Tag Archives: James Yardley

James Yardley on The Elusive Peace – An examination into the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Part 2.

Posted on by

The Elusive Peace – An examination into the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Part 2 – What are the internal divisions within Israel and how does this affect the chances of a future peace settlement with the Palestinians.

Israel

At first glance Israel appears a united country but when it comes to the question of the Palestinians, Israel is deeply divided. These divisions are exacerbated by Israel’s electoral system which is one of proportional representation. Israel has a wide range of different political parties. Many are very small special interest parties often campaigning on a single policy. The Israeli parliament, the Knesset is made up of 120 seats. To form a government a party needs to gain 61 seats. However because of the system of proportional representation no party ever forms a majority. In 2009 the largest party Kadima achieved only 22% of the vote gaining 28 seats. Miles short of the 61 needed for a majority.

Israeli governments tend to be a fragile coalition of various parties and as a result tend to be weak. Often the main body of a coalition may struggle to appease more radical elements. Unsurprisingly the average Israeli government has only lasted 25 months as inevitably elements within the coalition fall out with one another. A series of weak governments has made it difficult for an Israeli prime ministers to take decisive action regarding the Palestinian question.

An important point to consider in regard to the Palestinian question is that Israel is surprisingly only about 70% Jewish. There is a substantial and growing Arab minority making up around 20% of the population. There are two Israeli Arab political parties, United Arab List (4 seats) and Balad (3seats). Some commentators have speculated there is potential for internal conflict should this minority continue to grow. The strained situation is heightened by the fact that the Arab minority maintains very close ties with those in the occupied territories. There have already been incidents of rioting and unrest during the first intifada (1987-1993) and the second intifada (2000- ).

Many in Israel are also very much aware of this threat. This is illustrated by Yisrael Beiteinu, a secular nationalist party which uses the slogan, ‘no loyalty, no citizenship’ towards Israeli Arabs and is described by the Israeli media as ‘far right’. The party wants to create a new Palestinian state and then transfer areas of high Arab population in Israel to this new state in exchange for Jewish areas in the West Bank. Despite being a very new party founded in 1999, which initially only achieved 4 seats, it has now grown to be the third largest party in the Knesset gaining 15 seats in the 2009 general election. Israeli Arabs remain vehemently opposed to the idea. Israel has a much greater standard of living compared the occupied territories.

Likud (27 seats) the party of the current prime minister Netanyahu continue to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state and supports the building of more settlements within the West Bank. Shas (11seats) a religious party also tends to support this policy.

It has always been Likud’s policy to seek the whole land of Israel including in particular the areas of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). They believe Israel has a right to own this land. This is why Israeli settlement building continues.

In the past their have been big internal divisions within the party and the country regarding the policy. This was most famously highlighted when Ariel Sharron (then prime minister and leader of Likud and previously known as the champion of the settlers) abandoned the policy and his party in 2005 forming a new centrist party (Kadima) in order to carry out a disengagement plan. Removing Israeli settlements from Palestinian areas in Gazza and some areas of the West Bank.

The withdrawal has been heavily criticised within Israel for many reasons and many view it as a failure given the Hamas rocket attacks from Gazza in 2008. Since the withdrawal Israeli public opinion has seen a large shift in support back towards the right. In the most recent elections Likud more than doubled its number of seats.

A combination of deep internal divisions and successive weak governments continue to contribute to the lack of progress regarding a settlement with the Palestinians. Although these are by no means the only or most important factors. In the next article we will examine the impact of internal Palestinian divisions on a future peace settlement.

by James Yardley

The Great Political Debate: Part 3: Conservative – Why You Would be Mad to Vote For Labour and Why I’m a Conservative

Posted on by

By James Yardley

A response to Alain Lewis

Thanks for the article as a Conservative supporter voting for the first time it’s really interesting to know how supporters of other parties think. I guess I feel a bit like you did in 1987 and 1992 at the moment. I wonder how people can still vote for Labour after the last 13 years. However reading your article helped me understand a bit better.

You are right there are some good things Labour has done, giving the bank of England independence, introducing the minimum wage and investing more heavily in health and education but this was all introduced when Labour first came to power. Everything since has been a complete disaster and I can’t believe anyone would vote for them with the record they have.

The Wars – Lies for going to war in Iraq (Al Qaeda justification, WMD), trying to fight two wars on a peace time budget, a lack of proper equipment and vehicles leading to greater casualties than there should have been. No planning for after the war.

NHS computers systems – A waste of £12 billion which makes peoples job harder

Schools – Only teach the test, standards are no better exams have got easier, teachers have no power, schools are run as democracies.

ID cards and a massive national database – A waste of billions with absolutely no purpose other than to centralise power and exert greater control over the individual, quite frankly dangerous and bad for our democracy

Needing a licence to protest and building millions of CCTV cameras, Arresting people for shouting out the names of the dead outside number 10 – Fascist, dangerous and undemocratic

Brown and Mandelson unelected – It’s a disgrace that Gordon Brown thinks he has the right to govern having not been elected by either the British people or his own party. Even worse is that Mandelson, twice embroiled in major corruption scandals, also unelected is somehow the second most powerful man in the country. Are we living in a democracy? Are people really just going to accept this?

Spin The whole 13years have been characterised by image, deception and spin. Every attempt has been made to hide the real truth.

Numerous broken manifesto promises – Completely unforgivable broken promises about tuition fees and a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. There are tens of others as well some though not all of which can be attributed to the financial crisis.

Economy – The Golden rules proved to be more spin and were broken at the first test, borrowing and spending far more than was affordable. In 1997 the deficit was 6 billion, today it is 160 and the national debt has doubled.

Policing – The police waste hours filling out endless paper work. As a result you never see them on the street.

Reforming benefits – Millions of people on incapacity benefits who shouldn’t be

What is worst and most shocking of all is that Labour has completely abandoned the very people it is supposed to represent. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has grown considerably. There is less social mobility than ever before. Labour has done nothing to break the cycle. Those who most need help getting into work have not been helped effectively. The 10p tax initiative summed up the whole situation. This is why I respect Richard Wright who wrote the first article because although I disagree with his politics he won’t settle for the Labour party as it is today.

Alain argues that David Cameron is trying to force private schools into the state sector. But that’s not David Cameron that’s a Labour policy. The government academy scheme (which Cameron does support and wants to expand). That says it all. The Labour party is not representative of its supporters but because they won’t vote for anyone else and Labour knows they can get away with it.

How can anyone vote for this party when they so clearly have no morality or integrity whatsoever? It is blatantly obvious that the Labour party cares only about itself. It will always put themselves first before the interests of the country. This is where our politics has gone so wrong. It’s time to start putting the people first again.

I’m a Conservative because I believe in giving power to the individual. Letting people live their own lives but still supporting them when they need help. We need to devolve power to a local level, allowing local communities to make their own decisions instead of some bureaucrat in Whitehall. That’s why I’m supporting David Cameron’s big society.

The Labour party has always sought to expand the power of the state. Every decision is controlled from the centre. They’ve tried to bring in ID cards and national databases. Everyone is treated as a statistic. This is not only inefficient and wasteful but it is also dangerous. An overly powerful state is bad for our democracy. The state has a role but it should be there to support you not to tell you how to live your life.

Budgets have seen huge increases, that’s a good thing, but only a small proportion has made it onto the frontline. In the last 13 years the government has created huge numbers of managers and administrators. It has become overly obsessed with its endless targets. This obsession is profoundly damaging. For example school exam results may be improving but does anyone really believe students are more intelligent or skilled. The real test is in the number of people being employed and youth unemployment is at around an astonishing 20%. That’s the only real statistic which matters in my eyes.

Conservatism is also about enterprise. Encouraging everyone to achieve their goals. Taxing people less. Helping small businesses by making it easier to employ people and cutting the ridiculous amounts of red tape that exist at the moment.

It’s time to get rid of this tired, inefficient and dishonest government. It’s time for people to take power back in to their own hands. That’s why I will be voting Conservative.

James Yardley

James Yardley on The Elusive Peace – An examination into the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Posted on by

The Elusive Peace – An examination into the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Part 1 – What are Israel’s Options Regarding the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gazza?

Its now almost 75 years since the first attempt was made to divide Palestine into separate Jewish and Arabic states. Back then the British Peel commission recommended that 80% of the land in Palestine should make up part of a new Arab state. Today it’s hard to imagine such a proposal was ever considered. Since the Peel proposal a Jewish state has been created and gone on to prosper but the Palestinians remain without the state they have been seeking for so long. But Israel’s options over what to do with the occupied territories are limited and diminishing. Has the time finally come for the creation of the elusive Palestinian state?

In 1988 King Hussein of Jordan renounced all claims and ties with the occupied territories (Gazza and the West Bank). This ruled out one of Israel’s major options for the territories which they had been occupying since the 1967 war. Many Israeli’s had hoped that the Palestinian problem could be solved with a peace agreement with Jordan. The West Bank would be divided between Israel and Jordan. Jordan would then take on the difficult responsibility of governing the Palestinians.

After Jordan pulled out of the West Bank calls for a Palestinian state became increasingly vocal. It was much harder for Israel to ignore the Palestinians and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) since Jordan stated, ‘the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people’. Prior to the withdrawal Israel had always been able to avoid dealing with the Palestinians directly, dealing instead with Jordan. After 1988 this was no longer an option.

Jordan’s decision left Israel with only 2 options over what to do with the occupied territories. The first is a one state solution, whereby the Israel annexes the West Bank and the Gaza strip, thereby assimilating them with the rest of Israel. However this is never considered a realistic option by the Israeli government or Israeli Jews. To assimilate the millions of Palestinians would defeat the purpose of a Jewish state and many fear it would threaten its existence.

This leaves Israel with the only one viable option, a two state solution. The creation of a separate Palestinian state encompassing both the West Bank and the Gazza strip, alongside the existing Israeli state. This is what the Palestinians want and given we know a one state solution is not an option, this is surely what Israel wants as well. A poll in 2007 showed that 70% of Israeli Jews were in favour of a two state solution. So why is it so hard to implement if both sides want the same thing? Why are negotiations always at a permanent stalemate?

Despite that lack of options remaining most Israeli’s are certainly in no rush to create a Palestinian state. It has been 22 years since Jordan renounced it ties with the West Bank and it still appears as if a Palestinian state is a long way off.

There is also a third option for Israel which we have not yet considered. That is a policy of maintaining the status quo or consolidation. A number of the right wing parties openly endorse this policy some of whom are part of Benjamin Netanyahu’s (prime minister of Israel) fragile coalition government. Likud itself (the right wing party Netanyahu leads) does not believe in a fully sovereign independent Palestinian state.

The Palestinian situation is also much more complicated. Many still refuse to recognise Israel’s right to exist. Some will settle for nothing less than the complete replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state.

The situation has been severely complicated by large divisions within both sides. The next article will take a closer look into these internal divisions. Why do some Israelis fear a Palestinian state and should they? Why is Israel still building new settlements in East Jerusalem? Will Hamas moderate? What is the future for Fatah? Is there any hope for a settlement in the near future?