Freedom Struggles in The Middle East (1)

Many readers have asked me for a response to the Freedom Struggles being waged in the Middle East. I’ve put the most frequently asked questions (and some questions inferred from what people have written in their emails) into a Q&A format, in an attempt to provide a coherent personal response.

This is the first Q&A on the subject, and in the coming months I’ll write a second Q&A, based on developments as they occur.

Q. Is the uprising in the Middle East about poverty?

A. No. The Freedom Struggle is, from everything I can study, and all of my experience, about justice and injustice: about freedom and tyranny. Poverty and unemployment are contributing factors, but they are not the primary cause. The spark that started the prairie fire of rebellion was the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi, in Tunisia. The first published version of the events surrounding Mr. Bouazizi’s death held that he was a 26-year old graduate who had been unable to find work in his field of study. He had been unemployed for some time, and had finally set up an unlicensed fruit and vegetable stand in order to make some living money.

Early witnesses said that the police demanded bribes, and when Mr. Bouazizi couldn’t pay them, the stand was confiscated and Mr. Bouazizi was beaten. Friends and relatives of Mr. Bouazizi argued that it was those acts of injustice on the part of the police – an agency that was one of the oppressive front lines of the dictator Ben Ali’s regime – that drove Mr. Bouazizi beyond the point of endurance, and led to his decision to burn himself to death. Throughout the period of his unemployment, it seems that Mr. Bouazizi had made no protest. His first, fatal protest was a direct response, that account stated, to the injustice he’d experienced at the hands of the police.

Subsequent investigations by journalists from The Observer and The Guardian have shown that the initial version of events is flawed, and perhaps even completely concocted. Investigative journalists learned that Mr. Bouazizi wasn’t in fact a graduate of any university. The police woman allegedly involved in “brutalizing” Mr. Bouazizi has vehemently denied the allegation, and has protested that she harmed Mr. Bouazizi in no way at all. It has also emerged that Mr. Bouazizi had experienced some psychological problems, well before any incident involving his produce cart.

While the facts surrounding Mr. Bouazizi’s death now seem to tell a different story to that which was first released across Tunisia, and eventually to the world, it was the first story – of a graduate who couldn’t find work despite his qualification, and whose attempt to make a living through his produce cart had failed because of police corruption and brutality, leading to Mr. Bouazizi’s tragic suicide that led to the uprising.

The story – the narrative account of unequal opportunity and brutal, corrupt suppression – was what ignited the fires of rage and rebellion. In other words, even though this story turned out to be wrong in detail, it was exactly the kind of story that reached into the hearts of Tunisian people and compelled them to rise up against the dictator. This was not a story about poverty and unemployment alone: this was a story about repression, corruption and state brutality meted out by a tyrannical system that pulled the resources of the nation into the hands of a privileged elite.

The calls echoing through Tunisia and then Egypt were for liberty, freedom, and an end to tyrannical repression marked by arrest and confinement without trial, torture and forced confessions, and extra-judicial killings.

A second major strand throughout the days of resistance was the theme of forcing an end to the corruption that had come to characterize the autocratic regimes. At its heart, corruption is an evil and causes pain because it is unjust. The call for an end of corruption is also a call for an end of injustice. This is the core of the Freedom Struggles, in my view.

Q. Why do so many television and newspaper reports only talk about the economic factors and unemployment as the cause of the “unrest”?

A. It is both mendacity (in most cases) and the unconscious result of cognitive dissonance (in other cases) among Western journalists and commentators that has caused them to characterize the Freedom Struggles as being all about poverty and unemployment. They know that isn’t true: they can read the signs people are holding up, and they can hear the chants calling for freedom and the end of tyranny. They know that people are in the public squares demanding their freedom, and the fall of the dictators who have oppressed them.

For decades, the West has not simply tolerated these dictators, but also enabled them, by selling them weapons and sophisticated armaments, by doing lucrative business deals with them, and by welcoming them in international forums as equals. For Western journalists now to admit that these dictators have only been able to kidnap, arrest, imprison, torture, repress and kill their people through the active support of the Western nations would be to admit that their Western governments have been, and still are, accomplices in those crimes – which, of course, they are.

Q. But don’t you think that economic issues are very important in the unrest?

A. As I said, economic issues are certainly a factor. The turning point in the Egyptian power struggle between the masses of people and the ruling elite surrounding the dictator, Mubarak, was the point at which the union movement announced that it was planning a general strike. This is an economic catalyst, and it proved decisive. The vacillating army chiefs caved in when they contemplated a national strike.

But even there, the essence of that economic factor was a question of justice and liberty. For decades the trade unions in Egypt were little more than organs of the state apparatus, headed by Mubarak cronies, and used to stifle dissent and debate. When even those arms of the Mubarak intimidation machine turned against the dictator, the army was forced to take a more active role.

Now that Mubarak has been driven from office, we can expect to see a lot of industrial unrest in Egypt, as the formerly docile and complicit trade unions begin to truly represent the interests of their members. This will not be evidence that the Freedom Struggles were driven by economic issues: On the contrary, the new unrest will prove that the economic issues have assumed prominence after the liberation that allowed people to speak openly of their economic discontent.

Q. Why have Western governments worked with and supported these dictators and their regimes?

A. The Cold War realpolitik philosophy was simple: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if the enemy of my enemy is himself an enemy of peace, freedom, and democracy. In their determination to secure access to the world’s oil, and to eliminate the threat of nuclear attack from the Soviet Union, Western nations allied themselves with dictators in South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The masquerade played out in the world’s press was that the Western nations were siding with such nations because they were against communism. This was obviously untrue, because the same Western nations engaged with China, a communist nation, in their efforts to isolate and eventually bring down the real perceived enemy – the only enemy with the capability to launch a mutually assured destruction strike against the USA – which was the Soviet Union.

The fact is, the Western nations didn’t care if the political cat was black or white, fascist or communist, a Chinese dictatorship or an Egyptian dictatorship, so long as it was against the Soviet Union, with its arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at US cities. The West looked the other way, while their allies, the despots and tyrants, spilled the blood of their own people: worse than that, the Western nations actively abetted the dictators by supplying them with armaments, money, and lucrative business contracts – all in the name of realpolitik, of bringing down the Soviet Union.

From the outset, that realpolitik was self-destructive and worked against the real long-term interests of Western nations. While those Western nations prated about democracy, freedom and human rights on the world’s stages, they consorted with brutally repressive dictators, conducted immensely profitable business deals with them, and sold them the very armaments with which they repressed their people.

You either believe in democracy, or you don’t. The Western nations tolerate democracy in their own countries, but they don’t actually believe in it. When the Party of Islamic Salvation (the FIS) was about to claim victory in free, fair and democratic elections in Algeria, the Western nations applauded the military who seized power and declared the election void. When the Palestinian people voted for Hamas in what was, arguably, the first free and fair and internationally monitored election in the Arab world, the Western nations refused to accept the result, and refused to acknowledge Hamas as the democratically elected choice of the people.

There is no doubt in my mind that the FIS in Algeria and the Hamas party in Palestine are repugnant parties advocating repugnant policies. Would I be happy to see them elected? Of course, not. But you either believe in democracy, or you don’t. And if you truly believe in it, you have to accept the fact that sometimes, the party that has been elected will be a repugnant one. The American people, after all, voted for George W. Bush twice. Did I think him to be a repugnant candidate for the presidency of the USA? Of course, I did. Was I happy to see him elected – not once, but twice? Of course, not. But I believe in democracy, and that means I must accept that sometimes the people will elect repugnant candidates, such as Bush, with repugnant policies.

The basic principle that should guide every rational and reasonable-minded advocate of democracy is a paraphrasing of Voltaire’s maxim: I disagree with your choice of political party, but I will defend to the death your right to choose and to vote. Anything less than a complete commitment to democracy undermines the potential for democracy to exist at all, and returns sooner or later to haunt those who have allowed themselves to water down their commitment for reasons of a vested interest. The people involved in the Freedom Struggles in the Middle East are aware of how weak and morally indefensible the Western nations’ relationships with dictators were, and still are, and that will be remembered in the region for a long time to come.

Q. What should the Western nations have done in response to the unrest?

A. The Western nations should’ve admitted their complicity, and suspended all relations with the despotic regimes in question, immediately after the crowds demanding freedom and an end to injustice and corruption poured into the public squares and other open spaces. They should’ve declared themselves to be with the people involved in the Freedom Struggle. They should’ve made clear, definitive statements that any despot who fires on his own people will have to face the consequences in the International Criminal Court on charges of crimes against humanity.
If the Western nations had done these things, many lives would’ve been saved. If world leaders, for example, had told Gaddafi, that he would be tried in the ICC for crimes against humanity – that he would spend the rest of his life in a prison cell – he wouldn’t have struck at his own people with such ferocity

Q. What should Western nations do now?

A. It’s too late for Western nations to take the high moral ground. Western nations should admit that they made mistakes, and that they were complicit in the crimes committed by these dictators. They should announce that they will work to establish new guidelines for political, economic and social engagement with other nations, using respect for human rights and democracy as the foundational principles.
Furthermore, every Western nation that has allowed itself to trade with, sell armaments to, or provide logistical or political support to dictatorships in the Middle East – and indeed in any part of the world – should institute commissions of inquiry, with a mandate to fully investigate and make public the extent to which those Western nations have aided and abetted the dictatorial regimes. Those commissions of inquiry should investigate individuals and corporations, as well as government agencies and departments.

Q. Is this a mobile phone, Twitter and Facebook revolution?

A. Not really, although they’ve certainly played a part. To attribute the current Freedom Struggles to the Internet, Twitter and Facebook is to neglect the decades of struggle and sacrifice that have preceded the current events. Long before the Internet was accessible, and before mobile phones even existed, there were those who struggled to expose the abuses of tyrants in Middle East nations, and who suffered the consequences of their struggle for freedom. The current Freedom Struggles are a culmination of decades of struggle against tyranny: struggles that cost many lives before young Mr. Bouazizi took his life.

Nevertheless, when monstrous tyrants such as Gaddafi restrict the Internet and close down Twitter, Facebook, and mobile phone services in response to resistance from the people, it’s a sure sign that these communications media are playing a significant part. Of course, the very same media can be used to subvert freedom struggles. Russia and China, to name just two, are heavily involved in seeding Facebook, Twitter and other “social media” sites with pro-government propaganda, and they are both using the sites as surveillance tools in the ongoing oppression of their own people.

In my view, the use of Facebook, Twitter and other mobile phone accessed communication sites reflects two things: first, the techno-connected nature of the modern world; and second, the weak or even complicit nature of mainstream television and newspaper coverage of world events. People are using their own communication networks, because the press is either controlled by the dictators, or it is independent but submissively complicit with the dictators.

Q. How far will this unrest go?

A. In the long run of history, people will never stop struggling for freedom until they’ve attained it. Repression breeds resistance. And the yearning to be free of tyranny, injustice and corruption is an intrinsic part of our evolutionary psychology – our humanity. So, the Freedom Struggle will go on everywhere in the world until people are truly free.

In the short term, I think these Freedom Struggles in the Middle East have reached a point of critical mass – a turning point – and this new turning point will bring widespread change to the entire region. I expect that dictators will fall, royal rulers will have their unquestioned right to rule reduced or removed, and the terms of the relationship between the military and the body politic will be redrawn. I expect Algeria to be pushed toward democratic elections. I expect that the King of Morocco will have his powers severely diminished, and the people will demand democratic elections. I expect that Libya’s dictator will be required to leave, if he is not killed, and may face an international tribunal such as the ICC. I expect that Bahrain will undergo significant change, with the powers of the royal family severely reduced, and a new more representative elected body in power. I expect that the autocratic rule of Saleh, in Yemen, will end. I expect that the Palestinian people will rise up against a leadership that has betrayed them and their aspirations. I expect that Syria and Jordan will face smaller degrees of change. And finally, in the citadel of violence, Saudi Arabia, I expect that it will stand, because the Western nations will not allow it to fall. Nevertheless, I think the writing is on the wall (and the street posters) for the House of Saud: they will lose their power and privilege, sooner or later, and the country will be rid of them and their sybaritic excesses.

Q. What can be done to stop Gadaffi, and other dictators like him, from killing his own people if they rise up in Freedom Struggles?

A. The UN should immediately pass a resolution calling for a No-Fly Zone over Libya, telling Gadaffi that if his planes or helicopters rise over Libya’s cities, they will be shot down.

Furthermore, the UN should pass a resolution to freeze all Libyan assets, everywhere in the world.

Individual nations should pass interim laws, immediately, making it illegal to do any business whatsoever with Libya.

The UN should immediately pass a resolution to put a total boycott of all trade, including medicines, foodstuffs and other vital substances into effect.

In the worst case scenario, if Gadaffi continues to kill his people, a UN Peacekeeping Force should be deployed to secure all parts of the country not directly under Gadaffi’s rule.

Q. Do you condone violence, as an answer to dictators like Gadaffi, who refuse to accept the will of people involved in Freedom Struggles?

A. Violence is always wrong. Always, and without exception, no matter who is doing the violence, and no matter what the reason. Sometimes, violence is necessary. When, for example, a policeman who has no alternative shoots a crazed gunman who is shooting children in a school playground, the violence is clearly necessary. It’s still wrong, but it was necessary. We can’t say that the policemen did the right thing. The best that can be said is that the policeman did the necessary thing. He did the wrong thing, for the right reasons.

The importance in making this distinction is that if we don’t accept that even when it’s absolutely necessary to do the wrong thing, it is still wrong, we’re doomed to stay within the vicious circle of violence and wrong-doing.

The only way we’ll ever break out of that vicious circle is if we stop telling ourselves that what we did was not just necessary, but that it was good. When we stop erecting statues to commemorate acts of violence; when we stop giving medals for acts of violence; when we face up to the fact that even when we absolutely have no choice but to be violent it’s still always and forever wrong – only then will we break out of the vicious circle of endless violence and retribution.

So, if the UN were to send in a Blue Helmet Peacekeeping Force in Libya, to secure the areas not under Gadaffi’s control, and if that saved a lot of lives but involved the use of violence against Gadaffi’s forces, we wouldn’t be doing the right thing: we’d be doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

Q. Will these changes in the region be good or bad for the Middle East, and for Western nations?

A. Every gradual approximation toward the desired goal of the elimination of dictatorships and the establishment of democratically elected governments is to be encouraged, because it will bring nations of people – and not just ruling elites – into contact with one another. Dictatorships privilege communication between nations to an elite, leaving the broad masses of people isolated. Democratic governments allow people to communicate with one another en masse, through artistic and cultural events, through open access to newspapers and international television programs, and through free access to an uncensored Internet. That free, open communication between the peoples of nations, and not just between elites, is vital to the development of healthy relationships between nations.

The key to change, after violent conflict, is forgiveness. And forgiveness proceeds from understanding. It is almost impossible to forgive something that we simply can’t understand. Replacing ruling elites with elected assemblies provides the opportunity for real communication between nations. That communication has the potential to lead to understanding. That understanding has the potential to lead to forgiveness. And forgiveness is the key to healing the wounds of the past, and to moving forward in creative co-operation.

The Freedom Struggles in the Middle East have given the Western nations a chance to reinvent their foreign policies and practices. It’s possible for Western nations to draw a line in the sand, as it were, and to promise that from this bright, historical point onward, Western foreign policy and practice will be determined not by delusions about narrow self-interest, but by a commitment to the principles of truth, justice, liberty, democracy and a profound commitment to human rights.

If the Western nations seize this chance, and reinvent their foreign policies and practices – if they stop supporting and trading with and selling armaments to tyrants – the positive effect of the Freedom Struggles could ripple outwards through the world of international relations for generations to come.

It’s up to us, in those Western nations, to have our own Jasmine Revolutions now. It’s up to us to hold the politicians and business leaders who made us accomplices with tyrants to account. It’s up to us to stop this from happening again.

Constitution: Foundation Document

We hold the following to be self-evidently true:

1) That all human beings are interconnected through the web of humanity, and interconnected through the web of life, to all other living things and life processes in the biosphere. What injures any one of us has a tendency to injure the whole, and what heals any one of us has a tendency to heal the whole.

2) That all human beings are born with an inalienably equal right to life, peace, liberty, creativity, worship, association, education, and democratic representation, and to assemble in peaceful pursuits, speak, write, and broadcast their views and beliefs, peacefully pursue happiness, and be treated with dignity and fairness.

3) That our collective human destiny is served, in critically important part, by promoting peace, freedom, the best interests of all species in the biosphere, and the vital preservation of our planet and all its diversities.

4) That all interactions, both conflicted and cooperative, between human beings, and between the human species and the biosphere, should proceed from the principle of non-violence.

5) That all war is wrong and unjust, and it is the duty of all human beings to support every fair, honest, and positive action that promotes peace, and to support every non-violent action that inhibits, impedes or prevents warfare and other violent conflict.

6) That all injustice is wrong, and it is the duty of all human beings to support every fair, honest and positive action that promotes justice, and to support every non-violent action that prevents, diminishes, or ends tyranny, prejudice and unfair discrimination by individuals, agencies or governments.

Definitions of Terms

NON-VIOLENCE: that all human intentions and actions should proceed from the rejection of violence, the reduction of harm, and the promotion of peace, understanding, tolerance, freedom, and love for the human family and the biosphere.

RIGHTS: the set of protections and privileges that allow human beings and all other beings in the biosphere to live in free, secure, healthy, just, sustainable and creative environments.

HUMAN RIGHTS: the set of inalienable, equal, born rights of all human beings to life, peace, liberty, creativity, worship, association, education, and democratic representation, and to assemble in peaceful pursuits, speak, write, and broadcast their views and beliefs, peacefully pursue happiness in free, peaceful, secure, healthy, just, sustainable and creative environments, and be treated with dignity and fairness at all times and in all situations.

FREEDOM: the unconstrained exercise of all the human rights.

LIBERTY: the inalienably equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities of all participants in a free and fairly elected representational democracy.

DEMOCRACY: the equal, unconstrained right to stand for election to a body of governing representatives serving a fixed and limited term, and to elect others to that representative body by secret ballot with an equal-value vote cast in a free and fair election.

JUSTICE: the impartial, fair, transparent exercise of authority in adjudicating disputes, determining guilt, innocence, and appropriate punishment in matters of law, and the protection of the set of rights that allow human beings and all other living things and life processes in the biosphere to exist in free, peaceful, secure, healthy, just, sustainable and creative environments.

MORALITY: the view of human behaviour as a set of intentions, actions, and consequences that promote and enhance – or inhibit and prevent – fair, honest, and positive interactions between human beings, and between the human family and the biosphere that sustains it.

Before providing this Q&A on the invasion, it is necessary for me to make a declaration of my intellectual and emotional connection to the States of Israel and Palestine.

I was raised in a community of my own and my parents’ friends that included people from China, the USA, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Russia, Italy, Greece, Croatia, Serbia, Ukraine, Poland, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, and Turkey. I grew up with a particularly emotional understanding of the Holocaust and its implications for the Jewish diaspora, because two families in our most intimate circle of friends had lost many of their loved ones in the camps at Auschwitz, Belsen, and Dachau, and had become refugees in Australia.

Through my lifelong friendships with those Jewish families, and after a significant research into two millennia of anti-Semitism, I have long been a passionate defender of the concept of Israel: a homeland for the Jewish people, where they can be free of persecution and freely determine their own destiny. I don’t mean this in a religious sense. Most of my Jewish friends are not especially (or at all) religious, and indeed the first Jewish people to be murdered by the Nazi regime in Germany were in fact the Jewish communists, trades unionists, and anarchists, most of whom were not religious. I’m referring instead to the concept that all those people, religious and non-religious, who consider themselves to be Jewish should and must have a homeland where they are free of persecution and can freely determine their destiny.

So, I am a passionate supporter of the State of Israel, and I accept that despite the many errors of judgement and miscarriages of justice involved in the establishment of the State of Israel in British Mandated Palestine, from the Balfour Declaration all the way to the most recent invasion of Gaza, the State of Israel has the right to exist. The fact of Israel’s establishment in Palestine occurred before I was born, and was a reality, recognized by many nations, by the time my young consciousness became aware of its existence. For me, having studied this question passionately and dispassionately for 35 years, there is no rational way to discuss the legitimacy of the State of Israel in Palestine. This is a fact – quite literally a fact on the ground – and it is irrational and counter-productive to pursue arguments related to the legitimacy of the existing State of Israel. Israel exists as a reality in the Middle East, and will not ever be established in another place. It is what it is, and it is where it is, and failing to accept that is, in my view, irrational, unreasonable and unproductive.

Furthermore, I am a passionate supporter of the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland, where they, too, can be free of persecution, and freely determine their own destiny. I declare from the outset that I have been involved in supporting peace groups in Israel, as part of my commitment to the State of Israel, and I’ve supported peace groups in Palestine for many years, as part of my commitment to the State of Palestine.

So much, then, for the political: on the emotional level, at present, I have many friends and acquaintances living in Israel, and while most of my Palestinian friends live in Australia, Europe, and the United States of America, some few friends still live in Gaza and the West Bank. I’m not speaking from the point of view of a person with no vested interest in the conflict: on the contrary, the health and safety of my friends in Gaza and Israel is a primary emotional concern. Moreover, given the outward ramifications of the conflict, I think it is almost impossible for anyone, anywhere in the world, not to have a vested interest in what happens there.

The essay I’ve written on this subject, appearing here, is in the form of a Q&A. I’ve taken all the many questions asked of me by readers, and I’ve condensed them into a short collection that incorporates all of the points that occur most frequently in those questions.

Q. 1) Why did Israel invade Gaza in January 2009?
A. 1) There were two main reasons for this most recent invasion, in January 2009. First, the approaching (at the time of the invasion) election in Israel: the invasion reflected the statement made by Ariel Sharon and others in the past, “If you want to win elections in Israel, kill Arabs and talk about peace.” Second, some elements of the political parties, the military, religious groups, and the security services have consistently pursued a “scorched earth” policy toward the Palestinians. This policy has as its sole purpose the maximum possible destruction of infrastructure, economic institutions, agriculture, education facilities, public utilities, transport, and housing in Palestinian territories. That destruction happens on a cyclical basis, and determines that the Palestinian areas never fully resurrect themselves and become viable economic or political entities.

Q. 2) Are you saying that the invasion had nothing to do with rocket attacks made by Hamas against Israel?
A. 2) Every serious thinker knows that rocket attacks will only stop with a negotiated settlement. Every serious thinker knows that the rocket attacks almost completely ceased under the 6-month ceasefire that was initiated by Hamas. Every serious thinker knows that Hamas honoured the ceasefire and stopped the rocket attacks for so long as Israel also honoured the ceasefire. That is, when Israel broke the ceasefire, Hamas fired rockets into Israel; when Israel honoured the ceasefire, the rocket attacks ceased. Clearly, if Israel’s desire is to stop rocket attacks, the best and in fact only course of action is to broker, maintain, and honour a ceasefire with Hamas. Figures published by the Israeli secret service organization Shin Bet show that during the truce and ceasefire in operation in 2005, fatalities among Israelis dropped by 60%, from 117 to 45; fatalities among Palestinians in the same period were down by an even greater percentage, some 77%, from 822 to 190, with injured Palestinians falling from 4,009 to 986. While even one death, on either side, is an undoubted tragedy, these figures prove conclusively that a truce and ceasefire significantly reduce fatalities and casualties on both sides. What stops rocket attacks is a genuine and scrupulously honoured truce and ceasefire. The purpose of the invasion was not the publicly stated purpose of stopping rocket attacks. The invasion was planned months in advance, during the ceasefire, when there were very few rocket attacks against Israel. It was timed to coincide with the period of transition before the inauguration of President Obama, and to conclude just before the inauguration. The two main purposes were to increase the chance of winning the coming election in Israel, and to destroy as much of the Palestinian infrastructure as possible.

Q. 3) Why would these elements in Israel want to cause such destruction in Palestinian territories?
A. 3) The long-term strategy of these elements in the political parties, the military, religious groups, and the security services with respect to Gaza is to remove Gaza from the map. These elements in Israel would prefer that Gaza were incorporated into Israel (but without the Palestinian population), or incorporated into Egypt. These elements regard it as unacceptable that an independent State (Gaza) within Israel would have a seaport that could be used to smuggle in weapons of mass destruction that could be used against Israel, or that could be used as an access point for marine attacks against Israel. The long-term strategy of these elements in Israel has been to drive a wedge between the West Bank and Gaza, to isolate Gaza, and then to make life so intolerably difficult that Gazans would agree to leave the state, or to have the state incorporated into Egypt.

Q. 4) How can they believe that this can happen?
A. 4) Much of it already has happened. The group known today as Hamas was in fact founded by Islamists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, but with the help and support of the Israeli internal security agency, Shin Bet. Support for Hamas was seen then, in the 1980s, as creating a rival and an alternative to the militant (and Marxist) Palestinian groups the PLO and the PFLP. This seemingly contradictory support has to be seen in the context of the cold war strategies being played out across the world in the 1980s: strategies that resulted, for example, in the USA condoning the proliferation of Saudi Arabian sponsored Wahabist madrassas in Pakistan, Indonesia and other countries, and the USA playing a major part in supporting the creation of the Taliban as a counter to the expansion of Soviet influence in Afghanistan. In the case of Hamas, Israel played the religion card in order to trump the Marxism card being played by Fatah and the PFLP. When the corruption, incompetence and despotism of PLO party figures destroyed a large component of support for the PLO among Palestinians, and they voted for a Hamas government, Israel seized the chance to divide the Palestinians and pit them against one another. Today, Gaza is isolated and branded as the face of “extremist” Palestine, and the West Bank under the junta of Abbas and the PLO is seen as “moderate” Palestine. The collective punishment blockade of Gaza imposed by Israel, and the recent invasion, have reduced the isolated Gaza enclave to an almost intolerably difficult place in which to live. Thus, the first two conditions have already been met. What remains is the final element in this plan: the excision of Gaza

Q. 5) Do you support Hamas?
A. 5) No. I am a secularist, and I hold that religion is a private matter, not a political one. I am, therefore, against any nation establishing itself as a theocracy or religiously denominated state. Furthermore, Hamas has shown itself to be ruthless in suppressing opposition to its rule in Gaza, has perpetrated gross human rights violations against Palestinian people, and it has sanctioned the clear and indubitable war crime of launching deadly weapons against civilian targets in Israel.

Q. 6) Does that mean you support Israel?
A. 6) No. I support the concept of the State of Israel, and I support Israel’s right to exist – but I cannot condone or support the actions of the State of Israel. The State of Israel is a terror state, which has broken every international covenant that seeks to ensure that countries live together in peace, prosperity, and positive harmony. Israel is a rogue nuclear state, it launches air attacks against its neighbours, uses weapons banned in civilian contexts such as phosphorus bombs and cluster bombs, kidnaps individuals, assassinates those it sees as enemies in third countries, carries out collective punishments such as arrest and imprisonment of family members of those suspected of launching attacks, demolishing houses owned by families of those suspected of launching attacks, and blockades that restrict the flow of medicines and food to civilian populations, and uses torture against suspected militants or their family members. It is not possible to support the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, as I do, and support either the State of Israel, or the Hamas and PLO regimes in the Palestinian territories.

Q. 7) How are the Israeli elections connected to the invasion of Gaza?
A. 7) As I said above, quoting Ariel Sharon and others, “If you want you win elections in Israel, kill Arabs and talk about peace.” The fact is that after the murder of the last Prime Minister with any integrity at all, Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli political scene has moved sharply and inexorably to the right. At the time of Yitzhak Rabin’s murder, 60% of Israelis indicated their intention to vote for his peace plan with the Palestinians – a plan that involved the establishment of an independent Palestinian State. After Rabin’s murder by a Zionist fanatic – a man who has recently stated that he was misled by the rhetoric of Ariel Sharon and other fanatics – the Labor Party in Israel elected Ehud Barak as its leader. Barak is a right winger, who infiltrated the Labor Party in order to lead it towards the right, and away from an accommodation with the Palestinian people. Because he was a highly decorated “war hero” with a high profile, the Labor Party was enraptured with him, and failed to detect that he was, in fact, against everything that the Labor Party had stood for in Israel – and certainly all that Yitzhak Rabin had stood for, and given his life for in the interests of peace. Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres led the Labor Party towards the right, month by month and year by year. Today, the Labor Party, Kadima, and Likud are all but indistinguishable. Thus, the brutal invasion of Gaza – a crime against humanity in any sensible definition – was launched by a Labor Party coalition, and prosecuted with as much cruelty and destructive vigour as any campaign that might be waged by Likud. The invasion, in other words, was a demonstration of the right-wing credentials of Labor and Kadima, in a craven attempt to appease the voices of the right calling for ever more Palestinian blood.

Q 8) Would you recognize Hamas, or a Hamas-led Government?
A. 8) Yes. We either believe in democracy, or we don’t. The USA barges its way through international bodies, claiming to be the voice of the free world. But when an Islamic government was due for democratic election in Algeria, the USA supported the military junta that took power and ruled by force. When the Palestinian people – voting in the first open, free, and fair election in the Arab world – voted for Hamas, the USA refused to recognize it. The fact is, that our governments in the West don’t really believe in democracy: they believe in getting what they want. I believe in democracy. I believe that even repugnant regimes, such as those of Hamas, or the FIS in Algeria, or George Bush2 in the USA, must be recognized, if the will of the people is expressed in free and fair elections. That doesn’t mean that we have to trade with such repugnant regimes, or fail to criticize them if we detect violations of the rights of citizens under their care. It simply means that we recognize the democratic process that elected the repugnant regimes. Voltaire said: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. In this context, we may paraphrase to say: I disagree with the party you have elected, but I will defend to the death your right to democratically elect them. If we don’t defend democracy itself, we have no way to peacefully and constructively work to remove the repugnant regime that was elected in the first place. If we are hypocritical – by giving our support to military juntas that please us, and withdrawing support for democratically elected governments that don’t please us – we have no moral force with which to oppose injustice, for we become perpetrators of injustice ourselves. So long as we robustly defend the practice of democracy – even when a regime that is repugnant to us is elected – we defend the means by which the people will freely reject that repugnant regime in the future.

Q. 9) Will this situation go on in the Middle East forever?
A. 9) No. There is a changing demographic in the USA. The Arab population in the USA matches the Jewish population today, and will greatly outnumber the Jewish population in the next 15 to 20 years. This will significantly change the pressure dynamic in American politics. Furthermore, there is an understanding across every level of government, security, and military expertise in the USA that terrorism, as they term it, will never stop until the Israel-Palestine situation is resolved. Bin Laden made two demands when he attacked the Twin Towers: get out of the holy land of Mecca, and give the Palestinian people a State. The USA cut and run from Saudi Arabia, closing down their military base there, and withdrawing all of their troops. This, of course, was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq: when the USA lost 25% of the world’s oil, in Saudi Arabia, they looked for a country with another 25%, which was Iraq, and created a pretext for an invasion that would secure the oil there. Bin Laden’s second demand – the creation of a Palestinian State – is still on the drawing board, but the pressure on the USA to withdraw its essential support from Israel and thus compel them to reach a peaceful accommodation with the Palestinians grows more powerful every day. The Israeli governments and political parties know this. The scramble for Palestinian land, the infamous haste with which new, illegal settlements are being constructed on Palestinian land, and the desperate, nihilistic attacks on Palestinian infrastructure are the last gasp of a small nation that knows their big nation ally has put the writing on the wall. The USA will begin to withdraw its support, and make the continuance of it conditional on the establishment of peace and a Palestinian State. And not so long from now, there will be two States, Palestinian and Israeli, with a fragile but enduring peace.

Q. 10) Why do you not use the word “terrorist”?
A. 10) There are several reasons. First, I think the word has lost its meaning. When the Labor and Kadima Parties launch an invasion of Gaza that involves mass-starvation, the destruction of thousands of homes, mosques, schools, universities, police stations, electricity generators, and hospitals, the use of phosphorus and cluster weapons, and many other crimes against humanity – and they do this in the name of fighting against terrorism and terrorists – it makes no sense to talk of Hamas rocket attacks as the only terrorist attacks. When the USA bombs civilians on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, using drone aircraft and weapons of mass destruction, killing scores and sometimes hundreds of innocent women and children in the hopes of killing one Taliban commander, and they do that in the name of attacking terrorists, the word “terrorism” has lost its sensible meaning.

In short, the use of the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” has become a weapon in the definitional war of words that labels one set of violent men (it’s usually men) as terrorists and the other as righteous fighters. I can’t accept that. It’s all terror, and they’re all terrorist acts. Hamas firing rockets into Israel at anonymous civilians is a terrorist act, but so is the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Taliban attacks on NATO civilian offices in Pakistan are terrorist attacks, but so are the USA drone attacks on the border. Because politicians, commentators, and the press (appallingly complicit in this definitional war) fail to call a terror spade a spade, and fail to describe USA drone attacks on civilians and Israeli Phosphorus attacks on Palestinian civilians as terrorist attacks, which they undoubtedly are, the use of the word itself has become political. For that reason, first and foremost, I refuse to use the word.

Secondly, since the Twin Tower attacks of 9/11, unscrupulous governments with political agendas have used the label “terrorist” to launch violent strikes against sections of their own populations, and to justify these attacks as defence against the threat of terrorism. Governments involved include Russia against the Chechens, Israel against Hamas in Gaza, and Sri Lanka against the Tamil separatists, among many others. The “war on terror” has been used to justify any intramural aggression or cruelty, and the victims of this state-sanctioned violence are silenced and demonised by use of the word “terrorists”. This is an extremely dangerous tendency, and one that all those concerned with human rights should resist.

Third, I think it is important that we name and distinguish groups that perpetrate violent acts – that we individualize them – rather than to simply aggregate them into a lump sum term: terrorist. If we don’t distinguish between the Basque ETA, the North Indian Naxalites, the Tamil Tigers, the Islamic jihad, and all the other groups currently given the generic label “terrorist” organizations, we can’t hope to understand them, and ultimately to isolate and disarm them.

Q. 11) What is your solution for the Israel-Palestine Conflict?
A. 11) It’s not up to me, or any other outside commentator to tell the people of Israel or Palestine how they should resolve their differences. Any peaceful solution must be their own solution, and not one that is imposed on them.

Q. 12) But you must have some idea of what a peaceful solution would look like?
A. 12) I think that Israel and Palestine – however the two States finally shape up geographically – should sign a mutual defence pact. I think that they should say to one another, when the two-States are finally established: “The whole world has it in for both of us. Both our peoples are attacked and suffer injustices in many countries. We must pledge to defend one another for all of eternity, as brothers and sisters with a connected destiny. So, we Israelis pledge that if anyone ever attacks the State of Palestine, we will fight to the last to defend your nation. And we Palestinians pledge that if anyone ever attacks the State of Israel, we will fight to the last to defend your nation. And hey, if we two nations unite to defend one another, there’s no power on Earth that will ever defeat us.”
Geographically, my suggestion would be for a total withdrawal of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in exchange for a total Palestinian withdrawal from Gaza. I would consolidate the Gazan population in the newly deserted illegal settlements established by the Israelis in the West Bank, and require Jordan to surrender a small piece of land on the existing border with the Palestinian West bank: sufficient to accommodate the return of the millions of Palestinians who are living in refugee camps in surrounding countries. Jordan would cede the land to the New Palestinian State, on condition that a majority of Palestinians currently living in Jordan would return to Palestine and permanently leave the State of Jordan, and with a substantive agreement on the use of water originating from Jordan by Israel and the newly created Palestine that is fair to all parties.

In this plan, the Palestinians would give up their seaport at Gaza, but be free to develop an international airport in Palestine. The Israelis would give up their illegal settlements in the West Bank, but they would gain a new seaport and all of the land currently known as Gaza. The Jordanians would give up a parcel of land on the existing border with the Palestinian West Bank, but they would remove the troublesome Palestinian population from their territory, and resolve the long-standing disputes concerning the use of water. The Palestinian refugees would not have a right of return to land currently defined as Israel, but they would have an inalienable right of return to Palestine, and they would find new homes and new land and opportunities in a strong, clearly defined and unitary (as opposed to today, with a divided Gaza and West Bank) Palestinian State. On conclusion of the deal, Palestine and Israel would sign a mutual defence pact, and unite their armies in a combined defence force.

I would appoint Amos Oz and Hanan Ashrawi as the new Presidents of Israel and Palestine respectively, and give them the job of working out the gigantic transfers of populations into the newly defined states. Their budget, of US$500 Billion would come from the world community of nations, as a reward to Israel and Palestine for reaching the peace agreement, and would go to rebuilding, re-housing, and other infrastructure needs for both nations.

I’m not qualified to make a long and detailed answer to the many requests I’ve received, asking me to comment on the recent allegations of racism in Australia, following attacks on – among others – Indian people. I don’t live in Australia, and I haven’t lived there for some years. I don’t have a strong connection to Australia, and I don’t follow what happens there in detail. My connection is to the people I love, who happen to live in Australia, but not to Australia itself. This means that I am not in a position to provide a detailed analysis, or a profound contribution to the current discourse.

I know this won’t be satisfactory for those who live in Australia and feel deeply affected by the issue, or for those in India who’ve taken a public stand on this matter, and who would like me to make a more substantial comment. My intellectual method, however, follows this simple rule: know your data, and analyse your data thoroughly, before you form even a partial hypothesis, or make a public comment on any issue. Because I don’t have sufficient data, I can’t rigorously analyze the data, and I can’t form even a partial hypothesis.

That being said, I am in a position to make two broad, general comments that some readers may feel to be relevant to the many questions I’ve been asked.

First, I do not believe that Australia is a particularly racist country, or that Australians are particularly racist people. I’ve lived in many countries, from Europe to Asia, and from Oceania to Africa. I’ve seen the kind of casual or more strident forms of racism that exist in all of those countries. I’ve experienced racism myself, having being very often stereotyped or even attacked for no other reason than the colour of my eyes, or of my skin.

In my experience, Australians are no more racist than the people of any country where I have lived. Police figures published in response to the allegations of racism – that there was a racist component to the attacks involving Indian students and others, and that these attacks were part of a co-ordinated series of attacks specifically targeting Indian students and others – indicate that, in the period under scrutiny, for every assault or attack made against an Indian person, there were many more made against people who were not of Indian origin. In the published figures for assaults in the period under scrutiny – one of the few pieces of scientific data I’ve seen published in any newspaper or other forum – attacks and other violent assaults or instances of theft against the person involved the Anglo-Saxon (we might say “white”) experienced the highest number of assaults.
One other small piece of hard data, obtained from figures recently published in Australia, show that Anglo-Saxon Australians marry outside their community – that is, they marry into Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Greek, Italian and other communities – at a much higher rate than do those of the other communities considered in the census. Members of the Indian community, by contrast, marry almost exclusively within their cultural community. Obviously, there are many simple reasons for such marital homogeneity, and it would be inappropriate to draw too many conclusions from this single piece of data. However, one can reasonably conclude that marrying freely with members of other ethnic and cultural communities is not what one could reasonably describe as a characteristic of a racist society or of racist people. Furthermore, entire suburbs of shops in Australia have become devoted to ethnic minorities, such as the Greek, Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Indian communities. This is not a characteristic of a racist society – and there are many countries where it is not possible – or in fact illegal – to display all signs and messages in the language of an ethnic minority.

In summary of the first point, my experience of Australia – from universities to prisons, from factories to boardrooms, and from rugby teams to art galleries – is that Australia is not more racist than any of the other countries where I have lived.

The second broad, general comment I want to make in response to all the emails I’ve received, asking me for a response, is that there is no community in the world, in my wide experience, that is more tolerant and loving than the Indian community. I know this to be true because I’ve lived in India for 14 years of my life, and I’ve visited with the Indian Diaspora in 10 countries around the world. I know that if any person with an open heart approaches an Indian person in Australia, and asks them to tell them about Indian culture, music, food, movies, styles of dress, that they will be met with a friendship like no other I’ve ever known.

I travel the world, and I like all people. I love my human species, and I love what we are in our best moments, and what we wonderful humans will become if we wake up, change the paradigm, and achieve the destiny that’s awaiting our spectacularly beautiful consciousness. But in all the countries I’ve visited, no matter how hospitable or welcoming the people, there is nothing to match the tenderness and tolerance of the Indian people. What’s more, the addition of this tolerance and genuinely tender feeling to any community – to Australia, Canada, South Africa, or anywhere – is the sugar that makes the tea sweeter. What an Indian community adds to any country is so precious that wherever I go, in any big city of the world, I seek out the Indian community who lives there because I know my heart will be happier, and the smiles I find will be wider and warmer.

So, as a final comment, I urge critics and commentators from both sides to turn down the volume in this discourse. Australians are not more racist than others – not more racist than Indians, say – and having Indian people live in your country – in any country – is the best damn thing that can happen to your society.

Bombay still suffers, as I write this on the 8th of December, 2008, even though the security situation in the Island City has improved, and a sense of order has been restored. Fortunately, and happily, none of the hundreds among my own friends and loved ones has been injured, but the death toll has risen to 171 people, and the injured number more than 300, some of them very seriously wounded. And while my friends at Leopold’s, Colaba Market, The Taj, and The Oberoi are all safe and well, many of their colleagues have been killed or injured, and their businesses have been seriously damaged. Two waiters at Leopold’s were killed, and others there were wounded. Eric, one of the managers, bears a wound on the side of his head where a bullet grazed his skull. He is now living what he calls his “second life”, and while he is happy to be alive, he shows the strain of the last weeks on his handsome face.
I’ll talk about what’s happening in Bombay in the next few lines, but first, before you read any further, I want to ask you, I want to plead with you, to keep the faith with India and the city I love, Bombay. If we continue to visit the country and meet the people, if we spend our time in the beautiful chaos and chaotic beauty, if we spend our money in the bazaars and hotels, if we buy the books by great Indian writers, listen to the music by brilliant Indian composers and musicians, marvel at the splendour of Indian dancers, watch the captivating movies, wonder at the art galleries – in other words, if we go on opening our hearts to the best that India teaches us, the people who did this violence can never win.
Okay, end of speech. Now, for your consideration, I offer you my analysis of the attacks on Bombay, in the form of a Q&A of the Top Ten Questions.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE Q&A
I’m often asked how it is that I didn’t give up in the past, when I was tortured in prisons, put into solitary confinement for 2 years, or found myself starving, homeless, exiled, and abandoned. I’m often asked how I keep my optimism now, in the face of terrible atrocities such as the recent attacks on Bombay.

What I want to say to you is that I don’t have the right to give up.
My many friends in Israel, who’ve suffered suicide bombings and other atrocities, have never given up their struggle for a just and lasting peace with the Palestinian people. Even against the criticism of their neighbours, who sometimes fail to see their love of all humanity as a virtue, they insist that there is no peace for Israel without a just and fair peace for the Palestinian people.

My many friends in Palestine, who’ve suffered violence from the State of Israel and their own neighbours, have never given up their struggle to open a peaceful and productive dialogue with Israel, and to live together with Israelis as friends and partners in the Middle East.

My many friends in Pakistan, who’ve endured arrests, beatings in detention, and discrimination in work and university study, have never given up their struggle for a free, democratic Pakistan that lives in peace and harmony with its neighbours.

My many friends in India, who’ve suffered personal attacks and active prejudice, have never given up their struggle against the fanatic forces of Hindu and Muslim extremism and toward an open, free, fair Indian society that brings enemies into a communication space where they can begin the understanding that leads those who once hated one another toward peace and friendship.

My friends in the USA, who’ve been attacked and vilified in the most degrading ways by the fanatic press and other vested interests, have never given up their struggle to preserve their freedoms, defend constitutional and mandated rights, and insist that all those accused of criminal acts – even those who launch Jihadist attacks against the USA – be tried in open, fair and just courts of law, with the rights of all charged persons applying equally and inviolably, even to them.

If these people, who struggle in much worse situations that I do, and suffer much more, do not give up their struggle for freedom, peace, and a life of creative, positive dignity for all people everywhere, then I don’t have a right to give up. It’s their inspiration that drives me on, gives me courage, and makes me determined never to betray their sacrifice or lose my faith in the beauty that lies at the heart of our human nature.
Okay, so here are the Q’s and the A’s.

Q. 1) Who did this – who made this attack on Bombay?
A. 1) We don’t know that yet, incontrovertibly. But it seems reasonable to conclude, based on what we do know so far, that the people who did this were/are Jihadists.

Q. 2) Who or what are Jihadists?
A. 2) Jihadist is a collective term for militant Islamists who have two main aims: a) to draw attention to, redress, and seek revenge for injustices suffered by Muslims; and b) to drive Muslim countries to declare themselves to be Islamic republics, to require them to adopt Sharia law as the national legal code, and to unite these Islamic republics in a pan-Islamic world order.
In my formulation, I use the term Jihadists, rather than the purely Arabic term Jihadi, which is used in Arabic news media and in other Arab forums, because I think it is important that we – meaning all those who want Jihadist attacks to stop, as much as we want the injustices done to Muslims that provoke the attacks to stop – do not provide the attackers with intellectual or emotional support. By using their own term for themselves, we reinforce their sense of their own justice and power. By using the term “terrorist”, we reinforce our own sense of their power over us. For me, the term Jihadist describes their collective goal, while not allowing them to glory in the violence that they do.

Q. 3) What did they hope to achieve with this attack on Bombay?
A. 3) There are three main objectives for the sort of violent attacks that are usually called “terrorist” attacks: a) to draw attention to, redress, and seek revenge for injustices suffered by Muslims; b) to incite radical or potentially radical Muslims to join their ranks, or to act independently; and c) to force national governments – particularly democracies – to reveal what the Jihadists perceive to be their true, repressive, undemocratic nature, by responding to the attacks with repressive measures, and making aggressive actions against neighbouring countries.

Q. 4) What makes them think this will work?
A. 4) Throughout history, radicalised groups have used violent acts to achieve their aims. And the fact is, sometimes, in the short term, they actually do achieve some of their aims. The attacks against Arab civilians made by the Irgun and the Lehi in Palestine, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, for example, were accurately described in the press of the time as terrorism, but the fact on the ground is that those attacks succeeded in driving Arabs from their homes. Nelson Mandela’s activities in the African National Congress were described by many governments as terrorism, but the attacks played a part in removing the Apartheid regime in South Africa. The repressive, undemocratic measures introduced by the Bush2 regime in the United States of America in response to the 911 attacks, as another example, were exactly the kind of actions that the Jihadists were trying to provoke. The invasion of Iraq, similarly, was exactly the kind of reaction that the Jihadists wanted. If you study publications and programs being circulated publicly in countries with large Muslim majorities, you find a multitude of voices that acknowledge the 911 attacks as both revenge for injustices suffered by Muslims, and also a significant expression of Muslim power – which then tends to radicalise a small percentage of young Muslims.

This is an extremely important point for the people of nations that suffer Jihadist attacks to understand. Many times, individuals and even nations – through their elected representatives – argue that Jihadists will not achieve their aims through these acts of violence. But this response comes from a failure to understand the Jihadists. The fact is, if one of their 3 main objectives is to avenge the injustices done to Muslims around the world, then they don’t expect to survive their attacks, and they don’t make claims or demands. The violence is an end in itself, because the violence done is an act of revenge. If we don’t acknowledge this, and respond to it rationally, we can never stop the mindset that inspires such attacks.

Furthermore, if we don’t acknowledge the fact that sometimes, against the best wishes of people of good will, the terror attacks actually provoke the results intended by those who use terror, we’ll never develop a comprehensive, rational, and effective response that eventually stops the attacks. We have to acknowledge that sometimes terror works, because we allow it to work, through our responses. If we are consistent in our responses, and never reward terror with the results that those who use terror want, then we will, in the long run, reduce terror attacks.

Q. 5) Are we in a hopeless situation? Will this go on forever?
A. 5) No. The power held by Jihadists – and all other violent radicals – is very small, up to now. It seems significant and powerful, because people die and suffer, because systems close down temporarily, and because it takes up a lot of time on the television and on the front pages of the world’s newspapers, but it’s really quite small: they have the power to kill some people, hurt a lot more people, and damage property, but they don’t have the power to change our political systems or our way of life. Only WE have the power to do that. And if we resist the provocation, hold fast to our collective belief in the power and inherent virtue of freedom, defend our constitutional and mandated rights, and insist that the perpetrators of such violent criminal acts be tried in open, fair and just courts of law – with the rights of all charged persons applying equally and inviolably to everyone, even to them – the violent radicals can never win. You can’t kill an idea with a bullet. You can only kill an idea with a better idea. And violence resulting in murder is not a better idea than peaceful, constructive dialogue. That’s why peaceful, constructive dialogue will win over violence in the long run.

Q. 6) These attacks on Bombay were well organized and well planned. Where did these people get their training?
A. 6) This is not yet known with certainty. While some small Jihadist training cells exist in India, most of the people who’ve been captured after previous attacks against Indian cities in the last several years – even those who were born in India – have admitted to being trained in camps set up in Pakistan. It is reasonable to conclude, based on this fact and the little we do know at this time, that the people who carried out these attacks were also trained in Pakistan.

Another point to make here is that although the attacks were planned long in advance, they were not well co-ordinated or executed. If an equally small force of well-trained Indian or American or Israeli commandos, for example, had launched an attack against Bombay, they would have achieved much more destruction. The fact is that the special forces of Israel, say, or America or Britain are truly well-trained, and the Jihadist attackers only seem to be well-trained. Their communication with one another broke down almost immediately in Bombay after the attacks began. They failed to follow through on the exit-strategy that the surviving attacker has described, and their attacks were nowhere near as effective as they might have been, with superior training.

We shouldn’t over-estimate the training and efficiency of these Jihadist fighters. In many cases, they are found to be simple, poorly educated young men who have been given very basic training, and then sent into civilian zones as human bombs, to cause destruction in the most basic and unsophisticated ways. We should not fear them, or create an image of them as fearful fighters. We should fear the harm that they do, but not fear them.

Q. 7) Is the Pakistan government involved in these attacks?
A. 7) It is unlikely that the government of Pakistan is involved. However, some retired politicians and perhaps some serving politicians, some mullahs, a segment of the Pakistan army, and a significant section of the Pakistan secret intelligence organisation, the ISI, have long supported a Jihadist agenda. There is no doubt that the Jihadist training camps in Pakistan could not function without significant support from significant elements of the army, ISI, and political echelons. The simple fact is that most of the Jihadists who have carried out attacks across the world, from London to Indonesia, have admitted that they received training at camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Bali bombers, who were executed in recent weeks, admitted in their last interview that they were trained to carry out their attacks at camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There is a very significant schism in Pakistan society at this time. The vast majority of Pakistanis, like the majority of people everywhere in the world, want to live in peace and work for their personal prosperity. A small but significant number want world Jihad, and even war with India, as an expression of that Jihad. These two forces are clashing now, and it is the single most important struggle going on in the world today. If we don’t support the moderate, democratic forces in Pakistan, we could find ourselves facing a Taliban-style regime in control of Pakistan, and therefore in control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

This must not be allowed to happen. However, by failing to address the many injustices perpetrated against Muslim populations in Palestine and Chechnya, to give two examples, and by making illegal and inhumane bombing attacks against targets in Pakistan, as the USA has done in recent months, we are giving the Pakistani Jihadists their best weapon: ongoing injustices to point to, which inflame the hearts of young Muslims, and lead them to seek training in Jihadist camps, and then to launch attacks on civilian targets.

We can’t bomb Pakistanis into liking us, and working with us. They will like us if we respect the rule of law, hold fast to our collective belief in the power and inherent virtue of freedom, defend our constitutional and mandated rights and defend theirs as well, we will win the respect and friendship of the majority who want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours.

Q. 8) Why doesn’t America do something, if it knows that these terrorists are being trained in Pakistan?
A. 8) This is a big question, and it requires a fairly long answer. Political administrations in the USA during the last 50 years have seen Soviet Russia as their principal enemy, because Soviet Russia had many hundreds of nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, aimed at sites in the USA. No other country had the potential to inflict as much damage on the USA as Soviet Russia, so all the foreign policy decisions of the USA were shaped and determined by the fear of these great weapons. Any country or social or religious group that was against Soviet Russia was, in that fear-crazed mindset, a friend of the USA.

For that reason, the USA found itself supporting vicious military dictatorships in South America, for example, because the dictators were anti-communist. For that reason, President Nixon went to China and reached a rapprochement with Mao’s communist party, because Mao’s China hated and feared the Soviet Union almost as much as the Americans did. And for that reason, the USA made alliances with Muslim extremists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, because those extremists hated Soviet Russia for its repression of their religion.

Similarly, that mindset allowed the USA to support military dictators in Pakistan, because the dictators were against Soviet Russia. And because India insisted on being non-aligned – was in fact the founder of the Non-Aligned Movement of Nations – and spoke to Soviet Russia as often and openly as it spoke to the USA, India was judged to be an enemy nation. Thus, America turned away from the world’s largest democracy, and aligned itself with Pakistan, arming the army of the dictators with the most sophisticated weapons, and turning a blind eye to the extremism of the Jihadist training camps. When Pakistan asked for nuclear weapons, the USA agreed and secretly helped them to achieve a nuclear status, because they saw Pakistan as a base from which a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union could be launched, if necessary.

The problem for the USA, now, is that the new, fragile, democratically elected government of Pakistan – which has control of the nuclear weapons that America helped Pakistan to develop – has no real control over the Jihadist elements in Pakistan. And as the USA makes drone attacks against Jihadist bases and camps on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, in a desperate attempt to kill Usama bin Laden and to limit the strike potential of the Jihadists, they are weakening the power of the central government even further, and arousing even more resentment from the Jihadists.

This situation is tragic for many reasons – but not least because if you go to Pakistan, as I’ve done, and meet the people there in villages and cities, you’ll discover that they are wonderful people with a wonderfully affectionate and respectful way of being with you. What’s more, there are literally millions of people in Pakistan who despise the cowardly violence of Jihadists, and who have risked their lives to pull their country out of the hands of military dictators. It’s those voices – the voices of millions upon millions of moderate, peaceful Pakistanis – that America, and the rest of us, should be supporting.

Q. 9) What can we do about these terror attacks?
A. 9) We can do 6 things:

1) Address the injustices that provoke these attacks. Jihadists do NOT make attacks because they are poor, as Barack Obama said during his campaign for the presidency, or because we are free, as Bush2 said after 911. They make the attacks because of the injustices suffered by Muslims in 5 main places. When Israel cuts off the water, food, electricity, medicines, and even sewage control from the Palestinians in Gaza – no matter what the provocation – they are giving the Jihadists their most potent weapon: injustice. Cutting off these essential supplies is a crime against humanity, and the Jihadists know it. Because the world allows this to happen, and doesn’t defend the lives of Palestinian women and children, the Jihadists have no trouble in convincing potentially radical young Muslims that there is no alternative but violence in reaction. If we want to reduce Jihadist attacks, we must seek just solutions to the suffering endured by Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Chechnya as a matter of prime international priority. This is not just a means to achieve justice for its own sake – which it most certainly is – but also an essential step towards reducing violence across the world. If action on these sources of injustice is done, and seen to be done, the best weapon of the Jihadists will be removed, and new recruits to their ranks will be much harder to find.

2) Seek out and close down the Jihadist camps in Pakistan.

3) Prevent Jihadist elements in Saudi Arabia from providing the money that is used to pay for Jihadist training and activity. Almost all the money that pays for Jihadist attacks comes from Saudi Arabia. This is a historical reality. When the British government created the nation of Saudi Arabia, and created a royal family to rule it, The House of Saud, the Bedouin Wahabbists – who follow an extreme form of Islam, that underpins Jihadism – were recruited to support the weak royal family. In exchange for the support of the warrior Wahabbis, the Saudi royal family agreed to support the Wahabbist Jihad agenda across the world. Almost every Koran carried by a Jihadist is printed in Saudi Arabia, and almost every dollar in their pockets comes from Saudi Arabia. If we want the attacks to reduce, and finally to sop, we have to choke off this supply of money from Saudi Arabia, and we have to support the moderate, democratic forces that could, eventually, bring these Wahabbist elements under control.

4) Preserve and defend our own democratic institutions and our constitutional and mandated rights. We must be the living example of what we believe, and never allow the Jihadists to determine what rights we have, or how free we are. In the long run, if our societies continue to be free and democratic, and vigorously defend the human rights of ALL human beings, that way of life will be the best answer to the repressive paradigm being promoted by the Jihadists. Every time we chip away at our own rights or freedoms, we prove the Jihadists right. Every time we stand up for human rights – even the human rights of the Jihadists who attack us – we prove them wrong.

5) Support moderate and democratic elements in all countries, everywhere – especially in countries with large Muslim majorities. When Bush2 named Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil”, he delivered a severe blow to the moderate and democratic elements in Iranian society, and created a weapon that the repressive regime could use against them. That reaction set the movement toward democracy back in Iran by a generation, with a single sentence. We have to believe what we preach, and never allow ourselves to be hypocrites. When the people of Palestine voted for a Hamas-led government in a free and fair election, the western countries that preach so long and hard about democracy refused to accept the result. That hypocrisy gave the Jihadists an extremely powerful weapon to use: they could point to the western governments and say: “See, they don’t really believe in democracy, and if you follow them, and vote for someone they don’t like, they will do everything to bring you down.”. We must believe sincerely, and support every moderate and democratic voice raised across the world, even when the results of that democratic election don’t give us results we like. In the long run of history, if we support democracy without wavering, even when the result isn’t something we like, people will always be more free, because they will always have the chance to choose a new government – perhaps one that we do like better.

6) We must not aggrandize the vicious acts of the Jihadists with the term “terror”. In the first place, the term “War on Terror” is an oxymoron: war IS terror, so the phrase means a “Terror on Terror”, and that’s exactly the wrong approach, if our objective is to end the violence and weaken the power of the Jihadists. What me must do is to insist that these crimes are just that – vicious and cowardly CRIMES – and that they will be prosecuted in criminal courts that are fair and open, and that preserve the rights of all – even of the Jihadists who appear in them. We must refer to the Jihadists as Jihadist criminals, rather than Jihadist terrorists, because every time we use the word terror in describing them and their acts, we give them more power and authority than their cowardly, craven crimes deserve.

Q. 10) What can we do to help India after these attacks?
A. 10) Keep the faith. Let the flames die down, let the smoke clear, and then don’t abandon your plan to visit India for a holiday. Go there. See the people, and spend time with them. Buy Indian products, buy and listen to Indian music CDs, buy and watch Indian movies, and ask your company that does business with India to stay the course and keep the faith with the country. Donate to recognized charities that do good work in India. In your own country, go down to a local store or restaurant that is run by Indians in your city, and tell them that you care, and you feel sorry for what has happened in Bombay. Resist the attempts of politicians to reduce your rights and freedoms in the name of the “war on terror”. Be loving to one another, wherever you are. Talk about peace and freedom and music and art and literature. And remind yourself, and those you cherish, that in every city in the world there are millions of beautiful, positive, creative actions done every hour, for each act of violence done every month.

There are two kinds of people, when it comes to talking or writing about what has been called the London Riots of August, 2011: those who understand it, and those who don’t.

By far the bigger group – one which includes almost all the politicians, commentators, journalists, bloggers and public intellectuals – is the one that doesn’t understand the phenomenon. Those who do understand it are themselves of two kinds: those who understand it from outside the so-called riots, and those who understand it from the inside: those who did the acts.

To begin, I reject the term “rioting” in this context. The dictionary definition of the word “riot” says: “a disturbance of the peace by a crowd; an occurrence of public disorder.” Unless and until the word “riot” is applied equally to the bankers and financial traders who precipitated the global financial collapse of 2008 (among other crowds of people who disturb the public peace and create public disorder, such as armaments manufacturers), I refuse to accept the words “riot” and “rioters” when applied to the incidents of August 2011 in London.

Language can be a weapon of war, as well as a means to express co-operation and love. When particular words, such as “terrorist” are applied only to one group of people (such as Jihadists, for example), on one side of a conflict, and not to those who practice terror as a warfare tactic on the other (such as those who use drone missiles to kill innocent “collateral” women and children, for example), the word is robbed of its meaning, and becomes simply a weapon of war.

So long as those involved in the acts in London during August are the only people called “rioters,” and the word is not equally applied to the bankers and financial traders who created an inestimable amount of public disorder, and damaged the peace of the entire world, then the word is robbed of its meaning, and simply becomes another weapon in the class war. Those who destroy lives and buildings and shops and livelihoods from the office of a bank are upright citizens. Those who do the same thing on the street are “rioters.” This is language used to enshrine privilege, and to justify draconian repression.

For me, given that the linguistic playing field is so tilted so unevenly to serve the interests of a privileged group, I prefer to use the term “rebellion” to describe the events of August 2011 in London, and to call the persons who took part “rebels”.

The first thing to note, in any rational and reasonable-minded analysis of the rebellions of August 2011 in London and elsewhere in England, is that the cause of that rebellion is exactly the same as the cause of every rebellion, in every city in the world, for the last 40 years: police brutality, or police killing.

The fact that not one analyst or commentator in the mainstream press – including the generally fair-minded newspapers, The Guardian and The Observer – has drawn this connection between London’s August rebellion and every other rebellion in Paris and Detroit Los Angeles, New York, Brixton and everywhere else for the last 40 years, is extremely revealing.

The only criterion that is common to all of these rebellions – a catalytic instance of police brutality or police killing – is the only factor that remains unexamined in these public commentaries and analyses. There have been a few comments here and there about the role of the policing in rebellious communities, but I haven’t seen a single analysis or commentary anywhere that draws the link, and states clearly that police brutality and police killing are always the catalysts for rebellions.

The anger and fear that many people felt as they watched buildings burn and shops being looted have become an emotional wall against clear thinking. That fear and anger and lust for vengeance – combined with the vested interests of a privileged elite – have looked everywhere for causes and blame, except in the one direction that has logical and historical validation: the actions of the police.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not against cops, and I know a lot of hard-working, honest and compassionate cops. Those cops are people I admire, and I love some of them as treasured friends. But the inescapable fact is that compassion doesn’t describe the day-to-day actions of police departments across the world, and when relations between police and communities deteriorate, the seeds of violent rebellion are sown.

People in rebellion communities across the world see the police force as an occupation force. They don’t believe that the police are there to protect them – they believe that the police are there to oppress them.

One small example may make this point a little more clear. A friend of mine moved into a house in an area that was being slowly gentrified. The friend is a lawyer, who makes a decent living, but whose income wasn’t sufficient to buy a house in an upmarket area. So, he moved into a fine house in an area that was still regarded as a “troubled” working class area, but which was slowly moving in a gentrified direction.

One night, two men broke down the front door of my friend’s new house, and demanded the drugs and money. They’d made a mistake, and had attacked the wrong man, in the wrong house. My friend tried to explain the mistake, but when the men attacked him physically, my friend reacted, and fought back. He drove one of the men off, and captured the other. He called the police, telling them that men had broken down his door in a home-invasion, attacked him, and that he’d captured one of them men. The police took an hour to arrive at his front door. The ambulance itself took 45 minutes.

Across town, in a very expensive area, another friend of mine, who is a successful actor and comedian, received a knock at the door of his house. When he opened it, he found the police there, with a man in their custody. The cops asked my friend if they knew the man. My friend said that he did: the man was the boyfriend of his maid. Normally, the maid drove her own car, but on that day, her car was in the garage, so her boyfriend had arrived to pick her up after her shift ended. The cops told my friend that they’d received a call from a concerned neighbour, telling them that an unknown man was sitting in a car in their street. They’d responded within 7 minutes of the neighbour making the call.

When enough incidents such as those accumulate within your life, you begin to feel a burning resentment toward the police, if you live in a “tough” working class area. And naturally enough, you begin to feel a sense of being served and protected if you live in a rich neighbourhood.

Another example may make the point even more clear. One commentator in London said that his 13-year old grandson had come home one day, a few months before the August rebellion, and announced that he’d finally become a man. When the grandfather asked him what he meant, the boy said that he’d been stopped and searched by the police on the street for the first time. Being stopped by the police had become a badge of honour in the neighbourhood. The enemy – the police – recognized that you were a potential threat to them – you were a grown man – if they stopped you and searched you. It’s probably unnecessary to tell you that the commentator who told that story is black.

When the police act in ways that are unfair, unjust and discriminatory within a given community, they confirm an impression that they are an occupying force. When members of that same police force brutally attack someone from that community – or shoot someone dead, for whatever reason – they will sometimes provoke a rebellion among those who feel themselves to be under a brutal occupation.

Until we acknowledge that fact, and stare the truth – that every so-called riot for the last 40 years, across the world, always started with an act of police brutality or a police shooting – directly in the face, we’ll never understand the cause of rebellion, or avoid its destructive effects.

I said at the outset that there are two kinds of people who understand the August 2011 London rebellion: those who understand it from within, and those who understand it from the outside.

The first point I made – that every so-called “riot” begins with the same catalyst: police violence in a community that perceives itself to be under the control of an occupation force – is something that can be known from the outside of the rebellion experience. The facts are available to all, including those who played no part in the rebellion. And the analysis, concluding inarguably that police violence is the constant and ubiquitous catalyst for rebellion, can be articulated by anyone, and from any distance from the rebellion.

But the second point I’d like to make could only come from inside the experience of rebellion (or so-called “rioting”): it comes from personal experience, and is the kind of thing that only those who’ve experienced it from the inside can know.

An example may make my argument clear. Several times, during the 10 years that I was in prisons, I experienced prison “riots.” Those prison rebellions all had characteristics in common:

1) They all followed an incident of brutality or death at the hands of prison guards.

2) They involved burning and destruction of the prisoners’ own property and environment.

3) They were followed by a multitude of questions: Why did this happen? Why did they burn and destroy their own things, and the places where they live?

4) They were followed by commentators, analyses and Commissions of Inquiry that never considered the fact that every prison “riot” in every prison in every State in the country had always followed an incident of brutality or death at the hands of prison guards.

The parallel with the August 2011 London rebellion is obvious. What is less obvious to anyone who hasn’t been inside the experience of rebellion is why the rebels burn and destroy their own property and habitats.

Having been inside the eye of the prison rebellion (so-called “prison riots”) several times, I can tell you that people cause such destruction during rebellions because they feel that they have nothing left to lose, and that they have no stake in the society in which they live.

The prisoners in prisons who try to stop the destruction during a prison rebellion are not morally superior to the rebels, and they’re not from better homes or families. They’re invariably prisoners who feel that they have a stake in the prison community, and who feel they have something to lose.

The people in rebellious communities who try to stop the destruction during rebellions are not morally superior to the rebels, and they’re not from better homes and families: they’re invariably people who feel that they have a stake in the community, and who have something to lose.

These rebellions – and the destruction that follow in their wake – are not the product of a weak morality or bad homes and families. The rebellions are always caused by brutal acts committed by a police force considered to be an occupying force, and perpetrated by people who feel that they have nothing left to lose, and who have no stake in the community.

Focussing so much energy, attention and legal vengeance on people who stole property was and continues to be a waste of time. The real focus should have been on the kids who fought the police and had no intention of stealing anything. The real focus should have been on the kids who wanted to burn shops, rather than steal from them. The crux of the matter lies with those who burned and battled, rather than the opportunists who stole sneakers and TV sets. And the crux of the matter lies with them because they are the people who feel themselves to be living under a brutal occupation, and who have nothing left to lose, and no stake in the community.

Parenthetically, the prison rebellions I mentioned were opportunities for the same linguistic warfare that calls people who damage one street “rioters” but not bankers and financial traders who damage thousands of streets. Once again the terms “riot” and “rioting” were only ever assigned to the prisoners, and ever to the crowd of guards who disturbed the peace and created public disorder by beating and torturing prisoners.

RECOMMENDATIONS

No matter how important it is to identify the real cause of rebellions such as those that occurred in London in August 2011, it isn’t sufficient: we need to take positive action, if such rebellions are to diminish in number and ferocity, and eventually to cease altogether.

My recommendations, for what they’re worth, are as follows:

1) Institute a wide-ranging public inquiry into the strategies, tactics and demeanour of the police force in less privileged areas and communities. Such an inquiry should have the power to compel witnesses called from the ranks of the police force to testify, and should reward and protect whistle blowers within the police department and the other branches of the public service, and members of the public who give evidence.

2) Following the identification of problems between the police force and the public in certain communities – problems that might lead to conflict such as rebellions – the inquiry should have the power to implement positive changes in police strategies, tactics, and demeanour.

3) Institute department-wide programs to ensure that every police officer receives training in ways to identify and eliminate racism and other forms of discrimination. They should also receive courses in ethics, anger management, alternatives to violence, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

4) As a general principle, police stations should be located within communities. This means establishing police stations inside residential tower blocks and large community housing projects. The police must be seen to be a living part of every community – not a remote occupation force. The police must be known by name, and they must know the people in their community by name.

5) Policing for the less privileged – rather than against the less privileged, as it is perceived to be at present – must increase exponentially. When people see that the police respond as quickly and earnestly to their problems as they do to the problems faced by the rich and powerful, people will begin to trust the police again.

6) As a matter of principle, take all investigations of police misconduct out of the hands of the police. All investigations of police misconduct must be carried out by independent, impartial investigators.

7) As a matter of priority, money must be invested in all areas where people have the sense that they have nothing to lose, and that they have no stake in the community. In my experience, whenever prison authorities invested sums of money in prison units, and gave prisoners a sense of involvement in the management of the goods and services in the prison community, prison rebellions became rare or non-existent. The same will occur in wider communities, if people have a sense that they belong, that they have a stake in the community, and that they have something to lose.

These are not all the answers, and they only constitute the first steps of an ongoing, generational process of change. But until these steps are taken, the rebellions will continue.

In one sense, the rebellions of August 2011 in London and elsewhere in England were a trial run for a much bigger and much more destructive rebellion. The kids involved in that rebellion have learned that the one thing every police in the world fears is fire. And if we don’t take the steps necessary to face the truth and pay for the necessary changes, the fire in the sky next time will be much higher, and will burn for much longer.

GDR, October 2011

Love and best wishes, Gregory David Roberts.