ROGUE LEADERSHIP
By Mickey Skidmore, AMHSW, ACSW, FAASW

I have made it a priority in my Social Work practice in Australia to highlight and emphasise that creating space in any conversation for more than one viewpoint is advantageous. Moreover, often more than one perspective can be true — at the same time. The pathway towards forming new dialectics I believe begins with such efforts.

At the geo-political level there have been a wide range of views expressed in recent years regarding the Middle East, in particular regarding Gaza, and in general the Palestinian people. Amidst this conversation there has also been an increase in antisemitism. Often these conversations reflect settling on assumptions, stereotypes and deeply entrenched talking points rooted in centuries of endless conflict. I wish to make a subtle distinction to this conversation.

I support the idea of Israel. Yet rather than taking sides, my position for the myriad of issues in the Middle East, is I am primarily in support of peace. I am not necessarily committed to a “two-state” solution (although I’m not opposed if can be accomplished). I think a 20+ state framework, with all the states and nations in the region tolerating, living and thriving in peace would be the ideal.

I do not know if anyone could ever go back far enough to identify the origins of these longstanding grievances. But the notion that several of the current players advocate for the abolishment of Israel underscores the political hostilities. Many suggest the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel is the spark for the recent escalation of conflict. And many sources from around the world have suggested that Israel’s response has been dis-proportional — going as far as rising to the level of alleged war crimes.

Context is crucial here. The PLO (has long been considered — by many — to be a corrupt organisation). Hamas and Hezbollah are linked with the theocracy of a radicalised Iranian regime, who make no secret of the core tenant to destroy Israel. They are also often accused of being a destabilising force in the region. Personally, I do not think that Hamas or Hezbollah have been good stewards or political representatives to or for the Palestinian people. Moreover, regardless of my views about the Iran regime, I do not ascribe negative attributes to the people of Iran.

Likewise, too many people forget that Israels’ current leader, Benjamin Netanyahu has been accused of significant corruption and crimes on par with one Donald Trump. His trials and potential accountability has been postponed amidst the groundswell of support to his hawkish response to the October 7 attack on Israel. This delay continues as long as he remains the leader of Israel. So, just because I generally support the idea of Israel, that does not mean that I condone the actions or responses of the current Israeli regime. In fact, more and more voices from around the world are noting that the actions from the Israeli regime has made Israel a pariah and increasingly isolated.

So too we can turn to the example of America. The leader of the current US administration is a corrupt felon who is openly robbing the country while he strives to start WWIII. And along the way, he is making great strides towards undermining the worlds biggest/strongest democracy with his proclivities towards authoritarian or even neo-facist rule — thereby threatening the great experiment. Despite his gas-lighting claims that America is respected around the world, my observation is that he has given many reasons for nations to be displeased with the USA. It would also, in my view, be unfair to ascribe these negative attributes or (justifiable) grievances to the American people (perhaps).

In both of these examples the focus on the grievances should be on the current regimes or administrations in power in each of these countries. The issue is with the rogue leadership more so than the people residing under these regimes.

I would consider the Theocracy of the Iran regime (for nearly the past 50 years) to be a reflection of rogue leadership. And whatever my views about this political regime, I hold no malice or negative views toward the Iranian people (who have very little say in selecting their leaders).

Again, I do not believe that the PLO, Hamas, nor Hezbollah have been good stewards or have represented the Palestinian people well. As their funding and support is linked to the Iranian regime, I would consider them to be extensions of rogue leadership. Yet, I hold no malice or negative views toward the Palestinian or Lebonese people.

The American example is nuanced, given that theoretically at least, the people selected Trump as their leader. Whether they chose him in spite of his character flaws; or were in denial regarding his corruption; or were conned by his personal and social media exploits — they elected him as their leader. Yet the evidence is compelling that his administration is clearly a reflection of rogue leadership. So while I still cling to the values of the democratic constitution of the USA I hold considerable contempt for the current regime and those who have looked the other way and allowed the emboldenment of this shift.

There are numerous other examples of authoritarian regimes, cult of personalities, and even alternative (legitimate) political structures (communism) that align themselves with consolidation of political power. And while we may hold unfavourable views about these regimes, it does not necessarily follow that we ascribe negative attributes or views to the people of these countries — because they may be represented by rogue leadership.