The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Israel's policy is an invitation to disaster

The country needs to remember that self-defence is not the same as smart defence.

By David Miliband Published 20 November 2012 16:12

A Palestinian man inspects a damaged building following overnight Israeli air strikes on the southern Gaza Strip town of Khan Yunis. Photograph: Getty Images.

So much has changed in the Middle East in the last couple of years. But it is uncanny how the events of the last week in Gaza have echoed the last war in Gaza – in 2008. Then, as now, US elections were recently behind us, Israeli elections were on the horizon (then Binyamin Netanyahu was the challenger, though, as now, Ehud Barak was Defence Minister), and the conflict was not predicted by the experts. Then, as now, the debates about "proportionality" were an offence to our intelligence. There is another parallel. After the killing and shelling is over, both Israeli and Hamas leaders will think they have won. In the Middle East, history repeats itself first as tragedy, and then as tragedy.

Labour shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander was ahead of the government in the UK in calling for a ceasefire, and for the UN Secretary General to visit the region to broker one. It is an irony that the world is holding its breath for the diplomatic effort – and restraint – of President Morsi in Egypt for the ceasefire that could save lives. The contrast with 2008, when President Mubarak was alleged by Israeli politicians and thinkers to be privately supportive, is striking.

In 2008, the phrase of the moment from the Israeli government in respect of rocket attacks was "intolerable". And if you visit Sderot, and talk to people there, life under the shadow of rocket attacks is miserable. But self-defence is not the same as smart defence. Certainly not if it compounds the problem. And if you believe that the fundamental problem for Israel is the diminishing prospect of an independent, viable, contiguous (West Bank plus Gaza) Palestinian state, whose creation triggers the normalisation of relations with the whole Arab world as per the Arab Peace Initiative, then the resort to war in Gaza is dangerous in at least three ways. The loss of life and property fuels hatred. The bombing marginalises the Palestinian Authority, and its President, who are Israel’s notional negotiating partners. And it entrenches the separate legitimacy, authority and status of the "government of Hamas" (apparently Ehud Barak used this phrase) in Gaza. It only makes sense if a two-state solution is dead and buried.

In 2012, the war probably also complicates the drive to build an effective coalition to heave Assad out of power in Syria, which in turn strengthens Iran. Little wonder a much decorated Israeli military chief, Efraim Halevy, wrote in the Financial Times yesterday about Israel needing a strategy not a war.

The truth is that the policy of "Gaza last" – pretend it doesn’t exist, ignore the political and socioeconomic realities on the ground, wish Hamas away – is an invitation to disaster. The policy of siege has funded Hamas through the tax they impose on the transfer of goods through the tunnels, while it has held back the people from the economic and social fulfillment that so many fervently seek. (In that context, note the promise of $250m for reconstruction from Qatar just a couple of weeks ago). Neither siege nor bombing is going to topple Hamas. In fact, Israel depends on Hamas to exercise security control in Gaza, and control the rockets from Islamic Jihad and other more radical groups. Egypt needs Hamas to control the border into Sinai, where various extreme groups want to mount attacks on Israel.

I sincerely hope that further loss of life is averted. Foreign policy is meant to be about stopping people killing each other. But there needs to be more. Without radical thinking, the two-state ideal will be gone – if we haven’t passed the point of no return already.

That means Palestinian politics needs to be reconstituted, across the West Bank/Gaza divide. The global consensus on what a two-state solution means – 1967 borders etc – needs to become the parameters around which negotiations are structured. The Arab world, led by a newly pivotal Egypt, needs to be played in (it is not properly represented by the Quartet). And to repeat something I tweeted last week (and I noticed John McCain mused about this too), President Obama needs his own Presidential envoy, and who better than Bill Clinton. Some people thought this was frivolous. It is deadly serious.

In January 2009, I spent three days at the UN authoring the peace resolution. Its central promises – stop the flow of arms and open the border crossings – have not been fulfilled. There are no winners from that.

This piece originally appeared on David Miliband's blog.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Israel Gaza

More from David Miliband

View the discussion thread.

14 comments

Thu, 2012-11-22 05:45 — susan galea (not verified)

This makes for grim reading. I just don't believe Miliband. He alleges that war is to stop people killing other people. So, how does he explain Iraq? How does he explain his tenure as Foreign Secretary when he was allegedly complicit in illegal rendition? When are his alleged crimes and those of Blair going to be tested in a court of law?

Wed, 2012-11-21 19:17 — Julia Harris

What an utter shambles of an article. Not only does it skim over the fact that millions of Israelis have had to endure rocket fire for as many years as Hamas has been in Gaza, it lays no blame at the genocidal rhetoric of Hamas and the rest of the Arab world. It suggest there should be no consequence for the actions of Hamas, that the only option to them is to send in rockets, blow people up on buses.

David M you are truly a dunderhead-ed politician whose brain is so full of itself it cant see the wood from the tree's.

May I remind you that pre 1967, 1948 the Arab world was all baying for Israel's demise and destruction, the thought that these genocidal terrorists would somehow find a way to peace if we allow them to continue with rocket fire without consequence is truly one of the most moronic and stupid ideas any right minded person could imagine.

David M unfortunately thinks that the way Hamas acts is out of character for Arab Muslims but it inst, this is the nature of the beast, understand your enemy, know your enemy.

To think that this is Israel's fault again is a wicked lie which is spun by left wing nuts and Islamic supremacists.

See what the Arab countries wanted for Israel pre-1067 and tell me that Israel was again to blame at this stage for every little selfish wicked gripe that comes out of the bitter and twisted mouths of the Arab world when it comes to Israel, sheer Jealousy and Jew hatred, its plain to see, but some cannot and will not admit it.

elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/arab-cartoons-of-six-day-war-video.html

Wed, 2012-11-21 17:34 — Will Podmore (not verified)

People like Frederick and Sebastian should read Seumas Milne's article in the Guardian today.

Wed, 2012-11-21 14:52 — Babz

Israel will periodically bomb Gaza back to the stone age so long as it's run by an independant militant organisation that attempts to bypass the blockade and smuggle in deterrent weapons. Israel will (sort of) leave Gaza alone so long as it's completely demilitarised.

Wed, 2012-11-21 12:48 — Michael Dixon (not verified)

"Douglas Alexander was ahead of the government" etc etc.

Why bother with the petty domestic party politics on an issue such as this?

And this from a former Foreign Secretary.

Disappointing

Wed, 2012-11-21 11:36 — Hugh C Markey (not verified)

What implacable logic has it that the Old Testament offers? An eye for an eye and a not turn the other cheek approach is only possible for the Israelis so long as US Big Brother looks on. Chosen people of the good ole USA.
Talk about the tail wagging the dog. What a Mexucan stand-off!! No, Israel is just walking the beat.
Even persecuted newly arrived citizens of Israel want Gaza flattened. Nuked, as US citizens still exclaim when losing conventional conflicts.
Eventually the Palestinians will have access to heavy-weight missiles and drones depite the Sunni Fifth Column and then woe betide everyone.

Armaggedon

Wed, 2012-11-21 11:07 — saltyseadog1

When will the New Statesman stop wasting its money paying the busted flush that is David Milliband for his meaningless views. The mans a quitter who should withdraw from politics if he had any self respect but like most career politicos finds it easier to pick up the check than get a real job. If by chance he reads this, "Your brother won the leadership, offered you a job which you rejected thinking he would fall flat on his face. The party would then come begging for you to return, but he hasn't fallen, in fact quite the opposite has happened, leaving you and all the other ex-blairite cronies with egg on their faces as you all watch Ed growing into the job from the sidelines."

Tue, 2012-11-20 23:20 — anonymous coward (not verified)

What Israel has done historically and what it is currently doing is not self defence.

There is a huge continuous and generally successful effort to rewrite history and portray Israel as a small natyion beset by enemies which heroically defends itself. The reaility is that Israel has launched a series of attacks and invasions against all of it's neighbours starting in 1956 and continuing to the present day. In 1948 the forces of what became Israel had a marked military superiority rapidly Israel became the overwhelmingly dominant military force in the region. Only once has Israel been attacked in th emany wars since 1948 and that was by countries all of which had been attacked and had territory ocupied by Israel at the time. If any other country attacked and occupied it's neighbours (and Israel continues to occupy parts of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon then it woudl be considered legitomaet self defence for thos countries to fight back but in teh cas eof Israel the agressor is depicted as the victim and if teh victims should resist then that is portrayed as aggression.

Having spent a lot of time in Israel the racism is all pervasive to teh extend that no-racist statements about Muslism are not tolerated or acceptable in scociety as a whole. Amongst the many disturbing experiecnes was meeting an american mother whose sone had been shot by the IDF while standing in front of Palestinian school children because so many at that school had been shot by IDF snipers. The IDF would not allow an ambulance to collect the shot american until the US ambassador personally escorted the ambulance.

The unfortunate and deeply depressing reality is that a substantial minority of Israelis consider non-jews to be sub-human and the majority tacitly accepts the brutal ethinc cleansing and brutalisation of the non-jewish inhabitants of the area. It shoudl not be forgotten that theer are brave Israelis who speak out, either to set the historic record staight or opose th epolicies but they are a small minority.

Tue, 2012-11-20 23:00 — Andrew P Nichols (not verified)

So why is it Mr Miliband that for all your fine words here, thast you, once elected as PM will quickly fall into line with the same pro Israeli crap as spouted by the odious Cameron and Hague? How much longer will western pollies be allowed to be out of synch with their people incresingy awakening to the fact that Israel needs to go the way of Apartheid SA.

Wed, 2012-11-21 06:19 — Sebastian. (not verified)

Israel is a democracy. 'apartheid' is what we see happening in Pakistan where millions of innocent Hindus and Sikhs were expelled or murdered to make way for the creation of the illegal Pakistani state.
apartheid is Iraq where hundreds of thousands of Christians have been ethnically cleansed.
apartheid is Egypt where the Islamist government persecutes and ethnically cleanses its Christian minority.
Aparthied is Iran who persecute the Bahai, Christians and Jews and all non-Moslems.

Tue, 2012-11-20 22:59 — Frederick. (not verified)

Israel has repeatedly stated that if no missiles are fired into Israel, no missiles will fall on Gaza. What is it about this statement that Hamas finds difficult to understand? oh and by the way I am a JEW. I wonder how long it will be before the Islamists who run the NS will delete this comment whilst allowing anti-Semitic islamofascists to have their comments retained?

Wed, 2012-11-21 13:53 — jankaas (not verified)

"What is it about this statement that Hamas finds difficult to understand?"

indeed, the message is clear and unambiguous.
now, i wonder if you know why Hamas fires rockets at Israel? perhaps, just maybe, they believe just as strongly that they have a valid reason for doing so. perhaps, just maybe, there is something that Israel does to the people of Gaza that has upset them so much that they decided their only reaction is firing rockets into Israeli territory.

any ideas Frederick?

(btw just a thought, but your comments tend to get removed because you use graphic violent inappropriate foul language. go read their Moderation Policy, it's absolutely brilliant!)

Tue, 2012-11-20 19:21 — logico (not verified)

What is most uncanny is that the region around Gaza and Israel is politically unrecognisable from when Israel last marched into Gaza
However the Israeli policies viz a viz their unhappy neighbour and conversely the Palestinian, especially Gaza’s Hamas, approach to Israel is dominated by the most extreme maximalist zeal. Jewish settlers, who have entrapped their fellow Israelis, look towards the Western Walls for guidance, and the Islamist look towards the upper part of the Western Wall, the Rock of the Dome. The proximity of these symbols is the crux of the conflict.
Both are firm believers that their God has commanded them to cleanse their land for His people. Their firebrand passion is unmatched by any other political force.
Gone the days of building a society which could accommodate “the” other.
The secular leaders have no choice but to chant from the same hymn-book and appear to accommodate God’s firebrand followers.
The Middle East could only emerge from this quagmire “when and if” those two extreme positions weaken and drain themselves. An unlikely process in the forciable future.
Which bring me back to the beginning: Has the rest of the Middle East caught up with the extreme logic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
My only advice for those unwilling to take side is to take cover.

Tue, 2012-11-20 16:44 — mike cobley (not verified)

Blockade against Gaza from the sea is pointless, so lift it - allow Gazans to build some kind of real economy with fishing as one building block. Then there is the gas in the seabed off Gaza - careful contracting and husbanding of financial benefits could lead to a complete stepchange for the people of Gaza and other Palestinians.

Gaza is being maintain as a cage, so when it stops being a cage and becomes a good place for people to live and work, changes for the better will start to happen. And not before.