Prince William was probably wrong to intervene in the Middle East crisis the way he did.
As heir apparent, he is considered to be above politics. He is not supposed to say anything that could affect Britain’s relations with foreign states. Can you imagine the late Queen doing this? Of course not.
And yet what he said, even if it was unwise to speak out, was certainly morally correct and reflected the views of millions of people, who are as shocked as the Prince by the death and injury of so many innocent people, including thousands children, in Gaza. .
William is right to be “deeply concerned” about the “terrible human consequences of the conflict” since Hamas’ terrorist attack on October 7. He is also right to want to see “an end to the fighting as soon as possible.” In fact, he called for a ceasefire, something the government has not yet fully done.
I believe Israel had the right to retaliate against Hamas’ barbaric attack. Almost every country in the world would have acted in a similar manner in the face of such a disgrace, although it may be doubtful whether it is possible to wipe the evil organization off the face of the earth.
William is right to be “deeply concerned” about the “terrible human costs of the conflict” since Hamas’ terrorist attack on October 7.
However understandable Israel’s response may have been, there comes a point when the murder is disproportionate to the original crime, writes our columnist Stephen Glover.
Hamas is utterly ruthless, even at the expense of the Palestinian people and their well-being. She is committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. It is undoubtedly anti-Semitic.
But however understandable Israel’s response may have been, there comes a point when the murder is disproportionate to the original crime. As President Biden has put it in an irritatingly folksy but nonetheless truthful way, “the behavior of the (Israeli) response in Gaza… has been overblown.”
Hamas has been partially eliminated. An attempt by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to eradicate the terrorist group in Rafah, a city in southern Gaza, would most likely result in the deaths of many thousands of Palestinian civilians, who are effectively trapped with no apparent means of escape.
I write as a friend of Israel. I want the country to survive and prosper, ideally alongside an independent Palestinian state, although as I will argue later, that is now unfortunately a very remote and increasingly unlikely prospect.
My fear is that if the IDF persists – if it kills thousands more civilians, in addition to exacerbating the already active threat of disease and hunger – Israel will hand a propaganda victory to its enemies and remain condemned for a generation in the heads of the Israelis. civilized people.
Am I dishonest? Hypocritical even? Didn’t British and American bombers kill and maim immeasurably more innocent children during bombing raids on Dresden and other German cities during World War II?
Yes, they did. It’s true. But there is a difference: that our parents and grandparents were not fully aware of the terrible human consequences of what happened, while now, thanks to the ubiquitous modern media, we are painfully confronted with the suffering in Gaza.
And what, you may ask, about the approximately 134 hostages seized by Hamas who are still missing? Doesn’t Israel have the right to demand their release?
Of course it does. But when the country threatens to launch an offensive against Rafah if the hostages are not released by March 10, I start to fear. The carnage will be terrible if a land attack occurs. About 1.4 million Palestinians are sheltering in Rafah. It is likely that hostages will be killed. According to the Israeli government, there are already at least thirty.
The best hope for the surviving hostages is that they will be released after negotiations between moderate Arab states. Israel will have to accept the grotesque imbalance of handing over far more Palestinian prisoners than it receives as hostages from Hamas in return.
Will the Israeli government stop and think? I’m afraid it’s unlikely that much attention will be paid to yesterday’s chaotic debate in the House of Commons, with the major political parties arguing over what constitutes an ‘immediate ceasefire’ (SNP) or an ‘immediate humanitarian ceasefire’ -the-fire’ (Labour) or ‘an immediate ceasefire’. immediate humanitarian pause’ (the government).
Scot Nats’ motion was too unconditional and gave Hamas a virtual carte blanche to revive hostilities. Labour’s official approach – the leadership is plagued by backstabbing rebels – was more balanced. As for the Tories, it all depends on how long a break lasts. I believe it must be long.
The Israeli government is more likely to listen to the United States, which continues to resist calls for a ceasefire while casting doubt on a draft UN resolution on the wisdom of a ground offensive in Rafah. She fears that this “would result in further damage to civilians and their further displacement, possibly also to neighboring countries.”
Not since the Suez Crisis of 1956 – when America criticized Israel after it invaded Egypt, egged on by France and Britain – has there been such a wide divide between Washington and Jerusalem. It remains to be seen whether Israel’s beleaguered and unloved Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will pay any attention to it.
Israel’s supporters cannot be uncritical. Since the country’s founding in 1948, and before that, there have been visionary statesmen – people like Chaim Weizmann, the country’s first president, and David Ben-Gurion, its first prime minister. Or Yitzhak Rabin, the former army general who worked for peace as prime minister before being assassinated by an Israeli extremist in 1995.
There have been less attractive prime ministers, such as Menachem Begin, a former terrorist who targeted the British before they left Palestine in 1948 and was always distrusted by Margaret Thatcher for that reason. Nevertheless, Begin made peace with Egypt in 1979.
Netanyahu may not be an extremist himself, but he relies on the support of two far-right parties that are. The finance minister is Bezalel Smotrich, whose religious Zionist party receives support from the hardline settlers in the West Bank. Last March he claimed that there is “no such thing” as the Palestinian people.
As long as Netanyahu and people like Smotrich are in charge, there is a risk that Israel will continue to ignore the warnings of those who wish it well and keep itself out of the spotlight. That would be a tragedy.
Not that peace will be easy under any circumstances. Foreign Secretary David Cameron talks a bit lightly about a two-state solution, as if all that is needed is people of good will sitting around the same table. That is not true.
For starters, there are almost 700,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, which is not part of Israel. What happens to them? And why would an Israeli government accept a Palestinian state, given what happened in Gaza? Within two years of the Israelis’ withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Hamas was in power and firing rockets into southern Israel.
The road ahead is long and difficult. There are certainly no ready-made solutions. And it is far from clear that an elderly, virtually senile American president will have the moral authority or will to stand up to Netanyahu in the final days of his administration.
Whether it is called a ceasefire or a long pause does not matter. Whatever happens, the massive, often indiscriminate killing of women and children must stop. Friends of Israel must realize that this has gone on long enough.
