AWKA TIMES Magazine (2025)

07/11/2024

The great German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, argued that history moves by its own logic toward a teleological end, even if sometimes in reversible cycles. He proposed what he called the "Cunning of Reason," by which he meant that history ultimately fulfills its rational designs―sometimes in an elliptical, indirect and even sly manner.

A great reversal of history is unfolding wherever you look in our world today, and it may cause a temporary disillusion for the progressive-minded. But Hegelian dialectics tells us that history marches on regardless, and that retrogressive forces hoping to freeze the frame of history always lose out in the end, whatever their momentary tactical gain.

We learned long ago from the Standard Model of particle physics that the most basic element of matter, quarks, are quirky and unstable, though gluons make an attempt to hold them together. We also learn from cosmology that we inhabit an ever-expanding universe, and that we ourselves, as humans, are products of an ineluctable process of evolution, similar to everything else in nature. Even the very gods we profess to worship, themselves―though we little understand them―evolve in our very own imagination.

Nothing stays the same. Morning starts at the darkest hour of night, this sometimes being the hour of mourning. It is there in the Awka―nay, Igbo―concept of light, embodied in the saying: "chi ejili abani fo." Morning emerges from the bowel of night. That is the persistent logic of world history.

As the great Bob Marley sang in "Redemption Song," no one can stop the time.

I am still trying to decide whether to write an epilogue for Awka Times on recent events, having already written a ream. For now, though, I wanted to share my overarching thoughts, if anything as a placeholder, as I contemplate our darkened horizon.

Cheers
Chudi Okoye

30/10/2024

US Democracy is Toast if Even the Post Offers ‘Anticipatory Obedience’ to Donald Trump

There are ominous portents for American democracy, with potential global ripples, in US media owners’ veto of their newspapers’ presidential endorsements, for fear of political repercussions.

By Chudi Okoye
Awka Times
October 30, 2024

https://www.awkatimes.com/us-democracy-is-toast-if-even-the-post-offers-anticipatory-obedience-to-donald-trump/

He is a billionaire two hundred times over, exalted even among the rarefied caste of ‘New Industry Titans’ said to wield “immense… power and influence” in the US and around the world. His conglomerate, Amazon, employs over 1.5m people and turned in revenues of $574.8 billion in 2023, representing 2% of US gross national income and second only to Walmart’s in worldwide ranking. Yet, with all that heft, Amazon founder and executive chairman, Jeff Bezos, is seemingly spooked by Donald Trump’s possible return as American president. He appears petrified about the consequences to his business of offending the notoriously vengeful former president.

Last week, on October 25, it emerged that Jeff Bezos had overruled an editorial the 146-year old newspaper he purchased in 2013, the Washington Post, had drafted to endorse Donald Trump’s rival in the 2024 US presidential election – the Democratic Party candidate, Vice-President Kamala Harris. The editorial was spiked pretty late in the election calendar: only eleven days to the November 5 polling date.

As reason for the reversal, the Post’s publisher and CEO, William Lewis, said that the paper was returning to its roots as an “independent” outlet which didn’t indulge in presidential endorsements in its earlier history. Lewis also said the decision reflected the paper’s trust in its “readers’ ability to make up their own minds.”

It is hard to square these ostensible reasons against known facts. It’s true that in its earlier history, the Post shied away from presidential endorsements. It had made an exception in the 1952 election when it endorsed the Republican Party candidate, Dwight D. Eisenhower, a popular and highly decorated war hero who’d been Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II, and who’d planned two of the most consequential military campaigns that enabled allied victory: the 1942/43 North African campaign and the 1944 invasion of Normandy. After that, the Post recoiled from endorsements in the next five presidential elections. It wasn’t until 1976, 24 years and six election cycles later, that the Post picked up again, that year endorsing the Democratic Party candidate, Jimmy Carter. Since then, the paper regularly endorsed candidates, typically Democratic, abstaining only in the 1988 presidential election. So, it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that the newspaper is returning to norm by reversing itself this year.

It is downright inartful to say, as publisher Lewis did, that the decision was made because the Post trusts its readers’ ability to decide for themselves. This is bizarre in all kinds of ways. Does it mean that the paper didn’t trust its readers’ ability when it previously offered endorsements? Mind you, the Post is abstaining only from presidential endorsements: it will continue to endorse candidates for other category of elections – governorship, Senate, House of Reps, etc. So, is the publisher of the Washington Post implying that the paper’s readers are perfectly capable of making up their own minds in presidential elections, but can’t quite manage the feat in down-ballot elections without the Post’s guidance?

Quite bizarre!

Besides, a newspaper’s electoral endorsement isn’t an instruction to its readers whom to vote for. That would be election interference. It is simply an expression of the paper’s own values and preferences, which some readers may agree with and probably take into consideration, and others might not; just as with other op-eds.

None of the reasons adduced by the Post’s publisher to explain his newspaper’s sudden retreat survives close scrutiny.

The reason – the alarming reason – definitely lies elsewhere: in Donald Trump’s sinister and often repeated promise to punish his political rivals and their media enablers, if again elected, and in Jeff Bezos’s concern to protect his sprawling business interests. Bezos is probably hedging against fascistic reprisals should Trump return to power, likely unbounded in the face of the US Supreme Court’s expansive ruling on presidential immunity, which I discussed in a previous Awka Times article.

In an apologia of sorts Jeff Bezos wrote on October 28 – amid a din of denunciations for his decision, staff resignations and over 250,000 reader cancellations – he insisted that he had made a “principled decision,” claiming it’s all about changing the impression of bias that pervades the media and restoring trust. He stated there had been “no quid pro quo” with any of the campaigns in arriving at that decision, despite the fact that senior managers from his aerospace company, Blue Origin, had met with Trump on the very day the decision to pull the Harris endorsement was made. He dismissed suspicions about making the decision so close to the election, saying it was merely “inadequate planning.”

In some comments that greeted the effort, readers basically told Bezos to ‘buzz off’, and not to take them for fools.

The truth is, try as he might, Jeff Bezos cannot shake the impression of being compromised, of offering what Timothy Snyder, in his book, On Tyranny, calls “anticipatory obedience.” Snyder argues in the book that “most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.”

In Bezos’s case, however, it appears to be a strategic move for self-preservation: an endorsement of Harris could jeopardize his business interests if Trump wins. By ‘defecting’ from Harris and choosing not to endorse anyone, Bezos likely safeguards his business interests regardless of who wins, potentially enhancing them should Trump prevail. In game-theoretic terms, Bezos’s action combines a ‘minimax strategy’ with a ‘neutral positioning’ akin to ‘defection’ within the Prisoner’s Dilemma framework, producing a dominant-strategy equilibrium aimed at minimizing risk and ensuring self-preservation. Yeah, I learned all that business school!

Bezos may dress up his decision to disallow the Post’s proposed Harris endorsement in high-minded language about media neutrality and independence, but it’s at bottom about his bigger business interests. His other companies – particularly his cloud business, Amazon Web Services (AWS), and his aerospace company, Blue Origin – have significant contracts and business dealings with the US government, worth far more in strategic and financial terms than his loss-making newspaper which he’d purchased for a paltry $250m.

AWS, for instance, provides cloud computing services to key US government agencies, including the CIA, NASA, and the Department of Defense. Notably, in 2013, under the Obama-Biden administration, AWS won a competitive bid against IBM for a landmark 10-year, $600 million cloud computing contract with the CIA. This contract is considered a major step forward in enhancing interagency collaboration and operational efficiency across the intelligence community.

Similarly, in December 2022, AWS was one of four bidders, alongside Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, awarded a hefty $9 billion contract under the Biden-Harris administration for the Pentagon’s Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability (JWCC) program. This triumph followed a tumultuous history with the project’s predecessor, Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI), during Trump's presidency, in which Amazon – initially considered the frontrunner – had been mysteriously excluded. Amazon had sued the government on grounds of political interference. The company claimed that it had been passed over in the $10 billion contract because Trump used his power to influence the decision, as part of his “personal vendetta” against Bezos and his newspaper, for perceived critical coverage. Ultimately, on July 6, 2021, the JEDI project was canceled by the Pentagon, paving the way for the JWCC initiative, for which AWS successfully submitted a bid.

Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos’s aerospace company, is actively involved in NASA’s Artemis program, specifically as part of the Artemis V mission. NASA awarded Blue Origin a $3.4 billion contract in May 2023 to develop a lunar lander, called the Blue Moon, which is intended to transport astronauts to the Moon’s surface as part of the Artemis V mission scheduled for 2029. This lander will dock with NASA’s lunar Gateway station, where crew transfers will occur in lunar orbit before the landing. Notably, Bezos’s Blue Origin competes with other aerospace companies for business on the NASA space programs, including SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk who’s been openly and unabashedly cozying up to Trump in this election cycle.

In addition to these contractual engagements, Bezos and his companies actively lobby the government on various policy issues, including tax policies, intellectual property rights, e-commerce and cloud computing regulations, and what have you. It’s a tangled web.

Against this backdrop, we can begin to meaningfully compute the Amazon founder’s sensitivity about the Post’s attempted endorsement of Kamala Harris. It was certain to have irked Donald Trump. The situation might be different were Harris comfortably ahead in the polls. However, in a tight race, with the outcome uncertain, Bezos could not risk offending the notoriously volatile and vindictive Trump. Recall the contentious $10 billion JEDI contract under the Trump administration. Amazon’s loss of that contract might never have been salvaged had Trump been re-elected. Nor would Bezos be likely to have had the successes he’s had with the Biden-Harris administration.

The lofty pronouncements by Bezos and his principals about principles and media independence, in my opinion, pale in significance against the backdrop of his broader business interests.

Mind you, Jeff Bezos is not alone in nixing his editorial board’s plan to endorse Harris. In fact a few days prior, Patrick Soon-Shiong, billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, similarly vetoed his board’s Harris endorsement plan. Observers speculated that the medical investor and transplant surgeon’s decision might not be unconnected with his pharmaceutical ventures’ need for seamless Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals, making it prudent to avoid conflicts with a potentially intrusive White House.

Soon-Shiong’s case had an interesting twist. Amid criticisms of his intervention, his Millennial daughter, Nika, a politician and activist, shared with the media that her family – having experienced apartheid in South Africa – saw this as a protest against the present administration’s support for Israel’s actions in Gaza. The sentiment sounded lofty, like the principled pronouncement of the Post’s publisher, Lewis. But no sooner had Soon-Shiong’s daughter made the lofty claim than her father shot it down, saying she spoke only on her own behalf and that she neither holds any role at the Times nor participates in editorial decisions. Ouch!

Editorial endorsements remain an optional tradition, shaped by each newspaper’s philosophical outlook. Some publishing giants have long abandoned the practice, among them the Wall Street Journal which hasn’t endorsed a presidential candidate since Herbert Hoover in 1928. Others recently retreated, citing strained resources and the peril of polarizing readers. Yet, stalwarts like the New York Times and The Guardian persist, viewing endorsements as an editorial duty, especially in fractured times.

Until recently, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post stood among the holdouts. But these majors, initially minded to endorse Harris, have been dissuaded by billionaire owners fearing political reprisals should Trump triumph.

It is a striking commentary on American democracy. Once a beacon to the world, America now finds itself categorized among ‘flawed democracies’ in the Economist’s Democracy Index, a reflection of its ever coarser political culture and persistent political dysfunction. During the last Trump presidency, abuses of power had surfaced, raising concerns of graver breaches should he return. Warnings of authoritarian tendencies have emerged from within Trump’s former inner circle, with several advisers, including his former vice-president, declining to back his current bid. Trump’s campaign rhetoric, laden with ominous threats against critics, the press, and vulnerable groups, alongside pledges to wield absolute authority, gives weight to these forebodings. The recent actions of media moguls like Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, overruling their own editorial boards’ endorsements in fear of a potential Trump return, underscore the precarious path of American democracy.

Marxists have long argued that a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” rules society, with the capitalist elites holding both economic and political reins. Yet, as seen with Vladimir Putin in Russia and other autocrats elsewhere, political juggernauts can also subdue economic elites. America’s current trajectory hints at such a dynamic under Trump, igniting fears of democratic backsliding and increasing autocratization worldwide.

In his write-up on October 28, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos framed his “wealth and business interests” as “a bulwark against intimidation,” insisting he was not under pressure but had acted on “principle” in vetoing his paper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris.

That may be. But logic and optics strongly suggest otherwise.

26/10/2024

Israel Leaves No Turn Unstoned in Furious Fight for ‘Manifest Destiny’

The quest for 'Greater Israel' continues, from ancient Canaanite battles to modern Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, rooted in biblical and historical claims.

By Chudi Okoye
Awka Times
26 October 2024

https://www.awkatimes.com/israel-leaves-no-turn-unstoned-in-furious-fight-for-manifest-destiny/

In a willful suspension of belief, most in the West like to wring their hands and pretend that no one can decipher Benjamin Netanyahu’s endgame. But you only have to read Ze’ev Jabotinsky to grasp what might be playing out presently in Palestine. The views of the influential 20th-century Zionist militant and author are clearly evident in the ongoing actions of the Israeli government, especially in the disposition of Prime Minister Netanyahu, who professes himself an adherent of the former Zionist leader.

I argued in the first part of my essay on the ongoing Israeli-Hamas war that, in its shock-and-awe response to the Hamas outrage of October 2023, the Israeli government may be focusing on a broader strategic objective than merely rescuing the remaining hostages held by Hamas. A throwback to Jabotinsky lends weight to this argument.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky (1880 to 1940) was a Zionist soldier and activist who founded several Jewish militant and paramilitary organizations during the period of Mandatory Palestine (1917 to 1948), amid growing conflicts between Jews and Palestinian Arabs which arose from increased Jewish immigration into Palestine after World War I. An author and influential orator, Jabotinsky articulated in clear and forceful terms what the Jews must accomplish in the land of Palestine; and he stated in stark and certain terms how they must set about the task.

He had developed the concept of ‘Revisionist Zionism’ which advocated the establishment of the state of Israel through territorial maximalism in Palestine, and he proposed a muscular military strategy to achieve the goal. In a powerful 1923 article titled “The Iron Wall” which is today both revered and reviled (depending on one’s perspective), Jabotinsky advocated for Jewish “colonization of Palestine,” arguing that this could only be achieved by using superior military force to overcome Arab resistance and by setting up a formidable wall of defense that could never be breached by conquered Arabs.

Interestingly, Jabotinsky, known for his realist approach to Zionism, never claimed that Jews were indigenous to Palestine or that the land originally belonged to them, as often asserted pro-Israel rhetoric. He frequently referred to Palestinian Arabs as the “natives” and his own Jewish people as the “colonists”; but he was clear that the Arabs would never willingly accept Jewish settlement in Palestine. As he put it:

“Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonized. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of ‘Palestine’ into the ‘Land of Israel’.”

For this reason, he strongly disagreed with moderate Zionists of his time who preferred a peaceful approach with native Palestinians. His proposed a more forceful approach:

“Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach. [We must] create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible.”

Jabotinsky’s viewpoint clearly won the day, adopted and implemented with varying intensity by successive Israeli governments ever since. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who counts himself among “the students of Jabotinsky” – stated in July 2023, in remarks at a state memorial ceremony for Ze’ev Jabotinsky on Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem,

“One hundred years after the ‘iron wall’ was stamped in Jabotinsky’s writings, we are continuing to successfully implement these principles. I say ‘continuing’ because the need to stand as a powerful iron wall against our enemies has been adopted by every Government of Israel, from the right and the left.”

A cornerstone of the Jabotinsky principle is the push for territorial maximalism, long embedded in the idea of ‘Greater Israel’ (Eretz Yisrael Hashlema in Hebrew). It is a form of Jewish irredentism, a drive to expand the territorial boundaries of Israel to limits considered consistent with biblical geography. This presumptive uber Jewish territory – given different names over time, including ‘Land of Israel’, ‘Land of Canaan’, ‘Promised Land’, ‘Holy Land’, and Palestine – has historically had varied definitions. Earlier encompassing the former Emirate of Transjordan (modern-day Jordan plus the West Bank) and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, the term is currently presumed by Israeli irredentists to include the State of Israel plus the two Palestinian territories – Gaza and the West Bank, and, by some religious or nationalist interpretations (though, more formally on strategic and security grounds), even the Golan Heights in Syria. It is the 10,846 sq miles (28,092 sq km) territory in the Southern Levant part of West Asia bordered by Jordan to the east, Syria to the north-east, Lebanon to the north, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, Egypt to the south-west, and the Red Sea to its southern tip.

Israel’s claim over this territory is based on a complex mix of factors, including biblical promises, spiritual connection, historical presence, cultural and national identity, land purchase, international recognition and security. However, although Israel claims historical ties to the land, it cannot claim Jewish indigeneity to, or historical ownership of, the land, as we see from the brief historical survey below.

Historical Background
The geographical area now comprising the state of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories came to be called ‘Palaestina’ under Roman rule, around 135 CE, the name derived from ‘Philistia’, a Greek term earlier used in reference to the coastal Philistine territories. The region was settled in successive waves throughout history, with evidence of human settlements dating back to the Paleolithic period, including the Natufian culture (12,000–9500 BCE) and evolving communities through the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (10,000–3500 BCE). By this time, permanent settlements were emerging in places like Jericho (in today’s West Bank), one of the world’s oldest continuously inhabited sites.

Semitic-speaking Canaanite tribes, some probably descended from biblical Canaan (Gen. 9:18, 22), became prominent in the Early Bronze Age (circa 3000 BCE), further developing the city of Jericho and creating new city-states across the region, including Hazor and Megiddo. The Jebusites, a Canaanite tribe, inhabited Jerusalem, then known as Jebus, before it was conquered by King David in the 10th century BCE, according to biblical accounts. As the Bible indicates (Gen. 12:6), the Canaanites were established in the region well before the arrival of the Hebrew patriarch, Abraham, traditionally dated to around 1800–1700 BCE. Contemporary genetic studies have found strong DNA links between ancient Canaanites and modern Levantine populations, including Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians, indicating their longstanding continuity in the region.

The Palestine region also saw other significant migrations between the Middle Bronze Age and Late Iron Age. These included various Semitic-speaking peoples who settled in different parts of the region. There were the Amorites in Canaan and Syria, the Arameans also in Syria, and the Hyksos who ruled parts of Egypt and had influence in Canaan. The Moabites and Edomites settled east and south of the Dead Sea respectively, in modern-day Jordan; as did the Ammonites who lived further up east of the Jordan River. The Phoenicians, known for maritime trade, were based in modern-day Lebanon, with centers in Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos. The nomadic Midianites lived in the southern territory, including the Sinai Peninsula and Arabian Desert.

The Israelites arrived around 1200–1000 BCE, settling in the central highlands and establishing kingdoms between 1000 and 586 BCE. Initially unified under kings Saul, David, and Solomon, they later split into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. Throughout their history, the Israelites often clashed with the Philistines, a non-Semitic people from the Aegean region who arrived around 1200 BCE and established a coastal confederation known as the Philistine Pentapolis: Gaza, Gath, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Ashdod. Other non-Semitic groups, such as the Hittites and Hurrians, also had a presence in the region.

Such was the regional landscape: a complex tapestry of interacting, often competing, city-states and small kingdoms. This dynamic persisted until stronger imperial powers began to dominate the region later in the Iron Age and beyond, bringing advanced military technology and frequently resettling the inhabitants to consolidate control.

Imperial Conquests
Similar to the successive waves of tribal migrations described above, the Palestine region also experienced repeated waves of imperial rule, due in part to its strategic location at the intersection of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The Egyptian Empire exerted control over the region from 1500 to 1178 BCE, ruling parts of it as vassal states. In 722 BCE, the Assyrian Empire conquered the northern kingdom of Israel, initiating the period of Assyrian Captivity. The Babylonians followed, capturing the southern kingdom of Judah in 586 BCE under Nebuchadnezzar II, leading to the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian Exile. The Persian (Achaemenid) Empire, led by Cyrus the Great, overtook Babylon in 539 BCE and allowed Jews to return and rebuild the Second Temple. This ushered in a relatively tolerant period under Persian rule until 332 BCE, when Alexander the Great conquered Palestine and incorporated it into his empire. After his death, the Ptolemies (Egypt) and Seleucids (Syria) ruled the area until the Maccabean Revolt of 167 to 160 BCE, which led to brief Jewish independence under the Hasmonean Dynasty. Roman rule followed, beginning in 63 BCE with Pompey’s conquest of Palestine. This period introduced client kings like Herod the Great and transformed Judea into a Roman province. After the Jewish Revolt in 70 CE, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple, and following the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 135 CE, renamed the region Syria Palaestina.

After the Roman Empire’s split, Palestine became part of the Byzantine Empire from 330 to 636 CE, during which Christianity spread widely, especially after Constantine the Great’s conversion. Jerusalem became an important Christian city. In 636 CE, however, the Rashidun Caliphate conquered the region, followed by the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, during which Jerusalem became a significant Islamic city. In 1099, during the First Crusade, European Crusaders established the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which lasted until the Muslim Mamluks expelled them in 1291. The Mamluks controlled Palestine until the Ottomans took over in 1517, ruling it as a quiet province until the 19th century, when Zionist immigration increased. Ottoman rule ended with World War I.

Following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain administered Palestine under a League of Nations Mandate from 1917 to 1948. This period saw a surge in Jewish immigration due to European persecutions, leading to violent conflicts between Jews and Arabs. Britain’s 1917 Balfour Declaration supported a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In 1947, the UN proposed partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem and surrounding areas under international administration. The Arabs rejected the plan, seeing it as unfair since Jews made up only a third of the population but were allocated over 56% of the land. Palestinians also opposed the plan due to their ancestral ties to the land, viewing it as part of the Arab world, and fearing future displacement through Jewish expansion – a fear driven by the disposition of Zionist leaders like David Ben-Gurion (founding father and first prime minister of Israel) who only tactically accepted the plan as a step towards further expansion. Despite Arab opposition, the independent state of Israel was declared in 1948, gaining instant recognition from the US and UN.

The forceful establishment of Israel has led to ongoing Middle Eastern conflicts and repeated wars with neighboring Arab states, mirroring ancient Israelite battles for a biblical homeland in Canaan. Israel has prevailed in most of these conflicts, expanding its territory in the process. Today, it occupies approximately 80% of historical Palestine, far exceeding the 1947 UN partition plan. Even the 20% designated as Palestinian territories remains under Israeli occupation with extensive Israeli settlements (the West Bank and East Jerusalem), or is blockaded (Gaza).

This trajectory aligns with the concept of a ‘Greater Israel’, reflecting Israel’s biblical and historical claims and echoing the maximalist vision of early Zionist leaders like Ze’ev Jabotinsky. Though Jabotinsky died in 1940 before the state of Israel was created, his dream endures; as Prime Minister Netanyahu affirmed at the 2023 memorial for the late Zionist leader, this vision is nearly realized. Israel’s current military actions across multiple fronts reflect this historic path toward dominance and perceived national destiny.

24/10/2024

Hamas Leader, Sinwar, is Dead: Now the Dread of Israel’s Tread to a ‘Final Solution’

The fortuitous killing of Yahya Sinwar, de facto leader of Hamas who masterminded the horrific 7 Oct. 2023 attack on Israel, while celebrated by Israelis and others hoping for a halt in the Hamas-Israeli war, may not dim the desire of Israeli far-right elements for a permanent occupation of Palestine, to consummate the dispossession and displacement of Palestinians, in line with the century-old Zionist vision.

By Chudi Okoye
Awka Times
20 October 2024

https://www.awkatimes.com/hamas-leader-sinwar-is-dead-now-the-dread-of-israels-tread-to-a-final-solution/

He was found dead in a refugee camp in Tel al-Sultan, Gaza, looking nondescript amid a pile of refuse and rubble in a building the Israeli forces had destroyed in the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. His end was in some ways redolent of the unceremonious denouement of Saddam Hussein, fished out by United States forces from a hole in ad-Dawr, near Tikrit, in December 2003; that of Osama bin Laden, the Saudi Arabian-born Islamist dissident and founder of al-Qaeda thought to have coordinated the 11 September 2001 attack on the United States and was killed by US forces in May 2011, unarmed, in his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, after a barely resisted 40-minute raid; and that of Muammar Gaddafi, apprehended in October 2011 by the NATO-backed Misrata militia whilst hiding inside a drainage pipe at a construction site in Sirte.

After an intensive year-long manhunt, on 16 October Israeli soldiers found Yahya Ibrahim Hassan Sinwar, de facto leader of Hamas and presumed planner of the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, apparently killed by chance through a gunshot to his head and wounds to his arm and leg. Initially uncertain who he was, the Israeli soldiers found him in combat fatigues, seemingly fighting as he died, with defeat and defiance equally registered on his pain-corrugated face.

Sinwar died only a few days shy of his 62nd birthday. He had been born in 1962 to a refugee family fourteen years after that family was expelled by Zionist forces from Majdal, a depopulated Palestinian village now part of Ashkelon, a coastal city in the Southern District of Israel. The family was part of the estimated 750,000 Palestinians expelled from their lands amid the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, as Zionist forces enacted ‘Plan Dalet’, a military operation aimed at securing territory for the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel after the collapse of the British Palestinian Mandate. Sinwar had dedicated himself to fighting the Palestinian cause, was arrested several times and at a point served 22 years in Israeli prison, and has now been eliminated. Israel has finally “settled the score” with him, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted as he toasted Sinwar’s demise.

Yayha Sinwar could be consigned to the dustbin of history as an inglorious terrorist, as the Israeli government and many in the West are wont to do. He certainly had his faults, a hard-edged militiaman who fought with all available means. But, in some circles he might be placed, with his passing, in the long line of militants and freedom fighters finally felled by imperialist or reactionary forces determined to curb their revolutionary endeavor. It’s a line that stretches from Spartacus who led a massive slave revolt against the Roman Republic and died in a final confrontation with the Roman army in 71 BCE, to the Mexican revolutionary, Emiliano Zapata, assassinated in April 1919; to Patrice Lumumba, who sought to liberate Congo from Belgian colonial rule and was assassinated by local opponents in January 1961 with Belgian and CIA support; to Che Guevara, a Marxist revolutionary who played a major part in the Cuban Revolution and was assassinated in October 1967 by Bolivian forces, also with CIA support; to Fred Hampton, the 21-year old revolutionary and deputy chairman of the Black Panther Party who fought against fascism and racism in the US and was assassinated by the FBI and Chicago police in December 1969; to Salvador Allende, the Marxist President of Chile who pursued socialist policies and was assassinated (some claim he committed su***de) in 1973 in the CIA-backed military coup led by Augusto Pinochet; to Amílcar Cabral, a pan-Africanist, revolutionary nationalist, poet and intellectual who fought for Guinean independence from Portuguese colonial rule and was assassinated in January 1973; to Steve Biko, the anti-apartheid activist and leader of the Black Consciousness Movement assassinated in September 1977 by South African police whilst in their custody; and to Archbishop Óscar Romero, an El Salvadoran Roman Catholic archbishop who spoke out against poverty, social injustice, and government repression and was assassinated in March 1980 whilst celebrating Mass.

This is in no way an exhaustive list of fallen freedom fighters. Some may question the dare in placing the Palestinian politician and militant, Yayha Sinwar, in that list. But, however objectionable his tactics might be deemed, they were in service ultimately of Palestinian nationalism. But now, silenced by Israel’s superior firepower, the question is: Will his demise bring this sordid war to a solid close? Will it break Palestinian resistance or instead stiffen it, likely causing the slaughter of the remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas, thus triggering further escalation? Will Israel now accept a ceasefire so the hostages can be released? Or will the Palestinian carnage continue, preventing the possibility of a peaceful resolution?

Is there more, one may ask, driving Israel’s current onslaught than its desire to avenge the 7 October attack by Hamas and free the hostages?

On current evidence, I certainly think the latter. Israel doesn’t seem like it’s done; it is on a streak and won’t be stopped – not by the world’s wobbly institutions or the weak-willed waverers in Washington – except when it chooses. Israel has set its sights far beyond freeing the hostages.

Hostages to Misfortune
It might seem to some a totally outlandish presumption, an idea too cold-blooded to be contemplated by Israel. But it is very likely the calculation of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government, at this point, that there’s a higher strategic gain in sacrificing the remaining Israeli hostages being held by Hamas than in actually rescuing them.

No one will say openly, of course, that the remaining hostages are expendable. But why pursue a vigorous rescue when you can exploit the moral outrage at their continued hostage, visceral in parts of the world, to advance Israel’s greater strategic goals: further decimate, dispossess and displace the Palestinian population; scuttle or at least put off the prospect of Palestinian statehood; permanently cripple anti-Israel insurgency – whether by Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis or any other, and in the process also, perhaps finally, completely neutralize Iran; create deterrence through de facto Israeli military hegemony over the entire Israeli and Palestinian territories, in line – as Netanyahu has admitted – with the “iron wall” principle set out in 1923 by the Zionist militant leader and writer, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who called for Jewish “colonisation of Palestine.”

There is much potential gain for Israel in strategic adventurism than in focusing on hostage rescue. The poor hostages could be sacrificed for the greater good of Israel, could they not?

And what better time than now to push for a ‘final solution’ to the pesky ‘Palestinian problem’? The world is in a moral haze over the Hamas-led 7 October 2023 incursion into the Gaza Envelope of southern Israel, the first invasion of Israeli territory since the Arab–Israeli War of 1948. The attack resulted in 247 Israeli civilians and soldiers being kidnapped and 1,139 killed (including 695 Israeli civilians – about 14 of whom were actually killed by the Israeli forces under the so-called ‘Hannibal Directive’ to prevent their kidnap, 71 foreign nationals and 373 members of the Israeli security forces).

The October 2023 Hamas-led attack was a devastating surprise which has elicited a disproportionate counter-attack by Israel, armed and funded by the United States, which in turn has resulted in Israel’s massacre of Palestinians and destruction of Gaza, acts carried out with the severest intensity. The scale, extent, and pace of Israel’s destruction of buildings and facilities in the Gaza Strip is said to rank among the most severe in modern history, surpassing the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined during World War II, with greatly more shells and bombs dropped on Gaza in just the first three months of Israeli reprisals than the United States dropped between 2004 and 2010 after its invasion of Iraq. So far, over 43,000 Palestinians have been killed, more than half women and children, and hundreds of thousands are maimed, missing or displaced. There is a massive humanitarian crisis. Parts of Gaza, a city of 2.3m, now lie in ruins, following the damage or utter destruction of apartment buildings, hospitals, schools, factories, shopping centers, refugee camps, religious sites and other civilian infrastructure. After a year of Israeli shelling and bombardment of Gaza, the UN estimates that a total of 42m tonnes of rubble clutter the Strip, and that it might take up to 80 years and cost over $80 billion to clear the rubble and rebuilt the city. The scale of Israel’s destruction of Gaza has prompted some international legal experts to raise the concept of ‘domicide’, referring to “the mass destruction of dwellings to make [a] territory uninhabitable.”

Hamas’s action, though not unprovoked, has been widely condemned; but so too has been the brutality of Israel’s response which far infringes the norms of proportionality in international law. UN agencies have consistently documented the atrocities committed by both sides. On 20 May, with a cycle of rising atrocities seven months into the war, the International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan announced that he would seek arrest warrants against Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh (all of whom have now been killed by Israel) and also against Israeli leaders Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, all for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Court of Justice has also taken up a case brought by South Africa in which it accuses Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, citing as well in the case Israel’s 75-year apartheid, 56-year occupation, and 16-year blockade of the Strip. The ICJ is considering the case, having concluded that it is plausible Israel’s actions in Gaza could amount to genocide; and has issued provisional measures ordering Israel to allow humanitarian flows and stop offensive action in parts of Gaza.

Israel has ignored the order. It has instead launched diatribes against the UN, accusing it of anti-Israel bias. It is vilifying an organization which had promptly recognized the state of Israel in 1948 (within one day of it being declared) and had admitted it as a full member only a year later, even whilst to this day denying Palestine a full membership. Brushing aside all pleas for restraint and having overrun Gaza, Israel has now also invaded southern Lebanon, recently killing several Hezbollah leaders and myriad civilians there. It has attacked Houthis in Yemen, and also lobbed attacks at Syria and Iran, and is threatening further actions which some fear could spark a regional war.

A wearied world looks on, unable to stop an implacable and unbounded Israel backed by an America in the grip of a powerful Israeli lobby. America, the only force that could potentially restrain Israel, is all the more hobbled being in the midst of a highly competitive presidential election in which none of the leading candidates dares speak against Israel, lest they be labeled anti-Semitic. Never has a superpower been so pinioned by its own policy tradition. It prompted a pensive poem I penned earlier in which I coined the word “stooperpower” to describe America in its current crouch.

It is the perfect cocktail for Israel to strike a decisive blow and assert what it considers its biblical claim in the historical struggle for the land of Palestine. In subsequent parts of this essay, I will explore the historical and biblical backgrounds to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as signposts to Israel’s ultimate goal in the current conflagrations.

Address

Telephone

+14259996888

Website

https://www.awkatimes.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when AWKA TIMES Magazine posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to AWKA TIMES Magazine:

AWKA TIMES Magazine