Already a subscriber? Log in
As a point its is also worth noting that the terrorist groups which Israel is fighting call for her complete destruction and do not agree to the peace process at all. Therefore the war against them not only enhances the chances for peace, it also improves the chances of two sides negotiating for peace (ie. Palestinian and Israeli) and not one side standing over the ashes of the other (ie. Palestinian Islamic extremism over Israeli), which is what the charter of Hamas and Islamic Jihad call for.
Jason Douglas
According to Emma Williams “Most stories of the daily brutality against Palestinians are not reported by international witnesses” and only a tiny few “slip through” due, she implies, to some conspiracy of silence in the international press.
Funny that, because I seem to have heard and read stories of brutality by Israelis against Palestinians almost every day for the last few years. Who can count the number of times they have been shown on TV the shooting of the young Palestinian boy, Mohammed, shielded by his father on the television? Has a week gone by in the last 2-3 years in which the Guardian, the Independent and the BBC have not featured some highly critical piece about Israeli brutality in the territories?
Sorry, but whatever else it may be, the plight of the Palestinians can hardly be said to be under-reported. This is particularly so, when the conflict is compared to other equivalent conflicts, in Kashmir, or Tibet or Chechnya, where hundreds are killed and it scarcely makes teletext.
In fact, the brutal events reported, sometimes over-reported, in excruciating detail by the massive international media presence in the territories. What is under-reported, by contrast, is any context for the Israeli actions, any explanation of why the Israelis have been imposing curfews, building walls, killing militants. These are not motiveless acts of brutality. Nor are they gratuitous collective punishment. Rather, they are understandable, if sometimes disproportionate attempts, to protect Israelis from terrorist attacks. The intifada has caused the occupation, not the reverse. Any other country, facing the same terrorist onslaught of hundreds of suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks, would have done much the same. This leads to tragedy for both sides.
Bryan Simons
Comment on Road-map to Hell by Melanie Phillips (17/05/2003)
How did Melanie Phillips manage to miss the fact the Palestinians HAVE repeatedly acknowledged Israel’s right to exist, despite that fact Israel has never reciprocated?
How did she ignore that fact that last year’s Saudi peace proposal, which offered full recognition to Israel, was endorsed by the entire Arab world? That proposal called Sharon’s bluff, and he responded by sending the IDF rampaging through the Occupied Territories, demonstrating to all but the wilfully blind that Israel, not the Arab nations, is the primary obstacle to peace.
The proposed peace plan is indeed a “Road-map to Hell” since Israel will never implement any such plan in good faith. It is refreshing to see Israel admitting this time around that its racist, colonial project will no longer masquerade as a “peace process.”
Apologists like Melanie Phillips who persist in attempting to obscure the obvious and put the blame on the hapless Palestinians have their work cut out for them. Such spin will get ever more challenging, as even their pro-Israel allies dispense with the “peace process” ruse in favour or outright conquest.
Cheryl Hutchinson
Columbus, Ohio
Melanie Philips writes with so much anger and hatred of Arabs and Palestinians in her piece on ‘Road- Map to Hell’. She belittles Palestinian suffering which has included millions of them living either under a brutal occupation or being forced from their homeland.
I hope Melanie can one day understand that the slow genocide against the Palestinians and their culture is what is fuelling much of the anger and hatred towards Israel. Israel is a country whose policies are so against the values we hold dear in the ‘West’, yet these policies still have much support from pro-Zionists living in the ‘West’. This results in a biased approach, in favour of Israel, to so-called peace making efforts e.g. Israel has never been penalised for continuous settlement building.
The ‘West’ appears to be the only force capable of halting the suffering, by imposing peace. Thus, Western pro-Zionists, like Melanie need to realise this and get on the peace bandwagon. Otherwise we are in danger of maintaining the status quo, where pro-Zionists visions – driven by those thousands of miles away in the safety of the ‘West’ – are creating not more, but less security for those in the thick of it.
Zaheer Ahmed
Melanie Phillips omits to mention that Israel is the occupying power, and the Palestinians are the occupied population. By measuring the actions of both parties by the same yardstick, she ignores that history usually does not draw symmetries between the actions of slaves and masters.
She is right in saying that the conflict is not only about the occupation. It is certainly also about the Israeli flagrant injustice towards Palestinians through the ethnic cleansing, before and during the war of 1948, of 85% of the Arab population of what is now Israel. This has been finally admitted to by Israeli historians, such as Ilan Pappé, Benny Morris and Tom Segev, to name a few. A Palestinian struggle against Israel, including its insistence on the Palestinian right of return, is a claim for rectification of these injustices, rather than a fight to “exterminate” Israel. I wonder if the IRA bombings of the London underground, no matter how despicable, would ever be interpreted as a threat to eliminate England from existence?
As for “agendas”, Phillips should read “a strategy for Israel in the 1980’s” of Oded Yinon, published originally in “Kivunim”, by the Department of Publicity of the World Zionist Organisation (Issue No.14–February 1982), in order to understand why there is so much Arab scepticism of Israeli plans in the Middle East. One should also question why Israeli correspondents living and covering events in the Occupied Territories, end up reporting an Israeli apartheid and a struggle of an occupied population rather than schemes for the “extermination” of Israel (Amira Haas, Gideon Levy of the Israeli daily Ha’aretz). Could it be that correspondents who are “on site” are closer to reality than columnists defending Israel blindly and writing far away from their ivory towers?
If we want to be brought back to reality and develop a humane approach to the conflict, we would all do well to read Emma William’s heart-written article in the same edition, about daily life in the Occupied Territories. That would certainly help both the Israeli and the Palestinian people better than reading worn-out propaganda. In the meantime, we would do better not to reject peace attempts lightly, despite all due criticism thereto, be they major or minor.
Zina Nabulsi
“The road-map will fail because it assumes that the conflict is a territorial boundary dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not. It is rather a continuation of the 55-year-old Arab war of extermination against Israel”.
The usual sensationalist nonsense of Ms Phillips’ so-called ” journalism”. Over the last 55 yrs 4 major wars have been fought between the Arabs and Israelis. The wars in 1967 and 1956 were not initiated by the Arabs; since the war of 1973 Egypt and Jordan have established diplomatic and trade links with Israel, and Saudi Arabia has recently announced a ” Peace plan” whereby full diplomatic relations between Israel and the Arab countries would be established subject to Israel allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. Hardly the actions of those ” hell bent on destruction of Israel”. Perhaps Ms Phillips is allowing herself to believe that when it comes to Arabs and Arabs only, words can be taken more seriously than deeds.
“The Palestinians regard the whole of Israel as occupied territory to be liberated….”He says that he wants a Palestinian state; but he also wants the Palestinians to be given an absolute right to live in someone else’s country”.
Historically, the Jewish people had not been resident in the then state of Palestine (pre- 1948) for more than 1000 years, which under international law is tantamount to renouncing one’s claim on a territory.
Following the mass immigration of Jews to Palestine during the period between 1920-1948, the new immigrants attempted to wrest control of Palestine from the people who were already living there, via terrorist organisations such as Irgun and The Stern Gang, dubious economic practises as regards land ownership and the attempt to get the British to renounce control over Palestine via acts of terror such as the bombing of the King David hotel. Britain herself via the Balfour Declaration promised the Jewish people ‘a home’ in Palestine and NOT Palestine itself, something that legally they had no right to do given that the land was not theirs to divide up. Thus when the Jewish people later took over Palestine following the 1948 war and the mass Palestinian exodus (due totally to the terrorism of various Jewish terrorist groups) it could rightly be termed an occupation.
“Hundreds of thousands of Jews were driven out of Arab lands as a result of pogroms and persecution before and after Israel was created.”
More historical distortion. The Arabs and Jews lived peacefully side-by side in Muslim controlled Andalusia for hundreds of years. Indeed the Inquisition and forms of Christianity- inspired persecution of the Jews never took place under Arabs. Furthermore Jews in general to this day persist in living in Iraq, Egypt and Yemen, and I can assure you they have never been subjected to the kind of treatment that the Israelis daily inflict on the Palestinians.
Melanie Phillips I fear practises the kind of journalism more at home in a banana republic- controlled press than in a democratic one. Hers is based on ulterior motive and a total and utter ignorance and disregard for real historical facts. To date and with no exceptions all Ms Phillips articles on the Israel-Palestinian issue have been biased and have consistently ignored the real facts on the ground that would render her ultra pro-Israel stance meaningless.
With the world in the turmoil that it is in, one would have thought it responsible to deal with an emotive issue such as the Israeli- Palestinian issue from a detached and objective viewpoint. Not all Arabs hold enmity with the citizens of Israel and vice- versa. Surely it would be more responsible to try to strengthen this state of affairs than to weaken it?
Tarek S Arab MD
I am horrified by your publication of Melanie Phillips’ appalling article. It is ignorant, misleading and racist. You may reply that you do not necessarily share your writers’ views, but would you publish an overtly anti-Semitic article by the leader of the BNP? I suspect that you would not want to give his views the opportunity of an airing.
I would ask Ms Phillips this: if the Palestinians (all of them, according to her half-witted article) are the “mass murderers”, why is it that three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have been killed since September 2000? How many houses, how much water, how many farms have been taken from Israelis by Palestinians? It is obscene to portray the Israelis as the victims. Were I to read the Spectator again, I would not be surprised to see articles claiming that the French or Greek resistance were terrorists and “mass murderers” and the Nazi reprisals against their civilians more than justified. There would be no logical distinction between that and Ms Phillips’ article.
Alice Close
Once again Melanie Phillips manages to get to the bottom of the real issues of the Middle East.
The “Road Map” is undoubtedly well-intentioned but makes the false assumption that we have arrived at today’s situation by a descent into a “cycle of violence” – the implication being that the cycle can be unwound by a series of reciprocal steps backwards by parties of goodwill who need outside help to save face as they step away from the abyss.
The trouble is that that simply is not the reality. Israelis have long accepted the need for a two-state solution whilst the Arabs retain the goal of destroying the state of Israel.
Of course the hoped-for military annihilation has long since past into the history books. The Arabs are not stupid enough to repeat a mistake for a fourth time, having tried and failed to destroy the Jewish State by force in 1948, 1967 and 1973.
Much wiser to introduce the “right of return” as a means of removing the Jewish majority and turning Israel into a Judeo-Arab state. At Taba in 2000, Arafat was offered the only solution to this issue which any Israeli government could countenance and he rejected it – the right of return of all Palestinians to the new state offered to him on a plate.
Professor Efraim Karsh, head of Mediterranean Studies at King‘s College, wrote in a 2001 essay on the subject that the vast majority of refugees from the 1948 war were exhorted to leave by their Arab brethren, who urged them to make way for oncoming Arab armies intent on driving the Jews into the sea. Karsh estimates that only 5 to 10 percent were actively expelled by Israelis.
There is no post 2nd World War refugee group anywhere on the planet still in camps other than the Palestinians who are left there to rot as propaganda tools by their fellow Arabs. Their number has more than quadrupled since 1948 and they even have an entire UN bureaucracy dedicated to keeping them there.
Formed in 1949 as a temporary relief body, UNRWA still exists today and has an enormous budget mainly supplied directly by US, British and European taxpayers – Arab countries make only token contributions. UNRWA differs from the UN’s main body for refugees (UNHCR) in that its stated aim is to keep the Palestinians in camps rather than re-settle them. This simply adds legitimacy to the bogus right of return and explains why the road map is simply a much-trodden road to nowhere.
Barry Soraff
Comment on The New Labour party is over by Peter Oborne (17/05/2003)
Since Peter Oborne has tried to revise history and claim that all the risks that Tony Blair took in the run up to war were “exaggerated”, I can no longer take his analysis seriously.
That and his ridiculous attack on Blair’s interview for The Sun has lost him a serious amount of credibility, and has badly dented his reputation as a serious political commentator. Oborne lives a world where a politician is not allowed to try and restore his reputation after receiving one of the biggest assaults from his party and country in history, because that would be “spin”.
You stay in that world Peter.
Doug Gray
Comment on Referendum est (17/05/2003)
Parliamentary democracy as I once knew it seems to be on the wane, and mass demonstrations seem to be the only way in which the ordinary citizen can influence policy on single issues. If Blair won’t hold a referendum on the Euro constitution, may I suggest that the editors of the UK media co-ordinate with interested parties in organising the biggest series of demonstrations on one day that this country has ever known.
Citizens in former Communist aspirant members of the EU would probably be only too happy to join in
John Corbet-Milward
Comment on Pole position by Andrew Gimson (17/05/2003)
Finally an article that gives recognition to the struggling but determined “eastern” Europeans. I lived in Hungary through the first part of the last decade, and have seen there the kind of resolve the article describes about the Poles. The Hungarians protected Europe from the Turks for 150 years, not to take the credit from the Poles, but I wish to have that record straight. They have tolerated the Germans and Austrians to rule over them after they successfully defeated the Turks. In Versailles (1919) they have lost 75% of their territory (including Transylvania – abundant with natural resources) because of that German dependency. This bias treaty still haunts a lot of Hungarians. Followed by the cruel Russian communist rule.
These countries on the new frontier of the EU are aching for credit from the powerful players in the west, as little children competing for their busy father’s attention, they want to be recognized for what they have done and endured in Europe for the last 1000 years. Whether they will be important allies or not, it is time to shake off the perception that these countries just trying to get a piece of the pie. History entitles them to their rightful place in European politics.
Justin Petrovay
Chorley, Lancashire
Comment on “We don’t do burglary” by Mark Palmer (17/05/2003)
I read Mark Palmer’s article about his stolen Vespa with some considerable interest. I live in Denton, Texas, USA. On the 5th of May, I caught a burglar, a person 16 years of age, known to me, exiting a window of my house. As he had nothing of mine in his possession, I ordered him to leave, which he did, and I then examined my goods to look for missing items. Many were missing – the offender had apparently made several trips that day. I called the police. My experience with them was not at all the disappointing one that Mr. Palmer had. A police officer came to my house and collected relevant information and evidence. The offender was quickly found, arrested, and my property was recovered.
This raises an interesting question in my mind: Who do the British police perceive as being their employer?
Where I live, local law enforcement is just exactly that – local. Areas outside city limits are the responsibility of the sheriff – an elected official who has no superior officer. The chief of police in the city of Denton works for the City of Denton, which is governed by locally elected officials. All who work for the police or the sheriff, as law-enforcement officers or civilian employees are paid from funds provided by local taxpayers. These people know who they work for – they perceive their employers to be, ultimately, the people of the community around them.
So, I have several questions about the funding and command structure of the British police.
Who employs the commanding officer of the police force that responded so badly to Mr. Palmer’s problem? What is the source of his income?
Who pays the salaries of the various officers and employees of the police?
I rather suspect that the only superior officer who could tell Mr. Palmer’s wretched police to mend their ways is so high in a bureaucratic hierarchy that he knows little and cares less about what happens at the level where people interact with their local police. I further suspect that this superior and his like are the ones that the police must keep happy, not the local people. Such superior officers do not exist here. They should not exist where Mr. Palmer lives.
David Gressett
Allegations of institutional racism pale beside the reality of institutional complacency that characterises the modern police in Britain. The myth of the jovial bobby on the beat was first dispelled for me in the mid-1990’s when some computers were stolen from my office in broad daylight by a delivery person. We knew who did it and the company they worked for but the police refused to do anything more than to phone the company and politely inquire if anyone there had nicked 10,000 pounds worth of goods that day. The insurance adjuster then explained that there was a tacit policy for the police in London to ignore crimes against business as it was assumed that the insurance companies would simply pay up and the business would blithely accept the commensurate rise in their rates to reflect the disappearance of police protection. The Conservative party should re-examine the notion that support for law and order automatically means blind support for the police. In considering the need for wide spread changes in the police they will need to consider the results of 30 or more years of deteriorating work practices meekly accepted by fearful politicians, the impact of “politically correct” police education initiatives at the expense of training in police work and a general British reluctance to develop new police methods and adapt to new technologies. Ironically the people most familiar with the increasing impotence have been the criminal classes who are able to exploit these failings so successfully. Hopefully your article contributes to the awakening of the vast majority of law abiding Britons that the police service needs a fundamental overhaul.
Richard Bassett
I have the misfortune to live in Lambeth, and inevitably I was mugged last year. What was interesting about this incident is that there were three undercover police officers watching.
I made an attempt to apprehend one of the individuals responsible, (There were youths involved) but the others made off with my property. The police bundled me into an unmarked car and we set off in hot pursuit.
Arrests were made. I made positive ID’s of 3 of the youths, including the ringleader, Andrew Charles, who was arrested.
The police were magnificent. The reason I suspect that they don’t bother to investigate burglary any more is what happened next.
Andrew Charles was released immediately, and following his failure to turn up to court, his case was dropped owing to “lack of evidence” (meaning too much trouble) I have still (10 months later) not received the explanation from the CPS despite having written to all parliamentarians, police officers and councillors that I thought could exert pressure.
Why should the police risk getting stabbed if it does no good? If an immediate arrest with 3 police officer witnesses is not a watertight case leading to a custodial sentence, then there is no crime worth investigating.
Malcolm Bracken
Also in Society
Also by The Spectator
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in