When you look at Israels past history its a wonder that anyone supports them but as the latest war against Palestine grows we hear the two usual suspects, the US and the UK, providing the diplomatic cover for what they are doing.
As the Israeli interior minister comes out with quotes such as 'we plan to bomb Gaza back into the Middle Ages', US President Barack Obama 'reiterated US support for Israel's right to self-defence in light of rocket attacks from Gaza' and the British Government claim that Hamas 'bears principle responsibility for the Israeli attacks on Gaza' and 'creating an intolerable situation for Israeli civilians in southern Israel, who have the right to live without fear of attack'.
I have asked before just what does America get out of continuing to back a country that acts with such disregard for human life while blatantly defying every UN security council ruling against them, continuing an illegal occupation of another people and hands out collective punishment to the Gazan's and the answer seemed to be political.
America has a lot of religious voters and no President can afford to lose the backing of the 75% of Conservative Christians who strongly support the Jews.
That explains America's dizzying refusal to condemn Israel but the UK hasn't got a big religious block vote so why not join the rest of the World and condemn Israel when it uses its superior military against an already battle scarred Gaza?
David Cameron's words justifying Israeli aggression on the Palestinians on grounds of self-defence seems a bit thin when you consider Israel is a country of 7.5 million people with tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, helicopter gunships and F-16s and F-18s, plus 400 nuclear warheads set against the Gaza which is a small occupied territory of 1.7 million which has no heavy weaponry except some largely ineffectual rockets.
The Palestinians are heavily criticised when they fire their rockets into Israel but when Israel seize land and building settlements on it, defy UN resolutions, kill innocent Palestinians with rocket attacks, hold over 9000 Palestinians in its prisons, destroy farms, bulldoze homes and businesses, builds a monstrous wall deemed illegal by the international court of justice amongst numerous other violations involving war crimes, it is all quiet from the UK and US.
Not that the attacks on Palestine have ever really ended, an Israeli gun-ship shot and killed a teenage boy playing football last week which escalated the rocket attacks from Gaza which allowed the Israeli side to launch their latest adventure into Gaza, but in the last full scale incursion in 2008, the United Nations found the IDF guilty of using Palestinian children as human shields, deliberate bombing of civilian houses and UN buildings and targeting innocent civilians.
The enquiry rejected Israel's argument that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence, instead, it found the war was 'a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population'.
So what is in it for the UK to stand by such a nation with such a terrible record, especially as it is actually seeking the removal of the Syrian and Iranian Government who have no such black marks on their record?
Even in it's own backyard, Israel is disliked and distrusted by it's neighbours and is very much a pariah in the Middle East and is blamed for most of the tensions in the area. There is no political leverage we gain from such an alliance and by standing by Israel we attract even more vitriol from the other countries in the Middle East. It's military is one of the strongest in the World so it isn't in any danger of being wiped off the map and there is no oil in Israel and no other natural resources that we need so again, i am stumped on what we can get from being so intrinsically linked to a small country virtually the same size as Wales.
It not only seems morally wrong for the UK Government to back Israel while it goes about its deadly business of bombing the Palestinians back to the Middle Ages but it gives us a real headache with our allies in the area and has no military, financial or political benefit so why are we doing it?
While most of the World find it hard to unearth any likable quality about Israel, the only conclusion i can find for the UK's wrong headed backing for Israel is that America backs Israel and once again we are running along behind it wagging our tail like a good little puppy.
15 comments:
What's the reasonable alternative for Israel then?
Lucy,
you make things so complex with all of your... notions...
Geez. Israel gives any nation military access to 3 CONTINENTS!!!
In addition, to control the Mediterrainian Sea you have to control the East and West ends... Israel is on the East end.
simple enough for you?
q
What's the reasonable alternative for Israel then? How about anything other than carrying on doing what they have been doing for the past 60 years with no success. Maybe i should clarify that. No success for peace or for Palestine but Israel has gained much from its carrying on which goes some way to exp-lain why they are in no rush for any peace at all, they are quite happy for the status quo to continue.
What's so complex about it? America backs Israel due to the religious vote in America, we established that a long time ago here on one of these posts. The UK seems to back America regardless so we repeat parrot fashion what Obama said.
Is that simple enough for you?
it does not have anything to do with religious vote. that is clueless... 8 or 9 out of 10 americans dont even go to church.
of the voters
48% voted for a mormon
52% voted for whatever obama is
50% did not even vote
q
It was the posters. mostly your fellow American, here back in the day who reached that conclusion.
oh then that makes it conclusive!
david g's freaky followers (all 14 of them) think they are changing america.
q
Lucy, this is an excellent article. Take no notice of the infantile comments from the U.S. peanut gallery.
Israel, like America, is a nation of child killers. Neither country is worth a hill of beans.
If they disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow, the world would be a better place.
And so would Australia and the U.K.
Governments, like every other institution, tend to do what's in their interest to do.
In this case, the party strategists have worked out - correctly, I would say - that their base would be more offended by a pro-Palestinian policy than by a pro-Israeli one. It's certainly less controversial, because it's what we've all come to expect anyway.
So: less political risk, fewer votes potentially lost.
Add to this the fact that the Tories' backers in the corporate sphere would tend to favour the current policy too... Sure there are Arab backers who contribute to the Tories' coffers too, but these people wouldn't usually have too much interest in the Palestinian plight either.
As always q, i bow to the experience and wisdom of the people living it.
THe UK has tied its star to the US for a while now David, makes us feel like we are still important.
Makes sense Cheezy, a strategic decision to avoid upsetting their voters.
i don't disagree with cheezy's point. as he likes to point out recently there is almost always more than one mitigating force at play.
still, somewhere deep in the bowels of our government, regardless of political party, the leaders end up doing what is thought best for the nation - not what the undisciplined, uneducated, unaware, emotional electorate thinks...
q
Still, somewhere deep in the bowels of our government, regardless of political party, the leaders end up doing what is thought best for the nation - not what the undisciplined, uneducated, unaware, emotional electorate thinks...
This piece of nonsense was contributed by Q (who else?).
The first part suggests, incorrectly, that the politician in either party does what is best for the American nation. The truth is that the politicians do the bidding of the Corporation, the Banksters, the multi-billionaires, the Oligarchs and the Jewish Lobby.
The second part insults most citizens in the U.S. and accuses them of being undisciplined, uneducated, unaware, and emotional.
That this comes from a person who can't spell, is highly emotional, and is totally unaware of the danger his country poses to the whole world because of its imperialism (a word which he doesn't understand the meaning of) is a bit rich!
Of course, that is what Q wishes for more than anything else: being rich.
It's a shame that those who are rich won't have anything to do with him!
I actually agree with some of David's point here. It's just a pity he can't express himself without being a prick. The little man's still got such a long way to go...
The way I see it is that the executive component of government in our mutual democracies (and I'm including the US, UK and Australia in this) are frequently - though not always - pushed towards pursuing policies that are not in the long-term national interest, but instead, are in the interests of corporates and powerful vested interest groups, which divide along completely different lines than national boundaries do.
The cynicism involved with this, is that feelings of nationalism and parochialism are often activated in order to gain public support these self-same policies, which don't ultimately benefit the majority at all. For two local examples, how about Thatcher's war against organised labour in the 80s (and subsequent diminution of the UK's industrial capacity) or Blair's support of the Iraq invasion?... Or Gordon Brown selling all of our gold? That was in the interests of the people who bought it from us, and for nobody else. There are many, many more examples.
This is not to say that a great many people are not motivated to enter political life with noble ambitions. But it's the norm for these ambitions to gradually become tempered by the exigencies of gaining and then retaining power. Remember Cameron campaigning with his 'anti-spin' agenda, saying it was the end of that kind of thing. Well, he's just hired the political strategist/ bullshit-artist Lynton Crosby!... NB: Q- he's like James Carville or Karl Rove, only much less principled and nowhere near as likeable.
dg - for the record i am not rich and i have never done the things i need to do to become rich. my income is equal to that of two public school teachers and i take the standard deduction on my annual federal income taxes.
- 65% of americans get diviorced.
- 80% do not have a college degree.
- 90% have inadequate net worth to retire at age 62.
- 70% are very overweight.
- 60% of women have a prescription for pain and another for depression.
I think the data speaks for itself...
was my spelling better this time? your condition has not improved any...
cheezy - i don't disagree with what you said. we do disagree about what is best for a nation.
every nation is founded on its economy. in a republic the special interest groups and businesses are supposed to be looking out for their needs... supposedly that means helping the poor become middle class, the uneducated schooled, etc. geez, we've spent a $15 trillion dollars trying to help people get out of poverty. we've imposed quotas for hiring minorities and women. give me a break...
q
I think it's very nice, the close relationship between Q and Cheezy.
I mean, if they put both their I.Q.s together they almost get to 100.
I won't discuss which one is the brighter because the difference is negligible.
Of course, if you put their personalities together you get something that resembles a large, thick fence post: useful but entirely uneventful!
I send my love to them knowing that they need each other!
wow dg, you cut to the bone... you do a lot better being a jerk when you don't try... just be natural bro...
q
Post a Comment