Suffer the Little Children

The world's attention has snapped to the Syrian refugee crisis. The sight of a drowned Syrian toddler has flashed across the newspapers of the world and the massive upheaval of human life has been given a face and a name.

Aylan Kurdi.

This is the image that has shocked the world.

This an image of Aylan (left) during happier times.

The sight of a boy, not old enough to understand why he had to flee, washed up on the beach in Greece. He has become the face and name of Syria's human suffering. 

This isn't the first time that the world has been spurred into action by the sight of a suffering child. One of the most famous examples is that of the 'burning girl' in Vietnam. 

However, dying children have influenced policy for the past several decades. 

This child led the United States to commit troops into Somalia in order to overthrow the local warlords and deliver food to the people. 

This child, an Afghan refugee in Pakistan, forced the Soviets to concede that there was a human cost to their war in the Central Asian country. 

What is it about suffering children that can motivate the world to open their eyes to a crisis? In many cases, it's exactly the reasons you can think of. Children are the epitome of innocence. They bear absolutely no responsibility for what has happened to them and their only crime was being born in that part of the world. Many parents are able to imagine their own kin in the place of refugees or victims. They are able to sympathize and empathize with full knowledge that, had they ever been placed in a similar situation, they too would have fled to save their flesh and blood. No parent could look at the lifeless body of Aylan and not imagine their own child on that washed up beach. 

Every day we see ISIS atrocities, Syrian barrel bombings, Libyan soldiers shooting civilians and countless massacres in every corner of the globe. We contextualize it into a global framework of politics and international relations. We debate whether or not we should bomb ISIS or perhaps we should stick to an isolationist policy. We wonder just what's happening with the diplomatic talks in Iran to curb their nuclear ambition. We see the Taliban regaining their former strength in Afghanistan but feel that the devil we know is better than the devil we don't. 

At least that's what we should be doing. More often than not, we worry about ourselves. We fear the coming cell phone bill or mortgage payment. We wonder just how we're going to get through the rest of the day with that annoying coworker. We excitedly snuggle up with our spouse while watching Last Week Tonight. 

We sit in our comfy couches, we see the images of nameless refugees in hard to pronounce towns and we feel genuine sorrow and heartbreak. We are moved by the sights and sounds of war, but secretly happy that it is not us who is being covered on the international news. This is the reality of our lives. We don't want to be the parent who has just lost their child to the wild ocean winds. But, we can't look away. 

We will mourn for Aylan. Tears will be shed. Candles will be lit. Refugee quotas will be lifted, incrementally, until we fear that too many foreigners are taking our jobs and livelihoods. 

Then, we will go back to worrying about ourselves and the problems at hand. 

Until the next child. Until the next picture.  

It's Lonely Here On The Left!

In the wake of the massive political shake-up that was the British 2015 election, I've come to realise something.

I'm lonely.

Here, on the left-wing of the political spectrum, it's a fairly lonely place and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.

But why is it lonely? Why does it seem that there are massive swings towards the right-wing in Western countries? We live in a time of unparalleled information access and scepticism, of freedom of movement and a free-range of ideas. Why are people still rushing towards the conservatives in droves?

Climate change has begun not just to impact our world but has fundamentally shaped our attitude towards fossil fuels and defence. Yet, we continue to elect governments which provide inexcusable tax subsidies to fossil fuel creators at the expense of our nearly-destroyed planet. Social welfare programmes are increasingly being cut as needless and ineffective austerity measures are seen as the only way of balancing budgets. Foreign aid, a core tenant in both saving lives and stopping terrorism, is often on the chopping block of governments and immorally harsh immigration programmes are leading to more and more deaths at sea and inhuman treatments of asylum seekers.

What happened to the future I was promised? The one where we understood that if the lowest class of society are cared for then the nation itself is better off? The one which saw foreign aid programmes, not as a drain on the economy, but an investment in the people around the world? The world which understood that we are at the absolute breaking point when it comes to saving our planet and that only a substantial investment, right now, in green infrastructure can save us?

Where is this future that, only a few years ago, seemed so close?

It's easy to point at a myriad of different sources: Fear mongering, Murdoch papers and fossil-fuel backed billionaires changing the political landscape.

But we on the left also have ourselves to blame.

We don't have any credible candidates who can govern.

Let's take a look around the world and see our line-up.

In Australia, we have Bill Shorten.

*YAWN*

This is a man who can't rouse a sleeping five-year-old on Christmas morning and we expect him to enlighten a nation?

In England, they had Ed Miliband.

Look how that turned out! Conservatives have been handed one of their most successful wins in decades.

In Israel?

Issac Herzog? Tzipi Livni? Nope and nope!

America?

Hillary Clinton. I like Clinton. I have for years. But whether or not she's the progressive white knight that we need her to be? I honestly don't know. I appreciate the fact that she's taking more cues from Elizabeth Warren domestically but, with an electoral system dependent almost entirely on the billionaire class...I've begun to lose hope for a truly left-wing candidate.  

So where does this leave us?

Well....let's just say that I've started to practice the words to this song.

Bibi: The Wrong Man For Obama, The Right Man For Europe.

One can only imagine how Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyahu felt when he woke up this past Wednesday morning. All polls indicated that he was going to have a very difficult job retaining his Premiership, or possibly lose it, in the wake of increased Arab voters and a general discontent over his tunnel vision over a nuclear Iran. He awoke not to a saddened advisor telling him that he had to vacate his government residence within 48 hours but to elation within his party that the Likud had won an incredible 30 seats in the new Knesset. Now, all he had to do was form a coalition and wait for his congratulations phone call from President Obama. He would be waiting some time.

The relationship between Netanyahu and Obama has been frosty at the best of times. It makes sense when you consider the way that each grew up. Obama is a child of multiple cultures, of America, Hawaii and Indonesia, who saw the impact of a capitalist system that trod on the poorest of its citizens. He immersed himself in community organisation, constitutional law and civil rights and rode the path to the Presidency on the coattails of hope, change and an opening up of the welfare state.

Benjamin Netanyahu, however, went the route that was the diametric opposite of his America counterpart. He grew up in a family where all they knew was the persecution of the Jewish people. Benzion Netanyahu, Bibi's father, was a close friend and secretary of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, a major proponent of Jewish self-defence, and a renowned scholar on the expulsion of Jews from Spain. Whilst Obama spent his formative years in Indonesia and Hawaii, Netanyahu spent them in Philadelphia and Israel. Netanyahu enlisted in the IDF and rose to a prestigious position within special forces. He lost his brother to Palestinian terrorists in the 1976 Entebbe hijacking, a loss which would affect any person. Returning to the US and to get his degree from MIT he went to work at the Boston Consulting Group. From there he became Israeli ambassador to the United States and eventually entered Israeli politics. Quite simply, Netanyahu is the antithesis of Obama.

Obama is overtly left-wing though his base has soured against him (refusal to prosecute Wall Street bankers and the lack of oversight in regards to drone strikes among other things) and Netanyahu is overtly right-wing. Hours before the polls were about to close on Tuesday he made a personal plea to the right-wing of Israel saying that Arabs were being bussed to the polling stations in a coordinated effort with the left-wing foreign-backed NGOs.

The two men have never found common ground and any pretense that there was a salvageable relationship between them was dismissed the moment that Netanyahu lectured Obama in his office in front of the world media. With Netanyahu now beginning his fourth term and Obama finishing his second there is no need for the two men to pretend to like each other. The common complaint from the left-wing was that Netanyahu had almost destroyed the US-Israel relationship by his posturing and arrogance. They claimed that his short-sightedness had left Israel vulnerable when they were in desperate need of military and diplomatic support, that Israel would be a pariah in the international community.

But, perhaps Bibi was playing the long-game?

When Obama took office in 2009 there was a world of promise, his supporters and detractors alike were swept up in the idea of hope and change. Obama's first major test in the Middle East came in the form of the 2009 Iranian elections. The protests, the so-called Green Revolution, were broadcast live on television and through social media. As the young students of Iran were being beaten down by the Basij and demanding their right to a free and fair election Obama did nothing. He waited and waited and waited until he saw what was going to happen...then he made a decision to act. This was the beginning of a quasi-isolationist policy that would become his doctrine: wait, see, act. This was the first time that Netanyahu saw exactly who his counterpart was...and he was not impressed.

When the Arab Spring saw the overthrow of several Middle Eastern dictatorships Obama was criticised for throwing several key US allies under the bus. I believe that he has faced undue criticism for his actions (or lack thereof) as these protests were notably secular in nature and were truly needed. Obama must have felt that this was the spark that was needed to fan the flames of democracy in the region. However, he does deserve criticism for not bolstering the student and secular movements and sending advisors to help guide the chaotic governments to democracy and he deserves the condemnation for not stopping Assad when he was massacring his own people. One can only imagine how the Middle East today would be if they had received more support from the Great Satan.

With these constant failures of leadership by Obama; Netanyahu must have become incredibly anxious. Bibi was dealing with his own social protests in 2011 (protests that I proudly took part in) but his eye was always on how Obama would deal with his arch-enemy: the Mullahs of Iran. Netanyahu must have longed for the days of George W Bush and his neo-conservative policies. He must have thrown his hands up in frustration and said "who can we trust?". Then, he would have turned on the news and looked at what was happening in Europe.

It is no secret that there has been a clash between North African, sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern immigrants in Europe and many non-Islamic citizens of France, Sweden, Italy and other European nations. Burning cars have become a staple of Paris and videos have begun to populate YouTube showing the notable rise of anti-Semitic attacks and attitudes to anyone who looks remotely Jewish. The tensions have led to a rise in far-right parties being elected to parliaments throughout the continent including Golden Dawn in Greece, UKIP in England and the National Front in France.

These groups all hold extreme views in regards to immigration and often find themselves siding with Israel as they see the small Jewish country as the bulwark against Islamic extremism. With the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, more and more European Muslims  joining the barbaric terror group and an increase in Islamic attacks against European institutions such as Charlie Hebdo it is no wonder that Netanyahu sees Europe now as his natural allies. No doubt that Bibi hopes European leaders will no longer focus as much on the peace process between him and the Palestinians but instead on the global response to ISIS.

As the tensions in Europe begin to come to a boil, Netanyahu's increasingly fiery rhetoric against ISIS and Muslims will find a natural home in the new, xenophobic Europe. The peace process between the Palestinians and Israel will fall by the wayside as the far-right begins to gain more and more power and influence within the European parliaments. This works for Netanyahu. He wants the world to focus on Islamic State and combating the regional terror group. ISIS's gains in the Middle East stoke fears that they could soon be in Europe and beyond. This is how the right-wing will continue to rise and Netanyahu will be welcomed in every European capital. Obama, meanwhile, will be forced to sit back and watch as the left-wing crumbles in the face of overwhelming domination from right-wing groups. As Europe's right enjoys their renaissance Obama will look at how Netanyahu is treated like a king and he lament the opportunities that he missed.