Politics
The protagonists in Palestine have a duty to try something new
Published 06 March 2008
The chances for Middle East peace have never seemed bleaker. Arriving in the West Bank after Israeli air and ground attacks in the Gaza Strip left 125 Palestinians dead and hundreds more wounded, Condoleezza Rice has had the short-term objective of getting all parties back to the negotiating table. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, abandoned the talks after one of the worst weeks of violence in years. As ever, Tel Aviv has defended the assault as a justifiable response to rocket attacks on Israel. As ever, the retaliation has failed to subdue Hamas, whose fighters greeted the Israeli ground forces' eventual withdrawal from the strip with a masked and armed victory parade.
In the longer term, the US secretary of state has to convince Israel that its collective, indiscriminate punishment of innocent civilians in Gaza harms its own cause and strengthens Hamas. However passionately Israel believes its actions are justified in defence of its citizens, it has to recognise that the week's terrible retaliation will fail, as past retaliation has failed. The eyewitness account of the revenge visited upon the people of Jabaliya in Gaza from the Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer (page 20) leaves no doubt as to who are the real victims of the Israeli action: civilians, including women and children. Hamas, elected by those same civilians, only gains in stature by Israel's brutality.
Which brings us to Rice's third and most difficult challenge: to acknowledge that there can, in the long term, be no peace process without the involvement of Hamas, and then to convince the Palestinian leader and Israel's Ehud Olmert of that truth.
None of this will be achieved quickly. But some things should be done immediately. Gaza is suffering more than a diplomatic crisis, and there are solutions that the international community can and must try now. Rice's visit coincides with the publication in Britain of a damning report from leading UK NGOs including Oxfam, Amnesty, Christian Aid and Save the Children, which describe the situation in Gaza as a "humanitarian implosion" requiring urgent action.
Living conditions in the Gaza Strip are worse than they have been since the start of the Israeli military occupation in 1967, say the agencies. The crisis is man-made and totally avoidable; the blockade of the strip constitutes a reprisal against a civilian population and, as such, contravenes international law. The report calls for pressure on Israel to end a blockade that has deprived schools and hospitals of water and electricity and destroyed 95 per cent of all industry. Three-quarters of the population is now dependent on food aid; the failure rates in schools are 80 per cent; hospitals suffer power cuts for eight to 12 hours a day.
It is hard to disagree with the report's conclusions that international efforts must be directed towards securing a swift end to the blockade, or with its call to the British government to do more than administer mild rebukes to Israel. Written before the most recent events, it presciently assesses the consequences of inaction: "Failure to address the situation in Gaza has harmed both Palestinians and Israelis and has been detrimental to the peace process."
Right now the road to peace seems as impassable as ever, potholed with the familiar craters - Unprovoked Attack, Right to Security, Disproportionate Response, Refusal to Recognise. And yet, last November, for a while, there did appear a chance of something different. For whatever reason, President Bush, whose foreign policy in almost every particular has operated as an obstacle to peace, declared himself dedicated to a two-nation deal before the end of this year.
"I give you my personal commitment to support your work," he told Olmert and Abbas. His secretary of state has reiterated that commitment and told all parties that she believes it is still possible. We have to hope she is right. But one definition of insanity is to go on doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. The protagonists have a duty to try something new: insist on an end to the blockade that imprisons 1.5 million Palestinians in poverty and misery. It could be the start of something different.
Getting the Hump
The burghers of Leicester face a most taxing conundrum. Who should they commemorate with a statue - Mahatma Gandhi, or Gary Lineker? On the face of it, the decision would appear simple. Leicester has long been known as home to large numbers of British Asians. Where better to celebrate the life of one of the subcontinent's greatest men, a leader admired worldwide?
On the other hand, the Mahatma's own ties with Leicester are somewhat slim, as opponents have pointed out. He is not known to have visited, nor could one fudge a connection through, say, his being partial to the odd slice of Red Leicester (he thought British food exceedingly bland).
Gary Lineker, then. A footballing hero, and Leicester-born; perhaps his features should be recorded in bronze. That would not please everyone, however. Some believe that his keen support for crisp-eating sets a poor example to the young.
Here at the NS we have a solution that could please both parties. Please still your giggles when we raise the name of Engelbert Humperdinck. For not only is he one of Leicester's most famous sons, nay, "a man of distinction", as the city's university described him when it awarded the singer an honorary doctorate in 2006. He was also born in India, in Madras, where he lived with his family until the age of ten. He may have been known then as Arnold Dorsey, but it is as Dr Humperdinck that his finest hour may have come.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
