I was pleasantly surprised that he agreed that Israel must be restrained, and that aid should not be cut to the Palestinians. I expected a harder line response from a Conservative MEP. That was to come from Dr Charles Tannock, another Conservative MEP. He e-mailed me as follows:
Opinions are, of course, divided on this controversial issue and I
support the G8 position as well as the EU Council declaration. The
responsibility for the tragic killing on the Gaza beach remains disputed, as
according to admittedly Israeli sources the ordnance used was not theirs.Furthermore, it is clear that Israel having withdrawn from Gaza and south
Lebanon in what was supposed to be a land for peace deal has instead found this
territory to be rapidly filled by terrorists committed to the total destruction
of the state of Israel and not the two-state solution agreed in Oslo in
1993.Therefore, I believe Israel was provoked deliberately and although I call
for restraint and dialogue within international law, I accept Israel's right to
self-defence and retaliation against terrorist strongholds. I have
nevertheless questioned the Israeli Ambassador to the EU as to why in Gaza
civilian infrastructure was targeted such as water supplies for which there was
no justification and therefore I condemn this particular act as
disproportionate.Nevertheless, until Israel can live peaceably within its borders there is
no hope for the 2003 roadmap for peace under the Quartet and I hope that the
recent escalation of Israeli military action will secure the release of Israeli
soldiers and stop rockets being fired on Israeli territory at civilian targets,
as otherwise there are no prospects for a durable peace in the region. I
also believe that Iran and Syria have been connected directly with this
provocation as a distraction from their own disputes with the international
community. I also call upon Lebanon to implement UNSCR 1559 and disarm
Hezbollah as previously directed.
Yours
sincerely
Dr. Charles Tannock MEP
I felt there was a great deal to disagree with here, so I responded as follows:
Dear Dr Tannock,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful
reply to my e-mail. I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to reply to an
individual constituent such as myself. I am heartened to hear that have tackled
the Israeli Ambassador to the EU on the question of the targeting of civilian
infrastructure in Gaza. Would you permit me to briefly respond to some of the
points that you have made?
Firstly, Israel's denials of
responsibility for the killings on Gaza beach are not credible. The Independent
reported (`Revealed: the shrapnel evidence that points to Israel's guilt) on 14
June that a former Pentagon battle damage expert, Marc Garlasco, said "All the
evidence points" to a 155mm Israeli land-based artillery shell as being
responsible. There is much more detail in the article which I will not repeat
here.
Secondly, Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was unilateral, and
not part of any `land for peace deal'. As I am sure you are aware, Israel always
refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians on the grounds that there is no
partner for peace. The plain fact is that Israel does not want a partner for
peace. It simply wishes to impose its own designs unilaterally, in which it is
nearly always aided and supported by western politicians, who have a great deal
to answer for.
You say Gaza was `rapidly filled by
terrorists'. Are you calling the entire Palestinian population terrorists? That
seems to me to be a very extreme comment. Terrorism is often defined as the use
of violence for political ends. It seems very strange how the Palestinians, or
anyone who supports them, seem to be almost uniquely singled out for
this description, and how this is used as a term of abuse i.e. terrorists equal
people who can never be acknowledged or negotiated with. This flies entirely in
the face of history - especially that of the British Empire. Those who used
violence to oppose colonial rule (just as the rulers used violence to
maintain that rule) often became respected statesmen after independence had
been achieved, and established good diplomatic relations. Israel itself was
established through an extensive campaign of terrorism and violence, some of it
against British troops, as I am sure you are very well
aware.
Israel has since maintained its rule through extensive use
of state terror. Western politicians are very quick to condemn Palestinian
suicide bombings (which I should make clear I do not support). But the Israelis
have murdered many more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinian `terrorists'
have Israel civilians. How often are those killings condemned, or even
acknowledged? The Palestinians held free democratic elections and elected Hamas.
Western governments then disgracefully supported Israel's attempts to starve the
Palestinians into submission for having the temerity to elect the `wrong'
government.
You refer to the two-state solution. Whatever the
Israelis may say to placate their supporters in the west, they have no intention
of accepting any such solution. They are still stealing Palestinian land through
their `security wall' with the intention of limiting the Palestinians to a few
disconnected `bantustans' which will never be able to cohere into a state.
Western governments have shamefully colluded in this. The ever more desperate
situation of the Palestinians is a running sore on the face of the world,
and all western politicians will do is blame them for their own situation,
collude with every Israeli act of violence against them, and then wonder why
terrorism is increasing. It is increasing out of desperation.
The
only way to put a stop to this appalling situation is a one-state solution.
Israel/Palestine must be a democratic nation where Jew and Arab are equal
and can live in peace. Everything Israel does is designed to prevent this from
happening. Everything western governments do colludes with this. But there
is no other way.
Thank you for your time.
Yours
sincerely,Grouchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment