Why the Middle East Crisis is important?

Yesterday I read this post in the blog of the BBC editors blog.

It was about the statistics of war, and how much coverage was given to the current conflicts in the world.

The editor of the Ten O'clock News at the BBC tried to justify why the story which implicated fewer lost of human lives was not the most important, but the one with less time on air. He pointed as reasons the complexity of the story, the relations of that story with other conflicts which are developing in the World and the fact it comes from the "Middle East" as the main reasons why that story was the main international story.

I think those reasons where all true, from the point of view of a journalist, but there is another one: The other stories, both were yesterday's news (the Iraq story is more than three years old and It has been the main international story for almost all of those three years and the Congolese conflict has been an ongoing conflict since almost the replacement of Zaire by the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1997) and the Middle East Crisis is today's news, just two weeks old.

But I want to explain Why I think the Middle East Crisis is so important in other sense: looking from the point of view of the international relations.

I mean: Why just two weeks after the begin of the attacks of Israel into Lebanon there was a meeting of international leaders trying to give a solution to the crisis?

Just because is now a Middle East Crisis. Is an international conflict which could turn into a regional conflict.

The Iraqi Violence have been going for years, but confined to the Iraqi soil, mostly as a civil war between Sunnis and Shia's (is a little bit more complex than that, but those are the basics) and do not involve forces from other countries (besides the United States and coalition forces, who are just observers and try to not get into the conflict), specially not forces from the region. The Iraqi violence can turn into an international or regional conflict if one of the these two countries enter into the Iraqi conflict:

First Iran, which is not probable, because the Shi'a leader, those supported by Iran, have recognized the government of Iraq and now their main objective is to calm down the country so the coalition forces couldn't have more reasons to be in Iraq.

The other option is the involvement of Turkey in the North, which is really difficult because the Kurdish have assumed their status quo and do not want to extend their territories.

Iraq of course, is in the headlines now, because It's Prime Minister was visiting the United States, more than for the violence in Iraq itself which is just a two minutes story, with images from a news agency rather than those which comes directly from the network who is airing the story.

The Congolese conflict had not been international since like 2003, after the withdrawal of the Rwandan and Ugandan forces. From that year on the civil war has continued, but mostly within the Congolese frontiers. This conflict is on the news because of the elections that will be held on this week-end, which can end the violence. This will be the first free elections in 40 years in that country.

Although Craig Oliver didn't mention It, I cannot avoid the Somalia issue. This is also a civil war, but It's turning into a international conflict. This is not yet a regional one, but It's slowly turning into that, after the involvement of Ethiopian forces.

This conflict it's becoming more important from the point of view of the international relations, but, sadly, there will not be many news about It in the TV bulletins, mostly, because the "good guys" are loosing and they are not the good guys in the eyes of the Somalis.

Getting back to the Middle East Crisis, the current phase of the crisis began with the kidnap of two Israeli soldiers by a Palestinian radical group, at this point it was just one more incident in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has been going on since 2001.

But then a Lebanese radical group followed the move and kidnap two more soldiers, answered by the Israelis with attacks on Lebanon, then Hezbollah answered with rockets against Northern Israel and what is the current Middle East Crisis.

The first problem in the current crisis is the possibility of a reissue of the Lebanon War which lasted 30 years, until 2000, in the South of Lebanon with the Israelis fighting Hezbollah, a war which ended not because of one side won, but because of an accident and an election in Israel.

The other problem is that the probabilities of involvement of other countries are high. Syria and Iran have many interest in the region, specially Syria in the Golan Heights (a portion of Syria which is occupied by the Israeli just as the South portion of Lebanon was occupied by them in an attempt to stop Hezbollah from attacking Northern Israel).

fortunately this problem has been avoided for the moment, with the announcement made by the Israeli defense Forces they will not advance any further into the Lebanese territory.

But today Al-Qaeda say they will respond to the attacks made by the Israeli forces in Lebanon, which is difficult and can only be seen as opportunistic (this because Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization and Hezbollah is Shi'a, with is the same to say Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, they are both Muslims and Arabs, but those are the only things they got in common). I don't think Al-Qaeda can respond to the attacks in Lebanon and be seen by the Shi'as as the heroes of the hole Islamic Faith, but if they do it, they will be the absolute winners in this conflict.

The current Middle East crisis is a crisis since It get out of Israeli territory.

But, as Condolezza Rice has said, and most analysis agree with that, the conflict has roots which are beyond the problem of a ceasefire. A ceasefire could help, but will not solve the problem.

The solution would not be easy, but the main reason why to focus on the crisis is not to solve it, just try to put a limit, in relation to both time, and territory.

Just Remember that Israel has atomic weapons and maybe Iran has them too.

Use your strengths

About the 'Middle-East' crisis, and I refer to the current crisis, the one between Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon.

When you are in a negotiation, you are always told to use your strengths.

And that is what Israel is doing now.

Many 'people' are saying that Israel is 'over reacting' and I think is truth. But not for the same reasons they think it.

I think Israel got a 'strength' in Its dealings with their neighbours and the 'International Community'. And I mean 'strength' in two senses:

First they are the wealthy and, more important, the ones which have more 'guns'.

But secondly, this is also a strength in negotiations. This is 'the' point in which Israel is strong: they have more fire power than anyone in the region and the only one that have more fire power and can deploy it in that region is their main ally (the United States).

So they need to use their strength, in both senses (and now reversing them in the argument) they first need to make sure the conflict is mainly based on fire power and second, they need to use their fire power against their enemies.

If they are driven again from open fighting they will loose the conflict, not because they are bad diplomats, but because they have bad advertising advisors and the everybody is or against them or with them so they cannot use someone that it seems is neutral, but in really is with them as a mediator. The whole of Europe is openly with the Palestinian, the whole ex-communist countries are in the same situation, mainly because they provided weapons to the Palestinians to fight against Israel, China is in the same situation, and the United States is openly with them, so they are not going to be accepted by the Palestinians.

So they can not negotiate and win, or at least to impose their terms, so the best way to impose their terms, no matter how bad is for public image, is to fight openly, they already have the worst image they can have.

And the problem It was when there was an opportunity, and I don't mean an open gate, just a window (Hamas was going to open the gate of recognition of the State of Israel), of a peace process in the Palestinian problem, they just over reacted and began a major conflict after the kidnap of two soldiers by an splinter group.

I know their motives: they just don't want to negotiate with those groups and they want to show them It's bad to make that sort of actions.

But they knew before that, those attacks would diminish the power of the Palestinian Authority and would not show those groups to stop that kind of acts, but encourage them to do so. Those groups does not care about the well being of the Palestinian (or Arab) people, they just want to make politics. And the best way to make politics is to let the Israelis get into Gaza to attack and destroy, and watch as the Palestinians (and many other people around the world) does not blame for the destruction to the terrorist group which made the first move, but the Israelis who over reacted.

So later another group, not so splintered, kidnaps others Israeli soldiers, and wait for the Israeli response. More destruction, more bad publicity and more politics.

The right answer of Israel is not to over react, just react.

And look up for new strengths in their dealings in the Middle East. Their neighbours are getting closer to those strengths, just ask the people in Haifa.

♬ Ave MARIA ♬

♬

Ave Maria
Gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Ave, ave dominus
Dominus tecum
Benedicta tu in mulieribus
Et benedictus
Et benedictus fructus ventris
Ventris tuae, Jesus.
Ave Maria


Ave Maria
Mater Dei
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus
Ora pro nobis
Ora, ora pro nobis peccatoribus
Nunc et in hora mortis
Et in hora mortis nostrae
Et in hora mortis nostrae
Et in hora mortis nostrae
Ave Maria

♬

:-O Don't become a monster in order to defeat a monster :-O

Well, for those of you that don't know where the title phrase of this post comes from I tell You: It comes from the booklet of the Vertigo 2005 // U2 Live from Chicago DVD, which I received as a present in my birthday.

I like U2, and I liked the present. In fact I bought the ticket for the concert on my birthday, but I don't like the attitude the band had been taking in the last tour.

First, and noticed by all: they charge to some material from the band in their website. I know this is normal and many bands do it. But is just the tip of the iceberg. In my country, Chile they are charging prices that are much above what many people can afford to just listen and watch them live in concert. Here there is a list of prices. Just in case they take the site down, I take a couple of screen shots:

Just in case the prices are in Chilean Pesos using today exchange rate (528 Chilean pesos per one US. Dollar) the final price of the tickets (Precio final) would be:
Galeria (the cheapest location): US $ 36.72.
Cancha: US $ 65.49.
Pací­fico Lateral Sur: US $ 65.49.
Pací­fico Lateral: US $ 65.49.
Andes: US $ 109.78
Pací­fico Bajo: Norte y Sur: US $ 182.27
Pací­fico Alto: US $ 282.01
Pací­fico Medio Centro (the most expensive location) : US $ 350.15

I don't know how much live concerts cost in other countries in the world, but as an example Oasis charges 15.000 Chilean pesos (US $ 28.39) in every location or Carlos Santana which charges between 7.000 Chilean pesos in the cheapest location (US $ 13.25) and 40.000 (US $ 75.71) in the most expensive. And they are international and everybody knows them also.

They also created a 'new location' Pacífico Lateral Sur which is explicitly warned as: 'with limited view'. That location didn't exist when the first ticket where put on sale, but after in just one day they sold almost 75% of the tickets, they opened the 'new' location.

The main problem with U2 is their main singer and leader: Bono is the champion of the 'good causes' in the world (as an example look at this 'Band News' in the their website).

I was in the last concert in Chile and It was not as much expensive as is now. I can't remember the prices in detail, but they were not as high charged as they are now. In timennity the band initially had prohibited alcohol or cigarettes brands to sponsor the concert, but finally they agree to accept those brands in certain countries (including Chile) in order not to over-charge the ticket prices. Well, I don't know what happened in between but this time Coca-Cola is the main sponsor and the tickets are over priced (from my country point of view).

The funny thing is the last tour in Chile was based in the man as a consumer and a not so subtle criticism to consumerism. Well, with the Elevation tour in between, they forgot this stanza and now they are treating their fans as consumers and they try to convert them into compulsive consumers which make long rows in a sunny day just to get one ticket (or as just four, because you couldn't get more than that) which was what happened in Chile.

I don't know. I like the band, I like their music, but, I don't like their 'new' way of looking at 'me' just as a consumer and not as a music listener. I prefer the last.