Since my post in November 2012 titled " Imagine ", I have not commented on this blog on world events affecting the welfare of people generally, or in a specific area of the planet. In the past few years, great numbers of people have been displaced as a result of ongoing conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Palestine to name a few. I intend to solely concentrate on the Palestinian issue in this post simply because it has gone on for the longest period of time, and generates lots of emotions worldwide relating to its ultimate resolution.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the current prime minister of Israel, is an impediment to peace in the Middle East in my view. During periods of calm, he refuses to negotiate freely with all the Palestinians. He says he cannot negotiate with Hamas because they refuse to recognise the state of Israel. Yet, as the present troubles testify, Hamas represent the people of Gaza, and he is therefore bound to negotiate with them if there is to be a meaningful and lasting settlement. His refusal to negotiate with this wing of the Palestinians means he doesn't want a settlement of the problem during his premiership.
The siege of Gaza by Israel due to which all land, sea and air routes into this narrow strip of land are blocked creates " prison " conditions within it, and greatly interferes with all normal living conditions for the 1.8 million people affected by it. This continued siege gives rise to hatred starting at an early age, and support for Palestinians who want to destroy Israel by force. Therefore Netanyahu's policy towards Gaza is only serving to continue a very unstable situation, thereby ensuring continued suffering and bitterness for Palestinians down the generations.
If Netanyahu thinks there is no precedent in world history for negotiating with "terrorists" , he should talk to the British. In October 1921, both the then British prime minister, David Lloyd George, and Winston Churchill, sat down at a table with Michael Collins to negotiate what has become known as "The Irish Treaty". In November 1920, less than a year earlier, Collins and his men had scores of British agents operating in Dublin rounded up and killed, and the British press at the time labelled him " a terrorist and number one enemy of the country ". Collins didn't see himself as a terrorist but a freedom fighter who did not recognise Britain's right to rule Ireland.
In more recent times, the British cleverly used Sinn Fein to arrive at an understanding with the IRA in Northern Ireland that if significant concessions were made at the negotiating table in favour of the nationalist community then the violence would cease. At the present time, the agreements so reached on many issues, and embodied in the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, appears to be holding. The lesson to be learned from Ireland says: there is a good chance violence will stop if the underlying issues giving rise to the violence are addressed and fixed in a way that allows peace to prevail.
I do recognise Israel's right to defend itself. However, the corresponding right of the Palestinian people to a state operating alongside Israel is what has been neglected for the past 60 years or so. The onus therefore is on all parties with an interest in the region, peace and justice to deliver to the Palestinian people a viable functioning state they can call home. If such a state were delivered to the Palestinians, would there then be any support in a place like Gaza for people who want to launch rockets into Israel ? I don't think so, and if it did happen they would be quickly apprehended by Palestine's own security forces. The main stumbling block to peace appears to be Benjamin Netanyahu in that, judging by his performance to date, I cannot see him making the big moves necessary to deliver it.
If you have got anything to say on this post, use the comments box below for that purpose.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the current prime minister of Israel, is an impediment to peace in the Middle East in my view. During periods of calm, he refuses to negotiate freely with all the Palestinians. He says he cannot negotiate with Hamas because they refuse to recognise the state of Israel. Yet, as the present troubles testify, Hamas represent the people of Gaza, and he is therefore bound to negotiate with them if there is to be a meaningful and lasting settlement. His refusal to negotiate with this wing of the Palestinians means he doesn't want a settlement of the problem during his premiership.
The siege of Gaza by Israel due to which all land, sea and air routes into this narrow strip of land are blocked creates " prison " conditions within it, and greatly interferes with all normal living conditions for the 1.8 million people affected by it. This continued siege gives rise to hatred starting at an early age, and support for Palestinians who want to destroy Israel by force. Therefore Netanyahu's policy towards Gaza is only serving to continue a very unstable situation, thereby ensuring continued suffering and bitterness for Palestinians down the generations.
If Netanyahu thinks there is no precedent in world history for negotiating with "terrorists" , he should talk to the British. In October 1921, both the then British prime minister, David Lloyd George, and Winston Churchill, sat down at a table with Michael Collins to negotiate what has become known as "The Irish Treaty". In November 1920, less than a year earlier, Collins and his men had scores of British agents operating in Dublin rounded up and killed, and the British press at the time labelled him " a terrorist and number one enemy of the country ". Collins didn't see himself as a terrorist but a freedom fighter who did not recognise Britain's right to rule Ireland.
In more recent times, the British cleverly used Sinn Fein to arrive at an understanding with the IRA in Northern Ireland that if significant concessions were made at the negotiating table in favour of the nationalist community then the violence would cease. At the present time, the agreements so reached on many issues, and embodied in the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, appears to be holding. The lesson to be learned from Ireland says: there is a good chance violence will stop if the underlying issues giving rise to the violence are addressed and fixed in a way that allows peace to prevail.
I do recognise Israel's right to defend itself. However, the corresponding right of the Palestinian people to a state operating alongside Israel is what has been neglected for the past 60 years or so. The onus therefore is on all parties with an interest in the region, peace and justice to deliver to the Palestinian people a viable functioning state they can call home. If such a state were delivered to the Palestinians, would there then be any support in a place like Gaza for people who want to launch rockets into Israel ? I don't think so, and if it did happen they would be quickly apprehended by Palestine's own security forces. The main stumbling block to peace appears to be Benjamin Netanyahu in that, judging by his performance to date, I cannot see him making the big moves necessary to deliver it.
If you have got anything to say on this post, use the comments box below for that purpose.
I think you have made some valid points in this post about Palestine and Gaza although some people might view it as anti-semetic.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I give my opinions honestly in any situation and don't worry about how some biased people may view them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Israel must negotiate with Hamas if there is to be peace in Gaza. But it is difficult to see Israel ending the blockade of Gaza they have imposed over the past seven years as a prelude to peace talks.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I cannot see Israel lifting the siege of Gaza either -at least not while Benjamin Netanyahu is prime minister.
ReplyDeleteThere is little presure on Israel to sort out Palestine as both the US and UK are backing them to the hilt. They rely on Israel to provide intelligence for the whole region, and then act on it irrespective of its merits or accuracy. I am convinced it was Israeli intelligence who persuaded the US and UK in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which subsequently proved to be false.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. Nobody appears to be putting pressure on Israel to sort out the Palestinian problem. It would not surprise me if Israel back in 2003 exaggerated what Saddam Hussein had in order to present him as a bigger threat than he actually was.
ReplyDelete