Top of the agenda ..."Palestine"

Apparently, somewhere in the Telegraph, it says: “When submitting motions/discussions for conference CLP's voted Palestine top of the agenda above any domestic problems the UK may be having.”

Indeed, the first thing the ‘Labour gov’ment’ will do, announced the Grand Wizard of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to Israel -- is “recognise the State of Palestine”.

Standing ovation. 

That was further evidenced by the BBC’s Vicky Young who was stationed outside the auditorium to question people as they streamed out, after Jeremy Corbyn’s conference speech.

“What impressed you most about what dear leader said in his speech?” she asked (not verbatim)

“Palestine!” came the reply from several ecstatic Corbynites. 

If she had further enquired “Why?”  I suppose the answer  would be something like “Because of what Israel is doing.”  

Here’s a comment from Harry’s Place regular “Anton Deque” which captures the mood.

(I do hope Mr Deque doesn’t mind me stealing the whole thing)

“It is emblematic and damning that the issue of Israel and Palestine obsessing Labour (sic) has absolutely no daily impact on the lives of millions in the United Kingdom who are in the tenth year of Austerity. Dramatic rises in rough sleepers, street begging, 'hot sofa' homeless young people and the impact of economic migration mean less than casting pointless votes on matters outside the competence of any likely future government. But it also illustrates better than any other fact the absolute chasm that now exists between Corbyn's Troto-Labour and its enthusiasm to exploit Islamic detestation of Jews and the real and pressing daily problems affecting the working class the Labour Party was founded to defend. 

Nothing could be more explicit nor irrelevant to the lives of no wage and low wage people here who need hope. It is, however, utterly defining of the theocracy of the far left: World Revolution, continuous, begins, unsurprisingly to students of the far left, with the destruction of the Jews.”

Last word

My final word (I hope) on the HoC debate on the Palestinians’ bid for statehood. 

Over on Harry’s Place Sarah AB’s take on it has prompted several people to express sympathy with MP Richard Ottoway’s purportedly sorrowful confession that he’d lost faith in Israel when it chose to annex all that extra land in area C. People are saying that Israel makes it very difficult for her supporters when she constantly grants permission for more settlements.

 Well, supporting Israel is not easy. Why should it be?  It’s not likely to be easy. 

 “ The real friends of Israel are those that oppose the settler movement.” they say. “Israel is her own worst enemy!” 

Why? So that these real friends can say “Look everybody, Israel occupies the moral high ground?“

In these complex circumstances, support is not something you can just reserve for Israel on condition that, in the eyes of the world, it unfailingly occupies the moral high ground. If that were a condition, as soon as Israel defended itself in any way at all it would be jeopardising that position and sacrificing the appended support. A “moral high ground only” precondition for supporting a country at war is no support at all. 

How many times have you heard a ‘Palestine’ supporter saying “I was a staunch  supporter of the Palestinians until Abbas lost the moral high ground by colluding with Hamas. Or until Abbas stated that any future Palestinian state would be Jew free. Or until Abbas stopped honouring murderers by naming streets after them. Or in fact saying “I stopped supporting Abbas when he violated the Oslo agreement by making a unilateral bid for statehood. He blew it for me when he did that, and now I’m in favour of Israeli settlements.” 

No, you don’t hear that very often. Not ever. If you travelled all the way down Ottoway’s road you’d arrive at confining your support only to a passive Israel. An Israel that tolerates Hamas’s rockets, dismantles the barrier, eases the blockade, sacrifices a few citizens to a suicide bomber or two, and allows Palestinians to return their grannies’ former homes with their giant keys; one that lies down, rolls over and surrenders, and that’s the kind of Israel that would garner universal approval, without a doubt.

Rt Hon Sir Richard Ottaway MP Croydon South

I daresay there are perfectly legitimate arguments for settlement building, but in this climate who is listening? In fact I have heard several credible justifications for it, but even if one were to give the Israel-bashers full benefit of the doubt and concede that the Israeli government acts out of pure malice, defiance, to thumb their noses at the Palestinians and wrong-foot their own supporters, it pales into total insignificance beside the obstacles to peace that the Palestinians themselves put up, and which most of the world doggedly fails to acknowledge. 

What if Netanyahu were to impose his own set of preconditions? Supposing Netanyahu insisted that Israel cannot contemplate a two state solution until the P.A. and Hamas recognise Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state? Or, until the PA and Hamas put an end to incitement in all shapes and forms? Or if they agree to accept ‘normalisation‘  of Israeli / Palestinian relations? What if Israel refuses to negotiate till Hamas disbands, or puts down its arms, like the IRA had to, before going any further? 

If Israel put its supporters pride before the feelings of the Israeli public, Israel’s supporters would be delighted. If the Israeli government carefully considered how not to make its supporters look foolish when formulating policies instead of considering  the wishes and well-being of its own people, supporting Israel would be a doddle. Demanding that the Israeli government prioritise consideration of “us” in their policy-making is a truly weird definition of ‘true friendship’  

This is starting to look like an “Israel right or wrong” argument. It’s not really. I think I’m saying that Israel doesn’t have to be ‘seen to be right’ every single time it makes a move in order to 'deserve' continued support.  If, however Israel does something its supporters vehemently disagree with, they have a perfect right to say so, bearing in mind that doing so inevitably aids her enemies.

That’s how I see it at the moment, (written late last night) but I’m open to alternatives.

******** 

This morning.

Aah. I see the argument has opened up. A much broader spread of views below the line has popped in to the comments field overnight. I was going to steal from a comment (from  nitsanc  to Gene) which illustrates one of my points: (I paraphrase)

Elliott Abrams did a study that found that almost all of the building taking place is in areas that every peace proposal has envisioned staying within Israel. Why is building within those towns such a cause for outrage from people who claim to be pro Israel?
If they are pro Israel then they must be at least equally outraged when Palestinians build within areas that are envisioned to stay within Palestine, right? Calling the designating of state land ‘annexation’ and getting up in arms over building in certain areas shows no understanding of Israel. It buys into this notion of settlements, regardless of where they are, as some horrible war crime, when in fact almost every segment of Israeli society could never countenance giving those particular areas up.

Gene replies:

It doesn't matter. Settlement expansion is not essential to Israel's security and probably undermines it. Settlement expansion undercuts support for Israel even among its friends (and don't say Israel doesn't need friends like that). You can agree with most of what Netanyahu says and does while still understanding that.

To which:

I'll also point out, BTW, that Israel is the only one in this situation adhering to Oslo. While Oslo did not limit settlement construction, it did prohibit the moves made by both the Palestinians and now the International Community. Add to that the fact that Obama went back on Bush's commitments, what incentive does Israel have to trust any of these parties to abide by a future agreement? And what incentive do the Palestinians have to make any concessions?

I see that several of the other points I was trying out have been articulated by others while I was asleep. Instead of ranting further, I commend this estimable Harry’s Place thread  to the House.  

Bad day at the HoC

I’ve just spent the best part of the late afternoon and evening watching the debate in the HoC. Obviously, they voted in favour of recognising a Palestinian state. 

Why some MPs thought they had the right to opine on something they clearly knew next to nothing about let alone vote on it, is unclear. Several of them declared that they had been bombarded with e-mails from their constituents begging them to vote for the motion.

Why these constituents thought it was their business to opine on something they knew next to nothing about, let alone write e-mails imploring their MP to vote for it, is unclear. Well, let’s rephrase that. They didn’t know they knew nothing about it. It was an unknown unknown. In fact they thought they knew very much about it indeed, because they’d seen the pictures on the BBC. Seen the pictures, read the book and got the T shirt.

Your BBC has diligently brought them the information they were so keen to share with their MP, the pictures from Gaza. That’s all they  needed to know. Of course the BBC has also brought them several other Pollyanna-ish ideas, in particular, that Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate and a true partner for peace.  

The incursions into Gaza, the separation wall, the checkpoints, the bulldozing of innocent Palestinian homes, the brutality of Israel are all factors that these MPs, (though all ardent supporters of Israel’s right to exist) are some of the reasons why this vote is a no brainer.

Will it make any difference, they wondered, since it was not much more than a symbolic gesture?  Would it aid the peace process? Yes, they insisted. It would be honourable and it would make us proud.   

So, the atmosphere in the house was 'sanctimonious bear-pit'. An overwhelming number of the usual Palestinian activists were there, plus a number of new faces. New to me.

The architect of the motion, Labour MP Grahame Morris  and several other north-eastern and regional  MPs spoke of their support for Israel in the good old-fashioned ‘some of my best friends’ tradition, before hammering home their romantic, idealised, Disney-like empathy with the suffering of the Palestinians and their desire for a state, and their desire for peace, and Mahmoud Abbas’s desire for a statehood, and his desire for peace. 

Several self-declared actual Friends of Israel spent time outlining their long-standing Friends of Israel credentials before declaring that Israel has gone too far, lost their support,  built too many settlements, acted disproportionately, killed too many children, bombed too many schools, too may hospitals. 

People kept intervening with daft remarks. One old duffer stood up and said angrily that some Palestinians still had the keys to the front doors of homes they were savagely kicked out of in 48! 

Another stood up and said he’d watched The Gatekeepers on BBC 2 last night, proving that The Gatekeepers really did give succour to suckers. 

Two or three people demonstrated that they ‘got it’. Robert Halfon, Louise Ellman and Ian Paisley Jr.

Louise Ellman is not an effective speaker. Actually, very few MPs are these days. 

Robert Halfon was good, but while he was speaking there was some unsettling bleating going on in the background. 

Ian Paisley jr. began by thanking people for the kind condolences he’d received after the recent death of his father, which lent him a bit of respect. He also had the NI credentials of having ‘been there and done that.’ He spoke against the motion.

The above three and one other were fighting a losing battle. Misconceptions, untruths, historical inaccuracies myths and outright lies slipped smoothly by, one after another. 

Allusions were made to the Jewish Lobby, Sweden’s recent decision, 25 other countries had recognised a Palestinian state; all sorts of potential justifications for voting for the motion were put before the nation. 

But there was an elephant in the House, which no one spotted. Well, one man did, towards the end of the debate. Mike Gapes, a Labour MP who has recently voted in favour of ‘action against the Caliphate cult’  - he mentioned  the Islamist factor, the similarity between Isis, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc. But guess what, it didn’t matter, he too would be voting for parliament to recognise Palestinian statehood.

The thing was, though, that  most of the people who spoke insisted that they had taken an even-handed, purely logical approach. They were in favour of an peaceful solution, in which the Palestinians get self determination (their inalienable right) and Israel gets security. That’s all they want! - “We granted Israel statehood in 1950, so why shouldn’t we do the same for the Palestinians who have suffered for so long?

Why then, if they were purely motivated by a desire for fairplay and cricket, did most of them pepper their speeches with quite vitriolic outpourings against Israel?  

I’d like to give a special mention to Diane Abbot. Even though she said things I found deeply obnoxious, she was hilarious. Her hand-gestures -  sometimes whirling round and round, some times just flapping, were pure burlesque. Those rolling eyes. She’s so funny, but she’s starting to look like a guy in drag. She’d be a fab clown-o-gram; you could hire her for a party. Oh, she’s already at the Labour party.   

A few MPs recognised that Hamas are terrorists, but the consensus was that this symbolic gesture would ‘send a message’ to the cuddly Abbas, the moderate Palestinian leader whose only desire was for statehood alongside Israel, and that this recognition would take the wind out of Hamas’s sails, and everyone would live happily ever after. 

How, one might wonder, did they get it so wrong? 

BBC?

Update:

How did the BBC report yesterday’s debate this morning? 

“MPs voted 274 for the motion and 12 against, but so many MPs stayed away that the result is unlikely to change government policy.”

A more detailed review of these parliamentary antics came a bit later on, when listeners might have assumed that there had been an even-handed discussion. By singling out an equal number of quotes from each ‘side’, listeners who hadn’t watched the actual debate might have been puzzled to hear that there had been such a resounding yes vote.

Having watched it myself I had been wondering who the 12 naughty nay-sayers were, and I was reminded that early on in the debate, a notable speech against the motion was delivered by Sir Malcolm Rifkind. (How could I forget?) (That’s what comes of not taking notes.)

Another omission on my part. I forgot to say that several of the MPs who wished to drive home the point that they were doing this at the behest of their impassioned constituents brought up the well-attended anti-Israel demonstrations as evidence that the whole country is behind them. Not one of them had noticed, obviously, the chants of “Jews to the gas” etc.

I noticed that the BBC included a bizarre quote from the ever-weirder Gerald Kaufman, who was in favour of the motion because he didn’t want to see more antisemitism. “what Israel is doing is unJewish” he said. 

I won’t even start on that concept, its influences an implications.