Will ‘Nipper’ Cameron obey Tel Aviv’s trumpet call or vote for Palestinian freedom?


The little white dog listened intently to his master’s voice from the gramophone trumpet…



Britain and NATO were keen as mustard to establish a no-fly zone over Libya to “protect civilians” but too cowardly to do the same for the Palestinians, who are constantly on the receiving end of Israel’s air strikes and armed incursions. Muslims and Christians alike have been slaughtered or maimed in their thousands and had their homes, farms and water resources stolen while waiting 63 years for the international community to deliver them from Israel’s brutal occupation.

And Israel now plans to steal Palestine’s offshore gas.

Not surprisingly, after decades of fruitless peace talks with a gun to their heads the Palestinians are about to apply to the United Nations for recognition of their own state based on the 1949 armistice lines that are universally regarded as the border with Israel.

The bid is due to be made on 20 September or soon afterwards, under Lebanon’s UN presidency. Meanwhile, the US and Israel have been conducting a huge diplomatic campaign to sabotage the Palestinian move.  

Most of the world already supports the Palestinian cause. The trouble is, the will of the people in theUS, Britain and most of Europe is ignored by political leaders who have allowed themselves to be suckered into the Zionist cause. That’s Western-style democracy for you. Freedom fighters, beware.

It remains to be seen whether Britain, whose prime minister is a self-proclaimed Zionist and, some are now claiming, a direct descendent of Moses and has pledged “indestructible” support for the Israeli regime, and whose foreign secretary has been an adoring Friend of Israel since he was in short trousers, will join in blocking the bid for freedom.

The other day David Cameron said of the successful Libyan uprising: “Our task now is to do all we can to support the will of the Libyan people which is for an effective transition to a free, democratic and inclusive Libya. This will be and must be and should be Libyan-led and a Libyan-owned process with broad international support co-ordinated by the United Nations.” He’s keen as mustard – again – to do all this for the Libyans, but will he do the same for the Palestinians? When they held free and fair elections in 2006, remember, democracy-preaching Britain didn’t like the result and joined the US and Israel in trashing the Palestinians’ fledgling democracy and strangling their economy.

It’s not difficult to imagine Cameron and Hague snapping to attention when Tel Aviv speaks, the mantra-like instructions amplified as usual by Washington… “Let there be no doubt… blah, blah…symbolic action to isolate Israel will not create an independent Palestinian state… blah, blah…there’s no shortcut to statehood… blah, blah…must return to the negotiating table…”.

The famous trade-mark white dog ‘Nipper’, listening intently to his master’s voice from the gramophone trumpet, comes instantly to mind. And fluffy American bitches have had their coiffed heads wedged so firmly up Tel Aviv’s trumpet for such a long time that it’s worn like a permanent fashion statement over there.

The question is, can ‘Nipper’ Cameron extract his head from that trumpet long enough to do the decent thing with regard to democracy and freedom in the Middle East, in tune with the British people’s wishes?

International support is one thing. The Palestinian leadership is something else. I read with alarm that Saeb Erekat, President Abbass’s sidekick, heads the team responsible for preparing the Palestinian submission to the UN. I thought Erekat resigned as chief negotiator following revelations by al-Jazeera that his team, during peace talks with the Israelis, was willing to make foolish concessions and couldn’t negotiate its way out of a paper bag. A few months ago he was reported to be in Washington talking with US officials about reviving the discredited peace process. How counter-productive can he get?

And such is the legal and constitutional tangle surrounding the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation), the PNC (Palestinian National Council), the PA (Palestinian Authority) and their relationship to each other, that legal advisers now warn that a move towards statehood might adversely affect the rights of the refugees, who account for more than half of all Palestinians. If the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, is replaced by a state the change in legal status could mean that core rights, such as the right of return, are lost forever, it is claimed. Other say that is nonsense and just scare tactics.

Nevertheless, if the whole deal is not very cleverly handled it could have unwelcome consequences. On the other hand, even partial success can change the dynamics of this very miserable situation.

All the same, are these really the right people to be in charge of  Palestine’s fate?

25 August 2011