When did Israel give a God-forsaken people the chance to go it alone?

YOUR columnist Steven King’s defence of the Israeli actions in Gaza is an interesting exercise in intellectual acrobatics (January 7).

Stripped of all its humanitarian spin, it comes down to this... Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, destroying all its settlements in the process. The argument appears to be that this was the opportunity for the Palestinians to begin the process of building their own state.

Nobody would dispute that Israeli soldiers left the area but not in a way that would enable anything positive to develop. They continued to control the land, sea and air borders.

To argue that a population of 1.5 million herded into a pen area measuring 25 miles by seven miles and deprived of access to the other parts of Palestine where their relatives and/or property are located constitutes an offer of freedom is surely stretching the apologetics a bit.

Mr King’s congratulatory tone when he mentions Israel’s removal of the settlers reveals just where his sympathies lie. He does not ask himself why these Jewish settlers were there in the first place or why Israel (which continues to be responsible for Gaza and the West Bank under UN law) not only accepted these settlements but encouraged them for the past 40 years?

Mr King expresses surprise that the Palestinians continue to “blow the opportunity” of building their own state. I am not aware of any such opportunity being afforded them.

Maybe I missed it but nowhere have I read that the Israeli government has agreed to return to the pre-1967 boundaries demanded by the UN.

He cites the opportunity which he claims was on offer in Bill Clinton’s day. What opportunity? What proposals did Israel place on the table that would have made a viable Palestinian state a possibility? The proposals that were offered consisted of a refusal by Israel to dismantle its existing settlements (in fact quite the contrary, it provided for an expansion of some of the existing illegal settlements).

Effectively what they were offering the Palestinians was a land mass which would be honeycombed with Israeli settlements and military facilities and no right of return for those hundreds of thousands of Palestinians whose land had been stolen since 1967 and the earlier illegal expansion of Israel in 1948.

Mr King asks what sort of organisation is Hamas that it practically invites retaliation? Hamas entered into a ceasefire agreement with Israel just over six months ago. This provided for a cessation of rocket fire into Israel, a suspension of military activities by Israel and a relaxation of the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

By and large the rocket fire from Gaza ceased (there was the occasional rocket fire from the more extreme groups in Gaza, but Hamas did all it could to prevent this). On the other hand, Israel did not relax its blockade (thereby making it more difficult for Hamas to control its hotheads), arrested and imprisoned scores of non-military Hamas-elected representatives and officials and on November 4 broke the remaining element of the ceasefire agreement by initiating military action against Gaza. Naturally enough, Hamas did not want another ceasefire when the original one expired a few weeks ago. Indeed, it is doubtful if it could even have contemplated such a thing, given Israel’s flagrant breach of faith, without losing credibility among its own people.

There is no doubt that any meaningful ceasefire must have insurance in place that Israel will act in good faith and on terms that include a real relaxation of the blockade. This will have to be something that is imposed upon Israel as we know from experience how it consistently refuses to allow the UN a monitoring role in any of its conflict areas — witness the way it callously bombed a UN building housing UN monitors on July 26, 2006 during its illegal invasion of Lebanon, killing all four personnel.

Whether the west likes it or not, Hamas has to be part of the solution. The demonisation of that organisation by everyone from the EU to the USA has not helped Israel face the need for a solution based on good faith. Despite being depicted as a rabidly fanatical movement it embraces a wide range of opinion from moderate to extreme. The behaviour of Israel and the west will influence which elements prevail. It will only be through outside pressure that Israel will ever contemplate dealing honourably with the Palestinians. So far, the so-called civilised west has let this God-forsaken people down.

Eamon Dyas

20 Egmont Street

London SE14 5QJ