The Commons has had a good day. After a thorough examination of the future of the steel industry in England and Wales, during which the Minister rowed back on an earlier commitment to producing primary steel as a national strategy, honourable and right honourable members tackled the humanitarian implications of the war in Gaza and Israel. Mercifully, most MPs heeded the request of the deputy Speaker to keep contributions brief, though some succumbed to the temptation to lay on the suffering with a trowel.
There was much argument about the need for a ceasefire, incidentally laying bare differences on the opposition benches and to some extent the government's. The trouble is, it seems to me, that the word means different things to different people. To many right-thinking people in the West it means an end to Israel's area bombing of residential areas and targeting ambulances and aid facilities because there might be fighters hidden there. To the Israelis, it means giving up on eradicating Hamas. Surely there is a middle ground. Israel is justified in armed police action against known terrorist leaders. (I nearly wrote "entitled" but that would imply approval under international law.) Hamas would of course have to give up weaponry in return. There are two difficulties. The ultimate leadership of Hamas is safe in Qatar and insulated from the daily suffering in Gaza and Israel; and there are splinter groups in Palestine and Lebanon firing rockets who will not follow a lead from Hamas. It needs a strong intermediary - Qatar looks favourite - to obtain a necessary pause at least.
Andrew Mitchell, for the government, did at least commit to a call for "pauses". Nor, dramatically, did he associate himself with Ms Braverman's depiction of pro-Palestinian sentiment as "nasty". Are the Home Secretary's days numbered?
No comments:
Post a Comment