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

Response from Mr. Paul Farrelly MP (Constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)

You have to love getting letters back from Parliament... They come in a nice pale yellow envelope, on nice pale yellow paper emblazoned with "On Her Majesties Service" and in green the crest of the Palace of Westminster and "House of Commons" inside.

Paul Farrelly, by all accounts a very decent man, is my MP, and although we cirtainly differ in view on a wide range of issues (primarily on what he deems necessary for National Security and his support of certain recent foreign adventures by the British Expeditionary Force), I am pleased to report that he wrote back promptly and offered an interesting retort to my argument.

Dear Mr. Leech

Thank you for you thoughtful and passionate e-mail regarding the Palestinian Crisis and I appreciate and share your concerns.

Solving the Palestinian issue must be one of the international community's primary concerns.

To this end, I was present at an event recently where Gordon Brown was making a speech to leading figures in the Jewish commuinty in Britain. In his address he stressed that economic development was crucial for the Palestinians and that peace and prosperity went hand in hand. It was good to the Prime Minister taking such a balanced and thoughtful approach.

Unfortunately, however, such long-term strategies for peace in the Middle East are thwarted by short-term reactions, and over-reactions, and only by creating a stable environment can economic development occur.

Clearly, I will continue to support any campaign that attempts to solve the crisis and encorage further dialogue between all sides and I firmly believe that only through concerted international pressure will there be any resolution.

Best Wishes and Kind regards