What a coincidence!

 

 "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Franklin D. Roosevelt

Coincidence, serendipity, and seriality - as described by the coincidence collector Paul Kammerer - do not explain politics. Nor do they explain the media.

Several articles were published regarding an earthquake that hit Iran on October 5 and theories as to whether that was actually a nuclear test run by Iran. An earthquake, measuring 4.4 on the Richter scale, was recorded in Aradan County in Semnan Province. The timing of the seismic activity and the location "made people link it to Iran's nuclear programme and ask if the Islamic country was close to getting its own nuclear weapon" as per media articles. Although earthquakes are normal in that geographical area, the timing of the natural phenomena was put at doubt by a skeptic, conspiratorial,  and weary media coverage.

CIA Director William Burns said yesterday that there was no evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon. However, he also said that Iran only needs one week to amass enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. The nuclear threat  - coupled with the ideological one - that Iran poses in the region is not news. Although the US is treading carefully and Israel following suit, as far as the nuclear issue is concerned, both governments will start crying wolf soon. 

At a time when the US is calling for ceasefire and containing escalations, it does not want to further implicate itself or Israel in the destruction of the region. Instead, and similar to what happened in Iraq over 20 years ago, the fears that were unsubstantiated will suddenly become merited owing to cleverly and patiently weaved messaging in international media outlets. Iran is supporting all of its proxies in the region and is adamant to press through a programme that has been questioned from the outset. An act against the regime is not only justified, but necessary. It is a question of time before it is fully embraced.

Israel's former premier is calling for striking Iran's nuclear sites. He sees the opportunity as ideal, as one more aggression against a nuclear fanatic land would be dwarfed against the atrocities committed in the region. The current Israeli most likely agrees behind closed doors, and a US government  - whichever one is elected - will also probably agree.  It is the role of the media to make us agree, and forget that coincidences in politics do not happen.

Post-truth politics

 

Since October 7, 2023, epistemicide by the media and online influencers has been on the rise. Epistemicide, which is the systematic destruction of rival forms of knowledge, is evident. The mass-murder of Gazans, and the destruction of their livelihoods, schools, communities, universities, heath centers, and cultural and religious centers all contribute to the death of Gazans as spokespeople and knowledge producers of their own history and being. Coupled with radical, misinformed social media influencers, attempting to both justify the Israeli aggression and negating any Gazan narrative, the process is gradual, but guaranteed. The process of denying existence as a nation, as a people, as a community with a distinguished and proper culture and history, and right to exist. It is a process that aims to eradicate the concept of non-citizen, as Gazans have been since 1948, where, in Tendayi Bloom’s words, the absence of citizenship and the livelihood of people despite the system are also being denied.

But the tragedy does not stop here. In comes post-truth politics, which in itself fuels false narratives and feeds public anxiety, distrust and suspicion. Most importantly, post-truth politics has become wishful, non-factual narrative. 

In the Trump-Harris debate held on September 10, 2024, the presidential candidates were asked about their policies towards resolving the Israel-Gaza conflict. And here, each candidate played the term rhetoric to the beat. 

Trump’s answer was a fictional, back-to-the-future, and painfully predictable “this would not have happened under my watch”. A non-answer that gaslights spectators and tricks them into believing that the suffering, injustice, and dehumanization of Gazans would not have led to any new forms of resistance (irrespective of its effectiveness or soundness). Had he been president, Gazans and Israelis would have held hands and rejoiced their neighborly ties under the Mediterranean rainbow. Such inflated ego that embarrassingly allows its bearer to believe that an audience would be reassured that a genocide would end if he were allowed to travel back in time, is sadly not shocking today.

Then came in Harris with another post-truth political maneuver. Harris insisted on a cease-fire agreement and a two state solution. She either lacked the courage or the brains to realize that Israel decided no, and voted no, on both issues. Claiming that her approach to end the conflict is by inking a deal to stop all aggression and establishing a Palestinian state is also gas-lighting an American public. It is time for hard truths, for finger pointing, for brutal honesty.

At present, Palestinians seem to be locked in between a media army that manipulates ignorant and biased actors to spread half-truths and deny truths, and politicians who are delusional and drowning in rhetoric that anything they say is completely void of meaning, inspiration, or goal. Whilst this is happening, a literal army is eradicating an entire body of culture, and uprooting its people in every possible mean.

Epistemicide is happening, and we are watching. And some are clapping. But Gazans are not, and will not, be erased.

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. 

The freedom of the pike is death to the minnows

In philosophy, freedom is usually examined as a property of the will. It is as an ethical ideal or normative principle, perhaps as the most vital such principle. In its simplest sense, freedom means to do as one wishes or act as one chooses. As John Locke defined it, it is the freedom to life, freedom, and property.

Only anarchists, who reject all forms of political authority as unnecessary and undesirable, are prepared to endorse unlimited freedom. A license is agreed as a necessary vice. The question remains is regarding which freedoms are we willing to approve, and which ones are we justified in curtailing.

John Stuart Mill departed from utilitarianism and recognized individuality, proposing a clear distinction between ‘self-regarding’ actions and ‘other regarding’ actions. When harm is involved, then a license is necessary. Which begs the question: what is harm? Physical or moral?

It is argued that governments should similarly be restricted to a ‘minimal’ role, amounting in practice to little more than the maintenance of domestic order and personal security. This vision is shared by many liberals and neoliberals, in what is known as negative liberty. For this reason, advocates of negative freedom have usually supported the minimal state.

In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin referred to negative liberty and positive liberty. The reason for using these labels is that in the first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something, whereas in the second case it seems to require the presence of something. Negative freedom is freedom of choice: the freedom of the consumer to choose what to buy, the freedom of the worker to choose a job or profession, the freedom of a producer to choose what to make and who to employ. Positive freedom however polices restrictions to impediments to freedom. It helps citizens help themselves to be free.

In light of the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict, can the question of negative and positive liberty be used as an excused that justified Kremlin’s invasion of its neighbour? Can the rhetoric of freeing a nation that is denied political and jurisdictional rapprochement with its soviet predecessor, and freeing its people from neo-liberal abuse and modern enslavement be employed as philosophical notions of a nation that reminisces about a glorious past?

The contested concept of freedom lies at the heart of the issue. Whichever band one decides to side, neither is fully observing the core of freedom: people’s choice. The moment that freedom was delegated to a higher power, its strength has been muzzled and blended into different shades of freedom. At present, negative or positive, Ukrainians are suffering the exploitation of “freedom”: freedom to join the free world, or freedom to join the free nation. Ironically, they are not offered the freedom to explore any other option.

Fourth Face of Power

 

Politics is power. Quite simply, power is politics, politics is power. As Ball notes, `power is arguably the single most important organising concept in social and political theory'.

The concept of power links it to the ability to achieve a desired outcome, sometimes referred to as power to. The concept of power has long been studied by political thinkers: For Machiavelli, power is an end in itself, and whatever means are necessary for a prince to acquire and maintain political power are justified. Thomas Hobbes however saw that competition for goods of life becomes a struggle for power because without power one cannot retain what one has acquired. One cannot retain power without acquiring more power. German sociologist Max Webber linked power of authority and rules, and focused on structures and bureaucracy. Robert Dahl continues Weber’s approach, both in the definition of power and in the attribution of it to a concrete human factor.  In “The Concept of Power” (1957), Dahl developed a formal definition of power, “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do. Dahl treated power as the ability to influence the decision-making process, an approach he believed to be both objective and quantifiable.

Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962) developed a model as a response to Dahl—the two faces of power (way decisions are made, and ways that they are not made). For example, on what basis can ‘key’ decisions, which are studied, be distinguished from ‘routine’ ones, which are ignored. Bachrach and Baratz described non-decision-making as the ‘second face of power. Although Bachrach and Baratz accepted that power is reflected in the decision-making process, they insisted that ‘to the extent that a person or group – consciously or unconsciously – creates or reinforces barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or group has power’

In the 1970s, Steven Lukes (1974) developed Bachrach and Baratz’s approach further. His devised the three dimension of power. In the first face, the decision making process, A’s power over B is manifested to the extent that A can make B do something which B would not have done had it not been for A. In the second face, agenda setting, certain subjects or participants are excluded from the process. In addition to the resources of the first dimension, the people with power mobilize game rules which work in their favor, at others’ expense. Decision-making may be prevented by the exertion of force, the threat of sanctions, or the mobilization of bias which creates a negative approach to the subject.

The third, latent dimension that of the true interests, explains that B does things that he would not have done had it not been for A because A influences, determines and shapes B’s will. Media, advertisement, political campaigns, education, mass action and others are but example of the subtle influence of public opinion.

Nowadays, we see a fourth face of power: the ability to embrace ambivalence and accept shallow truths. A headline is enough of information; a quick YouTube animated video can provide a sound justification for a policy; beautifully worded accusations masked with humanitarian values are adopted; and complete ambivalence to events - whether near or far – are perfectly acceptable.

Political power currently rests on that four face – a dangerous, lonely, and self-destructive facade.