Wars happen... when politics don't!
Apart from such conflict potentially destabilising global peace, it reflects incredibly badly upon us in terms of our ability to respect each other and those qualities that make us who and what, we are.
In years gone by, war and conflict took place purely for greed, with gold, silver, diamonds, tobacco and spices the 'currencies' of war, as the British, Spanish, Germans and French plundered the world; and through their avarice, could not see the futility, of war, the pain and anguish of death; and the desolation, the emptiness. Too many victories were forged in unequal battles between shot and spear, pyrrhic victories, devoid of any genuine sense of achievement.
So many wars and conflicts have been fought over love and jealousy, such as that inspired by Helen, wife of the Spartan King Menelaus. Seduced by Paris of Troy, their very public lust left the Trojans and Spartans fighting for ten years over the walled city of Troy, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands.
Over ten years paupers and princes alike were to perish, as the Spartans hurled their forces against the impenetrable walls of the city. The conflict only ended when the 'Trojan Horse,' a 'gift' by any other name and Spartan trickery saw the defences breached at last. 'Helen of Troy' though, despite 'marrying' Paris and subsequently his brother Deiphobus, was to reunite with Menelaus and live happily ever after... so it was all for nothing in the end! King Arthur, of the Round Table, had his knights and a beautiful Queen, Guinivere, but she succumbed to a love affair with the bravest of his knights, Sir Lancelot. A bitter conflict of two years ended with the knighthood of the Round Table divided, their quest for the 'Holy Grail' abandoned, their impeccable championship of chivalry and their respect for each other, for their very way of life, emasculated. Arthur withdrew an irrevocably broken man, never to rule, or fight again, while, in her shame Guinivere entered a nunnery and would never step outside its walls again and the lion that was Lancelot became a hermit-like recluse, an object of ridicule, a world away from the fame and fortune of the 'Dragonslayer.' Again, there were no winners here, just the inevitable pain and suffering.
Cleopatra of Egypt, at a mere eighteen years, was to seduce the mighty Roman Julius Caesar, in her feud for the Egyptian throne she felt unfairly deprived of by her brother Ptolemy XIII and her sister Arsinol. In her name, Caesar invaded Egypt and became Emperor of Rome, before being betrayed and stabbed. Cleopatra then set herself to win Mark Antony and for her, he waged an ill-advised war on his own people to have Cleopatra's son recognised as Caesar. As their enemies closed in on them Antony stabbed himself and Cleopatra succumbed to self-inflicted snake bites, neither achieving in battle, the perfect ending to their love story. They were all losers! The one great hope for wars fought over passion is the story of Romulus the ruler of Rome in its first days around 2800 years ago. With few women in the city and anxious to grow their population, the Romans abducted hundreds of women from other cities. When war loomed, it was those very victims, the Sabine women, who prevented bloodshed by standing between the antagonists insisting that violence was not the solution. As a result, Rome grew quickly to create a reign of a thousand years. Knowing we will never prevent wars for greed and perhaps the Sabine women should be our inspiration? Only the foolish among the political hierarchies of the sub-continent, would seek to scorn wisdom and perpetuate fickle indifference, because, in conflict there are no winners, only survivors.
BLURB
Apart from such conflict potentially destabilising global peace, it reflects incredibly badly upon us in terms of our ability to respect each other and those qualities that make us who and what, we are
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
6 days ago
- Observer
Why Russia sold Alaska to the US
President Vladimir Putin of Russia was scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump in Alaska on Friday to discuss the war in Ukraine. If they talk about Ukrainian land concessions as part of peace negotiations, as Trump has suggested, they will be doing so on land that Russia sold to the United States in 1867. That won't be the only historical irony. Russia was moved to sell Alaska partly because of a war in Crimea, a peninsula that the Russian Empire annexed in 1783 under Catherine the Great. Crimea became part of an independent Ukraine in 1991, and Russia seized it in 2014 in a preview of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As ironies go, 'it doesn't get much better than that on a grand historical scale,' said Pierce Bateman, a historian at the University of Alaska Anchorage, referring to the location of the Trump-Putin summit. The $7.2 million purchase of Alaska now looks like a very good deal for the United States. Though it made sense for the Russian Empire at the time, some Russian nationalists see the sale as a historic blunder. Here's what to know about the forces and people that shaped it, and why its legacy matters: Russia acquired Alaska during an era of colonial expansion. Russian explorers reached present-day Alaska in the 18th century by crossing a narrow strait separating Asia and North America. The strait was named after Vitus Bering, the Danish-born mariner sent abroad by Czar Peter the Great in the 1720s to claim new Russian territory. Bateman said there was a 'wild west' feeling in the territory as early Russian explorers rushed to harvest sea otter furs — a prized commodity in China at the time — in and around the Aleutian Islands. There was also brutality against Indigenous people, including abductions of the children of local leaders and the destruction of boats and hunting equipment, according to William L. Iggiagruk Hensley, a historian and former Democratic state senator in Alaska. Alaska's economic appeal for Russia faded over time. In 1799, the Russian Empire chartered the Russian-American Company to streamline the fur trade and formalize Russian settlements in the territory that would become known as Alaska. 'Russian America' would eventually stretch as far south as California. But overharvesting was making the fur trade far less profitable. There were also tensions among Russian, British and American fur traders, partly because the limits of their territories and hunting grounds were not well defined. And Russia's sparsely populated settlements and assets were poorly defended. Geopolitics were a factor in the sale. The challenges of holding Alaska were complicated by developments on other continents. One was trade: Russia increasingly wanted to focus on imperial expansion in its Far East. Another was war. When Russia began fighting Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire in Crimea in 1853, Russian officials worried that British forces might try to invade the Russian Far East through North America, according to a 2016 book about the purchase of Alaska by historian Lee Farrow. Even after that threat subsided, they continued to worry about the British presence in the Pacific. They also wondered if 'Russian America' would survive U.S. expansionism. By the 1850s, the United States had acquired California, annexed Texas, and fought a war with Mexico. There was talk of 'Manifest Destiny,' the idea that the United States was destined to expand across North America. Russian officials, including the commander of its Pacific fleet, urged the ailing empire to offload Alaska while it could. The deal made sense for both sides. The diplomatic conditions for a sale were good, according to Farrow, a professor at Auburn University at Montgomery. Trade between Russia and the United States was blossoming, and both were increasingly distrustful of Britain, America's former colonial master. In March 1867, Secretary of State William Henry Seward opened the negotiations by offering $5 million for the territory to Eduard Stoeckl, the Russian minister to the United States. Two weeks later, they agreed on $7.2 million, or less than 2 cents an acre. A treaty was signed in Seward's office at 4 a.m. after an all-night negotiating session, and later approved by Congress and Czar Alexander II. The deal led to some tension and scandal: The U.S. government was late to pay Russia, and there were accusations that American politicians and journalists had taken cuts of the payment as bribes. Some critics did not see the strategic advantage of adding a frozen territory more than twice the size of France, and called the purchase 'Seward's folly.' But the resistance was largely driven by a minority of American newspapers, according to a 2019 study by historian Michael A. Hill. Many Americans were excited about Alaska's rumored natural resources, he wrote. Some Russians have seller's remorse. Alaska turned out to have plenty of resources, including gold, timber, and petroleum, and the purchase was increasingly seen as a good deal for the United States. Alaska became the 49th state in 1959. In Russia, there was some relief after the deal. But by the Soviet era, it was seen as an embarrassment, said Julia Davis, founder of the Russian Media Monitor, a project that tracks Kremlin propaganda. Putin, who often talks about the need to restore Russian power, equivocated in 2014 when asked if Russia planned to annex Alaska. But a sense of seller's remorse over the lost territory seems to be a feature of his rule, Davis said, and calls to take Alaska back have grown louder as relations with the United States have worsened. 'Alaska is ours' billboards popped up in Russia after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and the message was amplified by some politicians and television pundits. In that sense, holding a Trump-Putin summit in Alaska is a victory for hard-right Russian nationalists. 'Across the board, it's considered a major win,' Davis said. This article originally appeared in
Observer
11-08-2025
- Observer
UN says Israel's Gaza plan risks 'another calamity'
A UN official on Sunday warned the Security Council that Israel's plans to control Gaza City risked "another calamity" with far-reaching consequences as Benjamin Netanyahu insisted his goal was not to occupy the territory. The United Nations Security Council held a rare emergency meeting after Israel said its military would "take control" of Gaza City in a plan approved by Prime Minister Netanyahu's security cabinet that sparked a wave of global criticism. "If these plans are implemented, they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction," UN Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca told the Security Council. Britain warned the Israeli plan risked prolonging the conflict. "It will only deepen the suffering of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. This is not a path to resolution. It is a path to more bloodshed," said British deputy ambassador to the UN James Kariuki. But Netanyahu said on Sunday his country was "talking in terms of a fairly short timetable because we want to bring the war to an end," as he insisted Israel did not want to occupy Gaza. Outside the meeting at UN headquarters in New York, a small but noisy protest calling for an end to the conflict was met by a large police presence. Palestinian ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour last Friday said that "this escalation by the Israeli government is going in total contradiction to the will of the international community." The United States, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, is likely to seek to shield its staunch ally Israel from any practical measure of UN censure. Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said ahead of the meeting that "Israel will not stop fighting for the release of all the captives - and ensuring the safety and security of our citizens is our duty." SEE ALSO P6
Observer
09-08-2025
- Observer
The thin line between prejudice and racism
In a world grappling with conflict, migration and cultural misunderstanding, the difference between prejudice and racism may seem academic — but it's not. These concepts are deeply woven into the fabric of human interaction and understanding them is essential if we are to build fairer, more tolerant societies. This is a personal reflection on how prejudice can emerge from experience and how easily — and dangerously — it can slide into racism. I have often pondered whether there is a meaningful difference between racism and prejudice. We all carry certain prejudices — assumptions or expectations based on limited experience. Even though we know that, statistically, in any country — including Oman — most people are polite, honest and kind-hearted, we occasionally meet individuals we don't get along with or cannot trust. For me, such experiences in Oman are rare. When I sit next to an Omani on a plane, I expect to be treated with good manners and invariably we get on well. In fact, I would rather sit next to an Omani than, say, a European. Is that a form of prejudice? Most certainly. Why is this the case? I have met many Europeans — including, of course, my fellow Brits — who are kind, polite and warm-hearted. But I've met more Omanis who fall into that category than Europeans. It's not rational or logical to judge an entire nation based on the actions of a few unpleasant individuals, but it isn't always easy to avoid such generalisations. Let me share another example. In the UK, I used to buy and renovate properties. Over the years, I found that most British tradesmen I employed tried to cheat me in one way or another. By contrast, the tradesmen I hired from Eastern Europe were almost always honest, reliable and capable. So I ended up employing only Eastern European workers. Yes, I admit that I developed a prejudice against British tradesmen. Interestingly, they were all white — so my bias was not based on the colour of their skin. Both of these prejudices emerged from real but limited experiences — a statistically insignificant number of negative encounters with Europeans and British tradesmen. Yet they shaped my expectations. That's the insidious thing about prejudice: it's often not rooted in ideology, but in personal experience. And that makes it harder to recognise and perhaps even harder to admit. Then we come to the difficult question: is it reasonable to maintain such prejudices? I would argue that, to a degree, it is. There's an old proverb — 'Once bitten, twice shy'. If a pattern of behaviour appears to repeat itself, we become wary. Why should I risk another bad experience? That's how prejudice works. But it's also why prejudice can so easily lead to racism. This is the slippery slope. Prejudice is usually based on behaviour — what someone does to you. Racism is based on identity — what someone is and particularly what is the colour of their skin or their ethnicity. And while I don't believe I am a racist, I recognise how close the line can be. I am not proud of my prejudices. I see now how even well-intentioned caution can slide into bigotry and racism if left unchallenged. Let us imagine that all my bad experiences had been with people of colour. For some — especially those with little education or limited exposure to diversity — these experiences could easily evolve into racist attitudes. And in its most extreme forms, racism has led to some of history's darkest atrocities. Nazi Germany comes to mind, as does what the Israeli Zionists are doing in Palestine today. That is why I am working hard to root out my own prejudices. It isn't easy. But I believe we all have a responsibility to examine our assumptions, recognise how prejudice can morph into racism and resist the temptation to generalise. Prejudice can destroy trust. Racism can destroy societies. The writer is a former Cambridge School Principal and an Interview Skills Advisor
