Prime Minister's Questions - 4th September

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

MPs appeared rusty as the first session of Prime Minister's Questions began after the Summer recess. It comes as no surprise that the dominant topic in the House was Britain's response to the Syrian civil war, following the recall of parliament for a debate on military intervention last week. Cameron and Miliband debated in a calm manner, agreeing on points that a diplomatic solution must be reached by convening talks between the warring parties and the nations backing them. Cameron couldn't resist a shot at Miliband, ending their exchange with a complaint that Miliband divided the house on a vote 'that led to a vote'. Many members of the House called for a more concerted effort in bettering relations with Iran, who were named as complicit in an attack on the British embassy, following the election of a new president. Cameron argued that Britain needed to be cautious but that he had taken steps towards this.

Asked about why the Tories won't back a mansion tax but continue to implement a bedroom tax, Cameron retorted that Labour needed to learn what a tax was before ridiculing Miliband about whether they would reverse it if they were in Government and demonstrating how to nod in response. Miliband showed no sign of Labour's commitment post-2015, showing an unwillingness to show their true views, either because they would be unpopular or so as not to reveal their tactics. Prime Minister's Questions only return for a few weeks before party conference season puts it on a hiatus again.

The UK wants to stay away from bombs, not give 'succour' to Assad

Photo by Steve Rhodes 

The Government's defeat in the House of Commons over taking military action in Syria demonstrates a rare circumstance where the public are listened to by the MPs and widespread unwillingness to create another situation we are still overseeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, as another day begins since the use of chemical weapons, allegedly by Assad, the propaganda war will begin and we will be told that we have failed the Syrian people by voting against; the UK Government will denounce its citizens as misinformed, misguided and attack anti-war MPs for their ill thought-out and 'despicable' (as Michael Gove shouted) choices. But this is not the case.

By voting no to military action yesterday, that is all MPs, representing us, have done. With public support for military intervention sitting at figures between 8 and 12 percent, depending on your source, the case for it was always going to be undermined. And that is because people recognised the failings of the Iraq and Afghanistan war: the massive loss of lives; the lies told by the Government; and, the failure for the conflicts to end after over a decade. In addition, the increased prevalence of whistleblowers, such as Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning, have raised the profile of the war crimes and terrible consequences of Western military intervention. Many now have the opinion that using bombs as a way of ending a conflict only makes the situation worse. Perhaps, the deep misunderstanding of the way to end a conflict has caused deep resentment by groups in the Middle-East and hence given way to the increased membership of terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda. I am in no way condoning the activities such organisations partake in, but I can see a possible motivation; you wrecked our country with your imperialist use of your military muscle, we'll do what we can to show you how reckless you have been. 

It is for these reasons that people oppose military intervention in Syria. The motion presented to the House yesterday, including the amendment, did not present us with the dichotomy that we are told we were presented with. It was not so simple as black and white that it was either bomb Syria or sit back and watch Syria bomb itself. The third option, ignored by the motions and the amendments, although recognised by many members of the house in their speeches, and unsuccessfully proposed as an amendment by Green MP Caroline Lucas, was that we used more peaceful, negotiating tactics, based on humanitarian aid and diplomacy to end the conflict. A far less bloody solution than was proposed by the leaders of the three main parties in the house. It was this view that was ever-dominant throughout the debate yet, ironically, no-one was given the choice to vote for it. The closest that MPs could get to voting for peaceful action, was to vote against the motion and the amendment, which called for military action.

Hence, the opinions that we are presented with today, that we have 'let the people of Syria down', we have 'ruled out any action' and that we have somehow given 'succour' to Assad completely disregard this third option. It is unfortunate that we live in a world where the two most powerful nation's leaders are bloodthirsty, hotheaded and quick to hit the launch button. At least, with some stroke of luck, a majority of thirteen members of the House swung the vote in the way of sense.

The Vote Today Presents Us With a False Dichotomy

 Video provided by the BBC

Today's recall of parliament reveals Cameron and Obama's deep want for imminent attacks in Syria, in response to the alleged use of chemical attacks by the Assad regime on its citizens in recent times. However, the debate uses a false dichotomy, presenting the options of military intervention or to sit back and watch as black and white. These are not in fact the only options available to us as a country and there are further choices we can make to act in a moral manner.

Cameron used a speech which he did not intend to use and, as such, his rhetoric seemed forceful, defensive and led by his own briefing. His body behaviour, too, demonstrated a deep desire to come across as in charge of the debate, as his decisions were undermined by his own party members, other members of the house and public opinion. Deafening his ears to criticism that he brought the house back for a pointless debate, Cameron set out his argument for the motion and military intervention, citing the Joint Intelligence Committee's report that it was 'highly likely' that the Assad regime were those responsible for the attack. However, he had to concede that this motion was based on a judgement, not evidence, and therefore that there was no 100% certainty about it. He dodged questions asking how an attack on Syria would actually deter a dictator, who has already showed a lack of shame and worry, from continuing to use chemical weapons. Driven by the legacy of the Iraq War, Cameron refuted any claim that an attack in Syria would be similar, saying there would be no troops on the ground, and no attempt at regime change. As members around the house quizzed him on his statement, Cameron maintained his claim that 'if nothing is done, we're more likely to see chemical weapons used' and, strangely, argued that there was no need to look at evidence throughout.

Cameron thumping the desk rather too audibly. #Syria

— Politically Me (@Politically_Me_) August 29, 2013

Cameron's speech was seen widely as relatively weak and as reluctantly sticking to a brief, with many speculating that there was still a want to launch an attack soon. What was clear from Cameron's speech, though, was that he was certain that the conclusions of the JIC and the US were enough to launch a unilateral intervention without the approval of the UN Security Council.

Cameron Syria speech in summary - This is a judgement. Will Assad be more or less likely to use chemical weapons if we take no action?

— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) August 29, 2013

Terrible speech from Cameron - no answers on how to avoid escalation, no answers on breaking international law, no case made

— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) August 29, 2013

Miliband presented a far more heartfelt, solemn and emotional response to the motion as he tabled Labour's amendment, which included a requirement to hear the results of the UN tests, and that there be compelling evidence for the case. Despite a difficult staff, Miliband commanded a well-thought-out speech, but still presented one side of the dichotomy, refusing the idea that anything other than military intervention is viable, simply stating that we needed to be 'clear-eyed' before heading into war. Labour are not ruling out military intervention. Although he demonstrated far greater understanding of the real priority of such an intervention, Miliband failed to take notice of the fact that a diplomatic peace-keeping solution poses far less risks to life than military intervention of any sort. What did ring true though is that Miliband seemed more in touch with the Conservative Party than Cameron was, demonstrating the deep dissatisfaction from Tory MPs with Cameron's original war intentions.

Wow a hell of a lot of conservative back bench MPs are in agreement with what @Ed_Miliband is saying on #Syria. Cameron looking lonely.

— Phillip Jones (@Phillip_D_Jones) August 29, 2013

'Evidence should precede decision, not decision precede evidence' proclaimed Miliband to choruses of support, over some members complaining about the delay in response. Any response should be time-limited, have clear objectives and a legal course and for that the UN should not be seen as simply as an inconvenience, he stated. Yet, Miliband's speech, despite proving better than Cameron's, seemed just a bid to follow the appropriate course, and avoid a repeat of the Iraq war. The cynics among us will argue that this is a result of wanting distance from Blair and Iraq or wanting to shine on the good side of the argument, playing to his party's and the population's concerns. But a hidden message was made apparent; even if the UN Security Council do not approve military action, the Labour party would be prepared to commit to it anyway.

It comes of no surprise that Nick Clegg did not make a statement, but his party members were particularly vocal, with many sympathetic to Labour's amendment, or the amendment, not discussed, tabled by Caroline Lucas, detailed below.

George Galloway, ex-Labour, now Respect, and anti-war campaigner, spoke passionately against supporting either side of the war, referencing the video uploaded by the Free Syrian Army of a commander eating a man's heart, and the war crimes of the Assad regime. He continued by arguing against ordering our army to war, claiming that only 11% of the population agreed with such a decision. Shouting at the house, Galloway seemed to oppose almost anything stated yet seemingly proposing no solutions.

George Galloway: 'Can ever a British government have imagined sending its men and women to war with support of just 11% in public opinion?'

— James Chapman (Mail) (@jameschappers) August 29, 2013

Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, tapped into perhaps what is being felt by the majority of citizens across the country as she noted that military intervention is not the best way forward for either the Syrian citizens at the centre of the violence, or the citizens of the UK. She noted that the original motion put to the House by the Prime Minister had changed due to the demands of other MPs and the citizens of the country. Lucas also stressed that any military intervention must require any sanctioning by the UN Security Council, even with the Labour amendment, and that this is simply seen as an inconvenience rather than a due course of justice. She declared that the summary of the legal advice granted to MPs was unacceptable and that members should be given more. She stated that she remained to be convinced that any military action would deter rather than escalate the horrors within the country, questioning what we would do if Assad retaliated to our attacks rather than back down. She argued that only a diplomatic solution would address the situation - unfortunately, her own amendment will not be given any time to be discussed today and thus, members of the house are given only black and white options. Members are 'misguided' when they state that not intervening with our military, ignoring the case that can be made using diplomacy and humanitarian aid.

What seemed to overarch the debate was the question of 'Why now?' as MPs wondered why the use of chemical weapons should cause an escalation of our response, when the deaths of over 100,000 did not. Surely, one death is as equal as another death. Furthermore, there was detailed concern regarding the response of the Syrian regime, and the further implications of any attack by Western nations. Indeed, a BBC correspondent has tweeted images of Israel handing out gas marks as they prepare for the potential of Syria retaliating to an attack by Western nations by using weapons in Israel.

Stocking up on gas masks in #Israel. Big queue in Tel Aviv distribution centre. Concern but no panic pic.twitter.com/OVE2NlDEo5

— Richard Galpin (@Richardgalpin) August 29, 2013

It is extremely pleasing to see that MPs voted, twice, against any step towards military intervention. Many MPs, during the debate, recognised the third option that is an increased attempt at diplomacy, humanitarian aid and forcing the two sides apart peacefully to find a solution. Unfortunately, the result in the Commons means there will be no action of that sort either, but we can at least relish in the fact we have not started another conflict which results in the deaths of many innocent people, and the potential for wider conflict across the world.

We must now seek the third option of peaceful diplomacy, stop angering the Arab world and reduce our reliance on the Western might. We must also hope that the US do not take the unilateral route they have announced they are considering today.

I wrote to my local MP to detail my concerns around the vote today, the text of which can be read below:

Dear MP,

I am writing to you as a constituent with deep concern regarding the possible military intervention of the UK and other parts of the western world in the Syria crisis and I am hoping that you will listen and take my concerns into account when placing your vote in Parliament this Thursday.

Although I agree that the Syrian crisis is an incredibly appalling situation and that there is a strong case for intervention of some sort, I believe that military intervention is a dangerous path to head down. Learning from the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, we must note that these conflicts have not yet ended, people continue to die each day and deep resentment of the Western world has come about as a result of these confrontations.

Furthermore, with hundreds dying each day in Syria, the case for intervention should be centred around their suffering rather than the might of the West. If we are to bombard the country with bombs and cruise missiles, we must ensure that they are only used against targets which sustain the country’s military capabilities - no citizens should be killed in the process. We must also provide on-the-ground humanitarian aid to victims of the violence on both sides and seek to reunite displaced children in the country and those who have fled - this should be our highest priority.

However, it is also incredibly important that satisfactory evidence is reached to ascertain that the use of chemical weapons was under the instruction of the Assad regime and that a multilateral agreement is reached with the UN or NATO before we commit to any military intervention. In the meantime, we should act to ensure that those injured are given proper treatment and attempt to implement a ceasefire.

My preferred outcome of the debate on Thursday is for the UK and other western nations to act as peacekeepers, working with either side of the conflict to reach a diplomatic situation, allowing for no more bloodshed and, hopefully, a consensual agreement that can lead to a better situation for all those involved. Most importantly, it will allow the absolutely necessary humanitarian aid to be granted and for displaced children and adults to return to their war stricken country and find their loved ones.

Too many have died in this conflict, and the UK should not oversee or be the cause of any further deaths.

I do hope this message reaches you before the vote and that you take my concerns into account.

This article is a work in progress and will be updated as further developments are made.

Syria; the Unwinnable War

(Warning: this article discusses potentially traumatising and upsetting topics. Furthermore, the article will be using graphic and distressing images. Please do not read on if you feel you will be negatively affected by this.) 

 Image by Mark Rondeiro

 

The Syrian Civil War has progressed into one that is hard to find a solution for. After two years with the world looking on, the battle between the Assad Regime and the Free Syrian Army is just a massive bloodbath; the normality of war has taken hold and it appears that a concept of right and wrong has been forgotten. The war is not unwinnable because it will not end, but because no matter which force is successful, there is nothing redeeming about their actions and, thus, no joy or reason to celebrate. Truly awful atrocities have taken place in the country and it is too late for them to be taken back.

Hard as it may seem, morality can exist in war. The basic principles of just war theory allow us to gain an idea of what this may look like: to be undertaken in a last resort and all actions a proportionate response to the initial provocation. I’m sure we can all agree that there are certain acts, such as rape and torture, that are abominable regardless of the situation. Not even war can justify some actions.

Yesterday, the French Government confirmed that the chemical weapon, Sarin, a nerve agent, has been used by the Syrian Government during the, now, 27 month conflict. The weapon causes the nerves in our body to act differently, inevitably resulting in our bodily deterioration (The Atlantic provides a comprehensive understanding here). The unnecessary force against the protestors in the Arab Spring was detrimental far beyond what anyone expected. A peaceful and legitimate protest has become an easily avoidable massacre of 120,000 civilians, some of those from neighbouring countries or drafted in forces. The continued use of Government forces, large-scale weapons and, now, use of the chemical weapons stock show how mindless the Government are in the slaughter of their own citizens, and anyone else caught up in the process.

Baker (in the May 23^rd issue of Time) discusses, however, the true horrors of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) displayed in a video proudly uploaded to YouTube. The video, below, should be watched at your own peril. The man in the video, whose war name is Abu Sakkar (but whose real name is Khalid al-Hamad), appears to have killed a soldier and seems adamant on disgracing the pro-regime male further by cutting the heart and a lung from the body, proclaiming “I swear we will eat from your hearts and livers, you dogs of Bashar” and then raising one of the organs to his mouth and eating from it.



This one video, arguably, represents an extreme version of the mentality of soldiers in this war; we can only hope that this act of cannibalism is an isolated incident and is not repeated throughout the ranks. However, what can be confirmed is similarly horrific actions (if you ignore that murder in itself is a horrific action). Public executions, sexual assaults and the torture of children have been prominent throughout the prolonged conflict.

Furthermore, Western Intervention is looking increasingly unlikely, particularly from the USA; memories and lessons from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as an inability to back a side. The “War on Terror” has shown that even our own soldiers, who we praise and call “heroes” are not clear of blood on their hands. Bradley Manning, currently on trial in America for leaking US military documents to Wikileaks, provided the below video to show how US soldiers were so eager to play with their toy guns and got frustrated when control took too long to give permission. In the video, we see that soldiers mistake cameras for weapons and even RPGs and decline faster, more hygienic and more successful treatment for two injured children. Those “bastards”, as we hear them called, were shot down during their innocent everyday lives by bloodthirsty soldiers.



But for none to get involved is to not challenge the distressing events of the war and to allow them to continue with no consequences, disregarding the many lives that are being ruined. However, even if, hypothetically, Western nations improved their code of conduct and rules of engagement for war, it would be difficult for them to choose which side of the battle to fight alongside of. To fight on the side of pro-regime supporters would be to justify the systematic and institutionalised murders of its own citizens and to help in the process; but to fight alongside the FSA would be to condemn the Government, help with the murders of citizens and to install the leadership of those who have committed such immoral actions, essentially legitimising them. Neither of these are attractive or moral in themselves, so a third option must be discovered, but this is harder than it may seem and requires multilateral agreement (which itself is hard to find.)

However, as the war continues to spill into the neighbouring countries of Turkey, Israel and Lebanon, this difficult decision looks increasingly like it will need to be made. War must be avoided at all costs, and intervention does not necessarily mean of the military sort. Large-scale mediation can, if properly implemented, work. But, regardless of this fact, the conflict needs to be ended as quickly and with as few lives lost in the process as possible. However, with continued criticisms of existing conflicts in the Middle-East and the atrocities committed by both sides of the war, the war appears simply unwinnable.

Starvation vs. Detention

Image by Casmaron

The strongest prisoner rebellion at the United States’ detention camp only serves a reminder of the truly horrific side effects of the War on Terror. Having accepted that the prison is too much to bear, over one hundred of the one hundred and sixty six prisoners are taking part in a hunger strike with many now being force-fed. The strike has grown over the previous month to become the biggest prisoner protest since the detention camp’s establishment in 2002 and it is rightly capturing the attention of citizens across the globe.

It is far from the first time that we have heard of the alleged human rights abuses of prisoners at the camp. Yet, unfortunately, the fluid world easily disposes of the many stories that make our hearts ache; just think of how long it was until you forgot about Kony 2012 and you’ll realise that it won’t be long before this story disappears from the mainstream media and we return to our blissful lives, unaware of any further developments at the prison.

The protesting prisoners, whether intentionally or not, are highlighting the alleged injustices that are being committed; detention without trial, torture, poor living conditions and now being force-fed against their will. To these people, it would appear that a slow death is far better than living in the arrangements given to them; I don’t blame them. To be isolated from your life for over a decade without having been called guilty or innocent is a life of torture. Some have already committed or attempted to commit suicide.

But when the camp will close is unknown. Despite Obama’s 2009 inauguration pledge to close the camp within a year, four years on, the camp remains open, the prisoners remain detained and the politicians remain reluctant. Congress has voted again and again against closing it in. Yet, this week, Obama has been coerced into releasing a fresh statement of his determination to close the prison even though his power to do so is essentially non-existent without the backing of the two political houses.

Perhaps most shocking of all is the profile of the detainees. Too large a number were teenagers when captured and have spent their transformation into adults in the horrible conditions of the camp, held despite no court declaring them guilty. Barack Obama claims it “is inefficient, it hurts us in terms of our international standing, it lessens co-operation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts, it is a recruitment tool for extremists, it needs to be closed.” I call it inhumane, abusive and unjustified; it should never have been opened.

The Human Rights Act that we take for granted in the United Kingdom is unfortunately not global. The extradition agreements in place between the United Kingdom and the United States are luxurious compared to the forceful abduction of these terrorist suspects. Our prisoners don’t have the vote; these prisoners don’t have lives.

Mainstream media continues their focus on the War on Terror with the atrocities committed in Iraq and Afghanistan whilst Guantanamo Bay continues to be ignored. With little pressure on their backs, Guantanamo Bay will continue operating, the United States congress will ignore their consciences and the torture will not cease.

There’s a reason the camp is in Cuba and not on United States mainland.

Disaster Strikes Again

Image by The Bay Area’s News Station

This week has been ridden with disasters and terrorism - the Boston explosions and today's gunfight, the explosion at the Texas fertiliser plant, the ricin-laced letters sent to a US senator and Barack Obama, and the earthquake in Iran. Unfortunately, they are the harsh reminders of what a fearsome world we live in. We should not be subject to such worries yet, on a daily basis, many are; anti-terrorism legislation, constant presence of surveillance devices and security announcements on public transport serve to remind us.

This week’s Boston bombings are a horrible event for the hundreds of thousands citizens to endure. Twice this week, ordinary people have been warned to not leave their homes and been left stranded with a continual threat of death, disaster and destruction to their relatively peaceful lives. Causes for celebration became crime scenes and, as is far too common in the United States, a place where people go to learn, became a place where people should avoid for their own safety. It is not a situation that anybody should have to experience.

Hence, it is ludicrous that people should use such time to promote their political message. As support and solidarity was expressed from people across the world, others took the opportunity to attack the media for their coverage of the events in contrast to the coverage of other equally-important events. On Twitter, there were messages along the lines of “the media are forgetting that people die in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria everyday”. But this is a sad argument. Yes, it is true that people do die in these sorry situations, but there is no reason to devalue the deaths and injuries of those affected in other crises. 

Perspective: 3 killed in Boston but in Iraq last month, 271 people were killed in similar attacks m.aljazeera.com/story/20134156…
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 18, 2013

Indeed, media coverage of events in war-struck zones is not as high as it should be and there are areas of the world that the media do prioritise over others. This is wrong and this is unfair, but the death of anyone is a highly important event. It is important to provide coverage to any distressing events, but to capitalise on the coverage of one act of terrorism to protest the lack of coverage of another is disrespectful.

Yes, media coverage of deaths in conflicts (Syria, Iraq) is disgracefully poor. But doesn't lessen the tragedy for injured/dead in Boston.
— Eytan Halon (@eytanhalon) April 15, 2013

The world is a truly dangerous place in which to live. Damage is done to individuals and their environment almost constantly, and the right coverage is never given, and equal coverage will never be possible. We are experiencing a period of complete upheaval of our beliefs and faiths and this is not something that should be ignored. We should not tolerate any threat to life, but to use one horrific event to protest about another is simply petty. Save it for another day.

“The Sworn Enemy”

 Image by Parker Knight 

Tell me, when I ask you to think of two nations of the world who are notoriously known for their enmity, what names come to your mind? Israel and Palestine? USA and Russia? USA and North Korea? It is the latter that has come particularly into the limelight most recently yet it is quite a strange situation. If we consider them to be archenemies, it is questionable as to how their long-term hostility has not resisted a manifestation into direct conflict. So, what is it that’s stopped a usually arms-friendly nation from sending their warships over and demolishing the republic?

Their history spans a relatively long period in the timeframe of American history with relations being negative from as early as the mid-nineteenth century, before the nation split into the North and South regions, when the region closed its borders to Western trade and attacked ships sent to negotiate treaties. These relations worsened during the Cold and Korean wars and on creation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the United States refused to and continue to refuse to grant diplomatic recognition to the country.

As we look over the last century, we can see the US comfortably waging war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and, most recently, intervening in Libya. It would appear that wherever the US saw a threat, they would pre-emptively act on it and reduce the threat considerably. It is debatable, but perhaps they have stopped short of colonisation and imperialism whilst “democratising” and “stabilising” their battlegrounds. If they’re not waging a war physically, it’s almost certainly some form of psychological and propaganda warfare and a constant assertion of US dominance and power throughout the world – even if they wanted to, no country is left believing the US weak, including the UK. However, it appears the same cannot be said of North Korea.

Recent tests of satellites, long-range missiles and nuclear weaponry in the North Korean region has heightened tensions across the world. Yet, in vast contrast to the US intervention in Afghanistan which was just under a month after the 9/11 attacks, any direct action from the United States is restrained. Perhaps it is the worry of response from the allies, China and Russia in particular. Yet, this is unconvincing; the lack of support from allies did not stop them in their advancement into Iraq in 2003. Perhaps they have learned their lesson from the global criticism of this attack, and this is the reason they have also not intervened to stabilise Syria.

Yet, when Kim Jong-Un is blatantly threatening the United States with technology that could be used against Hawaii immediately, and an invasion that the American people are more likely to approve of than Iraq, it is bizarre that the US administration are able to hold so much restraint on their actions; it is not something they are so well known for. Perhaps we are seeing a change in attitude under Obama, even though his own home turf is supposedly directly at threat, with the whole Western coast in sights within three years.

Is this a continuation of the cold war that emerged between the United States and Korea in the mid-twentieth century, or is this a new cold war? Whatever it is, it is definitely a case of both countries preparing to flex their muscles and show off about their fabulous warheads that they could launch at any time, and maybe something we should be worrying about. Perhaps we’ve already responded with a secret deployment of troops in the South region who should be worried about their “final destruction”.

Technorati Tags: north korea,usa,war,invasion,cold war,nuclear,weapons

Using Rockets as Diplomacy

Photo by dombook11 on Flickr

At what point did the use of dangerous weaponry become diplomacy? It’s only distressing that the military fire and air raids from both sides of the Israeli-Palestine conflict is the chosen way forward, causing unnecessary civilian casualties from arbitrary attacks on mix and match locations. War simply isn’t necessary nor acceptable, and full retaliation is never the first form of response, regardless of the provocation; that’s what diplomacy is for. But that’s the only ceasefire we’ve seen.

The Israeli-Palestine conflict has, in some form, been occurring since the earliest 20th century. Maybe that makes it understandable as to why violence is always the first call of duty, but at what point, and why, did they give up on the much more passive diplomatic route? And what seems most absurd to me is that this is essentially a religious conflict! Surely the ultimate method for peacekeeping is anti-war in essence? This conflict poses so many questions that simply should not be questions.

Whether you are pro-Israel or pro-Gaza, it is agreeable that murder, torture and loss of innocent lives is the least desirable of all options available there? And we definitely don’t want to escalate this into a major war with international intervention. The actions of Israel and Gaza are not acceptable; too many lives have already been lost, and no more blood should be shed.

And yet I can’t help but notice the media’s portrayal of the crisis. Almost one-sided, yesterday, the BBC news page had a tiny article on the attack on Gaza and the death of the Hamas leader, yet today, there was breaking news as Gaza responded. A huge lack of neutrality. If we don’t take a neutral stand, there will forever be bias, and hatred over one of the sides. If there’s hatred, there’s less likely to be peaceful resolutions. It seems self-perpetuating.

Aside from this, UK officials met today to discuss the Syria crisis also and the appropriate action to take, perhaps a stepping stone towards military intervention to bring the year and a half long conflict to an end. Understandably, UN resolutions and agreed ceasefires have ended, but it’s still not right to send in the army. I know there will be many arguments as to why we should intervene; the view point that are many innocent lives at risk and being lost that should be defended. Yet, that resolution would still involve some dying, and the prioritisation of some lives over others is not a justification for me. There’s got to be a better alternative, but the world is so apparently trigger-happy, we haven’t found it yet.

Perhaps the saddest part for me is that the turmoil in our country is political and economic, yet in many places across the world there is the tragic loss of life due to a militant attitude. If only we lived in a universal society where the former was the highest complaint anyone made.

Answer me one question; why is the nature of humans to fight?