The latest "peace process". posted by Richard Seymour

The new 'peace process' outlined by the Prime Minister may be as doomed as the Oslo 'peace process' for the simple reason that the common factor between the two is an aggressive, bullying, militaristic and racist state that is busily attacking, killing, repressing and occupying another country. Israel intends no peace for those it unctuously calls its 'neighbours'.

Tony Blair was huffing away in his press conference today that yes, of course he could call for a ceasefire, he absolutely could, but he isn't going to because "y'know, it's terrible, and it's my job to stop it, and we're working terribly hard, but y'know, it has to be a ceasefire on both sides". He did his usual pausing business where it looked for a second like the situation was suddenly too much for him and he might well cry in front of all these people. It goes without saying that any Official Enemy engaged in even a tithe of these atrocities would in fact find all sorts of demands falling upon them from our comely saviour. "Stop this, listen here, we're in charge, you'll get bombed if you're not careful sonny..." They'd never hear the end of it. But when Israel is the aggressor, Blair suddenly starts sounding like Little Orphan Annie. ("It's awful, Daddy Warbucks, just awful!")

Of course the ceasefire has got to be "on both sides", that's the whole fucking point of a ceasefire, that's why Hezbollah and every other state and group aside from Israel and its allies has been calling for one. Blair's portrayal of great, titanic difficulty and exertion on his part is at odds with every known fact of this. A ceasefire is called for, an agreement is available, and the only people opposed to it are the extremist fanatics in the White House, Tel Aviv and Number Ten Downing Street. Yet, it seems that our media personalities haven't quite absorbed that salient fact. Tonight, Channel Four news had Alex Thompson interview Fouad Sinioria who was, characteristically, evasive on the question of Blair ("he's got a point of view, but we differ..."), but who said that if Israel wanted a lasting peace it had only to stop its crimes, negotiate with Hezbollah over prisoners, stop invading Lebanese territory and give back the Shebaah Farms. Alex Thompson almost shat himself: "And you really believe that Hezbollah will then end its war?" "Yes -" "Do you really believe that, hand on heart?" It was all Siniora could do to say with mild amazement that "I have to go on what they say..."

The implication, of course, is that if Israel says it offers a peace deal, it is genuine; if some nasty Muslims say the same, it is not. Hence, the deep underlying belief on the part of Western media commentators and politicians, even those who would consider themselves critical of Israel, that some 'international force' must be sent in to 'disarm' Hezbollah on Israel's behalf. No matter what the evidence is, the racist imaginary cannot deal with the idea that Israel is the aggressor, that Israel is the provocateur, that Israel is in its very existence a crime and an affront. Siniora tried to explain about the Naqba, Deir Yassin, all the crimes since then, but Thompson wasn't interested. He had to stop his hand forming a yakkity-yak sign.

It isn't so complicated: Israel, not Hezbollah, must be disarmed, must be stopped, must have its killing toys taken away. And it would be so simple to do: merely cease providing the money, the weapons, the means of transporting the weapons. Blair, if he could gently extricate himself from his self-imposed cruciate predicament, could say to Bush "there has to be a ceasefire and you must call off your dogs if you don't want me to cause an international incident". Further, "and we shall no longer contribute to Israel's arsenal of evil-doing nor assist you in transferring the means of death to these people." That would fuck with Israel's war fairly completely. But of course, Blair could not begin to broach such heresy. His entire world-view is informed by a sterile dichotomy of 'conservatism' versus 'modernity', or 'openness' versus (I suppose) 'closedness'. Since these 'values' accomodate themselves so well to the priorities of international capital, and of imperialism, and since they are the lingua franca of the ongoing war by Western ruling classes against exploitable or expendable Third World workers, Blair is deeply attached to any state which perpetuates Western supremacy. His knees, some people in the know say, go weak when he meets the super-rich. He seems, like another regular White House visitor, to fall directly onto those joints when the American president is about, and power-worship is the unequivocal explanation.

As such, allowing this ham actor to prate of a 'peace process' or a 'deal in a few days time for an immediate ceasefire' without even intruding the slightest glance of a boot or a fist in his direction is suicidally dangerous. He will, with these soporific phrases, sleep-walk us toward doom.