Needless death in the name of peace - a sad day for us all

Israel has come under sustained attack this week after it sent out the Israeli Defence Force to prevent an aid flotilla, with boats from Turkey, Greece and Cyprus (an Irish sponsored boat was disabled and made the trip later) from reaching the blockade it set up in 2007.

The conflict in the Middle East is well known to anyone who is interested in anything outside their immediate vicinity. I have previously blogged about the subject when in March it seemed like the US- Israeli relationship was faltering, and storm clouds were forming above Jerusalem. Little did I know two months later, the situation would boil over into a full scale diplomatic crisis.

Weeks before the arrival of the aid flotilla, the IDF had been told of the mission that they would be required to carry out. Flotilla 13, a small brigade which takes on important and daring missions on behalf of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), were told to prepare for minor resistance from activists when they boarded the ship. They were armed with paint guns and tasers, weapons rarely, if at all, used by the IDF before.

While this preparation was going on in Israel, boats carrying international peace activists and humanitarian aid to Gaza convened with the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish registered ship which was under the control of the IHH (a Turkish acronym for The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief), a group that Israel maintains in connected to fundamentalist Islamic jihadists. On the Mavi Marmara was Sarah Colborne, the director of campaigns and operations at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in London. She said that when IDF ships were detected on radar and sighted, “the decision was made to move further back into international waters”. She also told of how transmissions had then been sent out informing any listeners that the ships were aid vessels, while a medical room was prepared and passengers were told to put on life jackets. An attack was sensed. Theresa McDermott, an Edinburgh postal worker and member of the Free Gaza Movement described what happened as the boats were boarded. She was on the smaller vessel Challenger 1.

“It went very quiet, then at 4am we heard people starting their morning prayers on the Mavi Marmara. We were right next to them so we could hear the prayer call. It was still dark, then all of a sudden we saw smaller lights across to starboard and we knew the Israelis had dropped smaller boats, carrier craft, into the water. They went for the Mavi Marmara first, with Zodiac commando boats that sliced through the flotilla. The Israelis started firing smoke bombs and sound grenades onto the Mavi Marmara. We heard the cracks of gunfire and I realised they were much more forceful than when they had taken us of boats before. They were coming really hard”

In fact, it was 4:10am Israeli time (2:10am in the UK) when Vice Admiral Eli Marom fired three shots from his handgun into the air 50 yards from the Mavi Marmara, signalling the start of the operation. Commandos were lowered onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara from helicopters over head. IDF soldier after IDF soldier was lowered into a throng of angry young Turks. Soldiers radioed a request to use handguns. They had not been prepared for such stiff resistance. This was when IDF soldiers went into combat mode. There were reports that one soldier killed six Turks alone. The IDF has denied this. Regardless, within minutes, several activists were dead on the deck, one shot in the eye, others lay injured. Post mortem reports have confirmed most of the 9 dead from the raid were shot in the head, in classic Special Forces style. On the Mavi Marmara three IDF soldiers had been taken hostage. Others went in search of them, knowing that hostage taking would turn Israel upside down and give Hamas a huge bargaining chip. Commandos found the room where their colleagues were being held, killing the guards, they found one of the three soldiers; the other two had escaped by jumping out of a porthole. The IDF said that on an initial search of the ship they found gas masks, small knives, flak jackets and money.

On other ships activists reported being beaten and tasered. On asking the IDF why they were doing this Henning Mankell, the Swedish writer who was on the boat Sofia, was told it was because they had weapons. He told the IDF that they didn’t. The ship was searched and razors and a small knife were found with which to justify the boarding.

The attack sparked international condemnation. Greece has suspended joint military manoeuvres with Israel. Turkey, once a key Middle Eastern ally of the Jewish State, has aligned itself with public anger. Egypt has capitulated also, opening the Rafah crossing on its border with Gaza. Britain and France displayed a show of unity when the British Foreign Secretary William Hague visited his counterpart Bernard Kouchner in Paris. They offered greater EU involvement, called for the observation of UN resolution 1860, and that Israel at the very least launch a full investigation, with an international presence, into events. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week condemned the raid, while it is expected to further damage US Israel relations when they are already stretched to breaking point.

There is no doubt; the action taken by the IDF was illegal. It broke International Law by attacking ships in international waters in an attempt to enforce a blockade which breaks International Humanitarian Law and goes against UN resolution requiring its rescission. It is true that IDF soldiers came under attack when they boarded the ships. But what did they expect? Aid workers or not, Israel must be familiar with the term “right to defend themselves”, and so should understand what motivated activists on board the ships when a foreign, enemy force decided to forcefully and illegally take control of their ships.

Various people have thrown the question out “Why were they taking aid to Gaza in the first place?” This comment shows great foolishness. Either because it reveals obvious idiocy or deep seated blind following of the Israeli governmental line. The flotilla was taking aid because Gaza desperately needs it. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last week said that aid given to Gaza by Israel was not enough. In fact, it was only a fifth of what is needed. The Gazan people are suffering a deep humanitarian crisis. The war last year has left deep scars, both on the cities and infrastructure, and on the people. Israel has decided to blockade the territory, and therefore, it must ensure that the people of that territory are getting enough food, water, fuel, and other humanitarian aid. At present, it is not.

The operation was botched. It was illegal. And it was disproportionate. These are comments that are all too often being associated with Israel. Instead of deterring more scenarios like this, more flotillas, more support for the lowering of the blockade, all that this operation has served to do it intensify the support for the people of Gaza, and unfortunately, in some areas, the support of Hamas itself. It has alienated those in the region that would have been allies, and worsened the reputation of Israel around the world.

As a person on the outside, living in Britain, I see my, our role, and the role of the EU too, as trying to find a solution to the conflict. We should not take sides, even when there is sometimes strong reason for the condemnation of certain acts. We cannot move forward while both sides are so stubborn, so determined to be violent, so resolutely unable to see the others point of view.
Peace does not come from determination, but understanding. Not from stubborn grit but sympathy. Not from hate, but tolerance. I see none of this in abundance between the Israeli Government and Hamas. I am not unwise enough to assume I might. But maybe the people of Gaza and the moderates in Israel can offer an elusive hope that can restore stability, if not install harmony.

For privacy, for love...for shame.

The Telegraph has claimed another scalp in their seemingly never ending hunt for wrong doing MP’s. On the 28^th of May the paper declared that David Laws, the newly installed Chief Secretary to the Treasury, senior Liberal Democrat, the minister responsible for massive cuts imposed by the new coalition, Nick Clegg’s right hand guy, coalition negotiator, and all round well liked politician, was not as whiter than white as first assumed.

He had claimed £40,000 of taxpayers’ money to pay rent to his landlord, James Lundie, who owned the house where he kept a room in London. This should not have caused much stir, plenty of MP’s did it, and it was perfectly within the rules. What was not allowed however was paying money to a spouse, or a person treated as such. Much to the consternation of the Telegraph, that was indeed what Mr Lundie was to Mr Laws. They had, by his own later admission, been partners since 2001. In 2006 the parliamentary rules changed to disallow rent payments to a partner, but Mr Laws continued to claim the money until 2009, when he began renting a flat elsewhere.

The facts of the case are well known. It was the briefest cabinet stint in history. After just over two weeks after the election, one of the brightest stars in the new government and the Liberal Democrat Party has resigned his prominent cabinet post. There was no other alternative. However much sympathy one has with David Laws’ position, the fact remains that he broke the rules, even if they are simply pathetic rules which need rewriting so as not to be so open to interpretation, and wrongfully claimed over what an average family earns in a year.

Liberal Democrat friends of mine jumped to his defence. “He could have claimed a lot more than that”, “It was only £40,000, it’s not like he profited that much, what if he’d have claimed for a mortgage?”. While Conservative friends, shockingly, took up the David Laws cause with almost the same enthusiasm. “The poor guy,” one bemoaned, “He was so good, and he shouldn’t have to resign”.

I was fiercely angry at them. In fact, I was outraged. How dare these people change their minds so quickly? A few weeks ago they were baying for the heads of Jacqui Smith and Tony McNulty, while David Cameron was severely punishing his party and blaming the expenses scandal on Gordon Brown (yes they will blame anything on him), and Nick Clegg was swaggering around saying how his party was so good and proper. Now they were defending the same kind of wrong doing, in fact, in some cases, worse. Only £40,000 I repeated in my head until it exploded out of me. “ONLY £40,000?!!?!” I raged, “Do you know how much money that is! That’s more than the annual salary of an average family in this country! That’s over double the average wage! It’s not ONLY £40,000, or JUST £40,000, it’s a hell of a lot of money!”

I quickly regained control of myself to put my case forward. David Laws broke the rules. Clearly and most definitely, he broke the rules. He must go. At the time, I didn’t think he would. I thought he’d cling onto his cabinet post despite what I thought, but then, the next day I read a tweet from a friend. “David Laws’ resigns” it said. Plain, simple, and to the point. Well there you go, I thought, Over.

How wrong I was. Over the next couple of days I was horrified by what was happening in the media and in the attitudes of my friends. (Some of them...I must stress). Not only that, but the comments of some prominent gay MP’s and charities. Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP for Exeter, expressed dismay and confusion as to why David Laws’ might want to keep his sexuality secret.

“Why should anyone in Britain today feel ashamed to acknowledge they're gay” he tweeted.

I replied.

“Should and do are two very different things. Fear and shame are commonplace. I understand completely why he wanted privacy”

And I do. Ben Bradshaw may have a remarkable life in which no one cares that he is gay or not. Maybe he does not encounter bullies, thugs, homophobes, skinheads and the like. Maybe that’s why he doesn’t understand that there are vast swathes of this country that are still homophobic, and anti gay rights, whether they openly admit to it or not. Being gay is still a massively big issue for many people, gay or straight, and in many walks of life, including education, entertainment, sport, and indeed, politics.

Stonewall were no better. In an article in the Guardian it denounced David Laws for not coming out earlier and setting an example to others to do the same. How dare he stay in the closet, value his privacy, or even have the brazen cheek to maybe be scared of what the reaction may be if he admitted who he was to the world. It also called on sports stars of football, bearing in mind we’re in the run up to the world cup, to come out, declare themselves, and set an example. I do not disagree that it would make it easier for young boys and girls if someone they loved and looked up to was comfortable with something that they are still attempting to come to terms with. However, to actively call for people to make examples of themselves is ridiculous, annoying, insensitive, and blatantly no one else’s business but the person who has to make the choice.

The fact is that today’s Britain is not as liberal, caring, or accepting as some people like to convince themselves it is. Much to my disappointment.

David Laws should not have done what he did. He should not have taken the £40,000 wrongly. But whether or not to announce to the world that he is gay is not anyone else’s choice but his own, and I understand completely, and sympathise greatly, with the torment he felt, the paralysing fear which disabled him, and the fierce desire for privacy, for himself and his partner, Mr Lundie.

I hope very much he will get through this episode in his life, and that he has the love and support of those he thought loved him before. And I hope very much that this bright spark, this hugely and undoubtedly intelligent and talented man, even if he is a Liberal Democrat, can show how talented he is again. Just maybe not wielding the spending axe. I am after all, a Labour boy.