A recent House of Commons debate yielded a few interesting comments from the Prime Minister vis-à-vis the Israel/Palestine conflict (or, more accurately, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land). When asked by Conservative MP Malcolm Rifkind to clarify the government’s position on the Palestinian national unity government, Blair responded:
“The position certainly has not changed at all. All sorts of words are used in respect of the national unity Government, but they all amount to the same thing: that such a Government must be in line with the Quartet principles, which means that they must accept the right of Israel to exist, and that the way to pursue a settlement is through negotiation, not violence. That will remain our position. The issue for us is whether, in this national unity Government, it is possible to get Hamas to understand that we cannot support people who attempt to achieve their aims through terrorism and that we cannot, in particular, take forward negotiations on two states if Hamas is saying that one of those states does not have the right to exist. That is our position, it has been our position, and it will remain so.”
Just in case there was any confusion, then, Blair affirmed that Britain remains committed to the reducing an entire occupied people to abject poverty in order to put pressure on a government it doesn’t like.
Then, a Labour MP asked him about the IDF’s use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, a practice “clearly in defiance of international law”. Blair replied:
“The only way through is to get negotiations going between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I hope that the meetings that are already taking place between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority continue. I know that the US Secretary of State, Condi Rice, is to go back to the region shortly— [Interruption.] I understand what my hon. Friend says, but the only thing that will put a stop to the grief and hardship on both sides is a negotiated settlement.”
In other words, it’s OK to demand that the Palestinians abide by the law as a precondition to negotiations, but when Israel commits a crime, there’s nothing we can do about it because it will only be sorted out through negotiations.
Right…
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, UK | 11 Comments
Tags: International Law, Tony Blair
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
The EU officially yesterday officially declared that it would continue to starve the Palestinian people for the crime of electing the “wrong” people to power.
‘Hardship on both sides?’ Yes, those zionists are really suffering with the billions being poured into their coffers from Washington. Fucking wanker.
Israel/Palestine conflict (or, more accurately, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land).
Why is that “more” accurate? Israel has been trying to get out of the Gaza/West Bank since 1967.
And why should the UK, or anyone else, deal with Hamas? They were elected on a platform of eradicating Israel from the map; they are not interested in peace, or coexistence, and they make that clearer with every rocket and every sniper attack they carry out.
“Israel has been trying to get out of the Gaza/West Bank since 1967.”
Really? I guess the real giveaway would be the tanks and troops they keep sending INTO Gaza and the West Bank. In what way does that make you think they’re trying to get out?
“They were elected on a platform of eradicating Israel from the map…”
The active ingredient in this recipe is of course the word elected. It doesn’t matter what their platform for election was if the people elected them. New Labour were (re)elected on a platform of continuing agression against sovereign states in the Middle East, including the ongoing killing of Iraqis and threats of violence against Iran, they’re also not interested in peace – does that not make them even less legitimate a governmental party than Hamas? After alll, Hamas do at least have a genuine greivance with the Israelis (occupation, subjugation etc). New Labour have no valid reasons behind going into Iraq (and likewise for Iran).
Double standards seem not only fit for our Prime Minister, but also for his loyal band of blinkered followers.
Kebz: Yup – he’s not exactly someone I’d invite round for tea. Of course, the media do exactly the same thing, always trying to create a symmetry where there is none. So they’ll talk about the “suffering on both sides”, or the hatred “each side” has for the other, etc. etc. Yeh, OK – but it’s pretty obvious that ONE side is suffering a hell of a lot more than the other. Then there’s the qualitative difference – Israel is the aggressor, the Palestinians are the victims. Israel is the occupier, the Palestinians are the occupied. Israel has the fourth ranking military in the world and is backed up by the unrivalled military superpower, while the Palestinians are essentially defenceless. Any attempt to create symmetry or “balance” (in the BBC sense of the word) between the two sides is a gross distortion of reality.
michael: If Israel had been trying to get out of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967, there would be no occupation today. The reality, unfortunately, is that Israel’s insistence on maintaining and expanding the occupation is the primary reason for the continuing conflict.
M-RES: I agree, and I’d add that Hamas weren’t elected on a platform of “eradicating Israel from the map”. They were elected because the alternative was Fatah, who were corrupt and had done nothing to end the occupation. The Palestinians essentially faced a choice between starving under Fatah and starving under Hamas, and they chose the latter because at least Hamas was honest. Also, Hamas has been rather ambiguous in its attitude towards a two-state solution – it is generally accepted that they would accept a two-state solution with a hudna as a first step to a full peace. Israel, on the other hand, has always been crystal clear: not a single mainstream Israeli political party has ever recognised the right of a Palestinian state to exist in the areas designated to it under international law. Strangely, I hear no calls from the government for boycotting Israel…
If Israel had any serious intent to leave the West Bank they wouldn’t be building more and more settlements on land they confiscated from Palestinians in the West Bank. Ironically, Israel would not be in the West Bank were it not for the 1967 and 1971 wars in which they were the defenders from Arab aggression, but they sure as hell busted their own innocence by staying there all this time. World Opinion favours the defender, but Israel is widely seen to be the aggressor nowadays, hence the transfer of sympathy for them towards widespread support for Palestinians. Sometimes it even appears not to be just occupation, but revenge.
The question I have is, should I expect all people of Jewish background to act in the same way as Israel does? When entering business negotiations should I expect rules to be ignored, and the pieces of paper switched when my back is turned? I hope not, but the impression the Israeli actions leave on me make me worry that this grasping tendency to take, take, take is endemic. I find it difficult to believe that Jews in general have really become the people with no generosity, no humanity (except for themselves), and nothing more than greed “excused” by events that took place 65 years ago, but what events are there on the world stage to present any other case? It appears not just Fatah are corrupt.
No, you shouldn’t. Making judgements about an ethnic group as a whole is racist, and in any event it doesn’t make any sense. Occupation, oppression, aggression, tyranny, genocide….all these things have, unfortunately, been around forever. They do not correlate with race, or with religion, or with “culture” or anything like that. If anything, they correlate with power.
Having had a lot of Jewish friends in my life, I know not all Jews act like Israelis (although ironically, but if I had used the word “Zionists” I would probably have upset more people. I have read a lot about this crisis – if something that lasts for over 40 years (if not 60) fits the description of a crisis.
To be honest I don’t think you are being completely fair to Jewish people though saying it is just Power that is the cause of Israel’s problems. You have to remember that people’s psychological reactions to the holocaust could certainly have far reaching consequences. I suspect many feel there is much of a need to build a safe fortress within which to be safe and secure.
But that’s not a solution in my eyes, and facts on the ground support this view. Israel has not kept one of the UN resolutions passed against it, and continues to flaunt it’s law breaking activities in the face of the whole world. It is attacked, unpopular, and corrupt: some fortress.
As for “Occupation, oppression, aggression, tyranny, genocide” genocide is, by definition, racist and is the ultimate expression of oppression; oppression comes from having an inferior view of other groups or tribes such as Mugabe has of the Ndebele and the Israelis of the Palestinians or the German’s had of Jews; occupation tends to be an expression of Nationalism and racial superiority; aggression is often a sign of weakness, or the feeling of being threatened; only tyranny can be seperated out as something that comes from a greedy lust for power. Anyway, just because they have been around for ages doesn’t make them right, nor does it take away our obligation and responsibility to stand up against them.
My original comment was an attempt to show that Israel is not isolated, but that everything that happens there affects many more people who are not there, Jew and Gentile alike. Those of us who are outside the cauldron must not forget we are not immune to fire. Apathy isn’t an option, but warlike answers are not the solution. Those in positions of power and influence should use these for peace, and enforce them.
As Ghandi said, “There is no path to peace: Peace is the path!”
And not all Israelis act like IDF generals. Some of the most courageous opponents of the occupation are Israeli (Uri Avnery, Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Tanya Reinhart (RIP), etc.).
Of course each situation is different and comes about under specific circumstances. But in general, when you look at crimes and atrocities they generally correlate with power. The more power a state has, the more oppressive it becomes. I’m sure there are exceptions, but to me that seems like a pretty accurate rule of thumb.
Of course it doesn’t. But you seemed to be using your disgust at the occupation to reflect on Jews more generally, and I was pointing out that this is both morally and historically wrong.
Clever guy, Ghandi. I wish more people listened to him.
I was actually looking at the intellectual arguments that, taken logically, could lead some people to add 2 and 2 to make 5. Sometimes people act in a vacuum – even major political leaders – and forget their acts have consequences far and beyond the immediate moment.
If we believe in democracy and the rule of law, we cannot choose which laws or principles we follow based on their relative convenience for us, ourselves. Precedent is an important issue that people like George Bush II and Tony Blair seem to think their positions makes them immune to. I guess that means we both agree?
I certainly agree that if the rule of law is to mean anything, it has to be applied consistently and universally, yes.