LibDig This!
I have refrained from speaking about the unspeakable in Gaza over the last few days because I felt that I had nothing to say which was not thought by a huge majority of people. I've been drawn into interjection because I was so appalled by the dogmatic and peurile takes of leading bloggers Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes.
I have always maintained, and I still do, that it is not for anyone who considers himself or herself as contributing to a responsible public discourse to 'take a side' because that is no basis for forming a dialogue around facilitating a peace agreement (which assumes that is the end which we in the UK wish to bring about).
For my part I believe the basis of a ceasefire should include a cessation of hostilities on both sides, the opening of the crippling blockade which has helped whip up radicalism and rockets Gaza, and the recognition of Hamas as a Government elected in a free and fair election, and Hamas's renunciation of their stated goal to harm the Israeli. These last points are obviously the most politically difficult to attain, but they could be possible if mutually agreed, and this can only happen through a dialogue which the current hostilities threaten to render impossible. All this then, once achieved would be the basis of a path towards an eventual two state solution and peace.
All that may sound Utopian, but there are actually quite strong signs that Hamas could accept such terms, especially if the UN collectively applied pressure for a resolution. As we know that must include the US, who like in Lebanon are keener to wait and watch Israel's neighbour weakened, watching too the destruction of all possibility of peace during our generation.
A ceasefire must occur before negotiations take place. Hamas, unable to lose face politically, has said it would negotiate after an Israeli withdrawal. The Economist actually argued that Hamas let ceasefire break down in order to force the issue of negotiations around a blockade that is now as old as it is painful. Hamas obviously badly misjudged the political mood of a Government both weakened politically and emboldened by the nadir of the American power vacuum. Yet few commentators predicted this, preferring to think Israel's eyes were on Iranian nuclear plants - understandable given the debacle of Lebanon that has become political poison for Ehud Olmert. Perhaps Hamas drew the same conclusions, we could not blame them for thinking that the prospect of another Lebanon would make Olmert's weak government balk, but instead war has tragically presented a perfect short term political escape route, and the timing could not be more auspicious.
Of course I know Guido Fawkes is not a serious blogger but frankly regular readers will know that in the main neither am I! I prefer to quip and joke facetiously in order to carry a serious point. I expect most of my readers read because my writing sometimes entertains them. I think that accessibility is the basis of effective persuasive public discourse. I fully understand Fawkes's appeal. Yet I cannot believe his treatment of these events.
Instead of posting a link to help my readers buy pizza for soldiers, I will post this LINK to a set of pictures taken today and yesterday and posted on 'canarypapers'. As usual I don't necessarily agree with all the views, but there aren't really many, mostly simple descriptions under each picture. I believe that if you are willing to form opinions about a topic you should first be able to look upon the deeds you describe. After all you affect their memory, and so help build the framework through which their meaning and ramifications are formed.
Posts
