By Robert Misik
VIENNA, Austria , Feb 9 2024 – A bloodbath is taking place in the Middle East, and yet, the world is embroiled in absurd debates. One is tempted to say, paraphrasing Marx: here the tragedy, there the farce. The German-speaking world – and Germany in particular – takes a decidedly pro-Israeli stance, while in other societies, an equally dubious anti-Israeli position prevails.

At the beginning of October, Hamas and other Islamist groups not only launched an attack from the Gaza strip but also carried out a cruel massacre. Over 1 200 people were killed, most of them civilians, young party people, including many peace activists: the majority of the inhabitants of the affected kibbutzim belonged to the Israeli left.

Horrific war crimes were committed, which cannot be justified as ‘collateral damage’ of legitimate resistance. Nor can we ignore the fanatical ideology of radical Islamism, which eliminates empathy and justifies acts of bloodshed.

However, due to the bloody history of at least 75 years of conflict and the recent history of occupation policies and the irresponsible escalation strategies of Benjamin Netanyahu’s radical right-wing governments, the attack met much approval within the Palestinian population. Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have been weakened for years, and their support is dwindling.

Rights and obligations

The Israeli government responded with massive military action and retaliatory strikes. This, on the one hand, was to be expected – no nation in the world could not have reacted to such an attack – but, on the other hand, the war immediately escalated in a horrific manner, which was, unfortunately, also to be expected. Around 27 000 people have now lost their lives in Gaza. Entire families have been wiped out by the bombardments.

Under international law, Israel has the right to respond to such an attack, but every country also has the duty to act ‘proportionately’. What is proportionate – in relation to threats or to defined, legitimate war aims – is a complicated legal debate.

But it is largely undisputed that the shrugging acceptance of tens of thousands of civilian casualties cannot be justified, even in the fight against a ‘terrorist’ organisation. And excessive force that literally razes Gaza to the ground, which destroys the livelihoods of the civilian population, the supply of food and the medical-care system, is itself a war crime.

Put quite simply: to a bestial war crime by Hamas, Israel has itself responded with war crimes. And the matter is made worse by the fact that leading members of Israel’s government have engaged in appalling rhetoric, from Manichean religious-war language to vile fantasies of mass expulsions and ‘ethnic cleansing’.

Just as the history of the conflict has for decades provided both sides with arguments for viewing the other as the perpetrator and their own side only as the victim, the same has been true in these recent months. Palestinian figures see Hamas’ actions as a justified reaction to oppression, while their Israeli counterparts see excessive (and criminal) military action as a legitimate response to terror.

Yet, that is precisely the problem. Those who paint a Manichean, black-and-white picture fall far short of the terrible complexities of this conflict. There are horrible pogroms in the West Bank by right-wing extremist settlers and members of the army, and violent expulsions of Palestinians and an expropriation of their land. And there are terrible acts of violence involving unspeakable cruelty by Palestinian militias.

But the world is increasingly sorting itself into vocal supporter groups of fans and followers. In many societies, this is obviously about their own history and identity. To be more precise: a complex reality is being accommodated to the apparent requirements of their domestic politics of remembrance — and if it doesn’t fit, it is being made to.

Manipulation strategies

Germany and Austria have adopted a decidedly pro-Israeli position. First, this can be explained by their own history, the fatal past of genocidal anti-Semitism which escalated under the Nazi regime into the Shoah against European Jews.

This is why Germany has been an ally of Israel for decades: the former chancellor, Angela Merkel, declared it an important element of the German Staatsräson (reason of state). This is why there is, properly, a strong sensitivity in Germany towards anti-Semitism and the threat to Jews and why the identity of Israel as a safe ‘home’ for all Jews is supported.

The extreme right in both Germany and Austria supports Israel today, on the one hand because Israel’s opponents are Muslims (whom it hates even more than contemporary Jews) and on the other because this is the best way to immunise itself against the accusation of being ‘Nazi’.

In addition, however, the Israeli right – above all the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his party, in alliance with right-wing Jewish lobby groups abroad – has sought in recent decades to denounce almost any criticism of Israeli policy as ‘anti-Semitic’ and thus morally eliminate it.

In German-speaking countries and some other societies with a very well-founded sense of guilt, this manipulation strategy has worked: nobody wants to expose themselves to the suspicion of being seen as a person with morally reprehensible opinions — in other words, as an anti-Semite.

Susan Neiman, a Jewish-German-American intellectual who is director of the Berlin Einstein Centre, recently wrote a major essay in the New York Review of Books in which she spoke of a ‘philosemitic McCarthyism’ that had taken on the characteristics of ‘hysteria’.

Things had gone so far that ‘non-Jewish Germans publicly accuse Jewish writers, artists and activists of anti-Semitism’. As in the early postwar campaign of denunciation of ‘anti-Americanism’ led by Senator Joseph McCarthy, dissenting views are silenced.

In extreme cases, this has had bizarre consequences. Conferences have been banned, at which large numbers of people with the most diverse views should have been exchanging them. In Kassel, an Indian art critic and curator lost his position because he had signed a (rather stupid) Israel boycott petition years ago, despite having unequivocally condemned ‘the terror unleashed by Hamas on 7 October’ as a ‘terrible massacre’.

A Berlin theatre removed from its programme a humorous play (The Situation) about the conflict of narratives by the Austro-Israeli playwright Yael Ronen — now that the situation ‘puts us on Israel’s side’.

‘Israel’ has become a ‘trigger point’ in the culture wars, as with ‘wokeness’ or similar themes elsewhere. ‘Part of a proper culture war is … to want to misunderstand the other side at all costs’, the critic Hanno Rautenberg wrote recently in the Hamburg weekly Die Zeit, about the German debates on Israel: ‘One wrong word or even just one unsaid word and you’re threatened with discursive excommunication.’

No doubt there are forms of criticism of specific Israeli policies that carry more than just anti-Semitic overtones, but in most cases, this is far from reality. As a result, German public opinion is oddly many times more ‘pro-Israeli’ than Israeli public opinion itself.

Good and evil, oppressor and oppressed

If there is one-sidedness in the discourse in the German-speaking world, this certainly exists in other parts of the world as well, and not only in Muslim or Arab countries such as Turkey, Iran, Jordan or Indonesia.

In the United States, Britain and other societies, significant sections of the public and the academic left cultivate their own one-sidedness. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is described in categories of imperialism and colonialism, into which it hardly fits.

The ‘post-colonial’ left has adopted theories, some of which are quite inspiring and have opened up productive new intellectual horizons, but it has radicalised them into Manichean delusions. The world is divided into oppressor and oppressed — and, in this simple-minded worldview, the person identified as the ‘oppressed’ is always right. Since oppressors can never even comprehend the experiences of the oppressed, the oppressed must always be proved right.

From there, it is only a small step to the final clicking into place: the Palestinians are black / ‘people of colour’, the Jews are white, and in Israel, they are beacons of ‘US imperialism’. Even if one cannot find everything Hamas does to be right, as an authentic expression of the resistance of the oppressed against the system of oppression it is ‘right’ in a higher way. Israel, on the other hand, is a ‘settler-colonialist’ project.

Since, in this perspective, the idea of free debate is a ‘bourgeois ideology’ only invented to support the ruling power, dissenting views should be delegitimised or, if necessary, shouted down, because what is deemed ‘sayable’ and what ‘non-sayable’ is merely an effect of power.

Just as in Germany, any criticism of Israel is labelled ‘anti-Semitic’ and thus compromised as morally culpable, so any defence of Israel’s right to exist is dismissed as an expression of ‘racism’.

Amid all this dogmatism, one gets the impression the whole world has gone mad. While Germany unconditionally supports Israel, as an imperative of its own guilt and exterminationist anti-Semitism, American, British and other discourses are also characterised by the imperatives of their own history: racism, the genocide of indigenous populations, the enslavement of black people, imperial exploitation, colonial oppression and exploitation. Fragments of the real are used arbitrarily and pressed into the scheme of one’s own politics of memory, for which ‘identity politics’ is then actually the opposite decryption.

Most of the time, all this has less to do with real Palestinians and real Israelis than who and what one wants to be — how one wants to see the world and oneself in it. One poses as a heroic fighter against anti-Semitism, or against racism and colonialism, while the external appurtenances of reality become at most the set for this show of the self, as props in a play— to whose script reality must be made to conform.

Source: Social Europe and International Politics and Society (IPS)-Journal, Brussels.

Robert Misik is a writer and essayist. He publishes in many German-language newspapers and magazines, including Die Zeit and Die Tageszeitung.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 9 2024 – As the UN continues its never-ending saga on the reform of the Security Council (UNSC), one of the political anomalies that keeps cropping up is the absence of Africa, among the five permanent members (P5)—a privilege bestowed only on the US, UK, France, China and the Russian Federation.

The African continent, which has been shut out, consists of 55 states with a total population of over 1.4 billion people.

Providing a list of his “priorities for 2024”, Secretary-General Antonion Guterres singled out the reform of the Security Council— a lingering issue in an institution which is nearly 79 years old—when he told delegates on February 7, “it is totally unacceptable that the African continent is still waiting for a permanent seat”

Guterres said: “And indeed our world badly needs: Reform of the Security Council; Reform of the international financial system; the meaningful engagement of youth in decision-making; a Global Digital Compact to maximize the benefits of new technologies and minimize the risks and an emergency platform to improve the international response to complex global shocks.”

Responding to a question at a press conference during the South Summit in Uganda last month, Guterres was critical of what he called “a clear injustice, a flagrant injustice, that there is not one single African permanent member of the Security Council’.

And, he said, one of the reasons was that most of the countries of Africa were not independent when the UN institutions were created.

“But in recent public declarations, I’ve seen the permanent members being favourable to at least one African permanent member. United States said so, the Russian Federation said so, China has been positive in this regard, UK and France too”.

“So, for the first time, I’m hopeful that at least a partial reform of the UN Security Council could be possible for this flagrant injustice to be corrected, and for Africa to have at least one permanent member in the Security Council”.

But it is not guaranteed, he cautioned, because nothing depends on the Secretary-General. “It depends exclusively on Member States, on the General Assembly, but for the first time I think there are reasons to be hopeful.”

Meanwhile, the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region, which has over 670 million people, with 12 Latin American countries and 21 self-governing territories, mostly in the Caribbean, is also missing from permanent membership in the UNSC.

Martin S. Edwards, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, School of Diplomacy and International Relations, at Seton Hall University in New Jersey, told IPS: “I think that we should be talking seriously about issues of representation in the Security Council, but the challenge is how to move from rhetoric to a serious proposal”.

There are different ways to frame this, he pointed out.

“The G20 added the African Union (AU) as a member, and of course, we could also think about regional seats along the lines of the Human Rights Council. But this having been said, the key issue is what is the ask.”

The US position has been to increase regional representation without a veto. “I realize that this might not go as far as advocates would want, but since there is already a significant movement underway to delegitimize the veto, insisting on the veto would put those efforts at cross purposes.”

But the bigger and unaddressed challenge for all proposals for reform is that they do not respect the realities of US domestic politics.

The US Senate would have to approve any proposed change to the charter, and the window for any proposed reform is now largely shut because of the realities of the US electoral calendar, declared Edwards.

Responding to a question at a news briefing last month, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the Secretary-General’s opinion is reflective of a lot of people’s opinion.

“That you have a whole continent, where in fact, a lot of the UN’s peace and security work is ongoing. And no Member State from that continent sits on the body that discusses and decides policies relating to peace and security”.

“And he’s talked about the injustice of those countries that were former colonies that were penalized twice — once by being colonized and second, by not even being at the table when the architecture of the multilateral system was discussed.”

“How Member States decide on Security Council reform, what that will look like, will be up to them. He’s made his feelings known, and I think it’s not the first time he’s said something like that. But in the end, it will be up to Member States themselves to decide. And whether or not they take into account the view of António Guterres is, we will see”, said Dujarric.

Purnima Mane, Past President and Executive Director, Pathfinder International and a former Assistant Secretary General (ASG) and Deputy Executive Director (Programmes) at UNFPA, told IPS the Secretary-General’s regret at the injustice of the absence of even a single African permanent member of the Security Council opens up a long-standing debate on the relevance of the original framework used in the appointment of permanent members of the Security Council.

She said the discussion on the relevance of the current permanent membership of the Security Council is not new but has not really gone anywhere. The issue of the relevance in the modern world of permanent membership based on historical reasons has been somewhat circumvented by establishing the possibility of non-permanent membership.

“The SG in his comments stated that each of the five current permanent members have expressed their openness to this change but when the rubber hits the road, coming to clear rules of implementation will not be easy.

She posed several pertinent questions: “Will the existing rules of the UN SC membership be altered entirely? How many such permanent positions will be created? And will this membership be limited to a specific country like the current membership, or based on regional allocation like Africa as the SG suggests? “

And what will be the process for determining which country gets this privilege and will it also be in perpetuity or a rotating membership like the non-permanent membership? asked Mane.

She said there will be lots of questions will come up, including the willingness of the five permanent members to act on what the SG refers to as their openness to having an African country join the cadre of permanent membership, and the response from other regions which are not represented in the permanent membership currently.

“Knowing how complex the processes in the UN can be, any change process in the membership model is bound to be long, complex and resisted by some countries. If the issue of justice and fairness is to be raised, UN member countries might well question the relevance in today’s world of the need for maintaining the historical reasons for the establishment of permanent membership of the Security Council” she argued.

This certainly opens the door for a broader definition of membership of the Security Council, challenging the hierarchy of privileges which might be seen as unjust in today’s world.

The UN could certainly benefit from a discussion of this nature. Even if this discussion will involve lengthy and complex processes to come to any resolution, it is surely worth the effort in order to ensure that UN membership is seen as equal, in essence, in the eyes of all its members.

https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/02/reform-un-security-council-good-try-lost-cause/

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);