The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are following developments in Gaza with grave concern. The UK supports an immediate ceasefire. The rise in rocket attacks on Israel since 19 December, and the massive loss of life in Gaza, makes this "a very dangerous and very dark moment", as the Foreign Secretary has described it.
The deteriorating humanitarian situation is deeply disturbing. The Prime Minister has spoken to Prime Minister Olmert of Israel. We have made clear that Israel must abide by its humanitarian obligations. The UK supports the prompt and sufficient delivery of food, fuel and medicine into the Gaza Strip.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband has spoken to Condoleezza Rice today, to discuss how the international community can support efforts in 2009 to secure peaceful negotiations towards the ultimate goal of a viable Palestinian state existing alongside a secure Israel.
'Cease Hostilities' - BBC Radio 4
Israeli air force jets have bombed the Islamic University in the Gaza Strip, a significant cultural symbol for Hamas. Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Deputy Israeli Ambassador in London Talya Lador-Fresher, discuss the origins of this current upsurge in fighting.
Earlier Foreign Secretary David Miliband warned of a "very dark moment" in the Middle East peace process as Israel continued air strikes on Gaza.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he was concerned about the impact on the chances for achieving a peace agreement and the danger the raids would radicalise more people.
"This is very dangerous and a very dark moment," he said.
Comments
Herschel,
I specifically said arguing over who starts it does not matter. You attacked Miliband for closing his eyes to Hamas attacks while condemning Israeli response, hence my perception that you were saying, in essence, "Hamas shot first."
As far as dialogue, there was just a cease fire for several months that held up, if not perfectly, at least markedly better than many in Israel claimed it would. And getting to Segev's more practical point, if trying to stamp out Hezbollah by physically coercing the Lebanese population into not supporting them failed, why should attacking Gaza crush Hamas? The real losers right now anyways, besides the innocents caught in the crossfire, are the Arab monarchs and despots who are looking even more ridiculous to their subjects than ever before. . . given that our interest is not to see them fall, I'm not sure how an operation that destabilizes them is in our interest.
Regards,
Matt
I respect your view, and take you point. But trust me I am far from smug. I have just mellowed out in my old age. Having served on operational duty in the service of my country in various locations over three decades of my life I look back and see very little, if any, strategic gain in any of them. War is not the answer and I dont think it needs to be inevitable. I believe both sides in this conflict deserve domestic and regional legitimacy but realize it will take a significant shift in domestic, regional and international attitudes for this to occur. I hope it comes sooner rather than later. But like you I fear it will not - and sadly I think the chances for a diplomatic breakthrough will be dealt an even greater setback if, as expected, Likuds Benjamin Netanyahu forms the next Israeli government.
Only the citizens have the capacity to create the momentum needed for a comprehensive settlement in this region - and history has provided us with enough examples to give validity to this vision of a people-led march towards peace and to have faith that it will happen eventually. While it is always wise to be cautious about such optimistic views - there are many new leaders throughout the world, from formerly war torn or dictatorial countries, who now prefer the ideals and techniques of Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi ahead of Sun Tzu. Call me a dreamer - Id be fine with that.
I sense your smug disdain for all parties to this conflict. But I think you also missed the point.
Turning aside from platitudinous meanderings over who owns what and has a right to what and why, the point is fundamentally that if it is true that Israel is committed to its sovereignty and continued existence, and Hamas is committed to exactly the opposite, regardless of what you are I might think about the parties, these are two mutually exclusive and irreconcilable positions.
No amount of dialogue (first response) and no amount of disdain (second response) is relevant.
If they were school kids, and if the consequences of this latest round of violence werent so tragic, youd spank Hamas on the backside for being idiotically pigheaded and send the Israelis home from school for bullying. When Hamas notified Israel that they were terminating their truce last Friday; and punctuated that announcement by firing rockets into Israel and threatening a wave of suicide attacks they essentially challenged the school bully to a fight in front of his buddies - a challenge Israel felt it could not turn a blind eye to.
Every time these two tribes go to war, analysts everywhere rush to proclaim the situation so complex that whatever position is taken, there are a dozen counter positions - and thereby casting as inevitabile or intractable the tragedy that follows. The sooner the ordinary people of both sides force their leaders to acknowledge their wrong doings and negotiate a compromised agreement the better. Hamas has proven once again they are good for nothing except prolonging misery for the Palestinians by constant fighting - having failed completely to govern Gaza - and Israel continues to flout the international conventions (as problematic as they were) that defined the borders of a the Palestinian state in 1947. By Israel maintaining a constant state of war against the people with whom they share their geography, their only dividend has been the creation of new generations of Palestinian youths whose minds have been perverted by hatred and loathing towards them.
Taking a side in this dispute is not part of the solution... indeed it is the heart of the problem. Both sides are wrong and there is absolutely no good outcome possible in this unending conflict without negotiation and compromise. If the good citizens of Gaza and Israel cannot see this and force their leaders to rise above their stubborness, then they too must bear responsibility for the thousands of innocent lives that will be lost as a result. It was the political theorist Mr Edmund Burke who is credited with the phrase "all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." This applies equally to Palestinians and Israelis. Quite apart from all the weighty concerns of morality and civilized behavior, the truth is that war almost never solves anything and certainly never results in enduring peace.
Well, if you wish to engage in "endless debate" about who started it, you'll have to do it without me. I couldn't care less, and that wasn't the point. I suggest that you relay your suggestions to "advance the dialogue" to the only country involved who believes in the so-called two-state solution, Israel. Hamas doesn't believe in it, and neither for that matter does the Palestinian authority. It takes two to dance. I have my doubts that your suggestions to dialogue would change that.
Herschel,
I believe the endless debate on "who started it" is entirely counterproductive, as everyone will have their own politically motivated view. Whether this is the fault of Hamas not renewing a ceasefire and firing rockets, or Israel continuing to control a territory it has no legal basis for having, the origin does not matter so much as whether this brings us closer to a solution or not.
Miliband's concern, to me, seems to be for the future of the peace process and a solution to this festering wound in the hearts and minds in the Middle East, not assigning blame and responsibility to the Israelis. And as Tom Segev wrote in the Israeli press, "no military operation has ever advanced dialogue with the Palestinians;" I believe there is reason to doubt the Gaza operation will be beneficial in the long run to either party . . .
Regards,
Matt