ConservativeHome.com carries a couple of articles on the recent excesses of the Israeli military. Alex Deane loses himself in his eulogy to the State of Israel: surrounded by “enemies who wish her ill”, this “sliver of democracy and decency has always held my sympathy,” he informs the reader.
However, pick up a Sunday newspaper, and you can see that Israeli policy is pretty far from decency. If even the likes of Deane are feeling that supporting Israel is now “less straightforward”, then serious questions have to be asked about how long the guilt-induced whitewashing of Israel’s actions can last.
Signs were emerging yesterday of a new consensus, with all three parties criticising Israel’s recent air raids on the Gaza Strip. However, the crux of the question is what will emerge out of this new climate of criticism. Will we see concrete calls for increasing stringent sanction to be applied to Israel while it continues to violate international law with impunity?
Much will depend on the attitude of the incoming US President, Barack Obama. Sadly, there is little hope of a more stringent line emerging from an Obama administration. Visiting Israel last summer he said:
If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that.”
All of which sounds very reasonable but does little to address the complexities of the vast power disparities in the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the cause-effect relationship between the actions Israel takes and why Hamas enjoys the support it does amoung the Palestinian population. Put simply, Israel’s problem is that it has been allowed carte blanche for far too long, and that is as damaging to it as it is to the innocents that it rolls over. Thus we see that when Israel launches these actions it gives no heed to the ‘collateral damage’ it incurs. The Guardian reports:
The raids had been expected to begin tomorrow, and the fact that they took place mid-morning rather than at night meant many official buildings and schools were full. Some of the missiles struck densely populated areas as children were leaving school. Parents rushed into the streets to search for them. Television footage from Gaza showed bodies scattered on a road and the dead and wounded being carried away. Civilians rushed to the targeted areas and tried to move the wounded in their cars to hospital.
We can expect more scenes that David Cameron would describe as ‘horrific’ to result from a ground incursion, and we can expect the unrelenting cycle of destruction to continue. The prevailing mood in Israel is that this is a cut-and-dried military conflict (which it isn’t) and that therefore its vast technical superiority will ensure its ‘victory’ (which it won’t). Technical military superiority is worth nothing when it comes to facing an opponent which can count on a substantial social base nourished by an embittered and impoverished population. Israel will never stop the rocket attacks while it thinks in military terms for just that reason. Neither will it make the painful concessions necessary because they will be seen too widely as a ‘retreat’ by a population which is swamped in the same siege mentality that Deane gives eloquent testimony to. So the cycle won’t be broken.
While there are signs that the right, at least in this country, is becoming increasingly alienated from Israel’s actions, the left usually loses itself in abstractions about which form of state is best to ‘solve the problem’. Instead of proceeding from what actually is, we proceed from how we would wish the world to be; in some cases that means undoing 50 years of history; in others it means simply asking two hostile communities to have a touching ‘Kodak moment’ and forget the river of blood and bitterness that divides them.
It could, however, be broken, if the international community was determined and resolute in bringing Israel to heel. Suddenly, the Palestinians would see that maybe their best route to salvation may not be to offer succour to the bigots of Hamas and that there is another way. Israelis, meanwhile, would be forced to face the fact that the ‘easy’ solution to living in fear is not the right one; that the only way to end the attacks is to make some painful but necessary concessions to win the hearts and minds of Palestinians.
Concretely, the international community has to consider sanctions of some form against Israel, and certainly the suspension of all armament sales. It may also have to consider offering some logistical support in the form of peacekeeping forces. Such an undertaking would no doubt be perilous, but unlike the adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq would be worth the ‘end game’ – lasting peace and stability in a troubled region and a serious ideological blow against terrorism.
* Darrell Goodliffe blogs at Moments of Clarity.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
expats
Peter Davies
Nigel Jones
38 Comments
I think that this piece is a little, ahem, ‘confused’. Rocket attacks would not stop even if Israel offered everything that the Palestinians could reasonably expect. There will always be those who wish to drive Israel into the sea. Equally, Israel’s actions should be seen through the lens of the February election where Livni is under threat from Bibi Netanyahu and has to look tough.
After failing to adequately analyse the situation, the proposed solution is laughable. Sanctions on Israel is just as laughable as going on about a two-state solution (will the US veto much??). And British troops in Israel/Palestine being more sensible than in Afghanistan? Is he crazy? The last time our troops were there the Arabs threw stones and the King David hotel was blown up. The terrorists that threaten us are in Afghanistan/Pakistan not the Gaza Strip.
Anon,
They wouldnt stop but the perpertrators would have considerably less popular support and you might actually find that the Palestinians would start policing themselves and weed them out. So, no need for Israeli F16’s etc….
Yes definatly more sensible because this is a actually issue where a co-ordinated international intervention would actually bring some benefit. It is a situation where both sides have lost control and cannot be trusted to maintain any kind of peace…
What gives the terrorists message of grivence appeal if it is not this question??
Anon,
I think perhaps it is important to draw a distinction between the Israelis and Israel (just as it is between the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authorities in the ‘Palestinian territories’).
What is in the interests of one is not necessarily in the interests of the other.
The relationship between the United States and Israel is rather like the relationship between South Africa and Zimbabwe. One word from the master, and the servant comes to heel.
Israel is totally dependant, militarily and economically, on the United States of America. Israel cannot breathe without Cheney’s say-so. It matters not what Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, the EU or Ratzinger say. The only opinions that count are expressed in exclusive country clubs in the outer suburbs of Washington.
The two sides in this conflict are never going to like each other, and probably won’t be able to live in close proximity with much ease. But I think it is possible to “freeze” the conflict, in much the same way that the Yugoslav conflict was “frozen”. The combatants retreat behind lines set by the Americans and stay there. It would mean the dismantling of illegal Jewish settlements, and a road with barbed wire on either side connecting Gaza with the West Bank. And it would (or should) mean the dismantling of Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons.
None of this will happen, and that is because it is in the interests of the US military-industrial-petrochemical complex to keep the conflict going for as long as possible. An unstable Middle East enabled Cheney to invade Iran, launch his assault on domestic civil liberties, and increase military spending. He isn’t going to allow peace to break out in Israel/Palestine any time soon.
You don’t think because very few people win presidential elections without Florida and fundraising from the Jewish community? Equally, the pro-Israeli evangelicals are a key group. America isn’t Israel’s master, it’s the other way around…
The very idea that countries with troops in Afghanistan (where the terrorists are…) and Iraq would all agree in the Security Council to send in troops to police what’s been called the ‘much promised land’ for no clear national interest, against the wishes of both the Palestinians and the Israelis and would have any effect, is quite frankly ridiculous.
Also, this is a slightly fanciful sense of what Palestinian terrorism is. Now, Israel’s reaction might be abhorrent,but Hamas are not political scientists waiting for a two-state solution. Read its charter (which has never been amended). Palestine was never a ‘nation’ in any sense until the 1930s (and never with defined boundaries to this day). Previously they were southern Syrians or Jordanians or Ottoman subjects etc. The Balkans and the Caucuses are still working out who belongs to what. The idea of sending in troops to an area of the world two hundred years or more of nationalist history behind is naive.
Anon,
All our national interests are tied into this situation because it is the very font; the very crux of instability in the region, the fact is that a peaceful resolution of this conflict would do far more to stablise this region than our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan ever will.
Our intervention in Iraq has decisively tilted the balance in favour of Iran and has produced a weak and not fit for purpose democracy that wont last. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is falling back into the thrall of the Taliban and all that is happened is that Al Quada has migrated across the border to Pakistan which could, in the long-run, sow the seeds for wider conflict with India.
I am well aware of what Hamas is; in fact, if you read carefully you will see me call them ‘bigots’. A nation is made by people not arbitary historical debate and by that criteria, the only one that matters, the Palestinians are a people that deserve a nation-state that they can call their own.
It may be naive but it is the only way…neither side can be trusted to maintain a peace and both sides need a neutral broker more than they will admit. Israel needs one because this is a fight it simply cannot win; the Palestinians need one because they need space to develop their state…
Al Qaeda have been in Pakistan for years and years, and this is not a consequence of the Afghan war. How we take out known Al Qaeda operatives with drones in Pakistan when we are not in Afghanistan, I don’t know. Add in the fact that there is simply no way that we could or should send in troops to Israel or Palestine (for all the reasons already outlined), and this is fanciful at best.
The idea that Israel-Palestine solves the problem is also silly (besides, when did we get all conservative and aim for ‘stability’?). Have you read Osama’s edicts? Any Qutb? Know any of the Shia-Sunni rivalry? There is plenty to be getting on with with or without Israel (and it is still not clear that many, many groups would accept any viable solution). Al Qaeda will not stop until there is no Israel. Indeed, until there is an Islamic Caliphate.
Let’s not get distracted from real IR problems (terrorism and Al Qaeda, responsible for deaths on London streets), by problems that might well be intractible, with solutions that are unworkable and inconceivable politically.
As for ‘national interest’, is there more national interest in resolving the Nagorni-Karabach dispute which worsens our possibilities for oil and gas pipelines that avoid Russia? What about the moral duty to stop deaths in Congo? Darfur?
Anon,
Whether you like it or not this conflict is actually the key problem and is one of the main reasons that for every 1 operative your drones take out their will be 10 more willing to take their place.
I am not pretending that everything will suddenly be ok but serious progress on the road to peace that was seen to be the product of the international communities help would send big ripples throught the region. Osama will not stop but the ideology he represents will suffer a serious blow and lose support.
I am going to say something that might shock you now; the West can never win the war on terror in any case certainly not with the drones you are placing so much faith in; it is a ‘hearts and minds battle’ and the cause of the Palestinians is dear to an awful lot of those hearts and minds….
Isn’t the nation state a bit outmoded as the only vehicle of world diplomacy?
Whatever the gripes about the EU it was set up to provide a forum in which common interest could be resolved and create peace between countries which had centuries of warring history.
That the EU has concentrated primarily on economic interests is no surprise as peace does not come without prosperity.
New thinking is desparately required. How about the EU inviting both Israel and Palestine to join – with all the requisite political co-operation and collaborative economic benefits which membership entails?
Oranjepan,
The nation state and nationhood tends to be relevant to people who feel that either that right is under threat (in the case of Israeli’s) or else feel their right to have one is squashed (in the case of the Palestinian’s).
Andrew,
I agree that new thinking is desperately required on this issue and equally I think we have to recognise that the old ‘call for restraint’ method doesn’t work when both sides have strong elements that have no intent of being restrained. This is when the role of the international community and outside forces becomes doubly important.
As to inviting both parties to join the EU (which I would contend has a reasonable chance of being seen as neutral by both sides) I think it may well not be a bad idea. Israel will obviously not join any explicitly Arab organisation like the Arab League so ye….however, the immediate question is establishing a new ceasefire.
It is certainly time to support the protests against the assault on Gaza, it looks like becoming a ground war.
take a look here http://www.palestinecampaign.org/index2b.asp
Derek,
The problem I have with the protests is that they dont seem to be calling for much other than Israel to stop what it is doing. Of course it should but there needs to be wider measures in place to gurantee the peace…
In terms of a ground war I agree. Heaven knows where that will leave us because I can see Hezbollah opening up a second front and, after Israel’s election, there is even the prospect of targeted strikes on Iran and all the problems that would unleash…
Darrell,
It is NOT the reason that people are recruited to Al Qaeda- just read OBL’s propaganda. They want an ISLAMIC CALIPHATE. How do we win hearts and minds enough to make them wish for something else? Regardless of whether troops should be in Iraq or Afghanistan, there is a considerably weaker case for troops to be in Israel or Palestine, as for all of the very many objections that you have not been able to overcome. Added to that, your means (troops in the Holy Land against the wishes of both sides) would not lead to your asserted aim (stability). A lot of the ‘stability’ of the region is predicated on distracting populations from their own country’s problems by focusing on Israel/Palestine instead- another reason why the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt etc have been treated so shabbily and not been naturalised. Solving Israel/Palestine would [i]destabilise[/i] the region. In a good way, but not in your conservative, ‘stability’-minded worldview.
These questions are nuanced and difficult, one can’t just adopt standard boilerplate ‘march against bad stuff’ platitudes and think it statesmanship.
Anon,
I refer you back to the terstimony of the 7/7 bombers who seemed not to want a Caliphate but wanted to express a sense of grivence, specifically in this case over events mainly over Iraq. Even those who *do* start from this sense of grivence. The reality is that Al-Quaeda is such a nebolous movment that people support it for a variety of reasons (with only a fraction of that support being support for it’s ultimate programmatic goals).
It capitalises on a sense of grivence and injury that the Palestine question is undoubtably a key part of; as for your other comments I am not just proposing to march them in but I am saying that the international community is the only force that can gurantee a peace in this region. Both sides have shown they cannot be trusted to maintain the said peace of their own accord so this is the only way.
It would furthermore be in the long-term interests of both sides to accept such a force which would probably fly UN colours and include contingents from Arab and Western nations.
Last time the UN tried to get involved, it was a disaster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
Sure- Palestine is a sense of grievance for terrorists, but that does not mean that we should cater to them. We need a just peace for their own sake. We should seek to hunt down and bring terrorists to justice. They have been pissed off about a load of other things and will continue to be so.
Most people are either for intervention, against intervention or for intervention if several conditions are present. Your choice of picking here- as Anon is blustering towards- seems a little random. Conditions do not seem more ripe here than in other parts of the world that need UN mediation and deserve our attention, which always seems unduly drawn to the political football match of Israel/Palestine.
Anon,
I think troops is a very silly idea too, but it is true to say that the new White House needs a lot more active diplomacy- an outline of a deal is pretty clear: two-state, 1967 boundaries with land swaps, at least compensation for refugees (although right to return is probably not politically feasible), shared East Jerusalem etc. Political stars are not aligned- dead duck Israeli administration, split Palestinian sovereignty between Fatah and Hamas etc. Peace with Palestine might flow through Syria- the International Community should be putting together a deal to make Assad play ball and open Syria up.
Simon,
With all due respect the world has moved on and the context is totally different. Can you honestly ever see Hamas and Israel achieving ‘peace for their own sake’?
I hate to say it but the conditions where this would be plausible would be after some sort of horrific catastrophe which forced both sides to sit down and negotiate.
My choice of picking is that both sides are clearly incapable of achieveing any kind of lasting peace for numerous reasons. As to your next comment; I hate to break it to you but ‘active diplomacy’ has made no progress in over 50 years now…shall we wait another 50 years and see where that takes us??
You are right that the ‘stars are particularly unaligned’ at the current time but even when they are it is usually the case that one side doesnt pick-up the ball. Fatah did and so did the Israelis for a time but Fatah squandered it’s postion and old patterns are reasserting themselves…
How do you propose to wish peace upon them? It might well take another 50 years, but Camp David/Taba (i.e. the last time the White House took an interest) was the closest anyone has ever been to a solution. There is no Western-imposed (rather than mediated) solution. It’s politically impossible in the West and it is what caused the problems in the first place. You can’t stop Israel taking military action and you can’t stop Hamas firing rockets, just as they couldn’t stop the bombing of the King David Hotel or the Arab Strike.
You might be sceptical of peace any time soon- I know I am- but there is no better solution that has been proposed.
Darrell, you also took my quote woefully out of context. There is not enough rationale for the West to get involved beyond the fact that the situation is a tragedy- that’s why Bush has happily ignored the situation for the last 8 years. Yes, it would help a bit at the margins with terrorism but it could destroy a presidency. You have to want to make peace ‘for its own sake’.
Simon,
Maybe Camp David was the closest we came but we are a world away from that time now. Perhaps most significantly Camp David came before the ideological climate change engendered by the ‘war on terror’ where a US administration could perhaps be firmer with Israel than it could be now. Even then it was never firm enough.
I have no problem with mediation but any settlement that arises out of mediation (in itself unlikely) has to be policed and enforced and it is eminantly clear to my mind that neither party is capable of ‘self-policing’ an agreement.
It would be a good start to stopping Israel if we stopped selling it weapons dont you think (which is the other plank of what I say at the end)?
There is no reason for the West to be involved?? I think that statement is unrealistic especially with the system of alliances which could drag us into a conflict if Israel went to war with say Iran.
Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear facilities in Osirak in, I think, 1982. There are voices who think outsourcing a military attack on Iran to Israel would not be a bad idea. I am not saying that I am, but I think that it has little to do with the Palestine situation- we’ve been here before.
Yes- we need a global agreement on arms sales. But also remember- or read up- what happened last time the West had an arms embargo? Guns were smuggled from Czechoslovakia. Just as we will always have drugs, we’ll always have international arms dealing. The Russian Mr Boot, Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan and other arms dealers (Kashoggi etc) show that states are not even necessary…
If we can’t police it- and there are still a million reasons on this thread why we can’t- and they can’t self-police it, doesn’t this undercut the whole reason for going on about this area rather than the 400,000 dead in Darfur? The thousands dieing in Congo? What about the already mentioned frozen conflict in Nogorny-Karabakh? Azerbaijani-Armenian peace would really help the prospects for energy independence from Russia and the Middle East…
Simon,
Such ‘outsourcing’ would be a very very silly idea indeed. How would a newly assertive Russia respond not to mention China respond?? Heaven knows but you really are in opening Pandoras Box territory there…I know you are not saying you are in favour but such thinking is frankly dangerous to say the least.
No, we have not been here before unless you think history repeats itself in the exact same way which it never does. I am going to ask you explicitly, do you think there should be restrictions on the sales of arms to Israel?? Do you think we should continue to arm a country which breaks international law on a regular basis??
I am not making a moral case and that is where you critique falls down. I am saying this issue is of such geo-political importance that it is something that must be and should be done when a deal has been reached.
We could and should not sell arms there but, without a genuine international agreement, someone else will and the cycle of violence will continue. You mentioned that everything was different because Israel might bomb Iran. I showed that Israel has bombed Iraq and the story continued unfolding as before. And it has been conclusively demonstrated by Anon that the situation is of not a great deal of geopolitical significance. Less than Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Nagorni-Krabakh. Less moral cause than Congo or Darfur.
And there is still no viable solution beyond a self-policed diplomatically-produced agreement, no matter how unlikely.
Simon,
Yes but again different times. Before the ‘war on terror’, before we might potentially be dragged into the whole shooting match because Israel dangles us by the ideological short and curlies saying we have to support it against any retaliation and also before we occupied two countries in which Iran is a significant player and could make life very difficult for us indeed.
In other words, not the same situation at all really is it?? Imagine this, Israel attacks Iran, Iran retaliates by ramping-up things in Afghanistan and Iraq by stirring up Shia opinion against us. We feel obliged to respond; Russia and China weigh-in..not implausible is it??
As I have said, self-policing…not going to happen…
We were in a Cold War! A rather larger shooting match…
Israel is not in Afghanistan or Iraq,so it would seem silly to react to Israel bombing them in that way. If so, then it is an act of war against US. As also mentioned before, Iran can try and stir up Shia in Iraq, but even Al Sadr is not completely four square behind them.
Indeed, if Israel bombed them, there would be less likelihood for retaliation than if the US/UK did it. So your argument does not follow.
Self-policing isn’t going to happen- as you say perhaps- and policing is inpractible (troops would not be allowed in, White House won’t impose a solution, troops would get killed everywhere, can’t stop arms shipments, Arabs further radicalised by seeing troops on our side, Israel’s annoyed at our presence).
So, no solution to Israel-Palestine and of hugely less significance than most think geopolitically unlike other situations already mentioned.
What was the column about again?
Simon,
Yes but the point about the Cold War is that the contending powers rather balanced each other out. No such balance exists in our rather more multi-polar world now….so in many ways that makes it more dangerous and more unpredictable.
It would react that way because we are seen as Israels allies (people burn US flags on these demos too you know) so it would make every sense to react that way especially if it thought it likely the US in particular would have a pop too.
The world is less dangerous now. Less likely that one wrong step would start WWIII. There is ample academic literature on the topic: ‘Remnants of War’ is my particular favourite. And considering that Iran has already instigated an act of war against Israel (via Hezbollah) and there is evidence of them taking aim against the US in Iraq, your argument- chain of causation already stretched- seems a little flimsy.
Still, larger rebuttal remains. There is little geo-strategic significance compared to other situations and we are still lacking a workable solution.
Simon,
Well there is actually a school of thought that the world is actually more dangerous not least because of the preponderence of non-state actors who are by definition a bit more ‘loose cannonish’ than states ever were.
All of which kind of does beg the question if the actions of precisely these actors can be considered an ‘act of war’ in the sense you feel it obviously can be; for the moment I would have to say neither of the things you say are actually true because for the moment the traditional definition of an direct attack by one state on another holds true to me.
Incidentally, Simon as an addendum if non-state proxies are capable of an ‘act of war’ then America and the USSR fought several wars.
The fact is that there is statistically less war now than before. There may have been a cold war before but both sides were funnelling arms to hot wars across the globe. Hezbelloh are also a quasi-state actor- they were members of the Lebanese government.
Still, the obstacles and arguments remain.
Simon,
Statistics mean nothing. And you cant accuse Hezbollah of declaring war on behalf of Iran then saying they are ‘quasi state actors because of their role in the Lebanese government’. I think what we are really both illustrating here that things are a hell of a lot more complicated now regardless of whether they are more or less dangerous.
Statistics don’t ‘mean nothing’, and it’s rather horrifying that you think this the case. I am sure that all of the social sciences won’t lose any sleep over your antipathy. You can’t just assert ‘facts’ and then ignore rebutting evidence: it’s petty and close-minded.
Still, the larger argument remains, albeit if you seem unlikely to admit any fallibility.
Simon,
In this instance they mean precious little…why?? Put simply because the nature of warfare changes with time…i am sure there were less wars in 1066 than there were now but such an a-historical measure tells us precious little about how dangerous or otherwise times are…
Also, as I have alluded times can be dangerous in different ways which again just confirms the above….
It’s a rather Bush-like idea that 9/11 ‘changed everything’. I recommend you pick up ‘Remnants of War’. You’ll be pleasantly surprised, I am sure. Also, on Israel/Palestine, ‘Righteous Victims’ by Benny Morris is a must-read. Anyway, it’s been real.
It changed alot of things for sure but I will definatly bear the reading list in mind 🙂
Israel does have legitimate concerns about security and these must be addressed. But so must the rights of the Palestinians. To recap the history, Israel itself recognises that the state was created, not from the dawn of time, but by a UN Resolution. That resolution guaranteed the rights of those already in the two states that were proposed, and key right include that of return to one’s own country and the safety and security of one’s own property. Thus, the refugees have the right to return home and to vote and the results of Israeli elections would be very much different if the exiled refugees were given back their citizenship.
Additionally, the land and businesses that have been taken, without any compensation, from Palestinians, must be returned. As Jews, we argue that our property should be returned or compensated when the Nazis took it, how can the same rights not apply to Palestinians?
I suggest that Israel and the Palestinians join the EU, with full rights of free movement, and guaranteed rights for minorities. The settlements in the West Bank are handed back to the Palestinians, and we have rights to live in 27 new states in Europe. Since the USA supports us so much, we ask for unrestricted rights to emigrate to the USA too. That we, Jews are free and safe, with a right to reside, in most of the free world.