A reply to Ed Miliband on Gaza

Tom Somerville dissects Miliband’s new position on Israel and Palestine, and argues that fundamentally little has changed

On July 25th Ed Miliband, finally, spoke up about the Israeli military invasion of Gaza, which has now reached a death toll of over 1,000, with the vast majority of those on the Palestinian side civilians. My first reaction to Miliband’s speech was; where have you been and what took you so long to notice? Funnily enough his statement came after the big march in London which drew between 10,000-50,000 people and after a number of newspapers mentioned polls which reflected a negative attitude in the general public toward Israel.

Despite the numerous problems and glaring errors in Miliband’s statement the fact that he has condemned Israel’s military incursion in this manner is a positive factor for the Palestinian cause in Britain. His opposition to the military incursion is a result of both public outcry and shows of solidarity, as well as a strong reaction within the House of Commons from members of all sides of the house. It breaks the stifling and awkward silence which usually comes from the upper echelons of all three major parties when questions about Israeli military action and settlement building are put to them. The content of the rest of the speech is, sadly, less of a break with the past and repeats the tired old line of Israeli ‘self-defence’ and actually somewhat contradicts Miliband’s opposition to the military invasion, or at least waters it down. But still the fact that a mainstream leader has denounced the invasion and the resulting deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, including many children, is a breach with usual political practice – a breach the public and supporters of justice in the Israel-Palestine conflict must force wide open.

Despite the high level of Islamophobia which has swept across Europe since 9/11, attitudes towards the Israel-Palestine conflict and specifically the actions of the Israeli government have shifted towards a relatively ‘pro-Palestinian’ (or ‘pro-justice’) stance. Israel has consistently ranked alongside North Korea, Iran and Pakistan in a number of respected polls between 2005-2012. Indeed the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung poll in 2012 found that 42.4% of British people polled agreed with the statement that “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians”. Unlike the last round of conflict, it seems a larger number of the political class are finally catching on, as there have been a number of scathing attacks on Israel in parliament over the last two weeks. Even if Miliband’s opposition to the military invasion of Gaza is a cynical effort to gain popularity, as is entirely possible if you analyse the rest of his statement, the fact that he has been pushed into this position is a positive event for furthering support for the Palestinian cause on our shores.

But now to the problems of his speech, which should temper and belief that Miliband is suddenly a fierce critic of Israeli policy and aggression.

1) He starts off by mentioning the kidnapping but fails to mention that it was carried out by a ‘lone cell’ whom apparently come from a group who have a long history of disrupting Hamas ceasefires with Israel. By not putting the kidnapping into context, and by not mentioning the immediate Israeli response prior to bombing and invading Gaza, Miliband is effectively saying that some military response against a whole national group to the kidnapping carried out by a few individuals is justified. He mentions ‘military incursion’ but does not say all military action is out of the question. But that what Israel have done is just a bit too much, thus the obligatory reference to Israel’s right to self-defence. So basically, it’s okay to respond militarily if three of your citizens are kidnapped and murdered by some individuals from another national group, just don’t go overboard. Transfer this logic to anywhere outside of Israel and you see how preposterous it is; would the USA be justified in a carrying out a military operation in Colombia against Colombians in general if three of its citizens were kidnapped by a rebel group? The kidnapping is being continually alluded to by allies and apologists for Israel without mentioning that Hamas had no role in the kidnapping. Of course the real reason for this round of bombing and invasion is Hamas’ unity deal with Fatah, but Miliband was hardly likely to mention this.

2) In moving from the kidnapping straight to a condemnation of Hamas’ rockets, Miliband fails to say that Israel rounded up over 450 Palestinians, including children, without any evidence and has held them without charge, and severely beaten others. This is surely illegal and to be condemned? This was prior to any state of war and can be cited as a provocation towards Hamas, as the government of Gaza, and the Palestinian people. Unlike the kidnappings, which were the work of individuals and not ordered by the state or ruling government, these were ordered by the state of Israel. How is this not provocation? There seems to me frankly more justification here for a military response than can be found in any of those given by or for Israel. Even if this is not enough to justify a military response and even if some of Hamas’ actions in this particular conflict can be described as ‘terrorist actions’, then shouldn’t Miliband mention Israeli provocations? Miliband, as throughout this statement and everything he says, likes to appear even handed (“a friend of Israel and Palestine”) but his statement is not even handed as he ignores Israeli provocations, which were ordered by the state.

3) Despite opposing the Israeli military “incursion” (note; not bombing), he nevertheless manages to accuse Hamas of ‘provoking’ Israel and that Israel simply shouldn’t have responded in this way. For me personally, the failure to mention at all either illegal settlements or the situation in Gaza prior to the invasion is tacit agreement with Israeli policy toward Gaza before the invasion. The Palestinians are an occupied people; they are justified in opposing this occupation and they react out of hopelessness and justified anger to their oppression. They are also justified in responding to the Israeli military rounding up citizens illegally, detaining them without charge and beating them. Now given that the Israeli response to marches and peaceful protest is beatings and arrest, and even shooting live rounds into crowds, what other options did the Palestinians (and Hamas) have at that moment in time? Particularly once the bombing began. I would point out that in the 60s the African National Congress moved from non-violent struggle to armed struggle against the South African state in response to increasing and constant violence against its people and protestors. It is also worth mentioning that in 1985 Mandela was offered his freedom if he condemned terrorism and promised to encourage non-violent political action; he refused. Hamas is not the ANC and there are deep problems with it from a left-wing perspective, not least its frequent resort to anti-Semitic propaganda, however they do have a right to self-defence and the defence of citizens of Gaza, as they are the elected government.

If Ed Miliband recognises that Israel has a right to self-defence, then so to do the Palestinians – but he does not mention this and that is vital taken alongside the failure to mention the root of the issue; settlements and the prison status of Gaza. These omissions mean that Miliband is saying that Hamas are the problem, if only they stopped firing rockets and started talking this situation could be resolved; so the problem, as usual, is Palestinian related and Israel is simply upbraided for being too harsh by invading. No mention of the root of the problem. No olive branch to Palestine, but a whole tree for Israel (as well as the land that tree grows on).

4) He mentions the violence spreading to East Jerusalem and the West Bank; what he does not say is that the violence there has been perpetrated by Israeli settlers supported by the IDF. One of the Palestinians who died was shot by a settler and the rest by the army. Again, as we all know but it bears underlining, these settlements are illegal under international law and yet we have settlers who shouldn’t be there killing Palestinians. Palestinians who were not firing rockets but were protesting peacefully in marches as Miliband and co tell them to do, and at worst throwing stones. So his statement is highly disingenuous; he merely says ‘the cycle of violence’ is spreading to the West Bank when in fact it is Israeli violence which is spreading. Dead Palestinians are said to be a result of the ‘cycle of violence’ not Israeli violence, whereas you can bet dead Israelis are the result of ‘terrorist violence’. Illegal settlers supported and protected by the IDF are shooting Palestinians in the West Bank.

5) I don’t disagree that a ceasefire and stoppage to military action should take place, but on whose terms and what costs? Miliband does not raise whether Israel should pull out of Gaza or if they should occupy it as before. Given that Israel started this round of military action, something which Miliband tries to evade by mentioning Hamas ‘provocation’ (which he I think picked up from Sunny Hundal’s otherwise very good article) surely the call should be on Israel to withdraw first as the aggressor and invading force? Particularly if they are wrong to have invaded, as Miliband’s statement says. But no, he calls on ‘both sides’ to stop fighting; despite Gaza being the invaded area, Hamas should stop fighting and miraculously this will, in his mind, bring an immediate end to violence by Israel too. Israel is the invading army, therefore Hamas and the Palestinians have the right to self-defence. Incidentally if it were pointed out to Miliband that Israel began this round of conflict he would undoubtedly say ‘it’s pointless looking to blame someone for who started what’ and yet talk more about Hamas ‘provocations’; which is another way of saying Hamas started it.

6) The call for a return to US-led negotiations towards a two state solution is the most farcical part of the statement and behind the times. Netanyahu made a speech last week where he said the two state solution is not on the cards anymore, at least for the foreseeable future. How can Miliband – who must know about this unless he and the Labour Party are incompetent to the point of dangerous – stand and call for a negotiated two state solution without even mentioning Netanyahu’s words? Even prior to ruling it out, Israel continued to build illegal settlements whilst opposing and threatening all efforts by Palestine to enter into international institutions like UNESCO. Why Europe should ‘support the USA’ in seeking a ceasefire and two state solution is unclear; the USA has continually failed to help implement any solution and with good reason. It is Israel’s strongest ally, so why should it be the sole player in creating a solution? Surely the international community should take over rather than a US-led effort, as the USA is not a neutral player.

Having listed the problems with Ed Miliband’s speech it is clear that besides the welcome opposition to the invasion of Gaza, very little has changed in his position on Israel. Indeed his other comments somewhat water down the effect of his opposition to the invasion. Only when Miliband and the Labour leaders begin regularly and consistently opposing and talking about the obligations of Israel to abide by international law, the building of illegal settlements, the continuous economic siege of Gaza, the illegal arrests, beatings and torture of Palestinians and the daily humiliations they suffer, will we know a real change is happening. But nevertheless it is a start and it’s up to public pressure to keep pushing and pushing for justice to make Miliband, Labour and the political class as a whole realise that like apartheid in South Africa, this is a situation we will no longer tolerate.