A case of double standards

With the Jewish State of Israel once again having to defend it's people and it's border, it felt obvious to me that I, as a democrat, should make definitive statement on my position. For that reason, I will deviate slightly from my usual theme to discuss the legitimacy of the Israeli response to the savage attack on the Supernova Music festival and Kibbutz Kvar Aza

Some media outlets are already arguing the Israeli response to Hamas attacks on Sderot and Kfar Aza are disproportionate.. But, let us assume that in response IDF troops had gone into Gaza and entered a Palestinian music festival and butchered 260 young people then taken a further 200 hostage. Let us further assume 40 of those victims were babies and tiny children who had been beheaded and mutilated. Even further,  let us assume that these IDF troops had repeatedly raped some of those women.

With this in mind, would the world propose the notion of proportionality? Of course not.

The simple reality is that Israel has always been expected to have a higher ethical (and more forgiving) standard than its enemies - even when those opponents are unashamed terrorists whose founding rhetoric argued:

“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’” (source: Hamas Charter, 1987)

Transparently the current conflict is having a devastating effect on innocent civilian life in Gaza and there will be hardly a member of the  worldwide Jewish Community that will not shed a tear for every innocent Palestinian child affected by this war. Since before the formation of the State of Israel there has been a passion for Jews/ Israelis to live alongside the Arab world in peace and harmony. To that end, Israel has repeatedly reached out and offered to give away land so this may happen. However, leaders of the Palestinian people have always refused any chance of peace.

There comes a time when it becomes imperative that we say "enough", a time when we must say "we will no longer accept the unacceptable".

Today, that time has come and the Palestinian people, alongside Hamas, the PIJ and Hezbollah have a simple choice  - they must decide between unconditional surrender of the Palestinian people and the handing over of every terrorist to the Israeli authorities, the unconditional surrender of Hamas and the withdrawal of Hezbollah forces from the Lebanon - Israeli border ... or a continuation of the conflict. 

Nothing less is acceptable - Am Israel chai.

Israel and the Flotilla

For the last two days most of the newspapers in the UK led with the story of the attack by Israeli Defence Forces on the Gaza flotilla. In their reporting most of the articles correctly pointed to the questionable legality of boarding of the aid ships in international waters. No doubt legal experts will debate this issue for some time to come before the general public will be able to gain a clearer picture.
What is apparent is that in the incursion nine people were killed by soldiers boarding a ship carrying humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. Understandably, the Israeli government have been at great pains to portray themselves as the ‘good guys and girls’ and tried to suggest the crew and passengers on board were all Islamic terrorists intent on the destruction of their country. Whether this is true or not is an irrelevancy and should not be dignified with a response. The facts are simple – people died whilst engaging in legitimate political activity – and no matter what Israel, Netanyahu or the pro- Likud press may say, there can be no justification for their death.

If Israel is retain any level of dignity following this tragedy it must immediately hold an independent inquiry with representatives from the United Nations being allowed full access to all information relating to the raid. If, as a result of this inquiry, it is judged Israel acted illegally, or without due care to legal process, then criminal proceedings should be brought against Ehud Barak, as the Defence Minister responsible for authorising the attack, along with any others identified.

Equally of concern is the video footage of the military attack, where pro-Palestinian crew members and passengers are seen using clubs (including a suggestion by Israeli sources that some of these instruments included iron bars) and repeatedly beating soldiers as they boarded the ships. Again there can be no justification whatsoever for this action and the campaigners did nothing to further their cause by resorting to violence, no matter how badly provoked. Their defence of their ship by ‘beating up’ soldiers (who, like themselves are ordinary working class people) lacked the same level of legitimacy as the actions by Israel Defence Forces. Should an international inquiry be convened, it would be incumbent upon them to clarify whether the actions were ‘as shown’ on the video footage. If the inquiry found these accusations to be accurate, every effort should be made to identify the perpetrators and if they have been returned to their country of origin, extradition proceedings should be implemented in order to prosecute those accused.

Two further issues need to also be mentioned. Firstly, if Israel was determined to stop the Gaza flotilla, this was arguably one of the worst cases of bad military planning in their history. Even the most naive strategist would acknowledge that the people on board were passionate campaigners who would instigate every means to prevent military forces from completing their mission. Dropping soldiers one at a time onto the decks of the ships was, at best, foolhardy and ill-conceived and, at worst suicidal. If the aim was to take control of the ship, the military forces should have attacked in large numbers in order to quickly stifle opposition.

Political leaders in Israel have already acknowledged the fault does not lay with the military commanders – if this is so, there should be some serious reshuffling of ministers in the Israeli cabinet, along with the immediate resignations of Barak and Netanyahu.

All this assumes of course that it is correct and proper for Israel to prevent humanitarian aid from entering the Gaza strip. Such an approach is fraught with considerable difficulties. The Israelis and the USA have repeatedly supported the blockade on the basis that many of the ships entering the area are taking in weapons that will later be used by Hamas militants. If this is true, there is a very simple solution. UNHCR does not have a good track record of recognising the legitimate rights of the people of Israel. Nonetheless, if they gave them responsibility for administering an aid package to be delivered by Israeli and Palestinian welfare services such as Magen David Adom and Red Crescent - and independently monitored by the United Nations, several repercussions would immediately occur.

1. A natural dialogue at community level would occur between Jews and Palestinians
2. Hamas would lose much of its legitimacy as an anti-Israel/ anti-Zionist organisation because the electorate would see Israel was willing to change.
3. The reactionary Likud coalition would lose much of its authority as Israelis started to realise many Palestinians have simple, but legitimate needs.
4. Out of this aid programme could come a new beginning, with a basis for the creation of a bi-national peace accord between the two countries – both working for the mutual benefit of the other.

On Monday, Israel showed the world that violence rarely solves anything. The people of Palestine still have no medical aid, they have an inadequate water supply and innocent children regularly survive on poor standards of food and ineffective shelter. Equally, Israelis live under the constant threat of attack from Palestinian terrorists or worse, one of the nearby Arab nations. At the same time they have now found themselves largely isolated, having been described by many as a pariah or a rogue state.

For two nations populated by so many highly intelligent men and women it it bizarre that they have yet to realise it is time to put down the guns – and time for Zionists and Palestinians to listen to each other – and compromise.

Israel and the Labour Party

As a left-winger in the Labour party I find that whenever the issue of Israel and Palestine are raised I am often at odds with comrades and friends. Each time the subject is raised I find the discussion always veers towards how awful Israel is, or how aggressive the Defense Forces are, or how Zionism equates with racism.

However, there is an alternate, and I would argue more socialistic view.

Let me explain. There can be little or no justification for the current oppression of legitimate Palestinian rights by the Israeli government. Equally, incursions by individual terrorists and members of Hamas into Israeli territory and the use of bombs and rockets against the civilian population is just as unacceptable. As Gandhi stated so eloquently, ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’.

One of the arguments raised by the Israeli right is that they are duty bound under Torachic law to defend themselves under the principle of an eye for an eye (ayin tachat ayin). But this totally misses the central tenet of the concept. The Torah argued that if you offend another and damage their eye, so must you harm your own. Thus under this analysis the Netanyahu government should be treating the Jewish settlers in an identical fashion to the way they treat the Palestinian people. This is clearly not happening.

In the 1980s a Marxist political group (Mapam) proposed a peace settlement where Jew and Arab could live together in harmony, sharing the wealth of the country in socialist co-operation. Experiments such as Kibbutz Tuval in the north of Israel thrived and prospered and Palestinians and Jews forget racial/ religious barriers and worked together for mutual benefit.

One of the key factors behind this success was the underlying philosophy of the kibbutz movement, with its strong association with Habonim Dror and the socialist-Zionist movement. However, a further key to its success lay in the fact that the essence of socialist-Zionism and the peace movement in general rests on the belief that the Palestinian people have a legitimate right to their own separate identity.

These values need today to be reinforced again and it is incumbent on every socialist internationally to campaign for every oppressed people, wherever and whoever they may be. The Jewish people have a right to a homeland; of that there can be no debate. Similarly, there is now a critical need for the UN to help establish and support a fully independent Palestinian state. The only guarantee for the future, security and character of both peoples is if internationally we campaign for reconciliation through a peaceful settlement.

Part of the dilemma for the Israeli right lay in the outposts in the Palestinian territories. These illegal outposts and settlements are major obstacles to ending the occupation and promoting an agreement, as well as an element that contradicts the Israeli national interest. The Labour party, through the Socialist International and the United Nations should fight for the evacuation of the outposts and settlements, while providing the settlers with adequate compensation and seeing to their rehabilitation.

In particular, the Labour party should adopt the following principles:

• The Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, including the right to establish its own state alongside the State of Israel.
• Israeli settlers in locations which, after the determination of the permanent borders, fall within the Palestinian State will be able to return to Israel and will receive appropriate compensation. It will not be possible to achieve a permanent agreement without evacuating settlements. During the negotiations the two sides will determine those settlements in which Israeli settlers may remain; settlers will be required to recognize and respect Palestinian sovereignty.
• Jerusalem will not be divided. It will be recognized that members of both nations live in the city, and that both have national and religious rights. The area of the city will be redefined and agreed and coordinated municipal frameworks will be established within its borders in order to enable each community to manage its own internal affairs. Two capitals will exist within the municipal area: the capital of Israel in the Jewish areas, and the capital of Palestine in the Arab areas. The status of the holy sites will be determined through negotiations based on maintaining the religious rights and freedom of worship of all religions.
• The permanent settlement will include a comprehensive solution of the problem of the refugees (from 1948) and the dislocated residents (from 1967). The Palestinian State will be entitled to absorb refugees within its borders according to its own considerations. A compensation arrangement for refugees will be agreed upon with international support. After such agreement is reached, the parties will categorically waive any further claims for the return of refugees, restitution of property rights or the right of settlement in the area of the other state.
• Borders will be open to the passage of goods and workers as agreed upon by the two parties and in line with basic socialist principles. Israel will actively support the Palestinian economy and will help recruit international support and investments to promote economic development of the Palestinian State
  

Tacitus