Re: Occupied Palestine…
interesting article
Britain’s permanent stance of kowtowing to the Israeli government has been exposed twice this week in the Guardian, with the case of the unarrestable Israeli general swiftly followed by the Foreign Office’s stifling of sensitive accusations regarding Israel’s nuclear weapons hoard.
However, despite commentators expressing astonishment at the way Britain’s integrity has been compromised, the only really shocking thing is the implication that the British government has previously been a model of morality when it comes to dealing with Israel.
In both exposures, the UK authorities come out looking both weak and unprincipled, while their Israeli counterparts are laughing behind their backs.
In the case of General Almog, the curious excuse used to justify the inaction of the police was that they feared a gun-battle taking place on board the El Al airliner, as well as the inevitable political tornado that would ensue.
In the case of suppressing the mention of Israel’s nuclear arsenal in the Iraq dossier, a similar line of reasoning was employed, with Foreign Office officials apparently too scared of Israeli condemnation if they pointed the finger at the IDF’s wealth of atomic weapons in its Dimona bunkers.
These defences are intended to portray Britain as desperate to pursue justice, but too cowed by the intimidatory tactics of the Israeli state to be able to take a stand against their perceived misdeeds. Britain acts like a schoolchild who tells all the other kids that he’d love to bring down the playground bully, but is scared of having his legs broken if he speaks up and takes a stand.
Which is all well and good - if people are gullible enough to fall for this act. But, given that Britain has previous for wading in and dispensing justice in plenty of other hotspots around the world, it seems unlikely that it would turn tail and flee rather than squaring up to Israel.
Instead, what is more likely is that British government is a more than willing bedfellow of the Israeli authorities, and only pretends it isn’t when the evidence against it is too compelling to ignore.
Of course, this lily-livered approach isn’t confined merely to UK-Israeli relations. The potential arrests of Pinochet and Mugabe (among other possible high-profile detainees) have been fudged in recent years, with the government quick to offer flimsy reasoning behind their refusal to authorise their apprehension. But when it comes to dealing with Israel, the duplicity of the British officials threatens to impact on a far wider community than merely the public of the state in question.
Britain is already reviled across much of the Arab world for its willingness to invade Iraq and impose the will of the US on the local populace. Being permanently tied to America’s apron strings in this and other instances hasn’t done much for Britain’s image either, since the US is a perennial target of Arab ire - but, at least with the Americans their colours are nailed firmly to their mast.
Love ‘em or loathe ‘em, the Americans don’t make any pretences about where their loyalties lie, and this makes them somewhat easier to deal with, even for their opponents, since they make no bones about their motives. Pumping vast sums of cash into the Israel defence ministry’s coffers is as clear a signal as any to Israel’s enemies that if you mess with Israel, you’ll have America to deal with too.
In Britain’s case, the duplicity employed in which the government tries to appease all the countries, all the time, only weakens their image in the eyes of both sides of the Middle East conflict. A good example of this is the talkback section of the Jerusalem Post, where the fact that the UK authorities pulled back from the brink and let Almog escape the long arm of the law meant nothing to the incensed readers.
One even went so far as to say “As a British citizen I am ashamed at my country … so much so that I am making aliyah. The Jewish people have a right to defend ourselves no matter what soil we are on. AM YISRAEL CHAI! (the people of Israel live!)”.
While the government acts mournful at the way its hands are supposedly tied, General Almog continues to be treated as above the law in Israel, thanks to the refusal of Britain to take a stand for what its own judiciary clearly thought was right in international and national law.
After all, if one of Israel’s main allies and sponsors isn’t prepared to set an example, then why should Israel pay the blindest bit of notice to what smaller, less influential nations or NGOs say about the army’s behaviour?
And, in the case of the ineffable N word when it comes to Israel’s weapons of mass destruction, the situation is so laughable as to be (almost) unbelievable. Can a country of Britain’s stature on the world stage is really be too scared to mention the subject? No one is in any doubt that Israel possesses nuclear weapons - so why the Foreign Office doesn’t feel bold enough to say so in their reports can mean only one of two things.
Either they are genuinely fearful of Israeli reprisals against the UK (like what - a boycott? A ground invasion?), or they have in fact been deep in Israel’s pockets all along, and just prefer to feign innocence rather than admit to where their loyalties lie. It doesn’t take a genius to work out the answer.
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=97695
Sweet deal huh?