Offers succinct commentary on topical issues that cut across both rich and poor countries. Entails critical insights on poverty, inequality, health, macro-policies and many more
Mortality statistics have a direct bearing on life expectancy (at birth). Higher morality leads to lower life expectancy and vice versa. COVID-19 represented a major mortality shock over the last 70 years, but its impact was uneven across the world.
The United States experienced the third highest loss in life expectancy because of COVID-19 in a sample of 29 high income countries. Only Bulgaria and Slovakia had worse outcomes. It is also worth noting that: ‘in the United States, the pandemic has accentuated the pre-existing mid-life mortality crisis’. (Scholey, 2022).
The countries that do well are in Northwest Europe, especially the Nordic countries.
Paul Krugman suggests that the decline in life expectancy in the United States is regionally concentrated with ‘red states’, where political conservatism holds sway, suffering disproportionately from COVID 19 deaths.
There is a statistically significant negative association between the magnitude of the decline in life expectancy and vaccination uptakes – high declines are associated lower vaccination incidence.
Figure 1: COVID-19 and life expectancy in a sample of high income countries
Here is a chart which looks at both life expectancy at birth for men and women (eO) and inequality in life expectancy as measured by the Gini coefficient (gO) over the 2010-2020 period in India. There is a sharp decline in life expectancy among both men and women between 2019 and 2020, with levels equivalent to what prevailed in 2010 for women and 2014 for men. In terms of years lost, ‘…the mortality pattern of COVID-19 reveals a drop of 2.0 and 2.3 years for men and women, respectively, between the pandemic year 2020 and the non-pandemic year 2019’. (Yadav et al, 2021).
Inequality in life expectancy – which was falling consistently between 2010 and 2019 rose sharply after that. In sum:
“The COVID-19 pandemic has negative repercussions on life expectancy and inequality in age at death and has slowed the mortality transition in India.”(Yadav et al, 2021)
I reflect on how and why Gautam Adani – a leading member of India’s Billionaire Raj – became the victim of a stock marker rout. He was once regarded as the second richest man in the world. His net worth has taken such a hit that he is now ranked the 18th richest in the world, while his group of companies has lost more than USD 100 billion within the space of a week.
Rishi Sunak’s spectacular rise in British politics has understandably drawn a great deal of global attention. His achievements are indeed for the history books: the first ever non-white British Prime Minister of Indian heritage who is also a practicing Hindu; the youngest in more than 200 years. His conspicuous status as one of the richest Prime Ministers in British history owes much to his marriage to Ms Akshata Murthy, the daughter of the Indian tech billionaire Narayana Murthy. Rishi Sunak, like very many British former Prime Ministers, is the beneficiary of elite education (Winchester College, Oxford, Stanford Business School).
In September, it appeared that Rishi Sunak was destined to become the ‘nearly man’ having lost comprehensively to Liz Truss when the rank-and-file members of the Conservative party voted for her in droves. There was a certain irony in the ascension of Liz Truss because Rishi Sunak was blessed with a strong show of support by his fellow MPs but the plebians in the party decided to disregard the collective will of the plutocrats in Parliament.
Fate smiled on Rishi Sunak when the Prime Ministership of Liz Truss imploded spectacularly in the wake of her pristine neoliberal agenda of using unfunded tax cuts, primarily directed towards the rich, to drive growth. The ‘markets’ rebelled at such fiscal profligacy at a time of high inflation and rising public indebtedness spelling the end of Ms Truss and her Prime Ministership. She could only depart with the indelible label of the shortest serving Prime Minister in British history. This paved the way for Rishi Sunak’s rise facilitated by the ‘kingmakers’ of the Conservative Party (the 1922 Committee) who changed the rules of selection to give a very high degree of weight to a candidate’s popularity among MPs. The only remaining contender (Penny Mordaunt) did not stand a chance, while the disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, seeking a triumphant return, simply gave up. Rishi Sunak was duly anointed as the leader of the Conservative Party without even having to seek endorsement from rank-and-file members.
Does the rise of Rishi Sunak in British politics herald a new era for ethnic minorities in multicultural Britain? As someone who lived in the UK for ten years during the early 1970s and early 1980s as a student (A levels and University education), I was struck by how far Britain of that period has evolved. I still recall the racist slurs (‘Paki’) that were occasionally directed at me and my family and the horrendous bashing from racist thugs that two of my friends endured. As Aamna Mohdin notes, ethnic minorities at the time were subjected to a ‘sustained campaign of terror’ by nativist agitators. Furthermore, in 1980, the year Rishi Sunak was born, there was not a single person of colour in the British Parliament. Multicultural Britain of the 21st century has thankfully moved beyond the primitive rage of the nativists of the 1970s and 1980s.
Image 2: ‘Skinheads’ in the 1980s notorious for being associated with ‘Paki-bashing’.
It is thus legitimate to ask: does the phenomenal political elevation of Rishi Sunak mean, as Indian politician Shashi Tharoor who is also a fierce critic of British colonial rule says, that Britain has ‘outgrown racism’. I am not so sure. I like to think that the British Conservative Party consists of overt racists and forward-looking realists prepared to allow for pragmatic accommodation with ethnic minorities. Racists are captive to primordial emotions that overcome their judgements. Hence, they yearn for an insular and nativist agenda that belies current circumstances. Realists know how to hide their racial prejudices while having full faith in the superiority of Western/European civilisation. Realists know that the UK, for decades now, has embarked on an irreversible path towards a multicultural, multi-faith future. Realists realise that there are many potential Rishis in waiting. They can no longer be ignored as natives who serve ‘vindaloos’ to white clients or mind the corner store through all sorts of odd hours. Furthermore, realists feel much more at home with the ‘pucca sahibs and begums’ of colour rather than the ‘white trash’ in some forgotten part of Northern England who can’t even speak English with the right accent. More importantly, the realists are fully aware that these pucca brown sahibs and begums can be relied upon to project a ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude to demonstrate their Britishness. Hence, one has the glaring example of Suella Braverman who has returned as home secretary to continue her role as aggressive culture warrior and who is keen to pursue her anti-immigration agenda. She is also on record as saying that Britain should not feel apologetic about its colonial past. In sum, I would argue that the realists in the Conservative Party are happy to have the fig leaf of diversity reflected in Rishi Sunak and many of his colleagues who are in the frontbench.
Video insert of Suella Braverman extolling the virtues of the British Empire
There are multiple reasons to believe that Rishi Sunak is most unlikely to disrupt the status quo of an iniquitous society that cuts across class and race. Hence, the Conservative Party is in a safe pair of hands. His coronation does not connote a new era for multicultural Britain. Rishi Sunak is a self-proclaimed ‘proud Thatcherite’. He voted for Brexit. He believes in a low tax, fiscally conservative regime. He will be preoccupied with soothing the frayed nerves of the markets through fiscal consolidation regardless of its socio-economic consequences. This is a conventional Conservative way of responding to economic challenges. Hence, one might see a replay of the fiscal austerity program under David Cameron that ‘broke Britain’.
Broken Britain today manifests itself in many ways, but most notably in large-scale poverty and deprivation. According to the comprehensive poverty line devised by the Social Metrics Commission, 22 percent of the population were deemed to be poor even before COVID-19. Ethnic minorities were conspicuous for very high poverty rates. Other surveys show that nearly 5 percent of the population are ‘food insecure’ with a sustained increase in the utilisation of foodbanks. With an incipient energy crisis and the lingering effects of COVID-19, poverty in the UK is likely to get worse. Do not expect Rishi Sunak to acknowledge these challenges and seek to act upon them. It is only a matter of time before the first person of colour to become British Prime Minister shows his true ideological colours.
There are, as Ronald Suny points out, two contending narratives on the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine and the humanitarian catastrophe that it has created. The dominant version familiar to many in the West is that Ukraine is the hapless victim, and perhaps the first of many, of Russian neo-imperialism. The architect of neo-imperial intent is Vladimir Putin. Such a narrative is enunciated as a morality play, with a cast of characters that range across victims, villains, and heroes. It is a story in which the victim, a morally righteous David (in the form of President Zelensky of Ukraine), is pitted against a vile and villainous Goliath (manifested in the Russian President Putin). US-led Western heroes of NATO are aiding and abetting David with weaponry, financial assistance, moral support, UN-led condemnations, and crippling sanctions on Russia. They are protecting liberal democracy in Ukraine in particular and East Europe in general. They are defending a ‘rules-based’ global order.
At the same time, the US and its Western allies are exercising restraint because they are ruling out any attempt to engage in a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia. The expectation is that this strategy will pay off as Russia concedes defeat and decides to end its invasion of Ukraine. Any attempt to seek a negotiated settlement with Russia is seen as appeasement which will only embolden Putin. It will entail a betrayal of the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to remain a sovereign nation and embrace the liberal democratic West through eventual EU and NATO membership.
The alternative view is that the perfidious Russian invasion of Ukraine is a tragedy foretold, especially by foreign policy experts and scholars of international relations in the US. Its roots lie in egregious errors of US foreign policy, and it has to do with NATO.
It was under President Bill Clinton that the project to expand NATO ‘eastward’, that is, to incorporate the ex-Soviet Republics in Eastern Europe, gathered pace. Bill Clinton and his cheerleaders celebrated such expansion. Then-Senator Joe Biden played a pivotal role in this cheerleading exercise proclaiming that ’50 years of peace’ was within the grasp of humanity. Much more knowledgeable observers were alarmed.
On June 26, 1997, a group of 50 prominent US foreign policy experts that ‘..included former senators, retired military officers, diplomats, and academicians, sent an open letter to President Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion’. They considered a ‘…US-led effort to expand NATO (to the former Soviet Republics) ‘ as a ‘…policy error of historic proportions’. They highlighted the fact that ‘In Russia, NATO expansion…continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum’ which will ‘…bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement’. They proceeded to argue that Russia, struggling to recover from the political and economic calamity of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, ‘…does not now pose a threat to its western neighbours and the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are not in danger’. This warning was duly ignored and the US Senate ratified NATO expansion starting with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in April 1998.
‘I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.’
In 2007, Vladimir Putin gave a much-noted speech at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) where he expressed his clear disapproval of a US-led ‘unipolar model’ that emerged after the end of the Cold War proclaiming that ‘I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world’. Most importantly, he observed:
‘NATO expansion … represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today?’
Yet, in April 2008, the US and its NATO allies welcomed Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO, although when it was likely to happen remained unspecified. The irony is that, as Stephen Walt points out, Ukraine was a non-aligned country until then.
One could argue that Russia’s response to the ‘serious provocation’ (Putin’s words as uttered in 2007 – see above) of NATO expansion entailed the use of military force and the use of pro-Russian proxies to protect its security concerns. The Russo-Georgian war of 2008 is consistent with this interpretation. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and a grinding conflict in Eastern Ukraine led by pro-Russian separatists might be seen as responses to the so-called Maidan revolution that led to the ouster of a pro-Russian Ukrainian President. Sadly, in this contentious affair, the US was not an innocent bystander. As Ted Galen Carpenter notes, US politicians openly aided and abetted the progenitors of the Maidan revolution in which unsavoury far-right political forces played an important role.
Those who support the view that NATO’s reckless eastward expansion and its offer to incorporate Ukraine as a member of NATO at some point in the future provoked Russian aggression also point out that the US would react in much the same way if faced with similar circumstances. Suppose Mexico was to seek a security alliance with Russia or China and allowed its territory to host foreign army bases. The US would react aggressively. This, Peter Beinart explains, would be a re-affirmation of the Monroe Doctrine formulated nearly 200 years ago in which the US states that it has the unique right to exercise its sphere of influence in its own hemisphere and any attempt by ‘foreign powers’ to tamper with this right will be perceived as ‘dangerous to its peace and security’. Hence, Putin’s 2007 proclamations appear to be a Russian version of the Monroe doctrine.
It is impossible to prove the veracity of this interpretation of the historical context to the current tragedy that is unfolding in Ukraine today. It is entirely possible that Russia would have invaded Ukraine even in the absence of NATO enlargement. This counterfactual cannot be dismissed, but those who subscribe to it do not have a tangible solution other than seeking the comprehensive defeat of Putin’s Russia. Short of this seemingly unattainable goal, what is a way forward?
Sanctions are certainly likely to cripple the Russian economy, while indirect military support to Ukraine would sustain this highly uneven conflict between David and Goliath. Despite sanctions, Russia will probably continue its brutal military interventions in Ukraine simply because sanctions, while causing a great deal of pain borne by ordinary people, do not lead to changes in the core strategy of a particular regime (think of Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and similar examples). As the IMF has warned, the longer the crisis in Ukraine persists, the greater the adverse consequences on the global economy. This is primarily because of adverse energy and food price shocks caused by further disruptions to supply chains already reeling under the impact of COVID-19. The poor and vulnerable in parts of the world far removed from Ukraine are likely to bear the brunt of adverse price shocks.
Those who subscribe to the view that NATO’s eastward expansion is a central part of the narrative on the war in Ukraine suggest it ‘could really be ended with a diplomatic solution in which Russia withdraws its forces in exchange for Ukraine’s neutrality’ (Jeffrey Sachs). There are small, prosperous countries in Europe, such as Finland, that peacefully co-exist with Russia without being members of NATO. Henry Kissinger, perhaps the personification of the US foreign policy establishment and leading scholars of international relations – such as Stephen Walt,John Mearsheimer, and others – fully concur with this prescription of ‘Finlandization’ of Ukraine.
Micheal Mandelbaum, one of the 50 who raised formal objections to the NATO enlargement project in 1997, has wistfully reflected on an alternative scenario. ‘Imagine, he says, a different global configuration, with Russia aligned with rather than opposed to the United States’. Indeed. Imagine!
Durable global and regional peace is likely to happen when the US and its Western allies move away from treating Ukraine as a morality play in which they, and they alone, are the defenders of a rules-based international order in a multi-polar world. Will they have the humility to acknowledge that the NATO enlargement project has probably led to unintended, but tragic, consequences? Will they embark on the delicate task of persuading the current regime in Ukraine that its best future lies in being a non-aligned nation buttressed by mutual security guarantees from Russia and the US and its allies? Will the West, in cooperation with Russia, be prepared to offer a massive reconstruction package to enable Ukraine to move beyond the ruins of war? Only time will tell.
The Royal Commission Report into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry will be released to the public this afternoon (4 February 2019). The Commission had already published an Interim Report in September 2018.
The Interim Report had hardly anything good to say about the industry. Rather, the Commission used the word “greed” to describe the industry’s behaviour and how the industry largely treated the ordinary customers. Otherwise, how can one explain fees charged for services not provided? Fees charged to dead people?
The Australian banking industry had been politically very successful for decades. In the post-GFC years, the industry used the excuse of ‘rising costs of funds’ in international markets for raising their interest rates asynchronous to the RBA’s rate decisions. Nobody raised an eyebrow when the major four banks reported record profits year after year while still crying poor about rising costs of funds. The crux of the matter is the banking industry fell into a culture of profit at any cost and bank executives’ remunerations were linked to profit and revenue. Thus, the bank executives in Australia all they cared for was whether they were contributing to the bank’s revenue and profit. Bank leaders did not care enough whether their employees were doing the right thing for their customers. If the bank management were thinking that they were more focused on creating shareholder wealth, shareholders thought differently. ANZ, NAB, and Westpac – all received a ‘first strike’ 2018 under Australia’s ‘two strikes’ rule. CBA received a ‘first strike’ in 2016.
So, the bottom line is: yes, we want our banks to be profitable and financially strong. Yes, we need strong banks for a strong economy. But the profit must be clean.
Multiple attempts have been made by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to end Israel’s war on Gazans by bringing about a ceasefire. The UNSC has five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly – see here. These 10 non-permanent members are:
The UAE drafted a resolution following the invocation of the rarely used Article 99 by the United Nations Secretary General (UNSG). The resolution entailed the demand for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza along with unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas. The resolution also:
…” reiterated its demand that all parties comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, notably regarding the protection of civilians. Further, it… requested the Secretary-General to report to the Council on an urgent and continuing basis on the state of implementation of the present resolution”.
97 UN member states endorsed the draft resolution within 24 hours of its dissemination. When it was put to the vote on 8 December 2023, 13 member states, including three permanent members with veto powers (China, France, Russian Federation) voted in its favour. The US decided to exercise its veto power to block the resolution with the UK abstaining from it. Robert Woods, representing the USA, really cut a lonely figure – see video here.
The veto power exercised by the USA at the latest UNSC deliberations demonstrates yet again that it is prepared to endure utter humiliation and isolation in the global stage to protect Israel and its vicious war on Gazans. The scale of death and destruction is so horrifying that it has unleashed an unrelenting movement of pro-Palestinian protests across the world. Here is an example from London.
The US administration keeps professing that it cares deeply about the loss of civilian lives and has been cajoling Israel to do its best to protect civilian lives as it continues its brutal military campaign on Gazans in response to the October 7 attack by Hamas. Sadly, actions speak louder than words as the veto power exercised by the USA has shown. This has been compounded by the commitment by the USA to aid and abet Israel through copious supply of arms and ammunition. In any case, the USA has always been a major bilateral donor to Israel (especially after 1970), even though the latter is now one of the richest countries in the world – see graph below. US military assistance accounts for 15 percent of Israel’s military budget.
If the USA was serious about protecting civilian lives by stopping the carnage in Gaza, it could have easily done so by withdrawing its military support to Israel. Instead, it is prepared to accept global opprobrium and accept the price that Israel is essentially a pariah state, especially in the Global South. The USA is prepared to accept that some of its European allies would go against is position, such as France (which the voted in favour of the UAE resolution), Malta and Switzerland (both which the voted in favour of the UAE resolution). There are media reports that France, Spain, Belgium, and Malta want an imminent EU summit to call for a lasting ceasefire. Even Japan – which is such a steadfast ally of USA – decided to vote in favour of the UAE resolution.
Why is the USA, and the Biden administration in particular, prepared to tarnish its global reputation as well as it national interests to protect an apartheid state like Israel? This is where the thesis that the ‘Israel lobby’ in the USA wields inordinate influence on the US political process becomes relevant. This lobby has used such influence on the USA body politic to skew American foreign policy in the Middle east in an unabashedly pro-Israeli direction, especially after 1967. Two leading American political scientists – Mearsheimer and Walt – proposed an evidence-based elaboration of this thesis in 2006 in a working paper which they subsequently expanded into a book. Their thesis has withstood the test of time and is especially relevant today. Unless the influence of the Israel lobby in the USA can be sharply restrained by countervailing forces, the tragedy of Gaza and of Palestinians at large will continue unabated and the UNSC will continue to be reduced to a hapless bystander by veto-wielding nations.
[The views expressed in this piece are strictly personal and do not represent the views of any institution that the author is associated with, either past or present]
The horrific Hamas attacks on 7 October 2023 in Southern Israel led to the killing and maiming of thousands, primarily civilians. This in turn has unleashed Israel’s brutal war on Gazans. While one is preoccupied with the death and destruction in Gaza that are beamed live on TV, especially by Al Jazeera, disappointing news within Israel on the economic front is building up. Here is this vivid commentary by one analyst.
“Businesses are operating with skeletal staff, if at all. Major Israeli employers have announced furloughs. Traffic is light because so few people are commuting to work. Non-essential services are being cut or reduced, from recycling to library hours. Schools that had been shuttered since before the war are starting to reopen, but on reduced schedules because they can’t have more students than can fit into their bomb shelters. Universities are closed until December — at least.
With shipping traffic to Israel disrupted and international flights sharply reduced, Israelis are experiencing shortages. Some local food manufacturers can’t staff their factories or pick the produce in their fields because they depend on Palestinian day laborers who are now barred entry into Israel or Thai farmworkers who left after at least 24 of their compatriots were killed in Hamas’ attack. The first week of the war, supermarkets ran out of tomatoes and cucumbers. Last week it was eggs.
Tourists have disappeared, entertainment venues, and many restaurants remain closed, and shuttered museums are moving important holdings to safe places.
Israel’s hotels are bursting at the seams, however, filled with many of the 200,000 or so Israelis who have been evacuated from their homes near the front lines. This already small country, roughly the size of New Jersey, feels even smaller with areas near Gaza and Israel’s northern border now closed military zones. Every day the authorities announce more evacuations.”
“You do not understand the magnitude of the … crisis that Israel’s economy is facing, you must act in a different way,” the letter says. “The severe blow that has befallen the State of Israel requires a fundamental change in the order of national priorities and a massive diversion of budgets in favour of dealing with war damage, aid to victims, and rehabilitation of the economy. In our estimation, expected expenditure following the war will amount to tens of billions shekels.”
“the Finance Ministry’s Budgets Department head Yogev Gardos warned that the allocation of funds to ultra-Orthodox institutions and initiatives creates negative incentives for Haredi men to seek employment and will harm the labour market and the economy as a whole.”
Here are some grim projections made by the Finance Ministry’s Budgets Department head.
“Even before the implementation of the government’s decision and its expected negative effects on the economy, with no change in the employment rate among ultra-Orthodox men, the loss of cumulative GDP until the year 2060 is expected to be NIS 6.7 trillion,”
… if more Haredi men are not encouraged to work, by 2065 the government will have to increase direct taxes by 16 percent to maintain the same level of services that it provides without increasing the deficit.”
Hence, it is plausible to argue that the tension between the need to maintain the support of an important political constituency and the current budgetary and financial realities unleashed by the war is likely to increase. Whether the current government can resolve this tension remains to be seen. The longer the war continues, and the more it escalates across the region, the greater the adverse economic consequences. It seems that an immediate cease fire is an economically rational strategy.
The current war on Gazans – not war in Gaza – represents the Israel government’s latest attempt at genocidal retribution against Palestinians. One could argue the cause (a horrific attack on largely defenseless men, women and children by Hamas militants inside Israeli borders on 7 October 2023 and the taking of hostages) justifies such retaliatory action.
Unfortunately, violence begets violence representing a display of collective blood lust. Where will this end, one wonders? The brunt of the state-sanctioned violence by Israel against the population of Gaza is being aided and abetted by the United States meekly supported by its allies in the collective West. Belatedly, one sees some voices of dissent within the EU (most notably Spain). All the talk seems to be about ‘humanitarian corridors’ and ‘safe zones’ to make the relentless Israeli bombing campaign against the people of Gaza seem more palatable. What is needed is an immediate ceasefire, the safe release of hostages, the ending of the blockade of Gaza by Israel, its reconstruction and rehabilitation and a move towards a durable political settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen as an entrenched, apartheid, ethnonationalist and highly militarized state finds that it can essentially inflict collective punishment with impunity on a population of more than two million to avenge the crimes committed by a few thousand paramilitary forces. Concerns about acts of war crimes by Israel and Hamas have been raised in some quarters but whether this will be pursued by the International Criminal court remains to be seen.
Israel has already realized that the narrative of good guys seeking justice by chasing bad guys is being rapidly replaced in the court of global public opinion by the rather negative view of a vengeful nation prepared to kill thousands simply to show how powerful it is. This realization is likely to mean that the Israel government will possibly go through the motion of a full-scale invasion, declare victory, and go home. At some point, the hostages will be released in exchange for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. Hamas will declare victory too simply by saying that they are still around. The enormous bill for reconstruction and rehabilitation will be picked up by the ‘international community’, while Israel will simply look the other way and wait for the next round of violence. How long this situation will last is anybody’s guess.
Genocidal retribution is not just a primitive urge to exact revenge. The case for it has to be carefully constructed over time to dehumanize the ‘other’ so that one is eliminating unworthy objects rather than human beings. The killing of thousands and /or their displacement will merely be seen as unavoidable collateral damage in the pursuit of the bad guys. This is where the use of particular words and their projection in the public domain becomes important. Thus, Defence Minister Yoav Galant did not make any distinction between Hamas and ordinary Gazans when he said that Israel s dealing with “human evil”. He cheerfully announced a ‘total siege’ of Gaza creating an evolving humanitarian crisis that is compounded by relentless aerial bombing.
‘Invoking the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians before and after Israel’s founding in May 1948, known as the Nakba (“catastrophe”), Ariel Kallner, an Israeli parliamentarian, said that Israel has “one goal”: a “Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948”.
Some even deny the grim reality of large-scale human suffering of Palestinians. Thus, Israeli Ambassador to UK in a TV show denies that there is a ‘humanitarian crisis’ in Gaza. As a veteran UK journalist points out, one must use the ‘language of genocide’ to engage in genocide. Any attempt to cultivate compassion and empathy gets in the way of this grisly endeavour. It is one of the bitter ironies of history that the descendants of the Holocaust have become the tormentors of millions of innocent people.
Reflections on development and governance 