Saturday, May 19, 2007

Crying for votes?

The following interview between presenter, Eddie Mair, and journalist and former Conservative MP, Matthew Parris, was broadcast on the PM programme on BBC Radio 4 on Thursday, May 17, 2007 (my transcript from the audio recording; my emphasis):
Matthew Parris: This wasn't sombre: it was fake; it was absolutely ghastly; it was vile; it was loathsome; it was really toe-curling. Why do MPs do this kind of thing? They're getting worse and worse! They all come out in red AIDS ribbons, then they all come out in pink "cancer awareness" ribbons, and they start wearing their red poppies about four months before Remembrance Day - it's all completely false.

Eddie Mair: Don't they care?

Parris: Some may care, some may not care. It's nothing to do with caring. It's because they want to live like the common people, they want to feel like the common people, they want to be in touch with the common people, and they read the common newspapers and they decide that this is what the common people feel, and they get all caught up with it, and it's all to do with trying to associate themselves with the common herd, and they're not part of it: they're politicians.

Mair: Is the next step along from the argument you're making that, in fact, they are, in some way, just looking for our votes?

Parris: I don't think it's as crude as people thinking, "Ha, ha, ha! I don't really care about little Maddy, but I'm going to wear a yellow ribbon 'cause it'll get me votes." I think it's a matter of thinking, "Ah, this is the spirit of the times, this is the Zeitgeist, this is what everyone feels, this is what we're all feeling, this is what I feel," and, by then, they probably believe it. But there's something hollow about it all. Tony Blair hasn't helped by starting to reel off the names of soldiers killed in action at Prime Minister's Questions - can you imagine Churchill doing that?

Mair: Isn't he doing that because, well, I don't know why he's doing it but, if he didn't do it, wouldn't he be accused of ignoring, or forgetting, the soldiers, as he has been in the past?

Parris: He certainly wouldn't be accused of ignoring soldiers by not reading their names out in the House of Commons, because it never was done before. He started it and, I suppose, part of his motivation is genuine. It does also make it rather harder for the Leader of the Opposition to chip in with any kind of aggressive remark when the Prime Minister has just remembered the death of a soldier.

Mair: What about Gordon Brown today, having a meeting with some of the missing girl's relatives?

Parris: Oh, I don't know... you feel so sorry for the relatives and, of course, you feel so sorry for the parents and, of course, on one level, this level of public and media grief is, I suppose, a good thing. Yet there is something disgusting about it and there is something disgusting about politicians wanting to tap into it. I think a little bit of dignity, a little bit of reserve, a little bit of distance, except perhaps for the constituency MP - that's a matter for them.
It's rare I hear or read a piece like that and agree so profoundly and exactly with the sentiments of the interviewee. I can't stand the way some MPs carry jet packs around with them so that they can get onto any passing bandwagon no matter how high it's already piled with other MPs, journalists and "celebrities". (Yes, that word does demand quotation marks.) I wish they'd keep their comments to something like, "My sympathies are with the family but I feel that this is a private matter for them, so I will not comment any further." At the risk of sounding excessively common: as if!

Monday, May 14, 2007

The Middle East's new buzzword: restraint

I have always been fascinated by politicians' use of language, and the word "restraint" has recently come to light as an interesting example of one of two terms having similar dictionary definitions but entirely different political nuances. The second term, in this case, which I believe has been replaced by "restraint" is "inaction". If a politician is accused of "inaction", he/she might as well resign; if however, a politician exercises "restraint", they might well be congratulated by many people as having avoided the second deadly sin of politics: being reactionary.

This wordplay has become all too apparent in the Middle East, particularly relating to the actions of the Israeli Government. Past Labour administrations, such as that of Ehud Barak, were often accused of inaction in the face of terrorist activity. However, the current Kadima-led government of Ehud Olmert has, according to recent reports, been exercising restraint. I think that this shows a shift in Israeli public opinion towards the Left (or, I should say, the Israeli Left, which is rather different to the Left as it is understood in other parts of the world). In my opinion, this can only be a good thing, as it means that the government can refuse to retaliate for Palestinian attacks and rely on being congratulated for their restraint rather than being lambasted for their inaction. Hopefully, this will lead to a situation where Israel no longer feels the need to retaliate for individual attacks, and can concentrate on preventing future loss of life on both sides.

Define "Ceasefire"

An exceptionally short-lived truce was broken today as Palestinian factions renewed their conflict and the interior minster, Hani Kawasmeh, resigned. Meanwhile, the disquiet resulting from the publication of the interim findings of the Winograd Report has intensified. I believe that these events exemplify the difference in culture between those on the Israeli side of the "green line" and those on the Palestinian side. More specifically, I think it shows the difference in approach taken by those opposed to the government of the day on each side.

Many Israelis, a significant majority according to some opinion polls, want Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to resign. However, they have not formed militias and fought pitched battles on the streets of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Tiberias. Yet that is exactly what some Palestinians opposed to the Hamas-led government have done. Obviously, those firing automatic weapons at each other on the streets of Gaza do not represent the majority of Palestinians but their existence is, nonetheless, worrying.

This begs the question: Why do Palestinians opposed to the Hamas-led government not air their grievances peacefully in the same way people do in Israel and, for that matter, the UK? Unfortunately, that is a question I have yet to answer.

Furthermore, those in Israel who are calling for Olmert's resignation do so because they believe that he led them into a pointless war or, at the very least, grossly mishandled an otherwise-just war; those Palestinians opposed to their government simply do not like Hamas. They may well disagree with suicide bombings and rocket attacks on civilians as a tactic, but they do themselves no favours by expressing such views via the medium of violence. So I would argue that Israelis have more justification to oppose their democratically-elected government than Palestinians have to oppose theirs (although both sides obviously have the right to oppose whoever or whatever they wish), yet one side does so peacefully and the other through the barrel of a gun.

I should point out that there are regular peaceful protests in many Palestinian towns, but they will always be overshadowed by the minority who take up arms at the slightest provocation.

It's been a long time...

...since I wrote anything here. Sorry to those of you who were enjoying (or ranting about) my earlier posts. Anyway, I've decided to start writing again, so here goes...