Meaning through Conspiracy

Strategy, according to Liddell Hart, as inspired by Sun Tzu, is the art of distributing and employing military means to fulfill the ends of policy. The ends of policy were not a military responsibility but rather handed down from the level of grand strategy, where all instruments of policy were weighed, one against the other, and where it was necessary to look beyond the war to the subsequent peace. It remains unclear what the exact policy that Israeli policy makers are championing, as it shifts and reorganizes professed priorities continuously. Yet, what appears to the average spectator is that 15,000 deaths and 45,000 casualties is collateral damage Israel is willing to accept as part of its policy, its strategy, and end goal. Of what and why? To free hostages? Rid Gazans from tyrants? Achieve security in the immediate vicinity? Crush "human animals" and nuke them? Which is it?

The conflicting statements by Israeli officials and the brutal actions taken by the military feed into the three main conspiracy theories that attempt to give meaning to what policymakers might be thinking:

1. Israel is destroying the enclave’s infrastructure so they can benefit from the natural gas reserves in a field discovered in 2000. The Gaza Marine natural gas field, located offshore the strip is estimated to hold 32 billion cubic meters of natural gas. It was never developed because of Israel’s objections, fearing that revenues would end up in Hamas’ pockets. Now the opportunity presented itself on a silver plate.

2. Israel is emptying the northern part of the strip to pave the way for the Ben Gurion Canal, which would connect the Gulf of Aqaba (Eilat) in the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Sea and would pass through Israel and end in the Gaza Strip. Note that on October 20, 2020, the Israeli state-owned company Europe Asia Pipeline Company and the Emirati company MED-RED Land Bridge signed an agreement on the use of the Eilat-Ashkelon oil pipeline to transport oil from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, but work on the canal never kicked off. The current Israeli re-occupation of the Gaza Strip came as a gift to revive the project.

3. A clean cut genocide. Gaza would be emptied from Arabs, and Egypt - which recently was promised a 9 billion investment plan and debt talks - would host expelled Gazans. As such, the Israeli premier would bolster his position and the Gaza problem would be swept under the carpet in a Machiavellian regional plan that (behold) included Israeli and Hamas coordination.

 

Such conspiracies need not be true. They only need to make sense. The issue here is not what Israel wants, it is actually what the spectator expects as a justification of the unjustifiable. The reasons of Israel can be one and many, and its strategy is coping and changing as geopolitical developments require such revision. Israel will and did negotiate with Hamas, and it will as it did resume to kill indiscriminately. Nothing is definite, nor is it just, or with meaning, or entirely rational. And so is the policy behind the strategy employed. 

Humans are barely rational creatures who instead respond to messages that tug on their emotions and "feel" as much as they "see" the world. What has been seen and felt must now be understood. To steal a quote from a friend, "for the same things people see different things". But, whichever side of the struggle - even those siding with neither - the images are vivid and real and shared and cant be unseen. The brutality must have a justification that makes more sense than what either side is claiming to achieve. Such senselessness has led to the adoption of conspiracy theories to give the strife some meaning on a timeline of start and end. A why and therefore. A closure to a perceived ugly beginning and middle. A sad attempt of using conspiracies to explain the inexplicable. Hope to find logic in a senseless strategy. A quest for a grand finale.

Yet in the words of Hilary Mantel: "There are no endings. If you think so you are deceived as to their nature. They are all beginnings. Here is one."

Better to Reign in Hell than Serve in Heaven

That is what Satan said, when he (presumably) stood undaunted and remained a dedicated opponent to the tyranny of Heaven. Reigning, irrespective of the underlying conditions, is the essence of sovereignty, which still echoes loudly in most parts of the world. No level of economic distress or isolation could dilute its intensity. Poverty can be and is endured, if not even embraced, by many nations that do not fear an empty belly. 

On September 22, China offered to help reconstruct Syria with he formation of a strategic partnership. Chinese leader Xi Jinping's diction was carefully selected: “China supports Syria’s opposition to foreign interference, unilateral bullying … and will support Syria’s reconstruction.” Western sanctions on Syria have been steadily tightened since the beginning of the a civil war in 2011 with a crackdown on protests and went on to kill hundreds of thousands of people and displace millions. Essentially,  the 2020 Caesar Act freezes the assets of anyone dealing with the country. This translates into lack of foreign investment, deteriorating infrastructure and industry, and increased levels if poverty and social strife. Indeed, the dire economic situation has triggered protests, which were quenched with state aid, eventual indifference and inertia, and lending hands from the anti-bullies. 

Starvation as a war strategy

The soft approach of economic sanctions instead of a military intervention has solid strategic foundations and moral basis - albeit fully utilitarian. Instead of barrels that kill indiscriminately, sanctions in theory target political systems and weaken the system from within. Sanctions allow for a long, quiet peaceful war whose casualties are not those with bullet-ridden corpses, but that of starved skeletons. It is a cheaper war, a more moral one, a war that is accepted by the empathetic public, one that adheres to the Paris Accords. It is the generally accepted approach to rectify a deviating behaviours is one based on economic sanctions. 

The logic is simple: cripple the economy from within, and soon friends and family will leave. But do they really?  Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and Syria are examples of how such a policy failed epically. Syrians still support the incumbent president; Iran is still a dictatorial-theocracy going ahead with its nuclear program; Russia is pressing on with its regional program; Iraq long survived sanctions and only succumbed following a military intervention, and communist rhetoric still guides Cubans. What sanctions do is penalize citizens for long periods of time, in a lesser-evil-diplomatic cover of cruel collective punishment. Sanctions lead to starvation, poverty, dependence, desperation, and sub-development. Such "peaceful" crisis management is anything but peaceful: it is full of menace and mass punishment in the name of avoiding military intervention. 

A direct, diplomatic solution is a better alternative to the carrot and stick approach. Sanctions are not an effective solution. The world is not safer with these sanctions. In fact, disagreeing governments and companies worldwide have become experts an evading sanctions by using proxy companies, shell firms, hiding UBO information, and selecting complex maritime routes to facilitate "illegal" trade. 

While the public assumes the burden of sanctions, political elites are bolstered, having mastered the art of eschewing sanctions via its alliances with sympathizing regimes. Such economic strife only means further dependence and submission to autocratic regimes that hold whatever remaining carrots allowed. Saliently, nationalistic tendencies and patriotism gain popularity to maintain national dignity. History has proven time and again that sovereignty trumps convenience, and that ideologies remain a strong guiding principle to ordinary people. A life of ruling in hell is better than one of servitude in heaven resonates ever more now with the public, whose moderate positions are necessarily radicalized following injustice, poverty, and inability to satisfy basic needs. 

To conclude, a strategy of a quiet war based on sanctions is weak, ineffective, and counterproductive. Key strategist Field Marshal Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke observed that "strategy is but a system of expediencies".  This cannot be more accurate today.

Tunisians voted....somehow

Tunisian voters began casting their votes in a second round of parliamentary elections that took place last month.  The mayhem and political turmoil that Tunisia has been through do not promise a safe retraction to democracy. The new parliament will have very few powers, as it cannot, for example, dismiss the president or hold him accountable. The president has priority in proposing bills. The new constitution does not require that the government appointed by the president obtain the confidence of parliament. The participation rate is the main measure of the success of the election, which the opposition boycotts in light of the political and economic crisis afflicting the country. The electoral campaign appeared lackluster, as a limited number of electoral banners hung in the streets and on the roads presenting candidates, most of whom are unknown to the Tunisian public.

In an attempt to introduce them in a better way, the Independent High Authority for Elections sought to organize debates between them, which were broadcast on state television during the hours of high viewing rates at night.

262 candidates are competing for 131 seats in the new parliament (out of 161), during elections that represent the final stage of a road map imposed by President Kais Saied, the most prominent feature of which is the establishment of a strengthened presidential system similar to the pre-revolutionary version of Tunisia.

The Independent High Authority for Elections announced that the turnout in the second round of the elections remains low.  A mere 11% of the electorate had voted on Sunday, with critics of President Kais Saied saying the empty polling stations were evidence of public disdain for his agenda and seizure of powers.The political upheaval in Tunisia is accompanied by an economic impasse, exacerbated by the failure of crucial negotiations with the International Monetary Fund to obtain a loan of about two billion dollars.

Observers believe that the only glimmer of hope for this crisis is the "rescue initiative" launched by the "Tunisian General Labor Union", the "Tunisian League for Human Rights", the "National Organization of Lawyers" and the "Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights" in order to submit proposals that they will present to Saeed. out of the crisis.

Youssef Cherif, director of Columbia Global Centers in Tunis, told AFP “this parliament will have very little legitimacy, and the president, who is all-powerful thanks to the 2022 constitution, will be able to control it as he sees fit”. 

It is hard to imagine whether the 11% figure would promise a representative parliament. Yet again, a 100% figure wouldn't, unfortunately, either.