Friday, January 09, 2009

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.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Very good article, Iain doesn’t seem to differentiate between ius ad bellum and ius in bellum. The fact that Israel is justified in reacting to rocket attacks does not justify the way they have conducted themselves - using white smoke (phosphorous) for example.

I wonder if Iain thinks about the murder of British servicemen and civilians in the King David Hotel, celebrated in 2006 by Israel.

Anonymous said...

This is not a good article at all. A few specific comments below, but this really needs a good fisking.

" Most people will have no objection to Israel defending itself against attack, as long as that response is proportionate"

Indeed. In terms of international law, there is no doubt that the current attack is proportionate. It is only required to be proportionate to the military objective, and since the worst estimate I have seen is that 75% of those killed have been terrorists (and many Palestinian terrorists pretend to be civilians, a war crime, so probably more) despite the difficulty caused not by Israel but by Hamas, this action is clearly proportionate. The military objective of stopping terrorism is not only clearly legitimate, it is probably a legal requirement.

"... the deaths of innocent civilians in large numbers is not something that many people can endorse with a clear conscience ..."

Indeed but in international law Hamas is responsible for those deaths. Hamas has committed war crimes by deliberately firing from within civilian populations, even forcing them at gunpoint to remain. Large numbers of the deaths have been from Hamas ammunition destroyed in Israeli strikes, possibly even set up as booby traps to kill as many civilians as possible.

What do you call "large numbers"? Far more innocent civilians have been killed in many other conflicts (such as the fight against the Tamil Tigers some estimate estimates 65,000. Chechnya probably in the hundreds of thousands). People were criticising Israel when civilian deaths were still below 100 who have not criticised Sri Lankan deaths more than 650 times as high. Isn't that anti-semitism?

"...preventing the deaths of innocent civilians is a legitimate aim..."

That is why Israel is doing everything it can without breaking the rules of war to stop Hamas targeting Israeli civilians.

In fact if you look through this situation under international law Israel has only commited one violation, that is for humanitarian reasons and they ahve been condemned by some for following that law, even though that is not true. Because they have proof that most aid shipments are being diverted to aid terrorists (Hamas and others) they should, by international anti-terrorist treaties, be stopping all aid that is likely to be use in such a way.

I appreciate that, unlike many, Liberal Bureaucrat recognises Hamas's faults. I also appreciate that Israel has its faults, although not nearly as many as they are accused of. However to criticise Israel when she is complying closely with international law against an enemy for whom terrorist action and war crimes are not just incidents but standard tactics and strategy. does international law mean so little all of a sudden, or is international law wrong?

Remember that even though I am sure you are not anti-semitic you can write something that is, especially if you unthinkingly repeat a gut feeling or an impression the anti-semitic Red Cross and UN are trying to give through the anti-Israel (and employer of anti-semites) BBC.

Mark Valladares said...

Richard,

You were doing so well, and then... but I'll return to that later.

You make the mistake of mistaking international law with public opinion. In terms of international law, it may very well be that the definition is met - I'm not a lawyer. In terms of public opinion, most people tend to the view that what they've seen so far is disproportionate. You may feel that this is unfair but, as my primary school teacher so sagely noted, life is unfair. There is a difference between law and public opinion, and given that the latter tends to influence the approach taken by governments, you cannot disregard it.

Hamas may well be responsible for these deaths in international law, but it is Israeli artillery and air attacks that actually kill. Hamas are directly responsible for the provocation, and I have no hesitation in condemning them for their cynical disregard for the lives of the population of Gaza, but, again, ordinary people around the world have a shockingly weak grasp of international law, and respond with gut sympathy for innocents, regardless of their race or nation.

You touch upon the civil wars in Sri Lanka and Chechnya, and rightly point out the death tolls in both places. However, the fact that these are civil wars makes the comparison a moot one or, at best, misleading. I suspect that, if there was more coverage of either Sri Lanka or Chechnya in the world's media, there would be a greater clamour for action. That said, neither war has much impact beyond the borders of the country concerned, and very few international terrorists quote Sri Lanka or Chechnya as a causus belli.

And then you attempted to imply anti-semitism on my part. Very foolish. If you'd read my first contribution, you would have noted my past involvement in Beit Klal Yisrael. That was bad enough, but to attribute anti-semitism to the Red Cross and the United Nations, of all organisations, indicates that you are being worryingly paranoid. Disagreeing with Israel is not anti-semitic and, whilst individuals, organisations and states might be wrong to do so in some instances, that doesn't make them anti-semitic either, just wrong.

Israel has a legitimate case to make for its actions. Accusing its opponents of anti-semitism does it, or you, no favours.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that public opinion is more important than international law?

Surely from everything you have said you should be attacking the world media, not Israel. I am right with you there, and in fact on everything you say, except the conclusion you come to the Israel is in the wrong.

Anonymous said...

However I would like, separately, to discuss the anti-semitism.

I have already said that I did not think you were anti-semititc. However that does not stop you typing something that is, when you repeat the opinions of anti-semites.

As for the UN and ICRC not being anti-semitic, I am not sure you can really be serious.

The UN first. A human rights council that only ever criticises Israel, despite most memeber states of the UN, and indeed of those represented on the council itself, having worse records of human rights abuse. That council will not tolerate any criticism of this from UN Watch http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BMEw0lZ3k_Y The UN which defines the term "refugee" differently for Palestinians than anyone else, for anti-Israeli propaganda (almosty none of the "Palestinian Refugees" are actually refugees by the normal definition). The UN that had a special reporteur simply to investigate Israel, with no remit to investigate Palestinian actions or those of any other nation, say Syria or Iran (nor any parallel reporteur to investigate them). The two who have taken that post have both attacked Israel, claiming breaches of international law of Israel, which has been not only a lie but a reversal of the truth, where Israel's enemies have been breaking international laws and not Israel. The UN that misses so much, so many actual crimes by other nations and its own people, yet harangues Israel. So what is different about Israel? Something no other nation has in common? The only thing is that it is a Jewsih state. How can anyone seriously claim the UN is not anti-semitic?

As for the ICRC, do you know their war record? The organisation that hid the evidence of the real purpose of Concentration Camps? More recently, you do realise that they have refused to allow a Red Star [of David] to operate alongside the Red Cross and Red Crescent as part of the ICRC, don't you? And that they have actively co-operated with Palastinian propaganda against Israel (they never did admit that their ambulance had not really been hit by an Israeli missile, despite the irrefutable evidence that it had not) and have allowed their vehicles to be used by Palestinian terrorists on many proven occasions and one can only assume on other occasions which were never discovered. In their statements teh ICRC never criticise the terrorists, and always criticise Israel. How can you doubt that the ICRC is anti-semitic?

Mark Valladares said...

Richard,

The relevant importance of public opinion and international law is dependant on the perspective. In terms of relations between nations, international law is of course paramount. The point that I'm making is that the average member of the public has no knowledge of international law and cares less. They see wounded civilians and, regardless of the back story, they feel compassion. That is what makes us human, rather than automata. You seem to find that difficult to understand, and I'm sorry that you do.

Mark Valladares said...

Richard,

I'm sorry, but I remain convinced that you undermine your case by making a blanket allegation that two highly respected organisations are anti-semitic.

Organisations are only as good as the people who serve them, and it is undoubtedly the case that some of those who have served the United Nations in the past have engaged in activities which undermine any claim to neutrality. However, both the UN and the ICRC have saved countless lives and made the world a better place. They will get some things wrong, and they will do things that offend one side or another, but if you insist on defining everyone who holds a position contrary to your own as anti-semitic, or potentially anti-semitic, you destroy any semblance of credibility you might hope to have.

We're just going to have to agree to differ, I fear, and whilst you take a wholly partisan view, I don't need evidence to understand that the deaths of innocent civilians, Israeli, Palestinian or anyone else, are to be avoided if at all possible.