Friday 30 January 2015

The Lords on Palestine

Yesterday the TV happened to be switched to “Parliament”. Before reflexively switching channels I spotted the word Palestine rolling across the bottom of the screen, so I turned up the sound.
Needless to say I kind of wish I hadn’t. It made me feel voyeuristic and angry all at once. You know when you see people rubbernecking as they drive past a motorway smack-up, sort of morbidly fascinated and revolted? Well. 
Car crash?  I suppose no-one was actually hurt. Not physically.

On the surface it looked like a bunch of doddery old geezers trying to read aloud off trembly sheaves of paper. Some made half hearted attempts to dramatise their homily, you know, act it out with supplementary vocal expression, like a troupe of geriatric Fiona Bruces. 

The weirdest thing was that each speech was completely independent.  Unlike a normal debate, in which opponents tackle and try to demolish each other’s argument, after which the opposition gets a chance to redress the balance with rapier-like counter-arguments, his Lord and Ladyships just ignored everything that had gone before and carried on reiterating abject nonsense, regardless. 

I do now see, if that’s the normal M.O. of the House of Lords, or the House of Commons, or western style democracy, no wonder people are asking whether any of it performs a useful function. 

There was only one speaker, Baroness Deech, who seemed to realise that, in respect of the Israel Palestine scenario, we’re talking about a ‘western style’ democracy versus a corrupt, duplicitous, Islamic fundamentalist, antisemitic, chaotic ungovernable shambles.

Never mind. What ever truths she had to deliver floated past the rest of them like celestial petals off a cherub’s back.

Every single one of the other speakers obviously regarded the Palestinian people as though they were as rational and well-meaning as, say, citizens of Ambridge. Well, perhaps a poor analogy, as I don’t listen to the Archers. We’re talking about the Middle East, not East Cheam.

Even though some knew that the Palestinians were ‘not quite ready’ to run a proper state, and that making unilateral bids, preempting, subverting and undermining negotiations was not necessarily going to bring about  the Shangri-la they all  foresee, they carried on as if it were.  “Everyone in this house would agree”  people kept saying, "that all everyone here wants to see" is:
 “Two States, Side-by-Side, in secure and sustainable borders”
 ..and the buuzzin of the bees and the cigarette trees, the soda water fountain - the lemonade springs and the blue-bird sings in the big rock candy mountain I thank you.

They’d have more chance of resurrecting Burl Ives than creating such a state, unless the problems with Islamic fundamentalism magically melt away. 
.....when the mail train stops/ And there ain't no cops/And the folks are tender-hearted. Where you never change your socks/ And you never throw rocks/And your hair is never parted’

That’s when.

The motion was the brainchild of former Liberal Party leader David Steel, aka Lord Steel of Aikwood. Needless to say he considers himself  a friend of Israel, but was president of “the excellent charity Medical Aid to the Palestinians” and has been part of a delegation to the Middle East, and been snubbed by Israel’s then PM Begin “because he disapproved of the fact that in Damascus we had had the temerity to have a meeting with Yassir Arafat, the leader of the PLO.” And of course he’s been to Gaza. They all have.

That’s just to illustrate  the ‘temper’ of Lord Steel’s razor-sharp cutting edge steeliness.

The fact that many of the Lords had been on parliamentary delegations to the Middle East, shmoozed by CAABU, been presented with extreme anti-Israel and pro Palestinian propaganda and thoroughly groomed by Pro Palestinian political activists might shed a light on the prevailing wind in that there semi deserted, red leather chamber.

Even the noble Lords who attempted to put ‘the other side’ believed the settlements were illegal under international law and were an insurmountable obstacle to peace, which they quite happily equated with the Palestinians’ immovable refusal to recognise Israel. 

Lord Pannick (don’t!) was on the ball: 
On the Palestinian side, which of course we are debating today,instead of the distraction of grandstanding international gestures, Palestinians need unequivocally to accept that the State of Israel is here to stay. They must give up the notion of a right to live in Haifa or Be’er Sheva. They need to throw away the schoolbooks that demonise Jews and deny that the Holocaust occurred, and unequivocally to condemn the attacks from Gaza and the suicide bombers, who are responsible for the blighting of the lives of other Palestinians, which we have heard about today. Perhaps most of all, they need to recognise that Israel, for all its faults—and which society does not have faults?—has much to teach Palestinians, if only they would listen, about how a society born out of tragedy can promote free speech, democracy, the rule of law, scientific and literary achievements and, yes, prosperity for its people, with standards achieved in very few other places in the world, and of course none in theMiddle East, all in the 66 years since its creation—a quite astonishing achievement in the most difficult of circumstances, surrounded by people who wish to destroy you. 

Of course this went over the heads of the majority of the noble lords and ladies, especially those wearing the headscarf. 

Several of the Muslim and quasi Muslim Ladies made mawkishly rambling speeches, and Lord Pannick was followed by Baroness Warsi, who has been there, done that and got the Caabu T shirt. Not only that, but she has had a heart-to-heart with some Israelis! Not just any Israelis, but special, ‘Breaking the Silence’ Israelis.
 They wanted neither praise for their bravery, nor sympathy for the abuse they receive in Israel for speaking out. They simply wanted us to be informed about the reality of the occupation— which has so changed the landscape of the Occupied Territories: the territorial area which, according to the 1993 Oslo accords, would be the future state of Palestine. In 1993 there were 110,000 settlers in the Occupied Territories. There are now 400,000 settlers—and more than 500,000 if we include Jerusalem.”
If Baroness Warsi is particularly interested in expanding populations, she might also have mentioned the fact that the original Palestinian Arabs displaced in 1948, numbering approximately 750,000, who use their refugee status to demand the right of return to what is now Israel, presently stands at over 4,000,000.

Baroness Hussein-Ece, a Lib Dem added to the nightmarishness of the debate:
“The continuing expansion of illegal settlements that we have heard about is a flagrant violation of international law. All that has contributed to the loss of Palestinian confidence in the peace process. More and more people in the United Kingdom and across the world have grown tired and outraged as we have witnessed terrible suffering. Anyone with an ounce of human sympathy was absolutely sickened by what we saw in the war last summer, when thousands of innocent people, including 500 children, were killed and schools and hospitals were blown up. This was abhorrent to us all.”

After muttering something about tolerance and British values this Baroness obviously saw no need to include anything more than unadulterated anti-Israel rhetoric in her offering. 

Nearly all the good lords seem to have been chairmen of Medical Aid for Palestinians. Nearly all of them said they had ‘been to Gaza.’ It’s like going to Disneyland, something you have to do once in your life. Or not.

Lord Green of Deddington,  or was that Lord Dead of Greenington? has been there and done that.  He’s worried about Palestinian, Muslim and Arab frustration. 
“We can no longer disregard the pressures building up in the Arab and Muslim world, with their inevitable implications for our own society. The time for movement on this issue is now.”
Is that the terrorism he’s afearin’? On home ground?

Lord Winston made several sentient points. 
“I was very surprised to hear the right reverend Prelate talk about the status of Christians in Israel; after all, in Israel Christians are protected in a way that they are not in any other part of the Middle East, so it was a shock to me that he felt the way that he did.”
Quite so.
“I think that there are few people in this Chamber who read Arabic; I know that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, does. Anyone who does will know that since 1948, six and seven year-olds have been subjected to the worst kind of anti-Semitism in the writings they are given in their schools—far worse than anything that the Nazis put out at the time of Auschwitz. We have to say that that really is a very serious problem.”

His speech was followed by Baroness Tonge who has a special interest in this subject, though she selflessly confessed that she could read neither Hebrew nor Arabic.  (As if one needed Hebrew just to make sure the Israelis were’t indoctrinating their children in a similarly demented fashion)

“In the mean time, the reconstruction of Gaza, paid for by the international community following the murderous war in the summer, is being obstructed by the Government of Israel. Gaza festers and anger is building. I wonder what the Palestinians should do next.” 

What is a gel to do, but put on a suicide vest?
“The continuing injustice to the Palestinians and the hypocrisy of the West in regard to international law have sown the seeds of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, and we are now seeing the consequences.”
Islamic fundamentalism is our fault by the way.

Lord Farmer said:
How can Israel be safe and secure when Palestine is committed to its destruction? Further, I have grave concerns that this would be a state that violated the human rights of minorities living within its borders to practise their religion freely. The recognition of Palestine, without a negotiated settlement with security for adherents of all faiths at its foundation, would exacerbate the already precarious situation for Christians in the Palestinian territories, and especially in Gaza. Under Hamas, the official religion of Gaza is Islam, the country exercises sharia law, and the expression of other religions is challenged. “

Water off my lords’ back once again.  

Baroness Uddin.
 “Let us recognise the historic initiative of the unity Government formed last summer in Palestine, which finally brought together the divided factions of Hamas and Fatah. Now is the time to take the initiative to put an end to decades of human suffering and apartheid. Let us not find that, through our inaction, we have contributed to a process of ethnic cleansing, continued deprivation and inhumanity in the Middle East. It is already an almost impossible prospect to consider the relocation of the 550,000 illegal Israeli settlers who now occupy Palestinian land. What shall we do when this number becomes 1 million? It is time for us to stop dragging our feet and to stand on the right and just side of history”

A few extra thousand Israel settlers in the space of just a few moments! Never mind, now that the divided factions are but one,  all that ethnic cleansing, deprivation and inhumanity could be a thing of the past, if only we’d stop dragging our feet.  Is Baroness Uddin a real live fairy godmother?

Lord Gold said:
In its 1988 charter, Hamas, which controls Gaza, called for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine in place of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel. That demand has never changed. On that issue, Hamas has been and remains uncompromising. All here want peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Most would support the two-state solution, but this is not the way to achieve it. Just as we are debating here, in this mother of Parliaments, the proposition—
Here he was interrupted by Lord Dykes, who asked him somewhat rudely,  to get on with it.

Baroness Deech gave a speech that demonstrated much more than a superficial understanding of the situation. It merits full reproduction.
6.45 pm Baroness Deech (CB): My Lords, with unfortunate timing, this debate is taking place two days after International Holocaust Remembrance Day. In the 70 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, despite the millions spent on Holocaust education and remembrance, the museums and memorials and the school visits to concentration camps, there is a gap in memory and education that needs to be bridged. The desire and opportunity to murder 6 million people of a different religion whose presence on his territory the murderer resents must not arise again.
The message Jews took from the Holocaust was that their nationalism was necessary. It has been a success. Israel is not Saudi Arabia; it is not North Korea, Iran or Pakistan. It is a flourishing and democratic outpost in the desert with an astonishing record. It is a safe haven, an imperative for existence that can be applied to no other country in the world. 
Yasser Arafat declared an independent state of Palestine in 1988 and recognition followed from 100 states. The subsequent failure to change anything on the ground demonstrates the truth of the international law on recognition: namely, that statehood has to be founded in fact, not in numbers of recognitions. 

As far as this Motion goes, almost every word of it is dubious. There can be no contribution towards a two-state solution because recognition of Palestine, falsely based, will only make the situation more dangerous. There can be no two-state solution unless Palestine recognises Israel, which she has steadfastly refused to do. There is no statehood attaching to Palestine in international law because it does not meet the criteria.
 A sovereign state of a Muslim Palestine has never existed—not before 1948, and not before 1967. It was Egyptian and Jordanian territory. Ehud Olmert’s offer of a state was rejected in 2009. The intention of many of the players in the region has always been the elimination of a Jewish presence in the area, not the establishment of yet one more Muslim state. The problem with Israel is not that it has displaced anyone; according to its neighbours, the problem is that its population is largely Jewish. The practical result of a premature state of Palestine would simply be to free up the import of arms into the new state. The aim underlying this move is the takeover of Israel. Why is there no preparation by the Palestinians for statehood? There is no governance structure, no independent administration, no industrialisation andno negotiation of trade agreements with its neighbour, Israel. The state would not be a state in any recognisable form. Its leaders have declared that the current residents, whose status as refugees defies all logic, would remain defined as refugees. They would not be granted citizenship, nor would the state of Palestine open its doors to the Palestinian diaspora—those Palestinians whose miserable lives in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region are worse than the lives of those in Gaza and the West Bank. It has also declared that it would be a Judenrein state, unlike the 1.8 million Arab residents of Israel who have chosen to stay there. 
So if a state has no citizens, and will not grant them citizenship in defiance of international law, what would it be for? It would be for a closer jumping-off point for the demolition of the State of Israel in pursuance of the alleged right of return. As other noble Lords have said, Fatah and Hamas want a one-state solution. Why should Israel recognise Palestine if there is no reciprocity but only a step towards elimination in return? In the climate of extremism that is sweeping Europe, why should a country want to take a step that risks feeding it more? The only purpose is manipulative—to allow Palestinians to pursue claims against Israel at the UN and other international bodies. In the face of what is happening in Europe, what agenda do the proponents serve? Would it not be a good idea to examine the excesses of this position and turn to state building on the ground as an alternative? Israel’s antagonists often accuse her of apartheid. In the worst times of genuine apartheid in South Africa, Mandela was planning his future independent country’s constitution, educating its leaders, preaching peace, not vengeance, and acting as a statesman. In the early days of Zionism, before statehood, the Jewish residents of what was to be Israel prepared their governance structure, set up the organs of a state, created universities, made the desert bloom, prepared a legal system and a free press, trade unions, hospitals and charities. None of this is present in the Palestinian leadership; nothing is readied. It is not a state under international law, but I have no time to describe that. The worst element, of course, is that the residents will not be citizens but will be regarded as refugees whose aim is to return to a different state—Israel—rather than establishing citizenship in their own state, and the new state would be wholly dependent on international funds. For it to be recognised now—by the General Assembly, for example—would simply send the message to every other non-state entity in the world, such as the Basque country, Northern Cyprus, the Kurds and even Scotland, to bypass normal laws and claim to be a state. Let there be a two-state solution by all means if the Palestinians will create a homeland, accept the refugees, lay down their arms and be a country of peace.

In general there was overwhelming disapproval of Israel’s PM Netanyahu, collective condemnation of the settlements and an uncanny blindness to the failings of the PA, Abbas, almost unanimous ignorance of the underlying obstacle to peace and total reluctance to face the fact that one of the parties in the conflict consists of Islamist nationalists who can only agree on one thing. Their visceral loathing of Jews with the long-term desire to eliminate Israel. 

In the circumstances there are only two foreseeable versions of peace between Israel and ‘Palestine’. 
One. Palestine adopts an Assad-like dictator who is strong enough to keep a lid on the turbulent populace, using UN or other funding as a peacekeeping lever. 
Or, the Palestinian option of choice, the kind of peace envisaged by the actual Palestinian leadership, when picturing their ideal world, a contiguous Islamic state with no more Israel.

Whether either of these options would in fact constitute Peace is a question unlikely to be addressed by the noble Lords.

The summing up was done at great length by Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) who employed bizarre equations, weighing up bits of one argument and pitting them against what he saw as the counter argument; for example: 
Several noble Lords have asked: “How can Israel negotiate with a Palestinian Government that includes Hamas? Palestinians have to accept Israel’s right to exist. Schoolbooks promote hate”—and so on. There are problems on both sides. There are those within the Israeli Government who deny the right of a state of Palestine to come into being, who want to have a single state. There is hate language in some elements of Israel, as well as in Palestine. There are problems on both sides. We must recognise that and deal with it. We must deal with it very carefully in the middle of a rumbustious Israeli election campaign. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, said, both sides must negotiate in good faith, and that needs people on both sides— including some of the more right-wing  Israeli parties—to change their rhetoric and approach. 

So on the one hand  Palestinian children are subjected to the Hamas Bunny and taught to glorify martyrdom but on the other, the reassuring news that there are ‘problems on both sides’.  Some Israelis use ‘hate language’. Oh dear. 

Then there’s this crazy assumption, presumption even, that ‘we’ must ‘deal’ with this. 
At the beginning of this post I said the noble  Lords reminded me of a bunch of irrelevant old duffers. But they weren’t all old, and as it is, they’re unfortunately less irrelevant than they ought to be.

Baroness Morgan of Ely, a Welsh lady, looked youthful, and some of her  platitudinous observations were  positively infantile. “Building bridges” was a constant theme.
We should promote economic co-operation in a very practical way, and we should do more with the near and more distant neighbours as a stimulus to security and economic development”

Building a more vibrant economy must surely be part of the answer.”

We must encourage all Palestinians to take the path of politics, reject the path of violence, and rekindle hopes that there is a credible route to a viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel which can be achieved through negotiations.”

Go on, g’wan, g’wan then. Do that, then.

The Israelis must act in accordance with international law. They cannot colonise other people’s land, deny them a contiguous economic territory, and build barriers on that land.
The Palestinians on their part must take active steps, if necessary with regional neighbours, to stop terrorist attacks, and should unify in a political authority in a form which renounces terrorism. Palestinians must recognise the right of Israel to exist as a permanent entity within secure borders”

Good idea! Bravo. Naughty step for both until you can be friends.

What has this got to do with the BBC? Well apart from the occasional educational trip to Gaza and paid-for parliamentary sightseeing delegation hosted by Caabu, we’ve got the BBC to educate and inform us.  That’s what we get.

Here's Baroness Deech's speech, now posted on YouTube.


  1. It appears from your posting that only Jewish peers were prepared to stand up and oppose this motion and, moreover, point out the fatuousness of the whole faux-debate. This is a criticsm, not of them, but of the contribution of those peers supporting the motion who apparently are motivated simply by dislike of Jews. In that group I would include all Moslem peers (whose sacred book describes and advocates the killing of Jews) and the more "sophisticated" anti-semitism of the LibDems. The LibDem distaste (to put ot mildly) for Jews generally hides under an "anti-Israel" veneer but occasionally breaks cover when, for instance, Baroness Tonge reveals her "Protocols of Zion" mindset at the drop of a Palestinian hat.
    As you imply, the BBC doesn't help here. It's demonisation of Israel together with the endless inaccuracies and lacunae in its reportage concerning the Middle East feed the fertile soil of Moslem Jew-hatred in the UK and, worse, normalises social and political anti-semitism in Britain.

  2. Umbongo,
    Thanks for the comment.

    “I didn’t know you were Jewish” said everyone, erroneously, to Richard Littlejohn when he told them he was making ‘The War on Britain’s Jews’ It’s a circular, kind of self-fulfilling prophesy that only Jews have the temerity to speak up for themselves and / or Israel.

    On a similar theme I noticed that the Muslim ‘Ladies’ in particular hardly felt the need to explain why they thought the motion was in any way politically helpful. I don’t expect they had even bothered to think it through beyond the knee-jerk stage. A straightforward tirade against Israel was enough for them. It’s what they assumed they could get away with. (and they were right)

    I do blame the BBC for the general level of ignorance demonstrated by the noble lords.

  3. Yes the BBC is certainly to blame here. However, blame goes beyond its skewed delivery of information. I would say that the BBC bears some responsibility for the very poverty of debate that you noticed in both Lords and Commons.
    The BBC's endemic tilt to Labour contributed to the lack of public criticism (or even knowledge) concerning major constitutional change in both Houses post Labour's 1997 victory. These included the dumbing down of the Lords (which goes hand in hand with the wholesale handing out of peerages to the politically biddable, the corrupt and the ignorant; Baroness Uddin, for instance, qualifies under all three headings) and the self-immolation of the Commons when Robin Cook changed the standing rules of the House in 2001 so that all debates are now routinely guillotined.
    These changes occurred with AFAIAA little discussion or even remark at the BBC; if mentioned, the BBC mouthpiece concerned could be relied on to welcome the "overdue reforms" with approbation. I don't recall any serious discussion at the time on the BBC (or anywhere else to be fair) concerning the possible effects of such changes.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.