Editorial critique.  

Leading article in the Independent: Welcome but fragile, this ceasefire must be only a start   Monday, 19 January 2009

When it comes to Israel/Palestine, our liberal press reveals remarkable blind spots   - as shown by this editorial.  It repeats the established line that " a way had to be found of stopping the smuggling of weapons and their components into Gaza – a lucrative business for some that provided much of the arsenal Hamas was able to draw on. "

 The Israeli Foreign Minister rushed to Washington  to get an agreement from the States to stop the tunnels into Egypt but though these pass, not just arms, but vital food and medicines that Israel has been keeping from this imprisoned nation, in an effort to starve them into submission.  The piece of paper obtained by Israel in Washington is totally impractical, a pointless piece of paper since neither Egypt nor Hamas have agreed to the presence of American forces on the borders.

But why is strengthening the prison walls an objective endorsed by Western Governments?  Is not Hamas their elected government?  Are we not saying we support Palestinian independence in a two state "solution"?  Last time I checked,  independent states have the right to import arms to protect their citizens.  What happens if in the next Palestinian election Hamas is again elected into power - as must now be considered very likely? The way to ensure weapons are not used is to end this occupation in a just and fair manner.

The editorial went on to say. "If the military wing of Hamas has, in fact, been disabled, Mr Olmert will also be able to bow out next month, having salvaged his reputation as a war leader after the troubled Lebanon operation of 2006."  Who says it has been "disabled?" Not even the Israeli leadership.  

It then concluded: "What is beyond doubt is that these three weeks of harrowing combat have changed the situation on the ground decisively in Israel's favour."  Pardon me? Beyond doubt? Israel surely has been substantially weakened by carrying out a terrifying and murderous assault on Palestinian population in front of TV cameras operated by Arab and Palestinian crews and by the quite evident, widely reported, enhanced support now given to Hamas. It surely has shattered much of Israel's credibility.

Then the Editorial went on to say. 'The impressive turn-out presided over by President Mubarak in Sharm el-Sheikh yesterday – which included the Palestinian President, and leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Jordan" - but it forgot to mention the other gathering of leaders that took place at nearly the same time on the Gulf attended by the leaders of Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Gulf leaders and Hamas. Very strong statement, in line with those that came from this gathering,  were also made by the Prime Ministers of Iraq and Turkey. 

Clearly this conflict has torn asunder the  Middle East,  weakening the old leadership funded by the West that were in Sharm el-Sheikh - quite the opposite to what this editorial had to say.

Only a final sentence can I praise - but it is evident. It is "the cost to Israel's international reputation, which had been enhanced by its 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, is likely to have been high, especially in Arab countries. The trust essential to starting negotiations on any future, comprehensive, settlement remains as elusive as ever."