One of the more composed op-eds written in the wake of last week’s Israel-Hamas ceasefire came from Roger Cohen in the New York Times. ‘Another Gaza flare-up is over — for now,’ he began, ‘At least 150 Palestinians are dead. Five Israelis are dead. More bloodshed and scars have been inscribed in the 64-year-old conflict’s Book of Unforgiving.’
‘To what end?’
Having watched the previous days’ tragic events unfold on 24-hour news, I shared Cohen’s exasperation. One side chucked rockets in one direction; the other sent air strikes the other way. Whatever your views on the conflict (and everyone, especially in our party, has an opinion) it is tough to disagree that this was a particularly pointless episode. We have been here before; we will likely be here again. Leaders in Jerusalem and Gaza City alike let their people down through narrow thinking and conservative approaches.
Israel and Hamas do not hold a monopoly on poor leadership, however. Friday’s unedifying spectacle of European heads of government squabbling over the next budget left a sour taste in the mouth (unlike the summit’s lunchtime wine, £120-a-bottle Grand Cru Chateau Angelus). Another EU summit is over – for now, with members yet again at odds with one another over funding.
To what end?
Though we were not blamed for the summit’s failure, the UK must take some responsibility for the parlous state of the EU debate. Discussions of Europe in this country are particularly dismal, with a paucity of imagination on all sides. Political peace has broken out among the main parties as all scurry to prevent votes flooding to UKIP: we have to cut things at home, the argument goes, so those wasteful bureaucrats need to make sacrifices too!
Does the British public not deserve a proper debate? What about opportunities for European stimulus? Given the tyranny of the bond market, there is little chance of us embarking on any sort of Keynesian economic policy at home in the near future. Would it not be prudent to at least investigate the potential for kick-starting European economies – our major export markets – by putting the collective pot to work in a targeted way? What about a progressive discussion about using EU monies to solve the endemic, region-wide youth unemployment problem?
No such luck. We get a debate, yet again, about cuts, along with the same old technocratic talk of reforming the common agricultural policy and structural funds, protecting the rebate and not giving in to dastardly Brussels. Yawn.
All of Europe may pay for our collective lack of vision. The British public’s blood is up, and our EU membership might fall victim to a combination of anger and misplaced faith in our independent political and economic clout. A more engaging debate on Europe might neutralize voters’ secessionist impulses and, if decent policy ideas emerged, lead to some real economic gains. But as it stands, Westminster is gripped by a collective timidity that is playing right into Nigel Farage’s hands.
It is fitting that Tony Blair, a man with more experience than most of the intractable conflict between Israel and Palestine, tried to elevate the EU debate today. I hope, for all our sakes, that he has more success on Europe than he has had so far on the Middle East Peace Process. For all Blair’s faults, he provided visionary leadership on issues like Northern Ireland and global poverty that is currently so sorely lacking not just in this country, but in most corners of the world.
Europe’s citizens, along with the people of Israel and Gaza, need their political representatives to do a lot better.
—————————————————————————————
Greg Falconer is a foreign policy expert and former Whitehall civil servant. He tweets at @gregfalconer
————————————————————————————–
Hear hear, although can European leaders not disagree on anything without it being called a ‘squabble’ or a ‘crisis’? Getting 27 diverse countries to agree on anything is clearly going to take time.
Whilst I agree with you that the British public have been poorly served by our political representatives and the media on the issue of EU membership I am minded to conclude that your article is generally very simplistic if not childish. We may be utterly saddened, for example, at the death and destruction being meted out in Gaza and Israel but it is both shallow thinking and ‘head-in-sand’ avoidance of reality to describe this as a “pointless episode” or that it is the consequence of “poor leadership”.
Unfortunately, the present fashionable opinions to take on the Gaza-Israel conflict are, 1) because all war is evil the sides involved (or, more usually, one particular side) are stained with an evil streak, 2) the side that sustains the greater number of casualties is the innocent victim and, by deduction, the side with lesser casualties bares the much greater share of guilt and public condemnation, 3) conflicts like Gaza-Israel could be easily and quickly resolved if both sides were made to ‘grow up’, had their heads ‘banged together’ and forced to agree peace.
This is not real life. It is not planet earth. Treating deeply committed advocates of particular political or religious beliefs as being immature and intellectually challenged is not only untrue: it makes no positive contribution to bringing about effective solutions. That can only be done by either overwhelming military superiority and consequential defeat of the opposing side, or by compromise based on empathy and shared values.