The Tribune

WITH the horrors of the Israel-Gaza war dominating the international news it is hard to remain silent on the issue, so elsewhere on this page I take a separate look at Israel’s action in particular. I do not claim to be an expert on the Middle East, but offer comment from experience of a career in Britain’s diplomatic service and a thorough study of the history of the region together with the latest media reports.

Although commenting weekly mainly on international affairs, I know from readers’ feedback that some people are also interested in developments in Britain; given, in particular, the historical relationship between our two countries. But, partly out of loyalty, I normally shy away from criticism of UK domestic matters. So I am reluctant to write today about what is being allowed to happen on the streets of London in protest against the actions of Israel in bombarding Gaza and in relation to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. These have gone well beyond the acceptable peaceful demonstrations that are a feature of legitimate protest in a democracy – and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has condemned them as “hate marches”.

George Orwell was reported by one commentator to have written in 1941 that the “gentleness of English civilisation is its most marked characteristic”. In more modern times, that civilisation is being challenged constantly by disputes, arguments and protests. This is acceptable in one sense since an important element of Britain’s long-standing democracy is the people’s right to freedom of speech and expression in a tolerant society that respects the diversity of individual opinion and action as long as it is within the law - and the right to demonstrate, if necessary en masse, is sacrosanct provided it is done peacefully.

Over the years, there have been countless demonstrations in London on a range of issues of public concern. The majority are peaceful though, of course, there has been violence from time to time in the past.

According to commentators in the UK press, the evidence suggests that what is happening right now in central London in support of Gaza and the Palestinian cause more broadly is being driven by Islamic fundamentalists who share the radical ideology of Hamas and its backers in Iran. These jihadists based in Britain are allied to socialists on the far left who dislike Western civilisation, which they regard as oppressive imperialism, and work against it. They violently oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza – but fail to see, let alone acknowledge, the evil horrors carried out by Hamas terrorists within Israel.

Whatever the justification of their cause, they simply brush aside the terrible savagery of that dreadful slaughter of innocents within Israel on October 7. People of Orwell’s generation would have been appalled at the atmosphere of hatred, bigotry and intimidation of these marches - the banners threatening Jews, displays of anti-Semitism and the chant of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” that challenges Israel’s very existence. The marches are part of a wider pattern of anti-Jewish bigotry and intolerance and reflect not just growing anti-Semitism but include physical violence against Jews, abuse and damage to property – and to most people this unacceptable.

Protesters have descended on the capital for the past four or five Saturdays. On October 28, half a million people marched in London, making it the biggest Palestinian demonstration in British history. Alarmingly, it is reported that they intend to do so again on November 11 which is, of course, Remembrance Day. Hundreds of thousands of pro-Palestine activists plan to join a march next Saturday at the same time the Festival of Remembrance is held at the Royal Albert Hall, with two performances in the afternoon and evening. The potential chaos and danger of violent clashes is self-evident.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said that these hate marches are an affront to British values and has spoken of the need to protect the sanctity of Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday. There has also been talk of banning such a provocative and disrespectful pro-Palestinian protest on Armistice Day. But it seems that few in Britain have any faith in the police enforcing the law on so-called hate crimes when for years the authorities have taken a “softly, softly” approach to a range of offences involving civil disobedience, including infractions of the law during public demonstrations and marches.

Overall, the UK authorities have been accused of a feeble reaction in dealing with radicals. This has included the police’s practice of appeasement in handling protests by environmentalists like the group called Just Stop Oil. Some observers put this down to the threat of accusations of racism and the obsession of local leaders with multiculturalism and diversity that, for example, has encouraged immigrants to cling to the customs and languages of their homelands rather than to integrate fully with their new community in Britain. Overall, the UK authorities have even been accused of being complicit in the violence by allowing it to happen instead of policing the marches more robustly – and thereby protecting and respecting the nation’s democratic values.

COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT OF GAZA UNACCEPTABLE

It has been said that history shows you cannot destroy terrorism by terrorising a whole population. But this appears to be what Israel is doing.

While many agree that as a sovereign state it has the right to defend itself after Hamas’s barbaric murderous attacks inside Israel itself a month ago, most people judge that Israel’s apparently indiscriminate and disproportionate bombardment of Gaza that has left thousands dead constitutes collective punishment of its people and has created an immense humanitarian disaster that has shocked the world. There can be no question that this is inhumane, wrong in law, dangerous in practice and works against Israel’s overall interests as it is roundly condemned by the rest of the world, not least its Arab neighbours.

For their part, the Israelis maintain that Hamas’s complex of tunnels and command centres are concentrated within the northern part of the Gaza Strip – cynically built underneath civilian infrastructure – and that Hamas is so heavily embedded in the civilian population that they have no choice but to go after civilian targets in order to root out these terrorists once and for all. They say that Hamas must be eliminated or the grisly cycle of terrorist attack followed by the need for retribution and military action will simply continue.

The history of the persecution and hatred of Jews, who are called by Islamist extremists “the children of Satan” – including inquisitions, pogroms and the Holocaust itself - is well documented and does not bear scrutiny here. For many, anti-Semitism cannot be justified but the reasons for it arouse extreme passions.

Some commentators have drawn attention to Israel’s latest efforts to chronicle and publicise the horrendous actions perpetrated by Hamas terrorists as the extent of the terror sinks in. People are talking about the “darkness of the human heart” and “man’s inhumanity to man”. Israelis may perhaps hope that seeing the hideous details of such cruelty and depravity may even convince those who condemn them that their extreme reaction might almost be understandable even if the mass bombing of Gaza and indiscriminate killing of its people cannot be justified. In their own interests, let alone for the sake of humanity, the Israelis must somehow be forced to find another way.

BRITAIN TAKES GLOBAL LEAD IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Billionaire Elon Musk, the CEO of electric car company Tesla, is not only the richest man in the world but is called by some a tech maverick. He has suggested that eventually no one will have to work thanks to advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), though they could still do so for “personal satisfaction”.

But Musk has also warned that AI could lead to “humanity’s extinction” since it has the potential to be the most disruptive force in history. Earlier this year, he called for a pause in the “dangerous race” to develop AI because of fears about the risk to society and humanity and the potential catastrophic effects.

He attended what has been called the UK’s AI Safety Summit last week to discuss the risks of this new technology and described it as timely because the phenomenon of AI posed an “existential risk” to humans who face being outsmarted by machines for the first time.

This two-day gathering of world leaders or their representatives - though notable absentees were President Biden, the German chancellor and French president – together with invited guests from the tech industry and scientists was held at Bletchley Park in Buckinghamshire, which was the home of England’s code-breakers during the Second World War.

The summit was a huge success for the UK and personally for Prime Minister Sunak whose brainchild it was following his visit to Washington in June. As a Stanford University graduate, he is said to have a dream of creating a British Silicon Valley. He has also proposed that the UK should be a centre for regulating the developing technology of AI.

Among various AI definitions, I believe one stands out as being notably clear; namely, “the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks currently associated with intelligent beings or tasks normally requiring human intelligence”.

It is claimed that the new technology of AI will revolutionize how vast swathes of data are assessed and analysed since it would be able to synthesize a lot of written information and answer questions about it, though this could be done maliciously and with an ulterior motive.

For the layman grappling with the idea of AI, perhaps the words of Mr Sunak described best what he called Bletchley Park’s historic achievements in “convening this group of people for the first time and leaving with a tangible outcome” — by which he meant the Bletchley Declaration, whose signatories included the US, the EU and China. This was described as a landmark deal recognizing that AI, which already has a foothold in some activities, “presents enormous global opportunities but should be developed in a way that is human-centric, trustworthy and responsible” – and this was the world’s first ever international statement on so-called frontier AI that could exceed the capabilities of today’s most advanced systems.

Summing it all up, Sunak said “we have the political will and the capability to control this technology and secure its benefits for the long-term” – and on a global basis. But the declaration agreed that there was a need to understand properly the risks of AI and collectively manage them before seeking to legislate on the issue and regulate it. The Bletchley Declaration also marks the start of a new global effort to build public trust by ensuring the technology’s safe development.

These are, of course, early days for AI and its growing use. No one knows what lies in store for it. But at least it is good to know that the issues it raises are now being examined on a global basis - and that human creativity is still unique. So, if critical thinking and imagination are still in demand, human beings remain essential.