|
This is a personal statement I feel
compelled to make. It is not connected to my musical life, and it should only be
read by someone interested in a personal point of view and willing to assume it
is made with integrity and careful consideration. I have no wish to foist my
opinion on others, so unless you as a reader are approaching out of your own
interest, please do not proceed.
Many thanks!
***
The perpetual stalemate of the Israel/Palestine conflict has accompanied my
whole life. It is a conflict I have felt strongly about, first favouring one
side, then the other. I have been taught to feel it as a matter profoundly
relevant to us in Europe, partly due to the stated motivation behind European
influence in the creation of the modern states of the region, and partly due to
the fact that so many of the actors and early citizens of Israel were Europeans.
We are also encouraged to view Israel as an outpost of Europe through its
inclusion in European events, football tournaments, cultural events such as the
Eurovision Song Contest etc. Although the very real mortal dangers and perils
facing the citizens of the region do not apply to us, it is nevertheless a
situation with which many Europeans still now identify. This is particularly
true as the nature of European and US involvement in the conflict does also have
direct implications for European citizens, both in terms of security and
political credibility.
Over the years of my adult life my own thoughts and sympathies have moved,
perhaps just reflecting changing awareness of the situation, perhaps also
reflecting the changing in myself of certain more general views. In any case,
anyone vaguely aware of the historical context of Israel and Palestine will form
their own opinion of the merits and problems of the various sides in the
conflict, and my own present attitude notwithstanding I believe it is very
possible to argue for an opposed view in an eminently rational manner.
Nevertheless, there are certain times in life when even a politically inactive
person might feel the need to express a considered opinion, not with the hope of
changing anything, but merely with the desire to state clearly when they think
something profoundly wrong is happening. We see the world around us, complain,
accuse, judge things and people in matters of which we know little and which are
only marginally relevant to us, but we carry on as normal, we eat our daily
bread and acquiesce. Many of these matters are trivial and transient, but some
are profound, even much more profound than they seem at the time. In such cases
it can be difficult to know how to express oneself. There is little or nothing
one can do that will change anything. Political activism is usually obliged to
obliterate nuances of view or expression in order to generate power, and can
thus be unattractive to someone concerned for such nuances. Government has wide
strategic interests and concerns that make any nuance invisible, unless it
suddenly becomes a public fever. I have no solution to this problem, but I still
wish to make my own position clear, not least because I feel that if only a
sufficient number of people made their feelings clear in this it might make a
difference. This may be hopelessly mistaken. Nevertheless.
The recent pronunciation by President Trump that he intends to recognize
Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel has undoubtedly pleased some people, but
has also clearly appalled many others. I belong to the latter group. It cannot
be in the interest of any civilized nation to trample the dignity and rights of
a whole nation. The people of Palestine, whether Muslim or Christian or
otherwise, deserve better than to continue to be cast as the beggars of the
region, denied dignity in their daily lives, principally by the Israeli
occupation, but also by the weakness and duplicity of their leaders and the
surrounding governments. Many governments around the world mistreat their
citizens, many mistreat those of other countries, but in few cases do they
insist so tenaciously in claiming higher ideals and aims in the face of abject
self-interest and disregard for humanity than the governments of Europe and
their leaders in this, the USA. It is my view that the principal obstacle to
peace in the region today is the occupation of the areas conquered since 1967.
Everything else is a direct consequence of that occupation, including the issue
of settlements, violent uprisings and terrorism. To insist otherwise is to my
mind offensive to rational and objective debate. Clearly Israel has territorial
ambitions beyond the borders of 1967, and equally clearly those are not
justified by any stretch of international law and common sense. To pretend that
Israel’s territorial advances are necessitated by self-defence, or that they are
temporary and will be reversed, is absurd. As long as our governments fail to
not only openly condemn these advances but also address them in the same manner
as they would any other territorial advances, such as that of Russia in the
Crimea, they forfeit any moral or rational credibility. Most countries that
occupy territory that does not belong to them have strong reasons for doing so,
and can appeal to historical or social factors for their justification. This
does not make such occupation less illegal, and should not affect how we
approach it.
The issue of Jerusalem is difficult, but unless there is recognition on all
sides of the significance of the city to all sides it will never be resolved.
For this reason President Trump’s speech seems to me so damaging. To say that he
is merely acknowledging reality, and that Israel as a sovereign nation has the
right to determine its own capital is disingenuous, as half of that city was
occupied militarily and is currently being systematically cleansed of its
original inhabitants. It is a reality that has been forced onto the city with
the help of the USA. Which Jerusalem is the capital? The western section? Or the
whole city, including the holy sites of the Old Town, taken by the Israeli army
in 1967? How can the capital city of a country be recognized if by international
recognition it is not even part of that country? Never mind the insistence that
all parties must recognize the right to exist of Israel, where is the same
recognition of Palestine? Where is the recognition of the sovereign state of
Palestine with the right to determine its own capital, even the right to travel
to its own capital?
The issue that prompts my need to express all this is not principally the action
of Israel. Israel is a sovereign country that has its own interests and promotes
them in the way its government decides is best. It is a government that is
democratically elected, and responsibility for its actions therefore to some
degree must be spread across its institutions and electorate. No country in the
world, least of all any European country, can claim not to act illegally on
occasions or to occupy any moral high ground. No country in the world is better
than any other, and those who proclaim moral superiority are usually the most
suspect. I clearly believe the Israeli governments of many decades to be guilty
of terrible mistakes and an underlying project to make the eventual
establishment of a sovereign, dignified Palestine impossible. But that is not
why I am writing these lines. Many countries and governments in the world act
terribly and commit terrible crimes. This is always a cause for regret, even
anger. But it is hardly unusual. I am prompted by the hypocrisy of my own
government, and its complicity in enabling and prolonging a situation I believe
to be morally, politically and diplomatically catastrophic. The actions of my
government are a direct function of my political voice, and it is this which
prompts me to make this statement, as irrelevant as it is. It is a matter of
voicing one’s disagreement with a long-standing policy that shows no sign of
abating, rather of the opposite. I hope that anyone reading this who has
opposing views can understand and accept the necessity and legitimacy of voicing
one’s concerns in a rational form, and that at the heart of things must lie an
acceptance of the fundamental values which are common to us all and necessary
for the functioning of our world.
---
P.S. After further thought, I feel it necessary to add a clarification to my
statement. It has been pointed out to me that the problems of the region
certainly did not start in 1967, and that the potential for most of the current
problems dates back much further in the past. I am of course aware of this and
considered it. It is however my belief that the potential of the past can be
overcome, as the maintenance of a long term conflict is exhausting in every
sense. However, the developments in Palestine since 1967, particularly those of
the last 25 years or so, have made it increasingly difficult to imagine how a
resolution could be found: the gradual territorial disintegration of Palestine
can not be reversed without enormous determination and cost, and any other
solution that has been suggested seems either unrealistic or grossly
unreasonable toward the Palestinians. For this reason I see the occupations of
1967 as the principal obstacle to peace, even if they themselves were far from
the beginning of the Palestinian tragedy.
|