Israel and the Liberal Democrats: a bureaucrat responds further to Iain Dale

I had taken some offence at Iain Dale's accusation that we might be becoming an 'anti-Israel' Party, and effectively 'called out' Iain to defend himself. In typical style, his response was rapid (how does he do it?) and fairly forceful. I did draft what I thought was a pretty good riposte but, one technological glitch later, it was lost forever. However, I'll have another stab here...

Iain, you have called upon the Liberal Democrats to convey a more balanced stance on Israel and Palestine. Unfortunately, the only way to adequately balance opinion would be for a few Liberal Democrats to speak out for the right of Israel to carry on with its strategy of dropping large volumes of high explosive on Gaza. Sorry, but that just won't wash, and you will continue to be disappointed.

You have repeated your claim that we are one-eyed in respect of our stance towards the two sides and I refer you to the comments made by our Foreign Affairs spokesman, Edward Davey. Of course, looking at the Party's website for the comments made by our spokesman might be a bit tricky, but you do seem to be everywhere else...

To be blunt, most of those who entirely support the rights of the Israeli people to live in peace and security within recognised borders within our Party are rightfully uncomfortable with the results of the Israeli campaign. Most people will have no objection to Israel defending itself against attack, as long as that response is proportionate. However, the deaths of innocent civilians in large numbers is not something that many people can endorse with a clear conscience, and I would be disappointed if there was a Liberal Democrat who could find it in themselves to do so.

However, you are entirely right in one sense. Whilst my point about the use of conventional warfare methodology against terrorists said exactly what I intended to say, I could, and probably should, have expanded on that point. So I will.

In recent years, we have seen a move away from wars of nation against nation towards more random attacks by small, ideology-driven groups of fanatics against predominantly civilian targets. The campaign by Hamas against Israel is, to a great extent, an example of just such a conflict.

Hamas 'fighters' launch hit and run attacks, and are extraordinarily difficult to confront and defeat by the use of aircraft and artillery in an area such as Gaza. Their willingness to use densely populated areas and public buildings as a base for rocket launches means that any counter-attack using conventional methods will simply lead to collateral losses that are unaccepted to a viewing public easily swayed by pictures of injured or dying women and children. As integrated into their communities as they are, if Israeli forces attack, they can melt back into the populace and disappear, waiting for the next opportunity to probe at possible Israeli vulnerabilities.

Lest we forget, we are talking about an organisation that has cynically played upon the heartstrings of the world's media. Accusations that Hamas have prevented the injured from being evacuated in order to generate more martyrs demonstrate that all that matters is the ability to generate undeserved sympathy whilst blackening the reputation of the Israeli people in the eyes of neutrals beyond the region.

But enough of the context. What are my thoughts on how to proceed? Any successful attempt to combat terrorism is based on an effort to deny oxygen to terrorist movements, to cut off the flow of new recruits, to isolate them from the communities they purport to fight for and, finally, to persuade communities that these people present a risk to their peace and security.

Such a campaign comes in three parts, political, moral and military. In the first instance, it is necessary to stop the bloodshed. Given the imbalance of casualties, it is perfectly legitimate to take obvious steps to achieve quick gains - one presumes that preventing the deaths of innocent civilians is a legitimate aim - and if cutting off the flow of armaments to Israel is one means of doing so, then I'm comfortable with that. If it requires a guarantee from the United States to defend Israel whilst the next stage proceeds, so be it.

A ceasefire secured, action is then required to build a meaningful civil society in the West Bank and Gaza. It means investment in infrastructure, in building a politically neutral military and police force, in developing independent media and genuine political parties founded on ideas and not hatred. By building up the Palestinian economy, citizens will develop an interest in maintaining peace. Here, I plead the example of Northern Ireland, where investment flourished and wealth increased accordingly after the bombing stopped.

Alongside this, work must be done to root out the terrorists. This is, perhaps, an opportunity for the Arab League to demonstrate their commitment to a two-state solution. Whilst a working civil society is being created, those within the community who seek peace need support to overcome those who believe in the bomb and the bullet. Whereas a wholly military answer is unlikely to succeed, an effective police action is far more likely to work. I believe that a contingent from other Arab nations could do the job effectively, if they are genuine in their willingness to find solutions. The European Union, if it can get its act together (and here I am less optimistic), can also play a major role.

The reward for compliance? More investment, both for Israel and Palestine. In the long run, both sides will be better off, better able to protect and nurture their citizens and, perhaps one day, normalise relations and work together for the good of all. Alright, that last bit might be a bit naive, but it does at least indicate that there is hope for a positive outcome. In return, the Israelis can address those issues which have so inflamed Arab opinion. Illegal settlements can be dismantled, the wall demolished where it lies in disputed territory - there can be no objection to a nation building a wall on its own border.

Establishing genuine peace requires a different mindset on the part of the two sides in this dispute. An eye for an eye has, so far, left both sides blind, and yet there are so many in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities who yearn for peace and a better life for their children. The regional powers and the United Nations have an opportunity to achieve something that has evaded us all for sixty years, and if preventing the Israelis, albeit temporarily, from shooting themselves in the foot is the price, then perhaps it is a price worth paying. Otherwise, we will, all of us, continue to suffer the costs of international terrorism and instability in a region that influences us all.

I will now return to your attacks on Liberal Democrat spokespersons and bloggers (and the two are not necessarily the same, I think we all agree). You rightly point out that one of our younger, more immature bloggers, Irfan Ahmed, rather let the side down with his objectionable use of the phrase 'the Jews'. It was therefore rather odd that you should choose to give his views a rather bigger platform than they might otherwise have had. For the record, I think that Mr Ahmed has a tendency to shoot first and think later, when provoked to do so. He has form, and I've taken no joy in pointing that out. I've done it anyway though...

And finally... yes, the reference to your political ambition was a cheap political attack on you. What on Earth did you expect though? To paraphrase a leading Conservative blogger, do you think Liberal Democrats should just sit back and accept that dozens of attacks every week will be fired onto our members, activists and elected representatives? Besides, you're the one who harps back to selections he didn't win...

Indeed, your rhetorical question invites the more extreme elements of the pro-Israel lobby to spread the slander that we are an anti-Semitic Party. It's bad enough that some of our members tend to be, to put it kindly, maladroit when discussing the Middle East, but you have been around long enough to remember the 'Zionism is Racism' debates of the mid-eighties, and the unpleasantness that infected campus life in particular at that time. So take care, Iain, because such debasement of the political currency for narrow political advantage hurts us all eventually.