P F Tinmore,
et al,
It is not so interesting as it is expected. Open and calm debate is a good thing. But the impact of the debate must be measured against the fact that the Israelis have dealt with the problem daily (up close and personal) for several decades. The UK Parliament has not.
This is an interesting turn of events.
UK Parliament Members Stand For Palestine: Israel is War Criminal 2014 - YouTube
(COMMENT)
The conflict now, has several dimensions to it. Members of Parliament like
Rushanara Ali are all about attempting to make the humanitarian issue the major bone of contention. While it should be a consideration, by placing it at the forefront, it puts an obstacle in front of Israel such that --- by attempting to make humanitarian law the central issue, Israel is not allow to achieve its defensive military objectives. Some believe that under such conditions, there can be no military solution. This is a one of those dimensions of the fatalist --- that there can be no military solution.
(Of course there can be a military solution; but included in that solution is the achievement in breaking the will of the Palestinian people to continue the conflict.)
Similarly, there is embedded in the debate is the idea of "proportionality." There is no proportionality in the conflict if Israel is not allowed the opportunity to silence the rocket and mortar fire.
The people of Gaza had their election; OK! The people of Gaza understood that by openly electing a terrorist organization as their government, they were extending the conflict. HAMAS has made it known that they have no intention of securing a peace with Israel. Philosophically, the only alternative, absent peace, is conflict. And in conflict there are casualties. It is the outcome of the democratic process. HAMAS is pro-conflict as a political policy --- in all conflicts there are casualties --- and --- the people are pro-HAMAS. Therefore the people are pro-casualties. Again, it is the outcome of the democratic process.
MPs like Rushanara Ali insist that the UK and other EU nations should show some leadership in the discovery of a solution, but they cannot recommend a course of action that has not been tried in the past and proven unsuccessful.
Let me say that again: They cannot recommend a course of action that has not been tried in the past and proven unsuccessful.
At some point, the international leadership must allow Israel to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion. When all else fails, conflict will result. The question becomes, do MP like Rushanara Ali want another failed Arab State run by Jihadist in the Middle East? Or, would they prefer a proven successful state like Israel?
I suggest that many should start with an end-state in mind and work backwards. What kind of State do you want to see in the Middle East. If you think that it is up to the Arab Palestinian people to decide, then you must step aside and let them resolved their difference on their own with the Israelis. And if you make that choice, you must step out of the Israelis way. The problem will then, resolve itself.
Yes, debate is good. But in a debate, the assumption is: There is a solution.
- Do you want the solution to be an Islamic Jihadist State under Sharia Law to emerge?
- ANSWER: Support the Hostile Arab Palestinians and hamper the Israelis.
- Do you want the solution to be a proven successful Western style state Based on a Republic to emerge?
- ANSWER: Support the Israelis and hamper the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
Remember:
Article 11, HAMAS Covenant: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
The outcome of the democratic process exercised by the Hostile Arab Palestinian People. It is what they wanted, it is what they voted for, it is what they got. Now let's hear them cry about it.
Anyone who throws Rockets and Mortars should expect to get spanked; except maybe the Arab Palestinians who think they are special.
Most Respectfully,
R
