Oliver Kamm's Guardian article today (18 August) gets it right first time, and should be compulsory reading for all those who have been berating Tony Blair for not having demanded an immediate unconditional cease-fire from the first day of the Israeli counter-offensive. The only additional point that Kamm omits is to expose the fallacy which assumes that if the British government had 'demanded' a cease-fire, a cease-fire would immediately have taken place. In fact it's hard to see how such a demand could have affected events on the ground in any way.
I realise that Mr Kamm's views are sometimes controversial (and that this is an example of that). But being controversial doesn't make them wrong.
Those who have posted dissenting comments on earlier Ephems items here — and in doing so have often opened up informative and challenging debate — may be assured that their silence on this item will not be taken as indicating their agreement. If you feel like continuing these discussions I suggest that you do so by adding comments to the earlier item on 'Who won? No-one, yet'. Comments on specific points in Oliver Kamm's piece are of course welcome either here or on the Guardian's Comment is Free blog where the Kamm article also appears.
Footnote for nerds: this is the first post that I have written in MS Windows Live Writer (Beta), an editor or virtual word processor specially designed for writing and uploading blog entries. It's easy to download, install, and (so far) use. Hat-tips: Owen's blog (how did you guess?) and Jack Schofield's Newsbytes in Technology Guardian of 17 August 06.
Brian
As promised, or threatened, in a recent Ephems post about the impending demise of the Swan Hellenic cruise line, I have now put a not-too-serious diary of our first and last Swan Hellenic experience on this website (here), along with putting on the Web some photographs taken during the cruise (here). This Baltic cruise included time ashore in St Petersburg, Gdansk, Tallinn, and several Nordic capitals and other ports, prompting reminiscences about visits to some of these cities in earlier years, as well as reflections on the relative attractions and drawbacks of Swan Hellenic (resolutely serious and scholarly) compared with more down-market cruises (sometimes beginning to resemble Butlins-on-Sea). De gustibus non est disputandum, or anyway not much.
If you're brave enough to view the pictures, here once again is a Dummy's Guide to navigating around them. When you have loaded the Flickr page of thumbnails (miniatures of the pictures), click on the first thumbnail to see a larger version, then click the left-hand thumbnail of the two (or three) over on the right of the screen to see the next one, and so on. To see any picture full size, click "All Sizes" at the top of the main picture; then use your browser's 'Back' button to get back to the previous screen for the next picture. To see all the pictures as a slideshow, click “View as slideshow” to the right of the three thumbnail pictures on the right of the main picture, underneath the heading “BrianB’s Photostream”. Otherwise just click whichever individual thumbnails on the first page that opens look worth viewing full size, remembering that there are three pages of thumbnails of cruise pictures (click 'Next' at the bottom of each).
Any questions?
Brian
Now that the fighting has stopped, however briefly, Hezbollah and its many supporters in and outside Lebanon are claiming a great victory over Israel, while in Israel an agonised post mortem (or post mortes) is already going on to establish who's to blame for what Israelis seem determined to regard as the country's first defeat and humiliation at the hands of its enemies.
However, there are two reservations to be made about these apparently consistent verdicts. First, it's far too soon to judge which side has 'won' the encounter: meaningful verdicts need to be suspended until we know how long and to what extent the cease-fire holds, and above all the extent of successful implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. Secondly, if the major elements of res. 1701 are implemented (a big 'if', certainly), Israel's principal objectives in launching its counter-offensive will have been achieved and Hezbollah's capacity for resuming its attacks on Israel will have been 
effectively degraded or even eliminated. It would be difficult to interpret such an outcome as a defeat for Israel or as a victory for Hezbollah. Conversely, if attempts to implement the resolution fail (for whatever reason, whoever is responsible for the failure, and leaving aside the likelihood of many setbacks along the way), Hezbollah will be free to replenish its armoury of rockets and other supplies, it will retain its presence in southern Lebanon up to the Israeli border, and it will be free to resume its attacks on Israel, in which case it will emerge as effectively the winner, and Israel as the loser. So everything is still to play for.
Whatever happens, though, it's safe to say that Lebanon is the loser, having suffered appalling loss of life and other casualties along with extensive damage to its homes and infrastructure. It will depend on your personal prejudices whether you lay the principal blame for this disaster on Hezbollah for its policy of siting its rocket launch pads in heavily populated civilian buildings and districts (hoping that reluctance to risk heavy civilian casualties will inhibit Israeli attempts to destroy these legitimate military targets): or on the Lebanese government, in which Hezbollah is represented, for its failure/inability (delete whichever does not apply) to regain control of the south of its country from Hezbollah and to disarm Hezbollah as required by the Security Council; or on Israel for inflicting the damage and killing the civilians, especially if you have evidence-based reason to disbelieve Israel's repeated claims to have attacked only military targets, including Hezbollah's re-supply logistics and communications, and to have done everything possible to keep civilian casualties to the minimum consistent with achievement of its military and political objectives. In practice no doubt all three have to share the blame, but in what proportions is a matter for, in the end, subjective judgement.
Read as a whole, the Security Council resolution undoubtedly identifies Hezbollah attacks on Israel as the root of the problem, and the need to prevent it from resuming them as the principal aim of UN action. This reflects an analysis much closer to Israel's — and indeed to Lebanon's — than to Hezbollah's, Iran's or Syria's, or to that of Israel's more draconian critics in the West. It's also consistent with the Council's earlier resolutions. Of course it's possible and easy to attribute this perceptible slant in the resolution to the bargaining power of the United States in its role as Israel's patron and protector. But the resolution was adopted unanimously. It's intended to produce an outcome that's in sharp contrast to what would have resulted if those who were clamouring for an 'immediate and unconditional cease-fire' at the outset of the Israeli counter-attack had had their way.
There's a useful paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of resolution 1701 here — followed by some dissenting comments.
Brian
Extract from Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu interview with BBC Television, (?) 13 August 2006:
Interviewer: "How come so many more Lebanese have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?"Netanyahu: "Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?"
Interviewer: "Why not?"
Netanyahu: "Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany's aggression. And in response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima. Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children. Perhaps you have another question?"
Game, set and match to Bibi.
Thank you to an American (anglophile) friend for sending me this. It's been posted on other blogs, including seraphicpress.com, but I haven't been able to track down details of the exact date or time of the interview, which BBC channel it was on or who the BBC interviewer was. Some blogs attempt to rebut Bibi's argument, and of course it's true that his analogy isn't exact — analogies rarely are. But his main implied point is irrefutable: once a country resorts to military operations, whether defensive or offensive, it will use such a level of force as it deems (or finds) necessary to achieve its political and military objectives; attempts to persuade it to reduce that force level (and thus to increase the risk of military failure) by reference to considerations of proportionality are as likely to be heard attentively in Tel Aviv now as they would have been in London in 1939-45 or in Washington from 1942 (oops).
I would lay a very modest bet on Bibi being prime minister of Israel again within the month.
Brian
A few disconnected items that I have come across recently.
- The aircraft bomb plot foiled: "Suspicion falls on al-Qaida" — Guardian headline, 12 Aug 06. Well, what do you know! Those spooks don't miss a trick.
- American friends of ours were remarking to us recently on the generosity of the US in helping Britain's war effort during World War II under the Lend-Lease scheme. They were incredulous when we told them (1) that at the end of the war the US had driven a hard bargain by insisting on early repayment of all the money lent despite the ruined state of Britain's economy as a result of the war: and (2) that we were still paying off that debt more than half a century later in 2006. The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Ruth Kelly, said in a written answer on 28 February 2002 (Hansard Column 1441W) that under a 1945 Agreement the United States Government lent the United Kingdom $4,336 million (around £1,075 million at 1945 exchange rates) in war loans, including a Lend-Lease loan facility of $586 million (around £145 million), representing the settlement with the United States for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid and for the final settlement of the financial claims of each government against the other arising out of the conduct of the Second World War. Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments starting in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary, an option exercised by the UK six times so far. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government were due to be completed on 31 December 2006, unless the UK had to defer any more payments meanwhile. As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was still outstanding. With generous friends like that, who needs to be helped up from the canvas? (Hat-tip: Owen's blog post and its link to the Hansard excerpt.)
- My usually admirable MP is among the British Muslims who have written to the prime minister calling for "urgent" changes to UK foreign policy. In an open letter they say British policy is putting civilians at increased risk in the UK and abroad. "Attacking civilians is never justified. … We urge the Prime Minister to … change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion." This argument is both fallacious and dangerous. Civilian casualties are inevitable in any war, whether in a just cause or not, as the Geneva Conventions recognise, and as we saw when NATO bombed Serbia to encourage the Serbs to stop beating up the Kosovo Albanians. The fact that some aspects of British foreign policy offend and anger some sections of the British population is no reason in itself to change the policies: almost every government policy offends someone. People were angered by Mrs Thatcher's poll tax, but they didn't channel their anger into blowing up tube trains and aeroplanes. There may be many valid reasons to argue for changes in UK policy in Iraq (especially) and Lebanon (more questionable), but hoping thereby to appease British Islamist terrorists can't be one of them. We really can't allow British policy to be determined or distorted by terrorist threats — even if the Muslims' letter comes perilously close to saying we should.
- There's a partial exception to the ban on carrying liquids into an aircraft cabin as hand luggage for fear that it may be liquid explosive disguised as something innocuous like mineral water or whisky: baby milk is allowed on if the passenger drinks some of it in the presence of a security officer to demonstrate that it's not liquid nitroglycerine or worse. This conjures up the unusual spectacle of a young man in his 20s or 30s, travelling on his own and clutching a baby's bottle full of what appears to be milk. That would take a bit of explaining, wouldn't it? So the intelligent terrorist will have to take along a baby — and also, for even greater verisimilitude, a woman playing the part of the baby's mother — to have any hope of deceiving the security people. The question then arises: what happens if the baby is required to have a sip of nitroglycerine? It's too awful to contemplate.
- ‘ELT’ used to stand for English Language Teaching. No more. Now it stands for the ‘Extra Large Telescope’ proposed to be built in Chile. According to reports it “could be used to address mysteries such as what the first objects in the universe were, how many types of matter exist and whether there are any other Earth-like planets in our galaxy.” Presumably if it can do all that, it will also be able to tell us whether there is life after death and reveal the Purpose of Life, but perhaps only on an exceptionally clear day. Incidentally, isn’t there something slightly odd about dignifying a term such as ‘extra large telescope’ with capital letters and that ELT acronym? A bit like labelling a new publication as an FIB (Fairly Interesting Book) or hearing the television weatherman forecast a QND (Quite Nice Day).
And two updates (13 August 06):
- George W Bush referred to Muslim extremists as "Islamic fascists", and has been angrily denounced for doing so, on the grounds that the remark was divisive, unhelpful, and likely to give offence. It looks perfectly all right to me. He was clearly referring only to extremists, not to all Muslims: and I see no reason to go out of one's way to avoid giving offence to fascists. It's strong language, and the term is often devalued by being used to describe anyone with whose views the speaker disagrees. In this case it seems to me entirely apt. Think Taliban! (On the other hand, Bush also said we (or they) were 'at war with' Islamic fascists, and there we part company. Whatever the nature of the conflict, it's not a war, and it's dangerously misleading to misrepresent it as if it is.
- On a completely different note, I hope lots of other UK bloggers enjoyed the stirring performance of the Shostakovich Fourth Symphony on Saturday evening (12 Aug.) by the European Youth Orchestra, with the splendid old trouper Vladimir Ashkenazy conducting. For once the BBC had the sense to televise this Promenade Concert as well as broadcasting it on Radio 3, perhaps because 90 per cent of the European Youthful musicians of the orchestra were gloriously telegenic. There were so many beautiful blondes with shoulder-length golden hair playing their hearts out on their various instruments that I began to wonder if they had been cloned by some mad musical scientist to constitute the perfect orchestra. At this evening's Prom (Sunday) the Philharmonia played the sumptuous Ravel G Major piano concerto under the great Finnish conductor Esa-Pekka Salonen, with François-Frédéric Guy at the piano. That slow movement really makes the hairs on the back of the neck stand up. Ravishing Ravel! I feel sure that Gershwin knew the piece well, although he died only five years after the Ravel concerto was premiered in the US. Sadly, the BBC didn't televise this Prom, perhaps because the mature musicians of the Philharmonia might be rather less telegenic than the European Youths. Or could the Philharmonia ladies be just as young and just as glamorous?
Please send in more such curiosities, fallacies and irritants as comments.
Brian
The impending demise of the up-market, culture-vultures’ formerly British cruise-line, Swan Hellenic, at the hands of its philistine American owner, Carnival Corp., deserves a regretful obituary and a footnote in the history books. Not only did Swan Hellenic offer to
many retired British ambassadors the opportunity of a free holiday afloat in return for delivering a few weighty lectures on the countries being visited: it also enabled the (mainly English) middle classes to enjoy the minor luxuries of cruising, in the nautical sense, without being forced to mingle at mealtimes with the lower orders, few of whom seem to be attracted by the prospect of being lectured at by retired ambassadors, bishops, professors or art historians. A certain middle-class smugness certainly characterised the sole Swan Hellenic cruise recently enjoyed by this blog (as paying passenger, not lecturer), but in spite (or because) of this it was a uniquely British, or perhaps English, kind of holiday and it’s lamentable that its only ship, Minerva II, should be renamed and converted next April into a floating casino and Revuebar so as to increase the return on capital for Carnival Corp’s shareholders. They presumably don’t know, still less care, that such iconic figures as Anthony Powell and Mortimer Wheeler used to be patrons of Swan Hellenic cruises, as well as all those ex-ambassadors with their solemn (or less solemn) lectures. So, farewell, the good ship Minerva II!
(Actually, Minerva's swimming pool is far too small, so perhaps it's not such a tragedy after all. And no dancing girls….)
PS: Watch this space for Ephems's Diary of his and his spouse's sole Swan Hellenic cruise, and his holiday snaps from it. Coming Soon.
Bush and Blair are right about Israel, Lebanon and the demands for an immediate cease-fire. There! I never thought I would start a piece with those words. But I'm afraid that all the humanitarian clamour for an instant end to the fighting is misconceived, however widespread in Europe and the bien-pensant British media.
The images of small children's limp bodies being dragged from the debris after an Israeli bomb or rocket attack, of parents' grief, of the suffering of the dreadfully badly maimed and wounded, are almost unbearable, and the natural instinctive reaction to them is to demand that this murderous activity be stopped at once. But even humane instinct isn't always a safe guide to policy, and reliance on it can be a kind of self-indulgence, especially on the part of those living in comfortable safety in the west. The Israeli response to constant low-grade aggression by Hezbollah and Hamas (and their Iranian and Syrian backers) may yet open up an opportunity for some kind of interim and provisional settlement that could reduce the level of violence, perhaps for months or even years, but only if the Israeli campaign is allowed time to build up sufficient pressure on Hezbollah to sue for a reasonably durable peace. An unconditional cease-fire forced on Israel now would save a few lives in the immediate future but at a cost of many more when a triumphant Hezbollah (and probably Hamas) resume their assaults on Israel within a few short days or weeks, with the prospect of an interim political settlement further away than ever.
Our media are full of vehement criticism of Israel's 'disproportionate' response to Hamas and Hezbollah aggression, with very little indication of what the critics would regard as a 'proportionate' response — still less of what such a 'proportionate' response could hope to achieve. Refusing to call for 'an immediate and unconditional cease-fire' is a bit like denouncing motherhood or apple pie, but in present circumstances it's the right and brave position to take. I sent the following dissenting comment to the author of one of the articles in today's newspapers (no prizes for guessing which and whom):
>>I'm unhappy, but not unduly surprised, to find that I disagree, sometimes profoundly, with almost everything in your article. That's worrying in view of the obvious reality that you are an expert and specialist in the area and I'm (thankfully) not. The difference between us goes right back to root cause and effect. Where you blame the current disaster on US-UK distraction by the 'war on terror' from pursuing the road map solution, I blame the fundamental irreconcilability of the opposing parties, one side bent on the total destruction of the state of Israel by force if necessary (and accepting that necessity), the other determined to survive as a state at whatever the cost in blood, treasure and international opprobrium. If there's to be a settlement by diplomacy rather than force, as we'd all want, one side or the other has to modify its position. For obvious reasons, Israel won't and indeed can't modify its commitment to its own survival: it could make concessions such as removing illegal settlements, releasing Palestinian prisoners, compromising over Jerusalem, etc., and would probably do so if it saw any hope that such concessions would lead to acceptance by its neighbours of its right to exist inside secure borders; but at the moment any such concessions would be gobbled up without any movement towards acceptance of Israel's right to exist at all. The inescapable logic of this, it seems to me, is that if there's to be any progress towards a political settlement both Hamas and Hezbollah will have to give up their current illegitimate objectives and terminate their attacks on Israel. Of this there's no sign that I'm aware of (apart from an indication of willingness to recognise Israel by one Hamas leader, not so far followed up, and probably anyway inoperable in the present conflict). What do we expect Israel to do in the face of constant attacks (on civilian as well as military targets) designed to force it off the map as a state entity? [The Security Council has ordered the government of Lebanon in a mandatory Chapter VII resolution to disarm Hezbollah and prevent it from further attacking Israel.]* The Security Council has called in resolution 1559 for "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias" (clearly including Hezbollah). So far from complying, Lebanon has Hezbollah ministers in its Cabinet. UNIFIL is supposed to be keeping the warring sides apart but is apparently totally ineffective. Since the international community continues to fail to stop Lebanese and Palestinian (ie mainly Hezbollah and Hamas) aggression against Israel, Israel has little choice but to try to stop it itself.
I was initially inclined to condemn the Israeli response to the rocketings and kidnappings (or 'captures') of its soldiers as 'disproportionate' and unnecessarily brutal, but on mature reflection I doubt if that means anything very much. As an old friend of mine remarked in a recent e-mail, –
The question of proportionality is much over-blown as well in these latter days. I guess we did ask this question of ourselves, but considerably after 1945, above all with reference to Dresden. It seems to me the wrong question. In 1945 the aim was to bring an end to a war which we had not sought. The burning of Dresden did not contribute to that aim – predictably – and was at best a serious and tragic error of judgment. In Israel now, the commonly-agreed objective is to put an end to a long-continuing story of harassment, relatively low-level but cumulatively intolerable. To answer each rocket fired by Hezbollah with a rocket fired from Israel, or to reply to the kidnap of two soldiers by the kidnap of two “freedom fighters” (the proportionate response for sure) will not advance this objective. Hezbollah’s tactics can only be answered by “disproportionate” means.
That seems to me incontrovertible. The current military campaign by Israel is aimed at removing a real and immediate threat to its own existence as a state, by driving Hezbollah back from the border to a point where most of its rockets can't reach Israel and by destroying as much as possible of Hezbollah's rocket capacity. This is a war against a well armed and actively aggressive military force and it's no good throwing up our hands in fastidious horror when we see on our TV screens evidence that women and children are among its victims. Which side has the responsibility and motive for attacking the other? Which side desperately wants an end to violence and the ability to live in peace with its neighbours? Of course Israel is to blame for specific incidents involving horrific loss of life, as well as for its intransigence over settlements and other issues, but even these have their origins in the perceived need to defend itself. Of course we all want to see an end to the war. But can it really be maintained that stopping Israel from completing its current mission, ie to drive Hezbollah back and destroy its military capacity for further aggression, by imposing an "immediate ceasefire" which leaves Hezbollah free to resume its attacks whenever it feels ready to do so, is going to save more lives even in the medium term than allowing Israel to finish the job? Of course the Israeli action is 'inflaming Arab opinion' and outraging bien pensant opinion in much, but not all, of the western world, and Israel pays a heavy political price for that. But if it's the price that has to be paid for survival, who's to say that it's 'disproportionate'?
You don't have to buy George W. Bush's simple-minded stuff about good guys and bad guys and the war against the terrrrists to recognise that this is not a simple issue, and not necessarily or even probably one best resolved by knee-jerk demands for an instant cease-fire. For once Bush and Blair have a strong case on the immediate issue. If Hezbollah and Hamas and their Arab and Iranian backers can't be persuaded by international diplomacy to modify their aggressive war aims, perhaps the prospect (or reality) of a military hammering by the Israelis (if that's militarily and politically feasible) may be the only remaining way to convince them, however terrible the cost in civilian and other lives. As my friend pointed out, it was a cost that we accepted in 1939–45. And standing back wringing our hands while forcing Israel to give up its military response to patent aggression before it has been able to achieve its essentially desirable objectives may well prove even more costly in the end.
It's very odd, I think, the way that reasonably (or very) well informed and decent people of good will can have such radically divergent opinions about the same international crisis where there's little or no disagreement about the facts. It's just a pity that some of the knee-jerk 'immediate cease-fire' brigade — certainly not including yourself, I hasten to say — succumb to the temptation to impugn the motives and assail the moral character of those who take a different and perhaps more sophisticated view.
*I am grateful to a former colleague for pointing out to me that UNSCR 1559 was not in fact adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter and is therefore not legally mandatory, as noted by a former FCO Legal Adviser in a letter to The Times on 28 July 2006 when I was away overseas, or rather on them. Apologies for my original error.
PS: For a different and nuançé account of the situation, still on the whole critical of Israel but allowing for a different and tenable view, I recommend Ian Black's article in today's Guardian. Reading Black's analysis side by side with other, more fiercely partisan and sometimes shriller pieces is interesting and instructive."<<
Brian
