Skip to main content

Israel must take heed of its friends - William Hague was right to differ from Israel’s government over the expansion of settlements

israel palestine conflict
Close friends and allies: Prime Minister David Cameron shaking hands with Israeli Ambassador to Britain, Daniel Taub  Photo: EPA
Few countries are closer allies of Israel than Britain. The two are united not only by their shared efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear programme, but by shared values: Israel, unlike so many states in the Middle East, is a rumbustious parliamentary democracy, where every point of view – from Zionist nationalism to pan-Arab Baathism – finds its noisy place.
So when Britain differs from Israel’s leaders, we should do so only in the spirit of candid friendship. And sadly, William Hague was right to differ from Israel’s government on the vital question of the expansion of settlements on occupied land.
It is true that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, had good reason to feel affronted by the Palestinian Authority’s successful bid for upgraded status at the United Nations. Instead of helping to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, this piece of political theatre risks creating yet another obstacle to genuine peace talks. But the Israeli leader’s policy of diplomatic and political retaliation could allow Israel’s opponents to portray the country, unfairly, as permanently snarling, defensive and aggrieved.
Mr Netanyahu may have been within his rights to withhold £75 million of tax revenues from the Palestinian Authority, although that decision is bound to weaken Mahmoud Abbas’s cash-strapped administration further by comparison with Hamas. But he was completely wrong to undermine the chances of the “two-state solution” by promising another 3,000 settler homes in the occupied territories – and allowing planning to begin in the highly sensitive area known as “E1”. Any construction on this vital strip of land would sever the West Bank from East Jerusalem, thereby rendering a viable Palestinian state almost impossible to achieve. To have withdrawn Britain’s ambassador from Tel Aviv, as was briefly mooted, would have been a gratuitous piece of grandstanding. But Mr Hague had to make clear how frustrating it can be to be Israel’s friend these days.
In Mr Netanyahu’s defence, there is doubtless an element of electoral posturing to his behaviour. He remains the only Israeli leader to have imposed a settlement freeze – a partial 10-month moratorium in 2010 designed to restart peace talks – and the only head of the Right-wing Likud party to have endorsed the case for a Palestinian state. Having taken those courageous steps, he should follow the logic of his position. A peace settlement would give Israel recognised frontiers and allow the country to divest itself of four million Palestinians, guaranteeing its future as a democracy with a Jewish majority. Mr Netanyahu should be prepared to realise this vision.

Read the original article here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Siege - A Poem By Ahmad Faraz Against The Dictatorship Of Zia Ul Haq

Related Posts: 1.  Did Muhammad Ali Jinnah Want Pakistan To Be A Theocracy Or A Secular State? 2. The Relationship Between Khadim & Makhdoom In Pakistan 3. Battle for God; Battleground Pakistan - a time has finally come to call a spade a spade 4. Pakistan - Facing Contradictory Strategic Choices In An Uncertain Region 5. Pakistan, Islamic Terror & General Zia-Ul-Haq 6. Why Pakistan Army Must Allow The Democracy To Flourish In Pakistan & Why Pakistanis Must Give Democracy A Chance? 7. A new social contract in Pakistan between the Pakistani Federation and its components 8. Birth of Bangladesh / Secession of East Pakistan & The Sins of Our Fathers 9. Pakistan Army Must Not Intervene In The Current Crisis - Who To Blame For the Present Crisis in Pakistan ? 10. Balochistan - Troubles Of A Demographic Nature

India: The Terrorists Within

A day after major Indian cities were placed on high alert following blasts in the IT city of Bangalore, as many as 17 blasts ripped through Ahmedabad, capital of the affluent western Indian state of Gujarat . Some 30 people were killed, some at hospitals where bombs were timed to go off when the injured from other blasts were being brought in. (Later, in Surat, a center for the world's diamond industry, a bomb was defused near a hospital and two cars packed with explosives were found in in the city's outskirts.) Investigators pointed fingers at the usual Islamist suspects: Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Bangladesh- based Harkat-ul Jihadi Islami (HUJI) and the indigenous Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). But even as the police searched for clues, the Ahmedabad attacks were owned up by a group calling itself the " Indian Mujahideen. " Several TV news stations received an email five minutes before the first blasts in Ahmedabad. The message repo

Mir Chakar Khan Rind - A Warrior Hero Of Baluchistan & Punjab Provinces of Pakistan

By Sikander Hayat The areas comprising the state of Pakistan have a rich history and are steeped in the traditions of martial kind. Tribes which are the foundation stone of Pakistan come from all ethnic groups of Pakistan either they be Sindhi, Balochi, Pathan or Punjabi. One of these men of war & honour were Mir Chakar Khan Rind. He is probably the most famous leader coming out of Baloch ethnic group of Pakistan. Mir Chakar Khan Rind or Chakar-i-Azam (1468 – 1565 ) was a Baloch king and ruler of Satghara in (Southern Pakistani Punjab) in the 15th century. He is considered a folk hero of the Baloch people and an important figure in the Baloch epic Hani and Sheh Mureed. Mir Chakar lived in Sibi in the hills of Balochistan and became the head of Rind tribe at the age of 18 after the death of his father Mir Shahak Khan. Mir Chakar's kingdom was short lived because of a civil war between the Lashari and Rind tribes of Balochistan. Mir Chakar and Mir Gwaharam Khan Lashari, hea