|
There’s not much point in Scots becoming deeply
engrossed in diplomacy and foreign affairs, as our capacity to exert any
influence is determined by our size and is thus negligible. The result
has been that the Scots who become actively and prominently involved in
overseas events or causes tend to be those with very special interests,
often coming across to the rest of us as bees in their bonnet. It is
normal, therefore, for those specially motivated and stimulated persons
to make the running, command the headlines and at times dictate the
formulation of policies to the more indifferent majority.
However, the horrors in New York have aroused some
sort of response from pretty well everyone; and some sort of response is
almost expected from everyone, including our Party. Our elected leaders
have spoken with wisdom and restraint in both relevant Parliaments, and
their common sense should encourage all of us to follow their example.
Unfortunately many of our countrymen and women
have seen the present crisis as an opportunity for
them to give a fresh airing to their own particular animosities or
enthusiasms. No harm in that exercise of free speech, of course, but
while we are all entitled to our conclusions, we are also entitled to
have a look at the nature of the reasoning which has brought us there.
"We cannot consent to
action which will cause to innocent persons". If only. The last conflict which perhaps
met that requirement was the Crimean
War, which takes us back a bit; and if the 20th century had any major
characteristic it was surely the revelation that wars nowadays spared no
one. If you feel, above all, that innocent people must be spared, you
must then propose doing nothing. It is a perfectly defensible
proposition, but it ought to be put frankly. Then there is the argument
that there must always be consistency; that if you can’t take on, say,
China, you must not take on some weaker power; that if the powerful
cannot be restrained or punished, then weaker trouble-makers should be
allowed to function freely. This is the kind of opinion that we must all
have held at some stage. It is the thinking of the clever 14-year-old,
gradually arriving at the outlook on the world which will carry on into
adult years. And the passage of those years will, quite quickly, bring
to most of us the realisation that no state will ever surrender its
perceived vital interests be-cause of some alleged moral inconsistency.
It is also difficult to convince any government that
resolutions adversely affecting the security of its country must
properly be obeyed, particularly when the resolutions have been passed by a body which has made no secret of its
hostility.
When the state of Israel was founded the Soviet Union
was warmly supportive. But the Soviet Union changed its
tune, presumably seeing its Cold War prospects better served by
stimulating Arab anger against the United States. Naturally, and as
usual, the International Left, or much of it at least,
followed the Soviet lead, and there the drawn lines have since remained.
It can certainly be argued that the creation of
Israel was unjust to the Arabs in Palestine. I for one argued that case
at the time, with such force as one person could muster, much to the
rage and heckling of Labour contemporaries. But all of us who took that
view were swept into silence, and the new map was drawn.
It would feed vanity if I
could claim that the
consequences from then till now were foreseen. They were not. The Cold
War-inspired encouraging of Arab intransigence followed the happy days
of accord between the Great Powers which would have saved all the blood
since shed in the area, and now far overseas.
Of course Israel should be urged to observe resolutions. Of course all
possible steps should be taken to "remove the causes" of Arab
rage. But at the same time there must be a sad acceptance of the fact
that hopes for peace cannot be high, and those worthy palliatives will
not work.
Israel is here. Its creation had its own just merits.
Would you now seek to abolish it? Would you demand of its people that
they acquiesce in their own destruction?
World leaders and diplomats struggled for years to
bring Israel’s neighbours to agree to tolerate the state in their
reluctant midst. To a degree they succeeded and Anwar Sadat died because
of his contribution. The PLO not so long ago agreed that the destruction
of Israel was no longer an objective. The world did not have
long enough to reach any conclusion on their sincerity before renewed violence broke
out.
But even if Arafat and the PLO renounced their
long-sought objective, others will not. There is, as Mr Galloway has
reminded us, more than one bin Laden, and many volunteers to attempt the
capture of airliners. The problem for the world’s leaders is to
organise to meet these threats. The removal of grievances is
desirable, but not the end of the matter. High mindedness, good
intentions, fair play all have their place but not at the heart of the
problem, which is starkly simple. The offence is not Israel’s
behaviour, but existence. The ultimate confrontation is between those
who will not see Israel destroyed, and those who will not rest until it
is.
|
