Second Open Letter to Paul Farrelly MP

Dear Paul Farrelly MP,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I was very pleased to learn of your support for the Prime Minister’s initiative. Indeed I am also encouraged by the European Union’s call for the Government of Israel to reconsider the designation of Gaza as an “enemy entity”. It is apparent
from the lessons of Northern Ireland, and from James Wolfensohn’s recommendations for an effective long term strategy that economic growth is likely to be central to achieving a lasting peace. At a conference I attended in Jerusalem recently, former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami explained that such a strategy simply cannot be effective while Palestine is divided and while the international community ostensibly supports free elections and then objects to their
result.
I wonder, therefore, whether you consider that the European support for the international blockade that still victimises the innocent Palestinians in Gaza (and gives those with militant leanings another reason to see no distinction between Israel and its western allies), and the attempted isolation of Hamas (presumably including, but not limited to the Izz al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades) is one of the ‘short-term reactions’ or ‘over-reactions’ that, as you say, puts the
peace process at risk.
In my view the presentation of the Palestinian question has become set in a narrative which is more representative of a particular political agenda than actual fact. An important example ins ‘terrorism’ which according to international law and Richard Falk (Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and formerly a member of the UN Human Rights Inquiry Commission for the Palestinian Territories) is considered to be: violence “directed at civilians with a calculated
intention of producing fear as well as physical harm”. It is therefore distinguished from other forms of armed operations by its victims not by its perpetrators. As Falk explains in his paper Azmi Bishara, the Right of Resistance, and the Palestinian Ordeal: “Collective punishment
of a people subject to the exigencies of a military occupation with territorial ambitions is clearly as much a form of terrorism as reliance on suicide bombers.”
According to Falk the armed resistance that targets military assets of a hostile occupying power is not clearly permissible nor non-permissible. However, similar actions are applauded as a kind of national mythology in the United States (as the resistance to British rule), in Europe (the Forces Françaises de l'Intérieur and/or Maquis) and in Israel itself as armed resistance to British occupation in the late 1940s.
I believe that it would be extremely important, and supportive to the peace process, for the British Government to take the step of explicitly defining what it considers to be terrorism and ‘short-term reactions, and over-reactions’ in this context. The government of Israel currently undertakes routine torture, extra-judicial executions, house demolitions, pervasive methods of restricting movement, and illegal annexation of territory. (If you require, I can present you
with an in-depth academic report I have researched and written supplying a great deal of evidence supported by predominantly Israeli and international sources, such as B’tselem, ICAHD and my own interviews). Surely, if we are to be consistence under the law we must
demand the same of Israelis as we do of Palestinians.
Attacks which target civilians in Tel Aviv, the Negev or West Jerusalem are certainly morally wrong and the UK is right to demand their end. But there should be no special status for terrorism that is enacted by states. Therefore the British government must identify and
pursue the goal of ending terrorism against Palestinians with the same vigour it seeks to end terrorism by Palestinians.
I hope that with the opportunity of the Labour Party Conference and the commencement of a new parliament in the coming weeks you will actively encourage the government to take two actions. First, publicly state a clear position that distinguishes between what actions it
considers to be legitimate and illegitimate in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and applicable to both nations. Second, accept either the ending of the economic blockade against the Gaza Strip or its extension to the State of Israel until such time as the Israeli Government commits to the cessation of terrorism against the Palestinian people.
Finally, I would also like to ask if you would mind me quoting or summarizing your correspondence to me on my online blog (C.f. http://peechyinpalestine.blogspot.com).

Thank you for your continued correspondence,
Yours sincerely,

Phil Leech