The left cannot pretend that Israel is the only problem

Until Hamas renounces violence and stops arms smuggling, the problem will only get worse.

I do not know you, Mehdi, so I will not presume anything about you. I am saddened that you think to presume that I do not find the events a tragic, needless loss of life, just because I raise challenging political dilemmas. It is above all else a huge human tragedy. It was also clearly an absolute mistake by Israel that has caused it considerable diplomatic damage.

However, your approach is a manifestation of the problem, in that you seem unable to engage in a discussion about the serious policy and political problems relating to Israel that beset the international community. Serious dilemmas are faced by those that both want peace in the Middle East and also want to stop the suffering of innocents on all sides.

Given your presumption about me, you may be surprised to note that I think the arbitrary way that Israel appears to determine what foodstuffs enter Gaza is punitive, self-defeating and wrong. Furthermore, it detracts from the serious issues that I raised about the smuggling of arms, and the need to support Abu Mazen to ensure the peace process stands a chance. What is happening in Gaza is heartbreaking, but being a bleeding-heart liberal will not help resolve the wider issues.

What the people of Gaza need is for the international community to focus on the following: stop the smuggling of arms, get Hamas to renounce violence, and release Gilad Shalit. Then it will look as though we are not rewarding terror and keep the hope and chance of peace alive. This will in turn make reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah possible and then elections (which Hamas refuses to hold at present).

The best hope for Gaza is for Salam Fayyad to be able to extend his state-building programme there.

No matter how much you accuse me of not caring about human suffering, Mehdi, you can't get round these questions. Israel should answer the questions you raise about what is allowed into Gaza, but you have to acknowledge that the issue is not simple. There are enough good people in the US, UK, EU, PA and Israel that want to resolve this problem and have spent a very long time trying to sort it out. However, whatever Israel allows into Gaza, until Hamas renounces violence and stops arms smuggling, the problem will only get worse.

I feel it is equally shocking to hear someone on the left ignore the human rights abuses inflicted by Hamas, not least upon its own people. Even Amnesty International accepts Hamas is guilty of war crimes. Israel is guilty of many things, but we help no one, least of all the people of Gaza, by pretending that Israel is the sole problem.

Lorna Fitzsimons is chief executive of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre.

Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's "When the Lights Went Out".

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The unresolved Eurozone crisis

The continent that once aspired to be a rival superpower to the US is now a byword for decline, and ethnic nationalism and right-wing populism are thriving.

The eurozone crisis was never resolved. It was merely conveniently forgotten. The vote for Brexit, the terrible war in Syria and Donald Trump’s election as US president all distracted from the single currency’s woes. Yet its contradictions endure, a permanent threat to continental European stability and the future cohesion of the European Union.

The resignation of the Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi, following defeat in a constitutional referendum on 4 December, was the moment at which some believed that Europe would be overwhelmed. Among the champions of the No campaign were the anti-euro Five Star Movement (which has led in some recent opinion polls) and the separatist Lega Nord. Opponents of the EU, such as Nigel Farage, hailed the result as a rejection of the single currency.

An Italian exit, if not unthinkable, is far from inevitable, however. The No campaign comprised not only Eurosceptics but pro-Europeans such as the former prime minister Mario Monti and members of Mr Renzi’s liberal-centrist Democratic Party. Few voters treated the referendum as a judgement on the monetary union.

To achieve withdrawal from the euro, the populist Five Star Movement would need first to form a government (no easy task under Italy’s complex multiparty system), then amend the constitution to allow a public vote on Italy’s membership of the currency. Opinion polls continue to show a majority opposed to the return of the lira.

But Europe faces far more immediate dangers. Italy’s fragile banking system has been imperilled by the referendum result and the accompanying fall in investor confidence. In the absence of state aid, the Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, the world’s oldest bank, could soon face ruin. Italy’s national debt stands at 132 per cent of GDP, severely limiting its firepower, and its financial sector has amassed $360bn of bad loans. The risk is of a new financial crisis that spreads across the eurozone.

EU leaders’ record to date does not encourage optimism. Seven years after the Greek crisis began, the German government is continuing to advocate the failed path of austerity. On 4 December, Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, declared that Greece must choose between unpopular “structural reforms” (a euphemism for austerity) or withdrawal from the euro. He insisted that debt relief “would not help” the immiserated country.

Yet the argument that austerity is unsustainable is now heard far beyond the Syriza government. The International Monetary Fund is among those that have demanded “unconditional” debt relief. Under the current bailout terms, Greece’s interest payments on its debt (roughly €330bn) will continually rise, consuming 60 per cent of its budget by 2060. The IMF has rightly proposed an extended repayment period and a fixed interest rate of 1.5 per cent. Faced with German intransigence, it is refusing to provide further funding.

Ever since the European Central Bank president, Mario Draghi, declared in 2012 that he was prepared to do “whatever it takes” to preserve the single currency, EU member states have relied on monetary policy to contain the crisis. This complacent approach could unravel. From the euro’s inception, economists have warned of the dangers of a monetary union that is unmatched by fiscal and political union. The UK, partly for these reasons, wisely rejected membership, but other states have been condemned to stagnation. As Felix Martin writes on page 15, “Italy today is worse off than it was not just in 2007, but in 1997. National output per head has stagnated for 20 years – an astonishing . . . statistic.”

Germany’s refusal to support demand (having benefited from a fixed exchange rate) undermined the principles of European solidarity and shared prosperity. German unemployment has fallen to 4.1 per cent, the lowest level since 1981, but joblessness is at 23.4 per cent in Greece, 19 per cent in Spain and 11.6 per cent in Italy. The youngest have suffered most. Youth unemployment is 46.5 per cent in Greece, 42.6 per cent in Spain and 36.4 per cent in Italy. No social model should tolerate such waste.

“If the euro fails, then Europe fails,” the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has often asserted. Yet it does not follow that Europe will succeed if the euro survives. The continent that once aspired to be a rival superpower to the US is now a byword for decline, and ethnic nationalism and right-wing populism are thriving. In these circumstances, the surprise has been not voters’ intemperance, but their patience.

This article first appeared in the 08 December 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brexit to Trump