(N.B. At the request of my readers, this article has now been cut in 3 to make it more digestible. Part 2/3 will go up tomorrow. Part 3/3 will go up on Wednesday. As the posts go live, so will the links below.) Part 1 [Mon.]: The Issues; The Civilized Response to Terror; Yes This Matters to Britain Part 2 [Tues.]: From Ulster to Jerusalem; The Uses of Suffering, The Military Options Part 3 [Wed.]: Hard Questions, Hard Answers; Conclusion

Over the past couple of weeks, Andrew Iain Dodge ("DodgeBlog") has been engaged in a blog-on-blog debate with Iain Dale ("Iain's Party") and Emmanuel Golstein ("Airstrip One"). The whole thing started with a post from Mr. Dale that accused Israel of a terror campaign against the Palestinians, and proposed cutting off all U.S. aid to force Sharon to give the Palestinians their own state. Here's the sequence:

[1] Iain Dale
[2] Dodgeblog
[4] Airstrip One, reproduced via Iain Dale
[5] Iain Dale responds to my email

Got all that? Right. In the interest of even odds, it seemed only cricket for me to wade in. After perusing Airstrip One, I decided he wasn't much worth my time. Mr. Dale seemed like an otherwise sensible fellow, however, and so my response will be bent in his direction.

Iain Dale writes:

ID: "My posting below on Israel and Palestone seems to have caused a certain degree of outrage among my fellow Conservative bloggers. Tough. I call it as I see it."

It's the "as I see it" part we're wondering about, Mr. Dale. I'm hoping I can understand what you do see a bit better.

As noted above I sent Iain Dale an email, inviting him to respond via email or by blog. He graciously took me up on that offer:

Joe Katzman writes:
1) Any chance you might put down a blog post explaining the "terror campaign"... what kinds of things are you talking about when you say it? I'm not asking to be naive, but because I'd rather not make inferences and then end up criticizing you in public over something you did not in fact mean.
2) Wondering if you might explain the distinctions as you see them between British conduct in Northern Ireland and Israel's behaviour vis-a-vis the Palestinians. As you might imagine, on this side of the pond we tend to hear a lot more from the Irish side... and again, I'd rather hear your side before wading in.

Debate is now joined. Iain Dale replies:

ID: "In answer to point 1 - do I really need to spell it out? I think not."

You don't - but unless you do, all we really know is that you have a prejudice. Is it backed by something real? Are its premises open to question and examination? Is it just bigotry?

For the record, I doubt that bigotry plays a role. My point is that it's impossible to tell unless one's premises are open to examination. Besides which, it's the gentlemanly thing to do in discussions of this sort. Iain, I repeat my offer... could you kindly spell this out a bit?

The Civilized Response to Terror

ID: "While I wouldn't necessarily trust all the pictures I see on TV it is quite clear to me that the Israelis have gone far beyond what any civilised country would feel is acceptable."

More generalities, alas, which mean little until and unless we get some idea of what those limits might be.

What would a "civilized society" feel is acceptable, Mr. Dale? How does that relate to your country's past conduct during its own anti-terrorist operations in Jenin? To the hundreds of thousands of German civilians killed by bombing in WW2 (does "Dresden" ring a bell)? Or to the war in Afghanistan, in which Britain is closely involved. That conflict has killed its share of civilians in airstrikes, all despite the presence of a less clear threat to Britain, and a less direct connection to the terrorists, and a casualty count far smaller in both absolute number and proportion, than Israel faces today.

ly, I think there's a good case to be made for all of the above examples. What I don't see is how one can accept such actions for one's own country, and declare them beyond the civilized pale when done by Israel. Not without inviting some rather sharp questions, anyway.

ID: "I am not in favour of terrorism whether it is state sponsored or not. Of course Israeli citizens have the right to defend themselves and live in peace. And of course Israel has the right to exist. All I am saying is that so do the Palestinians."

OK. If that is all you're saying, then you're in agreement with the vast majority of Israelis.

What the EU and its hangers-on never want to address, however, is the question that follows this consensus.

What happens when you have a ruler of the Palestinians who knows no democratic checks, who does not accept Israel's right to exist, who eschews the non-violent approaches that would have given them a state 10 years ago, who has broken every every treaty he has signed, and prepares, supplies and orders acts of war on a consistent and continuous basis? That ruler is in turn supported by a number of Arab regimes (Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran most prominently; others to a lesser degree) who have a and proprietary interest in maintaining this status quo. After all, it provides their populations with an external diversion whose focusing effects let these Arab rulers live in mind-boggling wealth instead of being overthrown or killed.

What then?

What I have never seen from the EU is a viable plan, which a sensible person with responsibility for Israel's security would accept, that deals with these realities. So far, the EU's suggestions sound more like suicide pacts to me, largely because (as is so often the case) they begin by denying inconvenient realities and ignoring the evidence for same.

Does this sound like the EU you know and despise, Mr. Dale? If we sound puzzled, it's because we didn't expect this same pattern from a Thatcherite like yourself.

If we're wrong, and you have a viable plan, we're certainly not alone in wanting to hear it. But in the absence of that viable alternative, situations like the one I've described above can be dealt with in only one way: war. The Palestinian Authority wanted one, and self-proclaimed "General Arafat" got his wish. THAT is the justification for Jenin, and for the current goings-on.

That fact is that the Israelis at war are acting with much, much more restraint than the British operation in Jenin ca. 1938 - which was also aimed at dealing with terrorists, by the way. Reports in 1938 included allegations of eyes being gouged out, not to mention a confirmed incident in which 4,200 pounds of explosives were used by the British after the battle, in order to level a section of Jenin as a form of collective punishment. If the Israeli actions in Jenin are beyond the civilized pale, are you willing to apply that standard to your own country's actions? If Israel's actions are terrorism, what do you call Britain's? Will you condemn Britain as an uncivilized nation for its conduct?

And if not, why not? Enquiring minds want to know.

ID: "We should be against terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head."

Absolutely. And for motherhood and apple pie... sorry, boarding school and bangers and mash.

When that doesn't make terrorism go away, then what? What do we do? Where are the limits to action? What dangers are we willing to accept in order to abide by those limits, bearing in mind that weapons of mass destruction are becoming easier to produce and that terrorist-sponsoring states have active programs?

When we start talking about questions like that, we'll have a real debate instead of just an airing of prejudices.

Yes, This Matters to Britain

ID (response to DodgeBlog): "The fact that some idiot Palestinians cheered on September 11th has nothing to do with this at all."

I beg to differ there. It suggests to observers that they may be dealing with a culture who consider the West their enemy, and Israel a manifestation of same, and who may not be interested in stopping at the sea if they ever get the Judenfrei Mideast that so many of them dream of and speak of.

Sounds to me like a pretty valid bit of information when one is weighing one's options and deciding on national policy. Accommodation without renunciation by word and deed of the hatred and violence demonstrated and incited to date strikes me as storing up disaster for yourselves, but your mileage may vary.

ID (response to DodgeBlog): "I am sure there were some Islamic extremists on the streets of Britain doing the same. So what."

This one seems rather obvious. So, you should be even more concerned about any strategy that seems to demonstrate to large segments of the Palestinians and the Muslim ummah that terror works. Or that encourages Arab rulers to believe that funding terrorism is an effective way to divert attention from their societies' problems. In both cases, those teachings won't go away... even if Israel does. Guess what happens next?

Speaking of issues that matter to Britain, tomorrow I go on to the Irish question... and why I raised it at all.

(N.B. As noted earlier, Part 2/3 will be posted tomorrow. Part 3/3 will be posted on Wednesday. Once posted, their links will go live here.) Part 1 [Mon.]: The Issues; The Civilized Response to Terror; Yes This Matters to Britain Part 2 [Tues.]: From Ulster to Jerusalem; The Uses of Suffering, The Military Options Part 3 [Wed.]: Hard Questions, Hard Answers; Conclusion