The FT is not noted for being left-wing. Social radicalism has not been its hallmark. It is an unashamed promoter of the interests of capital. It also provides its journalists with a high degree of editorial freedom. Diverse views appear in its pages as a result. But every now and again the paper itself can deliver a genuine surprise. Today's lead editorial provides such an occasion. It says:
Israel's collective punishment of the 2.3mn people trapped in Gaza — almost half of them children — must stop.
Having calmly considered the evidence on the emerging situation in Gaza it adds:
It is time for a humanitarian ceasefire. That would ease the suffering of Palestinians and cool regional tensions. Hamas must release all hostages.
It goes on, saying:
Israel's allies must press Netanyahu's government to allow more aid into Gaza and to lift its siege. They must also steer Israel towards a more plausible plan to negate the threat posed by Hamas — one that does not drive Israel and the region into the abyss.
And this is their reasoning:
Hamas struck a catastrophic blow against Israel on October 7. Israel must now avoid falling into the trap of enabling the militants — who count every Palestinian victim as a martyr to their cause — to capitalise on that. The greater the suffering of Palestinian civilians, the more likely it is that Israel will lose support in the west, while further enraging the Arab and Muslim worlds.
I hope the FT will forgive me quoting at greater length than they usually think permissible but I think these words are important. They show that an entity noted for its rationality can adopt the position that so many are - who have then been condemned by those on the right (including the Labour leadership) for doing so.
There is an extraordinarily strong rational, as well as emotional and humanitarian, case for a ceasefire in Gaza. I am pleased to see the FT making it. I hope some of our so-called political leaders take note.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
What the FT has said needs to be re-read. Effectively they are saying they call on readers to call on the UK government to call on the Israeli government to cease firing. Not necessarily because it’s the right thing to do but because by continuing the military campaign Israel will become unpopular.
So we have another example of ‘will it make me popular, or less unpopular’ as a way to form policy
I believe it is a case of the writer knowing his audience. I hazard a guess that a lot of FT readers are swayed by arguments of utility and rational choice rather than arguments of free will and moral evil.
“They must also steer Israel towards a more plausible plan to negate the threat posed by Hamas “
Yes but how is this answered when it is Hamas stated objective to “wipe all jews off the face of the earth”??
The fear of Israel is another ceasefire will allow Hamas to regroup and refund and cause further atrocities in the future in pursuit of this objective .
Calling for a ceasefire is easy finding a solution to allow for the ceasefire is not.
Of course there is risk in a ceasefire. No one disputes it. We have two appalling governments seemingly intent on killing people to further their aims. No one pretends a ceasefire is easy, or sustainable. But what is better? Trying to reduce the tension, or letting it continue? And do you really think Hamas can be eliminated? Or that Iran will cease funding terror? If not, then ceasefires to find routes to containment have to be better.
Richard is someone is knocking at your door holding a machete and is threatening to kill you having already killed members of your family what would you do? This is what Israel face. Unless Hamas can be unfunded and stopped by some internal or international enforcement then Israel will protect themselves in the same way you would.
Sorry – but have you looked from the other side too?
Israel is also guilty of war crimes.
There are no rights here. There are only wrongs. Siding with one wrong over the other is not a solution.
Meanwhile, settlers and IDF are slaughtering Palestinians in the West Bank and buying guns. There is no evidence that the West Bank Palestinians support HAMAS let alone had anything to do with 7th October. This is pure vengeance / yet another land grab.
Do you ever wonder why HAMAS came into existence and why it made the 7th October attack? Israel kills innocent Palestinian civilians virtually every day of the week – OK maybe only 1 each day but does that make it a more acceptable killing? If not killing them then they are arresting them without charge. There are an average of 500-700 Palestinian children in Israeli jails – see ochre.org How is that different from being a HAMAS hostage? No outcry by USA or UK about that.
If USA always supports Israel no matter what, closely followed by the UK then how do you try and get the worlds attention to the atrocities that are being committed against you every day? It doesn’t justify the appalling acts on 7th October but it does give a context. A ceasefire is needed and then ALL countries need to insist on a 2 state solution and enforce it and not just keep funding Israel to be a war machine.
Darren,
‘it is Hamas stated objective to “wipe all jews off the face of the earth”’
Do you have a source for that?
It’s my understanding that Hamas’ original charter called for the destruction of the state of Israel (not “all Jews”). The current (2017) version has shifted the focus to opposition to Zionism. Article 16 states “Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion.” (Middle East Eye, https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full)
See also Sky News’ analysis of the 2017 charter: https://news.sky.com/story/hamas-eases-its-stance-on-israel-in-new-charter-10860248
Might the basic choices be negotiation, subjugation, ethnic cleansing or extermination?
Are there any others?
Which is the least worst?
I confess I do not follow your logic and am not even sure I want to.
All the UN and NGO agencies on the ground are calling for an immediate ceasefire as the only way of saving more thousands of lives. BBC pressing Labour or govt spokes persons never refer to that .
Good for the FT – shame on the rest of the gutter press, and on Starmer, Sunak and Co. parroting meaningless ‘its up to Israel to protect civilians’ – – as the killings go on
And of course the majority of the British mainstream media are not calling out Starmer to come clean and admit a conflict of interest:-
https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-labour-leader-starmer-opens-up-about-his-familys-jewish-traditions/
What might lie ahead for the Palestinians if/when the fighting stops?
What do you think?
Right now they face a devastated state in Gaza and a reigh of terror in the face of evictions in the West Bank.
Neiether is acceptable to those who believe in a two state solution – as I do.
Like you,I hope that there there is an equitable two state solution.
It appears that the U. S presented option of ethic cleansing by encouraged/enforced flight, is no longer evident and I so hope that effective opposition to mass killing increases.
That seems to leave the previous approach of the forced, unaccepted submission of the Palestinians or a two state solution.
My fear is that unless sufficient courage and determination are shown by a significant proportion of the international community and/or their peoples, there will be a return to
the previous situation of opposed subjugation.
Thank you for opposing the violence and its effective promotion by so many “Western” governments and the main stream media.