I didn’t put this in my original account of the Ed Davey bloggers interview earlier this week as it didn’t seem particularly interesting at the time, but in light of Israel’s recent actions (and the reactions of two Lib Dem bloggers: both reactions being pro-Palestine, anti-Israel), Mr Davey’s comments have become somewhat more contemporary.
He was asked by Linda Jack whether we should become more of a “campaigning party” when it comes to foreign policy issues, such as the Israel / Palestine conflict. He replied that we must be more responsible, grown up and serious when it comes to issues such as these. We must, in his words, “choose our campaign” and ensure that we don’t make matters worse when commenting on the behaviour of other countries. By adopting a black and white approach to foreign policy, we would like a degree of humility and to be the arbiter of long-standing disputes with faults on all sides is something we should be wary of. He believes that we should push the case for human rights on all sides.
My thoughts on this conflict essentially follow those of Ed Davey. There are clearly there are faults on both sides: Daily rocket attacks from Gaza and the West Bank into Israel, disproportionate military action in the Occupied Territories, suicide bombings that kill indiscriminately, the de facto annexation of parts of the West Bank in the construction of the Palestinian Wall, a stubbornness on the “right to return” issue. There is a worrying tendency in the progressive reporting of the conflict to treat the Palestinians as a wholly innocent and the Israeli’s as monsters (and the opposite is true from conservatives). To claim that one side or the other is ultimately in the right or wrong is to prevent a peaceful settlement of a conflict which has scarred the region for too long.
Note: Unless placed in inverted commas, the views expressed by Mr Davey are my summary of his remarks, not direct quotes.
Loading ...
7 responses so far ↓
1 Bob Shaw // Mar 2, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Gavin,
Either print a retraction or an apology or I shall be forced take the matter further - I have never said I was anti-Israel. Thanks
2 Gavin Whenman // Mar 2, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I didn’t say you were anti-Israel, I said the reaction was … although I admit the language is a bit vague, so I’ve tidied it up. You can hardly say a reaction that includes words like “holocaust” to describe Israel’s actions* is neutral!
PS. Take the matter further?
* Admittedly in a quote from another source, but one which is not subsequently clarified.
3 James Graham // Mar 2, 2008 at 9:50 pm
He means he will scweam and scweam until he’s sick whilst throwing his toys out of his pram. It’s serious.
4 Richard Flowers // Mar 2, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Gavin,
Like you, I’ve been convinced by Ed that we need to be diplomatic and even-handed. The attitude of blame and retaliation is what has perpetuated this conflict since it seems forever.
And can I add, it’s realy sad to see one Lib Dem Blogger issuing threats to “take the matter further” against another.
Bob, Gavin didn’t say YOU were anti-Israel; he said that your REACTION on this issue was. And you have to admit that you DID say that Israel was at fault.
5 Andrew Hinton // Mar 3, 2008 at 12:24 am
Allow me to clarify the likely reason for the “holocaust” quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/01/israelandthepalestinians1
When an Israeli minister was the first to attach this specific word to the current Israeli operations in Gaza, I’m not sure you can get too fired up about people critical of Israel following suit.
6 Linda Jack // Mar 4, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I cannot let this go without comment, is saying Israel is wrong anti-Israel? Some of the most critical of Israel are Jewish Israeli citizens, who are in no means anti-Israel. It is because they love their country they are prepared to be vilified for speaking truth. Were we all anti-Britain when we marched against the war? Were we all anti-Britain when we opposed Thatcher? No, you can’t be even handed even when there is fault on both sides, when there is such disparity of power and when you consider this is an illegal occupation we are talking about! Should we be even handed about Mugabe then? Or Sudan?……..on this I totally disagree with you Gavin. And, the person who talked about Holocaust was in fact the Israeli Deputy Defence minister.
7 Gavin Whenman // Mar 4, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I think drawing comparisons with the Sudanese and Zimbabwean situations is inopportune - the Israeli / Palestine conflict is more finely balanced than that, and Israel is a democratic country that abides by the rule of law (as opposed to international law itself).
As far as I’m aware, Israel is in belligerent occupation of Palestine, as covered by the fourth Geneva Convention, and has been since 1967. We can argue about whether Israel is in breach of its obligations under this Convention (almost certainly is), but occupation of itself is specifically provided for in international law.
I don’t think it’s anti-Israeli to criticise Israel (or rather, the actions of the Israeli government), I do think it’s anti-Israeli to do so when that is not balanced with an account of the transgressions of the other side. I’ll repeat what I’ve written at the end of this post, “To claim that one side or the other is ultimately in the right or wrong is to prevent a peaceful settlement of a conflict which has scarred the region for too long.”
Leave a Comment