Al-Bab al-Jadid

Looking at the footage broadcast to our homes, it's very easy to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a conflict between two determined and ruthless opponents, who have a clear vision as to what they wish to see and who have seized their own destiny. The weak-willed do not blow themselves up on buses; equally the morally ambivalent do not destroy a dozen houses and a dozen families at the push of a button. This is true, but it is only touching the surface of the conflict. The reality is that both parties are trapped and blinkered, by ignorance and by a perennial and suffocating sense of victimhood.

The Israelis especially display a completely unjustifiable sense of victimhood. They have not reconciled themselves to the post-1948 world, more than anyone they act as if Israel were a fragile dream instead of the Middle East's only nuclear state. They are still engaged with the Diaspora mindset of a 'people without a land', the perpetual victims and, pre-1948 this was undoubtedly true. For 2,000 years Jews were mistreated and abused in a way which leaves a dark mark on much of the world and they were victims, victims of oppression and prejudice, violence and hatred - but this is not the case now, at least for Jews in Israel. They have become the majority in a very powerful state.

Even if the Palestinians did honestly wish to throw the Israelis into the sea (which, outside of the ranks of Hamas, is ludicrous) they would be incapable of doing so. The Israeli sense of victimhood essentially equates to saying "rocks and bombings represent a disproportionate crime against us". As many know I am not as a principle opposed to Israeli military responses, any nation acts the same and whilst this does not make it right it does mean that we should not place Israel into a special box. The problem is though, that Israeli sense of victimhood leads them to deny responsibility for these acts. They cannot concieve of themselves as anything but the victim and demand that we view their acts as we view the acts of any true victim - that is, beyond essential criticism.

This applies to the Palestinians, but in a rather different manner. Instead of victimhood becoming an intellectual mechanism for avoiding moral responsibility, victimhood becomes a justification for what can be termed, for lack of a better word, 'to-the-bitter-endism' - avoiding political responsibility. This avoidance of political responsibility can be seen continuously in the failure of the Palestinians to see the peace process as merely leading onto a reconciliation process instead of a triumph of the Palestinian people. This is the main cause of the failure of the Arafat-Barak talks - Arafat could not get the triumph he was required to achieve, leaving the peace process as a sideshow in the minds of many.

The largest and most deadly consequence of this avoidance of responsibility by both sides is that it creates a stagnation at the heart of each community. It is hard to change when all mistakes are not yours but your opponents, when all misfortune comes from the outside. This makes the chances for a stable peace and for reconciliation dire - even if there was a peace deal signed tomorrow, which was acceptable in terms to both sides, there would still be a massive and lingering sense of distrust and hatred which would continue to poison the atmosphere. This is more damaging than it appears because on a whole host of issues - such as settlements, water, Palestinian-Israelis, Gaza-West Bank links and employment close cooperation is required.

The way to change this isn't to aim for a new mindset - the platitudes of love seem alien in this beautiful but sun-scarred land, rather it is to force each side to recognise the reality of the situation and allow them to develop a new mindset organically. This provides a New Gate to peace - an acceptance of responsibility freeing both sides from the burden of their victimhood.

A British Incentive to Criticise?

A lot of hay has been made in the US recently about complaints by professional bodies in the UK about the quality of NHS care - the endless scare stories we see and the occasional reports which make the same point. In contrast, stories such as this rarely exist in the US, which at first glance could lead you assume that British healthcare is indeed awful and American healthcare is excellent. Consider the reasons for criticism, though, and the situation is suddenly muddied. In effect, the British system creates massive incentives to criticise.

The prime reason for this is that the National Health Service is immune from most economic and market factors, but is completely subject to political decisions. More than virtually any other country on earth, the care you receive depends on the decisions of politicians. No MRI at your local hospital? That's because there isn't the funding from Whitehall. But say a new walk-in centre opened a few roads over, that'll be because government policy prioritises investment in high visibility services. This is a pattern repeated throughout the entirity of the NHS, with certain services winning greater funding that others - as a direct consequence of the politicised nature of the NHS.

To contrast, in America the funding a hospital receives is dependent on how many patients it has. This sounds like an obvious thing to say, but the consequences are far reaching. It means American healthcare professionals don't want to talk down the service they offer, quite the opposite. They want to encourage patients to come through their doors, by promising a good service even if the reality isn't so rosy. In the NHS the incentive is to focus on the problems of your department, hospital or service. It is only by painting a bad picture that you have a chance of competing for extra funding. If Camden PCT says that its mental health service is adequately funded and operating correctly, but Haringey PCT lists a litany of problems caused by underfunding, Haringey will likely be prioritised and have far greater access to any new funding.

This incentive is only magnified once you leave the corridors of power. The NHS managers themselves can't talk down their service too much - indeed, if they go beyond mentioning problems caused by underfunding their jobs are at risk. The same can't be said for the professional organisations, patients' groups and political organisations who are the main source of the negative press. They cast blame on whoever they wish in the ceaseless jockeying for funding. Politicians, as the focal point of all this, all too often focus on making the bad headlines disappear. A case in point is the new effort to expand NHS dental care after the stories which were dominating the news a few years ago.

In short, the way British healthcare is organised creates a situation where those who are best at complaining and criticising manage to get better funding for their favourite service or profession - a situation which goes a long way to explaining why scare stories about healthcare are such a prominent part of the British landscape and why other countries rarely indulge in this medical navel gazing.