Palestinians salvage items from the rubble of destroyed buildings in Gaza City as the fragile ceasefire entered a second day, 6 August. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Jason Cowley: The destruction of Gaza and when Israel backed the Islamists

The Gaza conflict has raised the important question of empathy. Would that both sides were capable of greater empathy and, indeed, imagination. 

Imagine a science-fiction novel or a dystopian-themed film, set in a strip of land 25 miles long and no more than eight miles wide in which 1.8 million people are encaged or blockaded. The borders are sealed and the people have no control over their territorial waters or the skies above. Many of them are doubly dispossessed because they are descendants of those expelled from their ancestral villages several decades earlier. Squalid refugee camps have hardened into permanent settlements. Imagine, too, that the sinister whine of drones can be heard every day over this blighted territory, monitoring the movements of the people below, who are ruled by cruel, fanatical religious conservatives. Where once women wore bikinis on the beach and local cafés resounded to the clash of argument about Marxism and national liberation, now the women, through choice or coercion, wear burqas and niqabs and the men swear devotion to Allah, the one true God. Meanwhile, hidden figures are hard at work underground, toiling to dig tunnels of escape and attack into the two neighbouring states that have conspired to isolate this claustrophobic coastal enclave from the world.

This preposterous set-up sounds like something that could have been dreamt up by H G Wells (think of the Morlocks and the Eloi). Yet this is how the people of Gaza must live, with the added inconvenience of being assaulted every two years or so by one of the world’s most sophisticated and merciless military powers.


Hamas, which is a political party and an Islamist resistance movement, with origins in the Muslim Brotherhood, is culpable for the plight of the Palestinians of Gaza. It sent suicide bombers into Israel during the second intifada to blow up cafés, hotels and bars. Its founding charter is anti-Semitic and calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Its leaders dare not even live in Gaza – Khaled Meshal, having left Damascus as the anti-Assad revolts morphed into murderous civil war, is resident in Qatar, one of the very few states still sympathetic to Hamas. If Meshal actually lived in Gaza he might think twice about ordering Hamas to fire his ineffective rockets into Israel, knowing what the devastating response will be. Still, he’s well placed to get some decent tickets for the World Cup.

But Israel, which is fighting what it believes is a “just war” of self-defence, must share equal blame for the tragedy of Gaza. This is because of its long occupation of Palestinian territories – the West Bank is being devoured by Jewish settlements even as I write – and because of its failure to countenance the possibility of negotiating with Hamas when the experience of Northern Ireland showed that, in the end, a deal could be reached only by the hardliners on either side. The irony is that the Israeli security forces once encouraged the Islamists of Gaza, then under the leadership of Ahmed Yassin, a disabled cleric. They were seen as useful idiots, a counterbalance to the power of Yasser Arafat’s secular PLO. The thinking was this: divide the Palestinians among themselves and it will be easier to control them and thus indefinitely postpone the creation of a viable Palestinian state.


In recent days, I’ve had a lot of emails about a blog I wrote exploring anti-Israel bias in the broadcast media. It has been said to me that the emphasis in too many BBC and Channel 4 news reports has been on the death of children in Gaza rather than on the Hamas rockets and “terror tunnels”, as if what even the Daily Mail has called “the slaughter of innocents” should be downplayed, or were comparable in some way with the threat posed by Hamas rocket fire.

I accept that Channel 4 News has been partisan, but never anti-Israeli. Jon Snow and his colleague Paul Mason, who has shown great courage by just being in Gaza during the bombardment, are justifiably horrified by what they have witnessed: the dead and maimed children, the chaos in the impoverished hospitals struck by Israeli bombs, the wilful destruction of infrastructure, such as UN schools and Gaza’s only power plant. It’s as if a terrible collective punishment has been visited upon all Palestinians in Gaza.


The Gaza conflict has raised the important question of empathy. The reporting by Snow and Mason has been motivated by empathy for the civilian victims. Would that both sides were capable of greater empathy and, indeed, imagination. “It is hard to be cruel,” Ian McEwan wrote after the attacks of 11 September 2001, “once you permit yourself to enter the mind of your victim. Imagining what it is like to be someone other than yourself is at the core of our humanity. It is the essence of compassion, and it is the beginning of morality.”

There is also the question of proportion. Israel has the technological capability to show the world that it can defend its people while operating ethically and proportionately but rather it chooses to act ruthlessly and disproportionately, and then seeks to justify its killing of civilians by spurious recourse to international law. Which leads us to the intransigence and belligerence of the Likud-led coalition government and the coarsening of public debate in Israel, where Jewish dissenters to the war are in the minority.

The territorial maximalists and absolutists are in the ascendant in Israel. In a column about the Gaza war in Haaretz, for which she is correspondent on the occupied territories, Amira Hass wrote bravely of her country’s “moral implosion” and the “ethical defeat of a society that now engages in no self-inspection”. She exaggerates – I know many Israelis who are deeply anguished and self-inspecting – but she is correct to suggest that Israel, even as it attempts to bomb its way to security, has suffered a moral defeat in Gaza: a defeat, Hass wrote, that “will haunt us for many years to come”, as well it might. 

Jason Cowley is editor of the New Statesman. He has been the editor of Granta, a senior editor at the Observer and a staff writer at the Times.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Michael Carrick is the “Geordie Pirlo” that England misunderstood

The Manchester United legend’s retirement announcement should leave Three Lions fans wondering what if?

That it came in the months leading up to a World Cup arguably added an exclamation point to the announcement of Michael Carrick’s impending retirement. The Manchester United midfielder, who is expected to take up a coaching role with the club afterwards, will hang up his boots at the end of the season. And United boss Jose Mourinho’s keenness to keep Carrick at Old Trafford in some capacity only serves to emphasise how highly he rates the 36-year-old.

But Carrick’s curtain call in May will be caveated by one striking anomaly on an otherwise imperious CV: his international career. Although at club level Carrick has excelled – winning every top tier honour a player based in England possibly can – he looks set to retire with just 34 caps for his country, and just one of those was earned at a major tournament.

This, in part, is down to the quality of competition he has faced. Indeed, much of the conversation around England’s midfield in the early to mid-noughties centred on finding a system that could accommodate both box-to-box dynamos Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard.

As time went on, however, focus shifted towards trequartistas, advanced playmakers and those with more mobile, harrying playing styles. And the likes of Jack Wilshere, Ross Barkley, Jordan Henderson and Dele Alli were brought into the frame more frequently than Carrick, whose deep-lying capabilities were not utilised to their full potential. That nearly 65 per cent of Carrick’s England caps have come in friendlies shows how undervalued he was. 

In fairness, Carrick does not embody similar characteristics to many of his England midfield contemporaries, including a laudable lack of ego. He is not blessed with lung-busting pace, nor is he enough of a ball-winner to shield a back four solo. Yet his passing and distribution satisfy world-class criteria, with a range only matched, as far as England internationals go, by his former United team-mate Paul Scholes, who was also misused when playing for his country.

Rather, the player Carrick resembles most isn’t English at all; it’s Andrea Pirlo, minus the free-kicks. When comparisons between the mild-mannered Geordie and Italian football’s coolest customer first emerged, they were dismissed in some quarters as hyperbole. Yet watching Carrick confirm his retirement plans this week, perfectly bearded and reflecting on a trophy-laden 12-year spell at one of world football’s grandest institutions, the parallels have become harder to deny.

Michael Carrick at a press event ahead of Manchester United's Champions League game this week. Photo: Getty.

Where other players would have been shown the door much sooner, both Pirlo and Carrick’s efficient style of play – built on patience, possession and precision – gifted them twilights as impressive as many others’ peaks. That at 36, Carrick is still playing for a team in the top two of the top division in English football, rather than in lower-league or moneyed foreign obscurity, speaks volumes. At the same age, Pirlo started for Juventus in the Champions League final of 2015.

It is ill health, not a decline in ability, which is finally bringing Carrick’s career to a close. After saying he “felt strange” during the second-half of United’s 4-1 win over Burton Albion earlier this season, he had a cardiac ablation procedure to treat an irregular heart rhythm. He has since been limited to just three more appearances this term, of which United won two. 

And just how key to United’s success Carrick has been since his £18m signing from Tottenham in 2006 cannot be overstated. He was United’s sole signing that summer, yielding only modest excitement, and there were some Red Devils fans displeased with then manager Sir Alex Ferguson’s decision to assign Carrick the number 16 jersey previously worn by departed captain Roy Keane. Less than a year later, though, United won their first league title in four years. The following season, United won the league and Champions League double, with Carrick playing 49 times across all competitions.

Failing to regularly deploy Carrick in his favoured role – one that is nominally defensive in its position at the base of midfield, but also creative in providing through-balls to the players ahead – must be considered one of the most criminal oversights of successive England managers’ tenures. Unfortunately, Carrick’s heart condition means that current boss Gareth Southgate is unlikely to be able to make amends this summer.

By pressing space, rather than players, Carrick compensates for his lack of speed by marking passing channels and intercepting. He is forever watching the game around him and his unwillingness to commit passes prematurely and lose possession is as valuable an asset as when he does spot an opening.

Ultimately, while Carrick can have few regrets about his illustrious career, England fans and management alike can have plenty. Via West Ham, Spurs and United, the Wallsend-born émigré has earned his billing as one of the most gifted midfielders of his generation, but he’d never let on.

Rohan Banerjee is a Special Projects Writer at the New Statesman. He co-hosts the No Country For Brown Men podcast.