standard of living and the all-around pressure on their spending have exasperated their frustrations.

Broken borders, illegal migrants £1.2 million costing £8 to £10 million a day, a policy people did not vote for. The government must urgently organise for national and rational debates to be put on the table and discussed, as well as to follow up and slow immigration to a manageable level so at least let the infrastructure reach an adequate level to provide a reasonable level of services. Amid mounting fears of violent Islamic extremism, many in Britain as in Europe ask whether Muslim immigrants can integrate into historically Christian countries. Indeed, more effort is needed, even to the point of resetting the British Culture.  It is argued, therefore, that both British Muslims and non-Muslim British must share responsibility to speed up the progress of Muslim integration and build a cohesive Britain.

What is culture?

                                                                           

There is a rumour that during the first couple of days after the start of the riots in Liverpool, a group of young lads draped with the flag of St George set up a roadblock. They stopped drivers to ask them, "Are you English?" and one of the drivers replied, "No, I am British," and another said I am not English; I am from Yorkshire". Little did the young lad realise that the question he asked was an age-old question that had played on the minds of the English with their identity for centuries. The English only identify by what they are not; otherwise, they do not need an identity since they are the majority. The English are not Scottish, Welsh, or Irish. They are neither Norman nor Saxon. An English identity is a myth, an imagined identity, and that is as far it goes with Nationalism in Britain. Yet, the resilience of the British identity, rooted in its diversity and adaptability, remains a source of reassurance.

The mix of the early Danes and the Germanic people with the indigenous people as early as the fourth century created a diverse society. The Norman invaders of 1066, bringing in their baggage of over ten thousand French words, failed to overcome the unique trait of an already diverse people. The invaders became the invaded. And so it is today. Immigrants to this green and pleasant land call it home and join in what has become British culture. Their contributions, stretching their natural inherited limits and blending their nature to join this rich, diverse cultural community, have enriched British culture. They are the ones who have allowed us to achieve an equilibrium in a pluralistic society that energises a happy life under the umbrella of the British sense of the culture of tolerance, fair play, and legal systems, values embedded in British history and heritage.

So, from this introduction, I can say that immigration is nothing new. The attempt at dividing this status quo is very much so. In simple terms, my ideas are taken from a personal point of view. When I first came to this country in 1958, I was one of few, a part of an immigration drizzle that had started soon after 1945. Drop ink in a large bucket of water that would quickly dissipate as I and thousands of others like me have done. Especially within the last ten years, specifically after Brexit, the trickle became a whole bottle of ink thrown in at once in that same bucket of water. The 'flow became a flood', which was a rapid increase in the immigrant population. This rapid increase has, by and large, resulted in clusters of communities, which naturally breeds identity politics as each community tends to protect its cultural distinctiveness—resulting in a pluralistic society of parallel lives and remaining happy with that difference.

Immigration

Such communitarian direction comes at the cost of traditional British dominant culture. Pluralism can be achieved, but not at the expense of losing British values. Mutual respect is the basis for tolerance, the rule of law, democracy, reasonableness, and individual liberty. An understanding of overlapping consensus as in Rawle's theory of Justice as Fairness suggests. Those who cannot accept this feel a sense of helplessness and social deprivation. Joining the new Reform Party provides a refuge, and they see its policies as a probable answer to their grievances.

There is no doubt for many that the cumulative growth of immigration is reaching a critical point, giving ammunition to those who say it is going out of control. An increase of 750,000 last year and a projected six million more by 2035, double the present population of Wales, is a significant strain on an already beleaguered health service. It's exerting pressure on an inadequate housing infrastructure, overstretched schools, and other services. The urgency of this situation cannot be overstated. Others, however, argue that these services will collapse without immigrants working in them. The NHS, for instance, is dependent on immigrants apart from the hospital backup staff; we need to train more doctors or nurses.  Importing these Doctors and Nurses, often from poor countries, who need them most raises a fundamental moral question.  But I digress.  

Yet, cohesion is an agreed foundation on which society is built when different groups within a society can live side by side with mutual respect and tolerance. This is a lofty ideal but a practical necessity for a harmonious society. Some libertarians argue for open borders, emphasising the free movement of individuals as a fundamental principle of liberty. They believe individuals should have the right to move freely and seek opportunities. Many in Britain will support that view, and many others would defy this stand if it comes at the cost of the working class, mainly when immigrants are distributed in poor areas where services are overstretched and crumbling housing accommodations. Cultural distinctiveness becomes a distinguishing marker for a heated atmosphere, dislocating any would-be harmony there may have been. One way or another, the dominant group must re-identify, "I may be poor, but I am—Somebody!"

The dominant group sees immigrants as protected by The 1951 UN Refugee Convention, The European Convention of Human Rights and The 1998 Human Rights Act and a sea of solicitors ready to act on these pointers. What was supposed to be the dominant group resented the resulting invisibility and wanted public recognition of their inner worth. This collective identity, knowingly or unknowingly, leads to what we today label as modern identity politics. Economic problems the country is in at the moment tend to exasperate the frustration, and often enough, scapegoating is always at hand. In culturally diverse societies, we can easily find patterns of state support for some cultural groups over others. Consequently, anxieties of the white working class refuse to endure such alienation. They shift to the Right to find refuge in populism and far-right, radical parties, where they are further manipulated towards racial differences, bringing racial hatred to the forefront. Headlines in newspapers further fuelled by politicians add to these temperaments.

Government policies right and wrong

The government has a legal duty to look after refugees but has no legal duty to look after their own. 
The distribution of refugees could be better directed. They are put in the poorest yet housed comfortably. At the same time, those of their own have to wait for eighteen months or more and even then are housed in poor conditions, often mouldy and overcrowded accommodation. The local people feel ignored and marginalised, even despised by the establishment. The mainstream media headlines these discrepancies and unfair advantages, which adds fuel to an already volatile situation. The result is a divided, burgeoning, pluralist society. In such cases, it belies the idea that multiculturalism is enriching. In contrast, people experience a loss of privileges, prioritising the incoming rights over those already there, changing the nature of their communities they never agreed to, creating a loss in the natural and traditional social cohesion.

Britain also attracts some of the world's most capable and highly qualified people, driving up our wealth-creating potential. National life is enriched culturally and socially. Bringing in cheap nurses and doctors abroad, often poorer countries depriving their local population of badly needed care is open to criticism that this policy hinges on the moral question of self-interest. 

That aside, bringing these people ironically stokes the fires even more. Nurses and doctors, whom we can not do without, need their families with them, yet more immigrants are needed, which exasperates the problem of community cohesion and adds pressure on an already beleaguered infrastructure in its present form. We need to torch the idea that multiculturalism in this country is somehow guaranteed. 

The 0.1% of those rioting with the help of social media directing the anger has put an end to that.

 Coming to this country, immigrants need to sign up for Britain's distinctive moral values, which are rooted in its heritage of tolerance, fair play, legal system, and theological Christian ethos that in today's secular world is labelled as Liberalism. 

A desperate need to adjust this balance: People with low or no income can apply for an HC2 certificate to help with health costs, regardless of their nationality and/or immigration status. All asylum seekers are entitled to an HC2 certificate; some receive theirs automatically. An HC2 certificate entitles individuals to free NHS prescriptions, dental treatment, wigs and fabric support, sight tests, vouchers towards the cost of glasses or contact lenses, and necessary travel costs to and from a hospital for NHS treatment under the care of a consultant.

Home Office figures cited by the Financial Times in August last year showed that the annual asylum cost reached £3.96 billion in the year up to 2023—double that of the previous year and six times higher than 2018   

Multiculturalism

Cultures serve as "contexts of choice," which provide meaningful options and scripts with which people can frame, revise, and pursue their goals - William Kymlicka.

"Cultural membership plays an important role in people's self-identity 

- Avishai Margalit and Joseph Raz.

The idea of multiculturalism reflects a debate about understanding and responding to the challenges associated with cultural diversity based on ethnic, national, and religious differences. Multiculturalism goes well beyond the definition of a 'melting pot', in which members of minority groups are expected to assimilate with the dominant culture. Instead, those voting for an ideal multiculturalism favour members of the minority group to maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices, as earlier suggested 'the similar but different.' In Britain, as elsewhere, is organised around the dominant groups' language and culture, which creates barriers for sections of minority groups in pursuing their social practices. Identity politics, the politics of difference and "the politics of recognition "all add to multiculturalism. This refers to both sides, so the minority group would not feel marginalised. The dominant group need to adjust its patterns, taking into account any disadvantages the marginalised minority groups may suffer from categories that include religion, language, ethnicity, nationality, and race.

One problem that can act as a barrier to multiculturalism is the approach to Liberalism. Liberals tend to adhere to individual autonomy and appeal to be ethical individualists. They insist that individuals should be free to choose and pursue their own ideas of the good life. They are atomistic by nature and prioritise individual rights over the collective communitarian ideals for national self-determination. British culture embraces the contents of choice, which gives people options for living and pursuing their intentions, forming an essential part of self-identity. To borrow from Charles Taylor, an eminent Canadian Philosopher, "Cultural identity as providing people with an anchor for their self-identification and the safety of effortless secure belonging". This means there is a deep and general connection between a person's self-respect and the respect accorded to the cultural group of which Muslims are part. It is not simply membership in any culture but one's own culture that must be secured for cultural membership to serve as a meaningful context of choice and a basis of self-respect.

Language no longer provides that communitarian identity for many Muslims; though embracing ethical Liberalism, they do so not in isolation of religion. In this case, Islam would serve as a group identity. Indeed, we end up in a clash of values, one which makes it harder to find a path of compromise between Muslims and the rest. Many Muslims take pride in this very fact, but that does not mean not mixing with the dominant group. It is this unwillingness to compromise in the face of secularising pressures, they would say, that makes Islam both vibrant and distinctive. They say it is undemocratic and illiberal to ask British Muslims to be as religious as they want at home but to keep their Islam out of public view. They refuse to accept for their group to prosper, religion would have to be controlled and constrained privately or by the state. We end up with State Liberalism against the Ideology of Islam. 

Integration

"I do not regard it [integration] as meaning the loss, by immigrants, of their own national characteristics and culture. I do not think that we need in this country a 'melting pot', which will turn everybody out in a common mould, as one of a series of carbon copies of someone's misplaced vision of the stereotyped Englishman. I define integration, therefore, not a flattening process of assimilation but as equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance." - Roy Jenkins, British Home Secretary

The fear of Islam is central to the lack of integration. List of Islamist-related terrorists:

The Manchester Arena bombing – an Islamist extremist suicide bomber detonated a shrapnel-laden homemade bomb as people were leaving the Manchester Arena following a concert by American singer Ariana Grande.

The 2017 London Bridge attack was an incident where an attacker ran over multiple pedestrians on London Bridge. On Borough Market, the occupants of the van stabbed multiple people before being shot by police.

A bomb wrapped in a plastic grocery bag concealed in a bucket exploded at the height of the morning rush on the London Underground. ISIL claimed responsibility for the bombing.

The Rochdale child sex abuse ring involved underage teenage girls in Rochdale. Nine Asian men were convicted of sex trafficking and other offences, including rape, trafficking girls for sex and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child. 'I was raped more than 100 times from age 12', says a young rescued girl.

It is these and more like them we hear about from around the world that can keep divisiveness and discrimination alive and play havoc in an attempt to keep multiculturalism tamed.

Islam resistance

As a result, British Muslims are widely perceived as threatening, a perception that urgently needs to be addressed. This perception is based in large part on the above and on cultural differences between Muslims and rooted British culture that feed both rational and irrational Islamophobia. There seems to be a religious component of discrimination, identifying a discriminatory equilibrium in which both Muslim immigrants and native British act negatively toward one another in a self-perpetuating, vicious circle.

Disentangling the rational and irrational threads of Islamophobia is essential if Britain hopes to repair a social fabric that has frayed around the issue of Muslim immigration. Muslim immigrants must address their own responsibility for the failures of integration, and Britain must acknowledge the anti-Islam sentiments at the root of their antagonism—urgent public policy solutions aimed at promoting religious diversity in fair-minded host societies. Education plays a crucial role in this, as it can help to dispel misconceptions and foster understanding. We need to put in place a correct level of environment for enough people to have jobs and housing and for people to welcome the immigrants instead of the resentments and divisions we see in today's environment. Also, to clear the backlog of waiting asylum seekers, easing the financial burden on the country and solving the social and economic problems.

Those at the extreme end of belief, there is a willing culture to accept Islam as an authoritarian religion, allowing it to colonise the mind. Whatever it teaches must be correct, and no other way of thinking is accepted, establishing a conflict between Religion and State, descending into the medievalist darkness, effectively submitting to rule from within, and abandoning reason and their free will. At the same time, their nature remains static and takes no account of self-reflection. Politically, Britain and countries in Europe with similar cultural structures, such as France and Germany, find themselves once more at a dangerous crossroads, the dark ages of illiberal Europe, which the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 resolved. The press and social media play such significance in spreading ideas that such enrollment is dangerous to the British way of life.

Conclusion

To end this rather lengthy essay, I turn to St. Augustine, asking why God did not make things similar. He replied if all things were identical, they would not exist. He created diversity not as a vehicle of self-realisation [...] but out of his love of his creation and as part of his design to create a perfect world. God could have easily created a uniform universe […] he did not show how great value he placed on diversity. In diversity, each one of us is endowed with a distinct nature whose constitution follows an identical drive towards the good life, and we each contribute to this harmony- Taken from Bhikhu Parekh's book 'Rethinking Multiculturalism'

Balancing the rights of immigrants with the concerns of the white working class requires careful policy-making that addresses the needs of all groups while promoting fairness, inclusivity, and social cohesion. To Promote equal protection under the law while safeguarding the rights of immigrants and addressing the legitimate concerns of the white working class about job security, wages, and social services. Publicly emphasise that legal protections for immigrants are part of broader human rights protections that apply to everyone. It can help dispel the misconception that one group receives preferential treatment over another. Encourage initiatives that bring together immigrants and the white working class in community activities, sports, or local projects. Shared experiences and interactions can help build mutual understanding and reduce feelings of alienation. Organise cultural exchange programs that allow different communities to learn about each other's backgrounds and traditions. It can foster respect and appreciation for diversity—launch campaigns to address misconceptions about immigration, including immigrants' economic and social contributions. Educating the public about the benefits of immigration can help reduce fear and resentment.

A collage of ideas, therefore, taken from all walks of life, including the mainstream media, to look again at the differences and grievances. Pluralism in this great country of ours does not exist in a vacuum. We owe it at least to the future generation to keep that spirit of British fair play and tolerance for the next generation and keep the English or British heritage alive. 

Republican Party of the United States

Warning: What you see is not always what you get

Just as Kellogs, Fairy Liquid and Mars Bar projected on our small screens with annoying jingles in the background, we see the United States's would-be President commodified and objectified, wrapped in colourful paper or tinned up even, and branded to the general public. The US presidential race in America has become like vying for a product, where policies and objectives are pushed to the shadows, taking Capitalism to the next level. They don't need policies or directions, but so long as they are carefully angled, propped, gloss applied, and how they came across to us matters most. And as long as they can read what garbage is written for them on the teleprompter and humm their one-liners 'bring it on', they can face their flock. One-line slogans will do instead of manifestos, "Lock her up" became part of the election lexicon not long ago and achieved a great following.

Raising donations is like budgeting for advertising and projecting an appearance. In the morning, afternoon, and evening, for each session, America's PR machine has a module that suits the day's audience. Mudslinging and Racist slurs are Republican infantry weapons, their firepower easily strafing their opponents as one does in happy-gun-carrying America.

Talking of the American take on Republicanism brings me to the political and economic divisive ideas of the Republican Party, finding its legitimacy mainly in its ideology of laissez-faire economics. State welfare is taboo; a helping hand or creating a safety net for the disadvantaged is a misnomer. Instead, they look at military spending as a means of waging war worldwide while keeping a Capitalist ideology, lacking in human face, at a high point.

Military engagement is never far from its ideology. Dehumanising the foreign is a Republican attribute not unlike the proxy war engaging Israel against the civilian population of Gaza, actions mostly borne out of nationalist tendencies. Republican interventionist policies are buyenlarge taken against the weak, and the proliferation of sanctions is attempted against the stronger.

The Republican slogan adapted from the Trump campaign, 'Make America White Again', is another take on MAGA (make America Great Again), is no more than identity politics, implying American identity based on white blood. To a large degree, this has come to identify the divergent views that create tensions and even segregation within American society. Polarised ideas are encouraged top-down, cascading all the way from the Supreme Court's partisan directives emanating from Republican voting US justices who sit on the Supreme Court, implicitly lending a hand to such divisions in society. The present status quo is arguably a creation of the Republican Party under ex-president Trump, which the party have come to accept and enjoy.

The Supreme Court, identified by its Republican majority on the bench, has since gone further in rulings recently to cloak the President of the United States with infallibility. Under this circumstance, an almost certain return of Trump again as President, we could see the abuse of Democracy, turning Congress and the idea of a Bicameral legislature on its head. Authoritarian one-person rule America where its President is King and can do no wrong is on the horizon. Indeed, Trump has become synonymous with Authoritarianism. The forefathers of American Democracy must be spinning in their grave-in unison.

But let's see what values their idol holds, what some people say about the man's values and, by association, the Republican Party's edifices:

He is a 'moral disaster' 'America's Hitler' He is a 'total fraud' He is a 'cynical asshole' - JD Vance, Trump's running mate. 

As I write this post, Trump is said to have lacked good judgment in choosing Vance and is about to drop him in favour of Nikky Haley. Yes, from bad to worse.  

On his moral standing:

Since the 1970s, at least 26 women have publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. Of course, he issued denials on all charges, calling his accusers liars.

"And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."That was on BBC published video.

The Pope, he said, was 'a pawn of Mexico'.

"A con man," said. Sen. Marco Rubio. "Utterly amoral," said Sen. Ted Cruz.

Trump is indifferent to conventional notions of morality and is surprised by people motivated by them. Therefore, by definition, those aligned with Trump must hold similar values.

Republicans claim to be keepers of the Truth, which is an identity trap and is no more than identity politics based on historical legacy. The conservative campaign is built around opposition to immigration, especially from Mexico and the Muslim world. Preaching diversity of thought and action as foreign, even anti-American, where DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) is given a racist slant. Their narrow definition of American identity is based on shared religion (Protestantism), ethnicity (descent from the English), common language (English), and belief in the same republican principles of government. The anti-immigrant demons that have been summoned are often deeply illiberal and could undermine the open political order on which America's prosperity has been based rather than take steps to shape national identities in ways that promote a sense of democratic and open community.  

They claim exclusive rights to justice with no effort towards a compromise to at least avoid a sectarian and divided society. Imposing their terms in setting out political arrangements to gain a social, territorial advantage in a non-aligned state of affairs seems to increase the division between social and political nationalism versus social and political pluralism.

Conservative world view to scaffold society on their own nuts and bolts is a camouflage for state control, which includes:

• Caging drug addicts.
• Massive military spending
• They are happy to incarcerate drug addicts instead of opening up state-sponsored institutions to treat the symptoms.
• Interference in family planning.
• Saying no to immigrants, no to Muslims.
• Muzzling free speech and identifying liberalism with leftist radical organisations, classifying liberal ideology of freedom as coming from a bunch of lunatics.
• 
  

In a world of extreme diversity, we can no longer impose a particular conception of how we should all live and which goals we should all pursue without trampling the legitimate liberty of others.

Reciprocal terms of cooperation should be the imperatives, refraining from using political power to favour their worldview or repress the views of other reasonable people. They seem oblivious to a changed world where a pluralist society needs diverse opinions that are acceptable to the majority. By definition, this is what Democracy stand on. And, whereas the democrats have not claimed to be gatekeepers of this ideology, they try to be reasonable in achieving a stage of overlapping consensus based on reasonableness.

These days, we all claim to be holders of Truth, and as individuals with a multitude of diverse views and ideas, in arriving at our definition of truths, we tend to tear away the fabric of Democracy. The irony is that the Democrats try to avoid these dichotomies and prevent Democratic ideology from cannibalising itself but allow room for fairness to prevail to arrive at a liberal institutional framework.

In this era of increasing diversity, the imposition of a singular worldview undermines the fundamental liberty of others. Embracing pluralism and embracing diverse viewpoints is the path to building a truly inclusive and cohesive society. The Republican Party must recognise the need for dialogue and cooperation and adapt to a changing world where diverse opinions are valued and respected.

By contrast, especially under a forthcoming authoritarianism, the Republicans monopolise religious as well as moral pseudo-ideas of Truth while embedding their own principles to that end. Such polarisation needs tempering; there is a need to be respectful and inclusive of all rather than seeking to dominate and suppress alternative perspectives. Encouraging dialogue and understanding and emphasising the value of different viewpoints would be beneficial for fostering a cohesive society.

Additionally, acknowledging the necessity of adapting to social and cultural changes over time is crucial for progress and harmony within a diverse community. Unfortunately, I see contrasting views going into the future; as long as Trump is in the White House, I can not see any such fusion within a polarised American society but a highly volatile, unstable and increasingly divided American nation. 

The Dilemmas of War

 

The Israel-Hamas Conflict - Part 2

In this article, I try to be cleareyed without getting involved in emotional outbursts. Nor would I try to popularise any blame game, but I would try to distance myself from the outpouring of grief we see on our screens that continues to unfold daily. This discourse is more or less a sequel to last week's article; however, in this analysis, I again try to go beyond the causes and roots of the problems and avoid the present-day happening. This undertaking will discuss the dilemmas faced by both of the parties involved. On the one side, the pent-up frustration resulted in the loss of control, lashing out and killing unarmed civilians and on the other, a harsh retaliation anchored on a disqualification of the entire Gazeans. 

The Hammas group are Palestinian self-appointed protectors of the Palestinian people but are not recognised so much by them. However, their attack on the Israeli Kibbutz on October 7th has ignited an onslaught by the Israeli Defence Forces on the entire Palestinian population of Gaza. An unarmed 2.5 million people live in an area no more than a quarter of the size of Yorkshire. Despite calls for a ceasefire from around the world, destructive and relentless indiscriminate shelling shows signs of stopping. My guess is that describing the men and women of the Kibbutz as unarmed is an erroneous term. Since declaring Israel as a Jewish state, the right-wing government has allowed the settlers, as well as all its citizens, to carry arms. These heavy weapons are often used to force the eviction of Palestinian people from their homes. So Hammas' argument goes, they are no longer unarmed therefore are legitimate targets. 

  

                                                     The Gaza Strip is often described as an open Prison.

Since October 7th, we have seen daily death and destruction filling our TV screens. The news comes to us with warnings about "images you are about to see". It is horrendous time we are passing through. Suffering is all around us, and we are living in a world of military power and fear. The war in Sudan is ongoing, and so is the war in Ukraine. Now we have the Israel-Hamas war. Before long, we would no longer need warnings of forthcoming images. We would not be traumatised but immune since human nature can only comprehend so much at a time.   

It is an axiomatic fact that this is a different type of war than has gone before; it is well beyond another round of conflict. This war, Israel says, is existentialist, and to some extent, I agree with them. However, here is the catch: who is Israel fighting? Israel is flirting with a dilemma of its own ma ing. The roots of the conflict lie in its right-wing policies and its hawkish attitude toward the Palestinian people, which continues unabated despite the international outcry of condemnation that had gone on for years. Hamas say they are freedom fighters, and they waged this war against the oppression of its fellow Palestinians, a battle for liberty and against the apartheid regime of their opponent. The terrorist attack of early October killed and kidnapped many civilians, which, three weeks later, they still hold as hostages, invited Israel to unleash a war for its survival and to maintain its oppressive regime, continuing to justify its actions by the "right to defend ourselves.", while the Palestinians without any recourse, from the Arab world, continue as hostages to for une. But the sad part for Hammas is that it is difficult to fathom the other motives that go beyond gaining world attention and further notoriety and what Hammas hope to gain out of this war.  

Israel sees itself in a catch-22 situation, so much so that it has to deal with three entities at once: Hostages, civilians and a terrorist organisation. The ramifications of not crushing terrorism could affect not only Israel but the entire Western world. Painful to Israel, it may be, but its savage response can only have a limited effect on terrorism locally or in the international arena. But its action will be partly responsible for igniting terrorism in other parts of the world. Coupled with the rhetoric of support mainly from Democratic governments with high immigrant populations, it ignites the catalyst of extremism and radicalism. 

In effect, as I see it, Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of America and Europe. Hamas is a convenient litmus proof of terrorism, an organisation recognised as such by Europe and America, so they must be dealt with on terrorists' terms, which is how the Western world sees things. American and European wholehearted support is on the same terms. The problem, though, is how Israel weeds out the good from the bad. The consequent barrage of shelling gives evidence it was divorced from its allegiance to its citizens as well as the citizens of its allies. That leaves Israel under an ethical yoke, a burden of how to deal with such a situation.   Israel is a functioning democratic state, holding to moral ground responsible to itself and the international community, and it has a moral responsibility towards its citizens, first and foremost.  

It finds itself unable to filter out the primary target; it realises unravelling the problem could be expensive, being forced to reject the concern over the lives of those hostages, as of all other Western hostages. They must remain the collateral damage caught up in unfortunate circumstances of war. War is Realism focused on an objective, a question of military power remaining central. Hence, it must sacrifice them as soldiers tied up in the conflict. From Israel's perspective, a pursuit of realpolitik, a zero-sum war: a matter of kill or be killed. For Israel, it is not just a war but an eradication of a foe; bloody it is, but there is no other way. The options are limited, as Israel recognises. That is for the present, but the future could be far more ominous. Israel will need to address the regional network of threats and armed groups backed by Iran now menacing the country on multiple fronts. These include threats from Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, as well as from within the Palestinian population in the West Bank. That is aside from the dangerous power vacuum left behind.

But there is also this worrying irony. The majority of the Palestinians are Muslims, and the fanatics amongst them and those around the world see this conflict as a war against Islam. Their Islamic world has hijacked this conflict and is trying to turn the sting on its head into a Jihad; the extremist among the mainstream has morphed Hamas' objectives into a struggle to defend the Muslim faith. American and European enthusiastic support of Israel and against the Palestinian flag, a political move, is interpreted as an anti-Islam action. This motive would most likely awaken the hibernating terrorist cells in Europe and America.   

But that is not all. Where would we go after the extinction of Hamas? With the revival of discrimination against the Palestinian people in place, there remain scores to settle by both sides. If history is anything to go by, Military machismo has never solved an ideology. The Berlin Wall, the Iron Curtain and Soviet communism came down by persuasion and an ideological change driven by smart power, which compensated for an impossibility. Extravagant principles, nasty politics, and the arrogance of power are demons that rob any leadership of choice. New approaches are in desperate need.  For a mighty military power like Israel to stop portraying the Palestinians as worthless, negating such an extremist outlook must sit at the core of commonsense policies. To formulate a carrot-and-stick strategy, look at recent events as a call for more negotiations, multilateral diplomacy and less reliance on military power and force.