At 1900 GMT on Wednesday 21st November a ceasefire came into place between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip which, it was hoped, would signal at least a temporary halt to the bloodshed. Sadly, this ceasefire looks little more likely to last than previous ones have done and it would seem to be a good moment to reflect on the latest tragic and depressing episode in the Middle East and the ‘peace process.’
Of course the refrain from the Government of Binyamin Netanyahu is that Israel has no choice, is acting in self-defence, is desperate for peace in Gaza, and is carrying out “surgical strikes” which must stop the rocket fire coming from Hamas fighters and other militants in the Gaza strip. Anybody who is even vaguely familiar with the current state of affairs in Israel and the Palestinian occupied territories knows that these claims paint a very, very partial picture of the truth.
Let us remind ourselves of a few facts:
Now let us look at two statistics which will show the devastating impact of the siege on Palestinian social and cultural life.
It is important to note that Israel’s escalation of attacks on Gaza began not – as Israel and the United States usually claim – after Palestinians fired rockets toward civilian areas, but after Palestinian resistance fighters targeted and hit Israeli forces enforcing the siege and occupation of Gaza. As of the beginning of November – before the latest orgy of killing by Israel – 71 Palestinians had been killed by Israel in the Gaza Strip in 2012, and 291 injured, according to the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. In the same period 19 Israelis had been injured by Palestinian fire from Gaza and none killed.
In short it is clear that Gaza has been enduring Israeli policies of extermination and vandalism since 2006.
It is to his very great credit that, in an article for The Independent newspaper a few months ago, Nick Clegg publicly condemned the actions of the Israeli Government and stated, correctly, that they are proving to be the greatest impediment towards peace in the region. This state of affairs continues, and it has now never been more imperative that an International movement involving all progressive elements coalesces and pressurises Israel and the U.S to halt the campaign of violence before a point is reached from where there is no turning back.
* Tim Purkiss is a party member from Somerset and blogs at Nation Discussion
36 Comments
You lost me at ‘extermination’.
Gaza’s land borders other than the one with Egypt are with Israeli territory. Presumably Palestinian statehood (which I am a supporter of) includes the possibility of policing its own borders, and having its neighbours police their borders too. There is no right to travel through a neighbouring country if the government of that country doesn’t want you. The overpopulation is a problem, but Palestinian statehood doesn’t seem to solve that one either – unless the idea is to then take back land lost in the 1940s for people to resettle. If that isn’t the aim then the Palestinian government needs to try to work out how manage its population on the land they have got, which of course may require a reassessment of Islamic ideas towards womens rights to determine family size.
There is nothing to be gained by castigating just one side in this dispute. Hamas has done it’s best to provoke a reaction from Israel, knowing that it would garner sympathy for its cause and the Israel Government want to show how “tough” it is ahead of elections next year. On both, sides there are external forces that encouraged the belligerents to be more militant, Iran & part of the new regime in Egypt on the Hamas side & right-wing Jews & Christians in the US on the Israeli side. Neither side has shown much interest in really helping alleviate the dreadful conditions in Gaza.
The real problem that is blocking a peace settlement is that no-one is really interested in stopping the fighting and no-one who really worries about the welfare of the civilians on both sides caught up in the violence . Until we can make more Israelis realise that security can only really come through peace and acceptance of the rights of Palestinians & more Palestinians realise that their self determination can only be realised through accepting that Israelis have genuine concerns, I am afraid that we are doomed to watch the repeat of last months violence at regular intervals.
As a Liberal party, I would like to see us encouraging those groups on both sides that are working to bridge the divide and to show that Palestinians & Israelis can (when given the chance) live in peace with each other. We should also be helping those parties in the upcoming elections in Israel that are committed to working to find a peace settlement.
Unfortunately, diatribes that only focus on the perceived faults of one side , only serve to push the sides further apart and do nothing to help bring about a just solution for all people wanting to live in the area.
Not a particularly balanced opinion. Sadly both sides continue to act in a manner which makes any meaningful peace an impossibility. Until both sides are willing to accept the reality of the legitimacy of the other there will be no peace, both carry out regular acts of war, both claim provocation. Like most complex situation both positions have an element of truth, an element of grandstanding to their own supporters and elements of outright lies.
Leon – your point about fault on both sides can be debated about at length, but for the sake of argument lets say you are right. The point is that we are not impartial when it comes to selling weapons, which we do to Israel. Lets be impartial that would be a big step forward from current Coalition foreign policy.
The best way to be impartial is to support international law and take action whenever one side or the other breaks it. And by “take action” that does not mean military force, there are other ways.
Of course there is blame on both sides and, as a Liberal, I do not like the Hamas government or what it stands for. Rocket attacks on Israeli civillian areas are illegal and foolish and should be condemned without question.
However the fact remains that Hamas has said that they will accept an internationally recognized peace plan based on the pre-June 1967 borders with “minor and mutual” adjustments. Israel has not recognize the international consensus and continues to make any implementation of it impossible by its illegal settlement building on the West Bank and the siege of Gaza. Of course crimes have been carried out on both sides but the scale of Israeli crimes against the Palestinians is far greater than the other way around.
I am a supporter of Israel and wish to see an Israeli state which is living in peace with the Palestinians and with its Arab neighbours. The current policies of the Israeli government will only do it harm in the long term and will lead to increased isolation in the international community.
The overall imbalance in the argument is hugely in favour of Israel. Palestinians have continually lost out since their land was appropriated, when Israel also had its terrorist organisations. Support for the state of Israel must be linked to, and even conditional on, a fair settlement for Palestine. Current West Bank settlement buiding, the continuing siege of Gaza, the laying waste of large tracts of Gaza and Lebanon during Israeli invasions, are all totally unacceptable. The rhetoric is against Iran having nuclear arms, whilst Israel is allowed not to say whether or not it has nuclear arms. Israeli PR is very effective. Every incident on the ground is followed by same evening TV appearances of Israeli suits whilst the Palestinian position is hardly heard.
Israeli literature abounds with the notion of justice and how this will usher in peace, viz from their Judaic scripture ‘The result of justice will be peace’ (Isaiah 32), ‘justice and peace have kissed each other’ (Psalm 85) and many more. Israel should heed its own prophets. Israel is massively the stronger party in this dispute. It therefore behoves Israel to reach out with offers of justice for Palestine, and not to continually repeat its own self interest. Such a move would command universal respect, but it is long overdue. In the meantime UK and international politics should get more muscular with Israel to insist on justice for Palestine.
Geoff, I quite agree with everything you say. It is crucial that both sides get a fair hearing or misunderstanding will continue to abound.
Tim, thanks for your well argued and well informed post, and for raising the issue – it really is urgent and should be the number one international policy priority.
@Richard S :
“Gaza’s land borders other than the one with Egypt are with Israeli territory. ”
I think not. They are with occupied Palestinian territory.
Isn’t it about time someone attacked Jenny Tonge here?
The final resolution of the conflict is brilliantly depicted (as though in fiction) in Jonathan Bloomfield’s award-winning book, “Palestine.”
Tony Dawson
Yes the party’s suppression of Jenny Tonge from Charles Kennedy through Menzies Campbell and now Nick Clegg has been outrageous. One doesn’t necessarily need to agree with everything she says, but her political critique of Israel is valid and her suppression shows a party which adopts the same kid gloves politically with Israel as the rest of the mute western consensus. Senior Palestinian negotiators for example say that talking with Tony Blair is no different to talking with an Israeli cabinet minister. I’d rather we put all effort into the issue of Palestine than vaunt our ethics by boycotting Starbucks etc.
@Geoff Crocker:
I’d rather we put all effort into the issue of Palestine than vaunt our ethics by boycotting Starbucks etc.”
I cannot see why it has to be ‘either’- ‘or’. The whole point of government is that different people address different things.
I too am not so sure about the appropriateness of the term ‘extermination’ in the article given the historical images that this conjures up, but overall the article is of great interest, albeit biased, which is an observation, and not a judgement.
In the West though, we seem too easily be polarised into taking sides, whereas the answer to the issues in this most troubled part of the world, must surely be that both the peoples Israel and Palestine accept each others self determination over their own lives in their own Sovereign States, whilst also sharing aspects of the Holy City?
We as a Party must surely do all that we can to stop the killings whether they be committed by Israeli’s or Palestinian’s, otherwise the cycle of carnage that we have witnessed for generations now will continue.
Tony Dawson
Maybe, but look at the low number of reponses to this post on Palestine compared to the huge number on Starbucks et al. I think we probably both agree that the Palestine issue should get much greater emphasis and priority?
Tim,
there is a large and seemingly growing section of the Israeli public that does not buy into ” the refrain from the Government of Binyamin Netanyahu is that Israel has no choice.”
The January elections will be a test of the Policies that the Likud coaltion government has been pursuing.
Of particiular interest will be the role of ex-prime ministerEhud Olmert, one-time “prince” of the rightist Likud party, As the centre and left in Israel came to realize that none of their current candidates was likely to unseat the hardline Netanyahu in Israel’s upcoming elections, attention has unexpectedly begun turning back to Olmert as one of the few political figures with the gravitas to compete. Olmert has been flirting with running for weeks.
Olmert recently came out strongly in favour of the Palestinian Authority’s bid to upgrade its status at the U.N. General Assembly. He said “Once the United Nations will lay the foundation for this idea, we in Israel will have to engage in a serious process of negotiations, in order to agree on specific borders based on the 1967 lines, and resolve the other issues,. It is time to give a hand to, and encourage, the moderate forces amongst the Palestinians.”
Olmert’s cri de coeur highlights a profound shift for this former hawk who, since earning his stripes as a champion of Israel’s settler movement and a staunch defender of an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, has taken a dramatic turn to the left. In fact, he has of late become one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s most vocal critics, hammering his predecessor for talking “too much” and “too loud” when it comes to Iran while doing altogether too little on the Palestinian front.
Olmert has said Netanyahu is isolating Israel from the rest of the world, rebukes the PM’s decision to expand construction in settlements, and says Israel is going to pay ‘a difficult price’ for it.
Olmert seems to have had a ‘Damescene’ moment in coming to the realisation that, if Israel is to be both a Jewish and Democratic state, then a two state solution is the only answer and continued expansion of the settlements will make a two state solution impossible.
Re: ‘suppression of Jenny Tonge’
She did it to herself with a series of deliberately inflammatory remarks which abused her platform. Whether or not you agree with the sides she took it is impossible to agree with the manner she did it.
Such conflicts are highly sensitive, so anyone who destabilises the delicate situation marks themselves out as unreliable and untrustworthy.
Given the sensitivity of the situation and the extreme and polarised opinions which exist on either side it is perfectly understandable why so few people are willing to get dragged into this quagmire.
In reality there does exist a much greater public will on how to approach the tax affairs of Starbucks and Google than how to advance the ME peace process – nobody truly believes in the ‘two-state solution’, especially not since the de facto situation suggests a ‘three-state solution’ is currently in effect and developments in the wider region indicate increased volatility is a perpetual likelihood.
The false ‘two-state solution’ is the cause of polarised opinion and continuing conflict.
Orangepan,
The U.N. General Assembly resolution upgrading the Palestinians’ status to a nonmember observer state at the United Nations was approved by a vote of 138-9 with 41 abstentions. That is quite a bit of support for an independent Palestinian state as defined by President Abbas.
Palestinian Authority President Abbas has recently said:“Palestine for me is the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital, this is Palestine, I am a refugee, I live in Ramallah, the West Bank and Gaza is Palestine, everything else is Israel.”
Israeli President Shimon Peres has said “Abbas’ statements should be taken seriously, They are in line with the positions of most Israelis, who support the two-state solution.His brave words prove that Abu Mazen (Abbas) is a real partner for peace”
There are quite credible proposals for resolution of the practical issues arising from a two-state solution:
1. Conecting Gaza and the West Bank. The best solution I have seen is the Arc concept developed by the Rand Corporation for a road and rail link between the Gaza strip and the main towns and Cities of the West Bank
The Arc .
2. Jerusalems Old City and holy places. In a previous thread you have advocated a ‘Vatican Style’ solution for Jerusalems old city. Former Premier Ehud Olmert has put forward a similiar proposal for a joint administation by Israel, Palestine, USA, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
3. Palestinian Authority and Hamas. With an internationally sanctioned agreement on the recognised borders of the West Bank, supported by the Arab league, the raison-detre for continuance of an ‘intifada’ disappears and with it any ongoing Arab State support for ‘diissidents’. The Palestinian Authority and Hamas will be left to resolve any power-sharing conflicts they have within the confines of the Palestinain state and without the involvement of Arab states.
Oranjepan 15th Dec ’12 – 4:49pm
Re: ‘suppression of Jenny Tonge’
‘She did it to herself ‘
This is clear nonsense. She spoke her mind and was suppressed by others. The retort that it was a self inflicted injury is always the call of the suppressor. They were entirely free not to suppress her but were clearly acting under some considerable pressure to conform.
@Tony Dawson – you mean because Israel itself is created on land which rightfully belonged to the Palestinians? While I can see that point, it is not really a starting point for peace in 2012. With a 2-state solution there is no automatic right for Palestinians to travel through or work in Israel.
Geoff,
Jenny Tonge chose to make controversial statements regarding this conflict situation. What she did enflamed feeling and damaged potential future reconciliation between the parties.
Either she knew what she was doing and showed she is not a peacemaker, or she didn’t and showed she is incompetent. Whichever way it is spun she consistently undermined her own platform with her unwise and unhelpful choice of words. She made herself irrelevant.
Joe,
Connecting Gaza and the West Bank by land may help the development of a Palestinian state but it will not help any peace process because it will create a military and diplomatic target.
Territorial integrity is an essential precondition for state security – as an example the land links from the Bundesrepublik to the West Berlin enclave in the post-1945 period were a permanent cause of destabilisation. Resolution only came when Germany finally reunified.
I’m very supportive of developing communication infrastructure for economic development and political integration, but when it is used to build political and social segregation it not fails to address any underlying causes of conflict but reinforces them. That suggestion would be a disaster waiting to happen.
The current reality of split leadership in the Palestinian Authority is a direct consequence of the fractured nature of the lands controlled by them and this won’t change by building links. It would be a charter for criminality.
It is easy to get angry about what is going on in the Arab Israeli conflict and say things that are inflammatory. However if the British government decides to say such things, it will not be in a position to broker a peace settlement. For that reason this is a devil of an issue for any UK politician to tackle. When debating this you have to be diplomatic. Jenny Tonge could have happily continued to take the Lib Dem whip holding the views that she has as long as she did not say anything inflammatory. I do not think in her mind she said anything that was anti-Semitic but at the same time I can appreciate that her remarks could be interpreted in that way. Given that was the case she should have apologised but she did not. As a result I think Nick Clegg had no choice but to do what he did. I do not think this impinges on her freedom of speech. What it does mean is that she cannot say anything she likes as someone who takes the Lib Deb whip and therefore speaking on behalf of the party. The same principle should also apply if anyone says something as a Lib Dem that could reasonably be construed as Islamophobic, misogynistic, homophobic or racist – even if it was not intended to be so.
I had supported Jenny in previous incidents but on the occasion referred to above, Jenny repeated some allegations with an incredibly thin amount of evidence to back them up which inflamed an extremely hostile situation. IMO it was at best a very irresponsible act for a politician to have engaged in and justified at least some sort of disciplinary action.
JoeBourke
“Olmert seems to have had a ‘Damescene’ moment in coming to the realisation that, if Israel is to be both a Jewish and Democratic state, then a two state solution is the only answer and continued expansion of the settlements will make a two state solution impossible.”
I cannot see how a two state solution can work. Israel, with its East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, is a racist state comparable with Apartheid South Africa with its Bantustans. The only long term solution is a tolerant, non-racist Arab Israeli Palestine. As the Arab Uprisings against dictators spread over the years, I hope that Israel and Palestine may come to realise that the only peaceful long term solution is a tolerant, non-racist single state Arab Israeli Palestine.
“Oranjepan”
“The false ‘two-state solution’ is the cause of polarised opinion and continuing conflict.”
Too right! The only true solution is a one state solution, as above.
Oranjepan, Geoffrey Payne and Hywel
I support the need for a diplomatic approach in all things and particularly in the Middle East conflict. I am not sure exactly which words of Jenny Tonge’s you are referring to. However, having sidelined her, the remaining question is what is the party saying with any conviction about Palestine? Who has the right to speak for the party? What are they mandated to say? I detect little urgency and little conviction coming from the party on the issue and this is regrettable.
The particular ones I was referring to related to the IDF harvesting organs in Haiti.
Geoff Crocker – I agree with you there. As with so many policies our policy on this conflict was much better before the last general election than since. Nick Clegg has removed the Lib Dem foreign policy ministers from government and we rarely discuss foreign policy at conference – either from the submitted motions or even the fringe meetings. But in the case of Jeremy Browne I am not sure he added said anything that a Tory wouldn’t say anyway, apart from his opposition to the death penalty.
It amazes me that a Liberal party can be like this.
We do have the expertise; Shirley William, William Wallace, Paddy Ashdown (albeit he supported the war in Iraq) and Martin Horwood.
@Joe – I can come up with all sorts of ways to physically link the West Bank and Gaza. The issue would be would Israel allow unfettered travel, outside of their control along such a route and across their territory.
Even without the history of the areas I can think of few states that would allow that sort of arrangement on security grounds alone.
Fine, let’s not talk about injustice to Palestinians. Let’s not talk about mass slaughter in the name of national defence. Let’s concentrate on condemning one or two errors and overstatements by Jenny Tonge. Let’s not pay too much attention to all the terrible things which the Israeli Defence Force really has done.
To turn the lesson back to its originators:
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Dane Clouston,
“I cannot see how a two state solution can work. Israel, with its East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, is a racist state comparable with Apartheid South Africa with its Bantustans. The only long term solution is a tolerant, non-racist Arab Israeli Palestine. As the Arab Uprisings against dictators spread over the years, I hope that Israel and Palestine may come to realise that the only peaceful long term solution is a tolerant, non-racist single state Arab Israeli Palestine”
The British concept of a Jewish homeland in an Arab controlled Palestine, as defined in the Balfour Declaration, died with partition and the Arab/Israeli conflict of 1948.
Israel wants a Jewish and democratic state. A Jewish state cannot be achieved within a one state solution and Israel’s would need tobe prepared to accept Palestinian political control.
Moderate Palestinan opinion wants an Independent state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital and the West Bank and Gaza joined by a land link.
The Arab League Peace Plan of 2002 called for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967 and Israel’s acceptance of an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.
Hywel,
“I can come up with all sorts of ways to physically link the West Bank and Gaza. The issue would be would Israel allow unfettered travel, outside of their control along such a route and across their territory.”
I think it is a matter of mutual dependence. There are certainly engineering and security solutions. The Atlantic magazine recently published a report on the issue.
“Traditionally, Israeli leaders argued that since a Gaza-West Bank link did not exist prior to 1967, such a corridor (together with the use of other Israeli infrastructure such as sea and air ports) should count toward the land that Israel is swapping to the Palestinians. In other words, they argued, Israel did not have to offer to Palestinians an amount of land equal to the amount they were receiving from the Palestinians, since the corridor and other infrastructure would offset the difference. Over time, Israeli border proposals have come much closer to equal swaps, falling just short of it in Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s 2008 offer, making the corridor-as-equalizer notion increasingly a symbolic issue.
Palestinians are willing to count the corridor as part of land swaps, but only if it falls under full Palestinian sovereignty. Israel vehemently opposes such concept, since it would cut Israel in half. It’s safe to assume that ultimately the corridor will be at the sole administration of Palestinians, although not under Palestinian sovereignty.
Because final borders will likely include swaps equal in size without a need to creatively equalize them, the corridor could then figure into a different aspect of the deal: In return for allowing what is essentially a Palestinian road in Israel, Israelis could be allowed to use major roads in the future state of Palestine that would ease transportation between Israeli cities — for example, Road 443 that connects Modi’in and Jerusalem, Road 60 that connects the Etzion Bloc and Jerusalem, Road 1 from Jerusalem toward Jericho, and Road 90 in the Jordan Valley that connects the eastern Negev with the Beit She’an Valley. Such are the arrangements as envisioned in the “Designated Roads” annex of the Geneva Initiative.
Reading through the thread it seems that most respondents support the call in Tim Purkiss’ original post for determined coordinated international diplomatic action to end Israel’s siege of Gaza? Some moderation of the siege was included in the recent Egyptian brokered ceasefire, but this remains far short of normality. Will the party now become more urgent about this and make it a policy priority?
Oranjepan, Geoffrey Payne and Hywel
Since the process of debate offers change of opinion, I accept your challenge about Jenny Tonge’s statements. I therefore now agree that in the case of the claim about IDF actions in Haiti she should either post convincing evidence or withdraw. David Allen makes the valid point that this does not remove wider critique of IDF actions. Her statement that Israel might cease to exist in its present form without US support was I agree an unwise and inflammatory choice of words. The media headlines did often omit the important qualifying words ‘in its present form’ but nevertheless the statement includes the ‘cease to exist’ phrase which is grossly unacceptable.
Had she phrased the point more acceptably, it is true that Israel relies massively on US support, which has become more qualified under Barack Obama. It has also lost support in the region from Turkey and Egypt. Qatar is funding Gaza, and the important Chinese position remains unclear. So pragmatically as well as in principle it must be in Israel’s interest to push for a just settlement quickly?
I have only visited Israel once. On the flight back an elderly gentleman in Jewish dress asked me what I thought of the country. I hesitated to reply but he gently insisted. So I cautiously said that I had found the Palestinian community very welcoming but the Israeli community rather hostile. To my surprise he concurred, and told me his story. He and his wife had enthusiastically joined an early kibbutz settlement but had withdrawn and returned to live in the UK, unable to subject their children to what he called anti Arab propaganda in the kibbutz school. I think that if Israelis of his persuasion had been able to lead the country, a more just settlement would have been reached a very long time ago.
I propose a Lib Dem international policy initiative for a UN sponsored and naval protected sea convoy of food, medicines and other agreed safe civilian products to Gaza.
Geoff,
some people may be shocked by the show of unity here… surely we can find something more to argue about!
To digress… I discovered this week that Laurel & Hardy were never fully appreciated in the Middle East for various reasons, yet their multitudinous farcical ‘tit for tat’ scenes still have plenty to say about the cyclical nature of violence. A touring festival of their films is urgently required in the region.
Oranjepan
There’s also enlightened Jewish opinion like Jews for Justice for Palestine at http://jfjfp.com/?page_id=2
It’s about time we stopped appeasing Israel and start imposing sanctions against Israel. It’s quite true to say Tony Blair acts like the Israeli ambassador, but then so do many or our MP’s and House of Lords. Ludford being a very good example.