George W Bush has called for an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, as part of a comprehensive peace settlement with the Palestinians.
Three times in the past, I've looked at the news and been absolutely bowled over. First was 9/11 - the last major turning point in world history. Second was the destruction of Space Shuttle Columbia, which I'd visited on the launchpad before its final flight. Third was the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, whom I'd seen at the Oxford Union the year before.
This evening I am even more bowled over, as for the first time in my life, I find myself agreeing with the President.
The settlement would involve Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, alongside the establishment of a Palestinian state. It would get around the controversial issue of a Palestinian right of return by creating a system of financial compensation. It would also likely involve diplomatic recognition of Israel by the Arab states. Bush believes the deal could be done by the time he leaves office, this time next year. It all sounds like the biggest dose of common sense I've heard on the issue in quite a while.
And it won't work. The idealist inside me is willing it to work, but my realist side knows it can't happen.
The last time there was a realistic proposal for peace on the table, it was cut short because of the US electoral cycle. There are a huge number of political reasons why the 2000 Camp David summit failed, but Clinton's desire to rush things through before he left office is arguably one of them. The peace process has to be conducted at its own pace - not at a pace based on the US President's terms of office.
Beside that, the main obstacles which sunk Camp David still haven't been dealt with properly. The right of return is the biggest issue; no Israeli government could realistically allow Palestinian refugees to return to all parts of the pre-1948 Mandate, because it would be demographic suicide, and Israeli voters wouldn't accept it. Financial compensation in lieu seems to be the most likely compromise - but would Palestinians see it that way?
The issue of settlements and borders will also get in the way significantly. The most sensible solution, to my mind, is the one proposed in the unofficial Geneva Accord, where Israel is allowed to annexe settlements in the West Bank that are close to the pre-1967 border, in return for donating land bordering the Gaza Strip, which is desperately hemmed-in and needs room for expansion. The majority of currently illegal settlements could be regularised in this way. It wouldn't entirely solve the issue, but it would make the problem a lot more manageable. Bush hints at something like this in his proposals, and I really hope this idea is followed up.
Still a major problem is the status of Jerusalem. The Camp David talks in 2000 hit a brick wall at this point. Giving up the claim to Jerusalem is a line which the leaders of both sides cannot cross; both the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships would be utterly pilloried by their own people if they did. The entire peace process will hinge on this issue, and I have yet to see a constructive and workable solution that would be palatable to both Israelis and Palestinians. Without one, the whole project is a non-starter.
But the fundamental issue is this: all three individuals involved cannot carry the support of their own nations. Bush is hated by his own people and the Republican candidates for his job are openly distancing themselves from him. Olmert has approval ratings that make Bush look like the Archangel Gabriel, and Mahmoud Abbas has lost control of a large chunk of his own territory, let alone his popular support. It doesn't matter if the leaders can come to a fair compromise if they can't take their respective nations with them.
The surpsising change of rhetoric is good, and some of the proposals on the table are eminently sensible. Today's development is very welcome. But somehow, I can't quite contain my pessimism.
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Thursday, 10 January 2008
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
The rights and wrongs of George Galloway
What to make of George Galloway's 18-day suspension from the House of Commons?
I've probably made it fairly clear already on this blog that I'm not a fan of Mr Galloway, or of the RESPECT Party. Galloway's views on the Middle East are thoroughly counter-productive, and encourage hatred, rather than co-operation, between Muslim and Jewish communities in Britain. His record of attendance and participation in Parliament is beyond a joke, and his speeches, whilst oratorically very impressive, are truth-mangling bile fests which, rather than making peace more likely, actually set it back.
I'll never be able to forgive RESPECT for their behaviour at this year's NUS Conference, where they tried to block a motion to give Jewish students greater protection against anti-Semitism. The Union of Jewish Students wanted their members to be able to define anti-Semitic behaviour for themselves - a fundamental protection already enjoyed by ethnic minority groups since the Macpherson report. RESPECT argued that Jews should be denied that same protection, as they might abuse it in order to silence criticism of Israel.
With all that baggage, you might think I am delighted to see Galloway go down. In fact, I'm very disturbed that an elected MP can be thrown out of Parliament by his or her peers, on the say-so of the Standards and Privileges Committee. The only people with the power to get rid of an MP should be his own constituents. Much as I dislike Galloway, he was fairly elected, and should sit in Parliament until he stands down or gets voted out.
Unlike Galloway, I believe that the Committee acted in good faith and that their decision was a fair one. They claim they have strong evidence that Galloway failed to declare his charity's financial links with the Saddam Hussein regime, and I'm prepared to trust their judgement. But whatever an MP's misdemeanours, his constituents still deserve a representative in Westminster.
Who knows what might happen during the summer recess? When Parliament resumes, and Galloway's suspension begins, his constituents might have serious need of his help, and they don't deserve to be kept waiting for 18 days for somebody else's misbehaviour.
I've probably made it fairly clear already on this blog that I'm not a fan of Mr Galloway, or of the RESPECT Party. Galloway's views on the Middle East are thoroughly counter-productive, and encourage hatred, rather than co-operation, between Muslim and Jewish communities in Britain. His record of attendance and participation in Parliament is beyond a joke, and his speeches, whilst oratorically very impressive, are truth-mangling bile fests which, rather than making peace more likely, actually set it back.
I'll never be able to forgive RESPECT for their behaviour at this year's NUS Conference, where they tried to block a motion to give Jewish students greater protection against anti-Semitism. The Union of Jewish Students wanted their members to be able to define anti-Semitic behaviour for themselves - a fundamental protection already enjoyed by ethnic minority groups since the Macpherson report. RESPECT argued that Jews should be denied that same protection, as they might abuse it in order to silence criticism of Israel.
With all that baggage, you might think I am delighted to see Galloway go down. In fact, I'm very disturbed that an elected MP can be thrown out of Parliament by his or her peers, on the say-so of the Standards and Privileges Committee. The only people with the power to get rid of an MP should be his own constituents. Much as I dislike Galloway, he was fairly elected, and should sit in Parliament until he stands down or gets voted out.
Unlike Galloway, I believe that the Committee acted in good faith and that their decision was a fair one. They claim they have strong evidence that Galloway failed to declare his charity's financial links with the Saddam Hussein regime, and I'm prepared to trust their judgement. But whatever an MP's misdemeanours, his constituents still deserve a representative in Westminster.
Who knows what might happen during the summer recess? When Parliament resumes, and Galloway's suspension begins, his constituents might have serious need of his help, and they don't deserve to be kept waiting for 18 days for somebody else's misbehaviour.
Monday, 29 January 2007
Israel and Northern Ireland: lessons to learn?
Three different Palestinian groups are claiming responsibility for a suicide bombing today, which killed three people in Eilat. It's the first suicide attack on Israeli soil for nine months.
This wasn’t the attack of an oppressed victim against a powerful occupier. It wasn’t an attack against the failed policies of Arafat or Sharon or Olmert, which have turned the progress of the late nineties into the total deadlock of the mid-noughties. It was an attack on a bakery in a seaside resort, an attack against three normal Israelis buying bread.
On the same day, in Northern Ireland, politicians across the communities are welcoming Sinn Féin’s decision to support policing, which is an important milestone in the peace process. The situation there is far brighter than it was in Manchester in 1996, when IRA terrorists detonated a bomb in the Arndale shopping centre. Nobody was killed, but as a 10-year-old boy, I was bewildered and panicked at being evacuated by police from the centre of my own hometown. That was the first and only time in my life that I’ve genuinely felt someone was trying to kill me. As a kid, I had no idea why it happened; as I got older, I learned about the troubled history of Ireland, and the confusing and unsettling role Britain had played in that story. I could start to see the legitimate grievances of the republican community in Northern Ireland, but had trouble understanding why I deserved to die for them.
Although the stories of Northern Ireland and the Palestinian Territories are very different, there are some useful and optimistic parallels. The developments in Northern Ireland over the past decade have shown that it’s possible to move forward from deep wounds and historic grievances. They’ve also taught us a more sombre lesson: if you want peace, you have to sacrifice principles to the greater good, even if it means working with people who have a bloody past – and that applies just as much to Hamas as it does to the IRA. In a rare moment of common sense on Israel/Palestine, Chris Davies MEP wrote that having been elected to power, Hamas needed to transform themselves from a paramilitary group into a mature political party, prepared to use diplomatic clout rather than explosives. (Press Release, 26 Jan 2006) Making peace is far harder than blowing up buses and rocketing hospitals, and I’m extremely sceptical – but there at least has to be a chance. If we don’t at least talk to Hamas and offer them the opportunity to engage, then that chance, however slim, goes down to zero.
At the Liberal Democrat Party Conference in Brighton last October, I was at the fringe meeting where Jenny Tonge said she would consider becoming a suicide bomber, if she were a Palestinian. After the talk, I had a rather heated discussion with another Lib Dem. “Is it such a terrible thing for Jenny to say?” he asked. “You have to understand how it must feel if you couldn’t travel freely within your own territory. If you couldn’t bring your crops to market, because they went rotten whilst you waited three days to cross the checkpoint. If you had to watch your family strip-searched and humiliated. What would you do if you were a Palestinian?”
I’ve thought long and hard about it, and I still don’t know the answer. There are some very obvious things the Palestinian Authority and Israel could both do, but as an individual Palestinian, it must feel humiliating and scary. I don't know what I would do in their situation. But I know for certain what I would not do. I would not strap explosives to myself, and walk into a bus, or a restaurant, or an Eilat bakery, and murder somebody else’s family, somebody else’s loved ones.
This multiple homicide in Eilat should be hateful to every right-thinking human being, and it’s another worrying sign for the gridlocked Middle East peace process. But if we can learn anything from the Northern Irish experience, it’s that our desire for quality of life can put an end to the violence. Any rational person would choose stability, peace, and a good quality of life over the fine detail of the settlement of a political grievance. The difficulty lies in making sure peace really is on offer – which is why, despite this setback, Israel must still consider a long-term truce with Hamas, backed up by international monitoring, even without a political solution. The final settlement is crucial, but both sides will find it hard to muster the political willpower for it, unless they are already enjoying the benefits of stability and peace.
This wasn’t the attack of an oppressed victim against a powerful occupier. It wasn’t an attack against the failed policies of Arafat or Sharon or Olmert, which have turned the progress of the late nineties into the total deadlock of the mid-noughties. It was an attack on a bakery in a seaside resort, an attack against three normal Israelis buying bread.
On the same day, in Northern Ireland, politicians across the communities are welcoming Sinn Féin’s decision to support policing, which is an important milestone in the peace process. The situation there is far brighter than it was in Manchester in 1996, when IRA terrorists detonated a bomb in the Arndale shopping centre. Nobody was killed, but as a 10-year-old boy, I was bewildered and panicked at being evacuated by police from the centre of my own hometown. That was the first and only time in my life that I’ve genuinely felt someone was trying to kill me. As a kid, I had no idea why it happened; as I got older, I learned about the troubled history of Ireland, and the confusing and unsettling role Britain had played in that story. I could start to see the legitimate grievances of the republican community in Northern Ireland, but had trouble understanding why I deserved to die for them.
Although the stories of Northern Ireland and the Palestinian Territories are very different, there are some useful and optimistic parallels. The developments in Northern Ireland over the past decade have shown that it’s possible to move forward from deep wounds and historic grievances. They’ve also taught us a more sombre lesson: if you want peace, you have to sacrifice principles to the greater good, even if it means working with people who have a bloody past – and that applies just as much to Hamas as it does to the IRA. In a rare moment of common sense on Israel/Palestine, Chris Davies MEP wrote that having been elected to power, Hamas needed to transform themselves from a paramilitary group into a mature political party, prepared to use diplomatic clout rather than explosives. (Press Release, 26 Jan 2006) Making peace is far harder than blowing up buses and rocketing hospitals, and I’m extremely sceptical – but there at least has to be a chance. If we don’t at least talk to Hamas and offer them the opportunity to engage, then that chance, however slim, goes down to zero.
At the Liberal Democrat Party Conference in Brighton last October, I was at the fringe meeting where Jenny Tonge said she would consider becoming a suicide bomber, if she were a Palestinian. After the talk, I had a rather heated discussion with another Lib Dem. “Is it such a terrible thing for Jenny to say?” he asked. “You have to understand how it must feel if you couldn’t travel freely within your own territory. If you couldn’t bring your crops to market, because they went rotten whilst you waited three days to cross the checkpoint. If you had to watch your family strip-searched and humiliated. What would you do if you were a Palestinian?”
I’ve thought long and hard about it, and I still don’t know the answer. There are some very obvious things the Palestinian Authority and Israel could both do, but as an individual Palestinian, it must feel humiliating and scary. I don't know what I would do in their situation. But I know for certain what I would not do. I would not strap explosives to myself, and walk into a bus, or a restaurant, or an Eilat bakery, and murder somebody else’s family, somebody else’s loved ones.
This multiple homicide in Eilat should be hateful to every right-thinking human being, and it’s another worrying sign for the gridlocked Middle East peace process. But if we can learn anything from the Northern Irish experience, it’s that our desire for quality of life can put an end to the violence. Any rational person would choose stability, peace, and a good quality of life over the fine detail of the settlement of a political grievance. The difficulty lies in making sure peace really is on offer – which is why, despite this setback, Israel must still consider a long-term truce with Hamas, backed up by international monitoring, even without a political solution. The final settlement is crucial, but both sides will find it hard to muster the political willpower for it, unless they are already enjoying the benefits of stability and peace.
Sunday, 21 January 2007
Chris Davies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – spot the difference!
Chris Davies MEP has recently published a collection of articles on his website, detailing his responses to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past year or so. Here is a selection of what Chris has said on the subject. Readers can make up their own minds as to how principled and how consistent his views are.
I do not support any act of violence.
Chris Davies, 17 January 2007
The minority in Gaza who, out of despair, have taken up arms against an occupying army cannot be dismissed as ‘terrorists’. In the face of overwhelming and hopeless odds should their sacrifice not be saluted and awarded the same respect as that given to resistance movements of the Second World War?
Chris Davies, 6 November 2006
“What would you do in my shoes?” he [Aziz Duack, Hamas supporter] challenged. I take
it up. “In your shoes,” I respond, “I would re-read the works of Gandhi and organise a
great series of non-violent protest actions to be staged in front of the world’s TV cameras.”
Chris Davies, 11 April 2006
it up. “In your shoes,” I respond, “I would re-read the works of Gandhi and organise a
great series of non-violent protest actions to be staged in front of the world’s TV cameras.”
Chris Davies, 11 April 2006
If I had had to live through that as a Palestinian over decades and I was being given no hope for the future whatsoever, I might have considered being a suicide bomber.
Jenny Tonge, 21 September 2006
(Unchallenged and even applauded by Chris Davies, who was sitting next to her.)
I am not an anti Semite, nor am I anti-Israel, or anti-Jew.
Chris Davies, 17 January 2007
Chris Davies, 17 January 2007
I shall denounce the influence of the Jewish lobby that seems to have far too great a say over the political decision-making process in many countries.
Chris Davies, 4 May 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
