By PETER YOUNG

As indicated in last week’s column, I realise only too well that it is superfluous to offer comment on issues that already receive wide media coverage unless there is a recent new dimension to consider. That was the case in relation to the new issue of use in Russian territory by Ukraine of US and UK-supplied long-range missiles which I wrote about last week.

The principle applies as well to the current conflict in the Middle East with which the world’s media is preoccupied. The new dimension of this, which is receiving major publicity and cannot be ignored, is surely last week’s unprecedented and audacious series of attacks on numerous handheld communications devices used by Hezbollah, which, reportedly, had opted for relatively primitive such devices to avoid detection. Hezbollah - the terrorist group based in Lebanon which is said to be its unwilling host - indiscriminately fires rockets and bombs into northern Israel on a daily basis, forcing some 60,000 residents to move away from the threatened border area.

This targeting and blowing-up of numerous individual pagers and walkie talkies, resulting in large numbers of fatalities and injuries, is presumably the work of Mossad, Israel’s renowned and chillingly effective intelligence service, though Israel has neither confirmed nor denied responsibility for such an unorthodox and daring operation. Far from being one involving indiscriminate mass murder, as has been maintained by some, this was clearly a “precision” exercise specifically targeted against Hezbollah operatives.

Since then, Israel and Hezbollah have been exchanging fire after Israel killed a top commander in a strike on southern Beirut, and the UN has warned that the region is “on the brink of imminent catastrophe” as fears of an all-out war grow.

Not having worked directly on the issue during a career in the diplomatic service, I do not pretend to be any sort of expert on the overall Arab-Israeli dispute or its peace process over the years. But people of my generation recall the Six-Day War in 1967 when five Arab countries invaded Israel and were defeated quickly and comprehensively. Like others I have, of course, read about the subsequent wars and endless limited conflicts together with efforts to achieve some sort of modus vivendi through developments like the Oslo Accords. But now, more than 75 years since the establishment of the State of Israel, the sad reality is that peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians has still not been achieved as the country now finds itself engaged in conflict on both its northern and southern fronts.

It has been interesting to do additional research about the history of the region in order to try to understand the situation better, particularly in relation to the legitimacy of claims by Palestinians to statehood while maintaining, with others, that Israel does not even have the right to exist so should be annihilated. There are various well documented and succinct histories of the Arab-Israeli dispute on the internet that are worth studying, not least by many of those who participate in pro-Palestinian marches but who apparently have little knowledge or understanding of the events they are protesting about.

This is, of course, a complex subject that in the space available one can do little more than touch on today. But, from all the evidence, it seems that there can be no real progress until the Palestinians become properly identified and unified as a people – bearing in mind, for example, that some 20 percent of Israeli citizens are Arabs living peaceably within Israel’s borders - so that that they can achieve the dignity of statehood under the two-state solution now being touted by the West as the only way to resolve the issue.

Furthermore, there can be no overall normalisation of relations and lasting peace unless the Israelis become sufficiently confident about their own security within their existing borders to persuade them to make concessions. They seek to defend themselves and are widely slammed by others because of their ruthlessness and extreme methods in protecting what they see as their vital interests in fighting for their very existence. At the same time, it is indisputable that the wholesale killing of civilians can never be acceptable under any circumstances and should always be condemned. So it is equally understandable that the West should rail against Israeli brutality and excesses in bombing civilians in Gaza which the Israelis, for their part, see as inevitable in their efforts to root out and destroy Hamas who have become embedded in the local community.

From what I have read, the area now known as the disputed West Bank was originally called Judea and Samaria in the Bible and was inhabited by a mixture of people. As well as places like Hebron, it includes Jerusalem which, of course, has been the spiritual and religious centre of the Jewish people for thousands of years and a vital part of Jewish history and culture. But, whatever one’s interpretation of history – and the more one delves into this the more one realizes the extent to which it is unclear and disputed - the simple reality is that Israel, with a current population of nearly ten million, has existed formally since 1948 and will continue to do so with the support of the US and other Western countries. It possesses the military means, capacity, will and expertise to defend itself as a democratic state under international law. In protecting its existence and sovereignty against external attack and destruction, it is bent on defending itself while, by contrast, Hamas and Hezbollah are illegitimate, non-state terrorist groups bent on murder. Indeed, it is Hamas terrorists who set off the current disastrous war in Gaza by its horrific and evil act of murdering and abducting Israelis in large numbers on October 7 last year.

Despite the current turmoil, is it too much even to harbor the hope that at some point these terrorist groups can be disabled and sidelined and that Palestinians and Israelis can live peacefully in harmony in the same region. The 2020 Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and the Arab states of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Is it realistic to think that these Accords could ever be extended – because the notion of wiping ten million people from the face of the map is clearly not.

CHANGED POLITICAL LANDSCAPE IN BRITAIN

It is said that when a government runs out of steam, as the outgoing Tories did well before Britain’s General Election in July after 14 years in power, there is usually huge enthusiasm for a new one.

Despite appearances at last weekend’s Labour Party annual conference, however, this has not happened following the Party’s overwhelming election victory, which suggests that the electorate voted the Conservatives out rather than having much appetite for Labour as the alternative. But, according to the UK press, this lack of enthusiasm for the new prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, and his colleagues has already, after less than three months in office, deteriorated into criticism of them at unprecedented levels, with his approval rating already well down. Indeed, as early as last month the press reported that the polls were showing that half the country thought that Starmer’s new government, overshadowed as it has been by riots, was anyway already on the wrong track.

He is under fire for various reasons – for example, to name just two, cutting the winter fuel allowance for pensioners while giving substantial pay rises to public sector workers and taking so-called personal “freebies” and gifts, which may not be against the rules if declared but the optics of which are terrible, especially for a Labour prime minister. The UK media and so many others seem to have turned against him to such an extent that it is being suggested his government may not last long given the level of dissatisfaction with its performance so far.

But what is also particularly interesting in Britain’s national domestic politics is the sudden emergence of a new right-wing populist political party called Reform UK. This is in addition to the success of the Liberal Democrats who won more than 70 seats at July’s election which was a record for them. In its strong performance at the election, Reform won 14 per cent of the vote and now has five MPs at Westminster, as the electorate is increasingly becoming disillusioned with the two main political parties.

Founded in 2021 out of the ashes of the Brexit Party, Reform UK has grown from a few thousand to 80,000 in a few months. It celebrated its impressive poll victory with a triumphant conference last week where it was announced that national support for the party now stands at 18 per cent, thus only narrowly trailing the Conservatives. Although at this early stage it is light on policy substance as a national political party, Reform offers common sense policies on immigration – that should be orderly and controlled -- the cost of living, climate change and issues connected with sovereignty and economic stability while applying traditional Conservative values and policies that the Tories seem to have abandoned. There is also talk of limiting emphasis on diversity that can lead to social fragmentation.

The party’s new leader, Nigel Farage, the redoubtable former leader of UKIP (UK Independence Party) and Member of the European Parliament until Britain’s withdrawal from the EU in 2020, gave a bravura performance addressing the conference with his fiery rhetoric. He has played a pivotal role in the party’s surge among voters and he himself was returned as one of its new MPs. He announced that Reform aimed to field over 2,000 candidates at the local elections in May next year.

Thus, it appears that there could be a sea change in the UK’s national politics with a move away from the traditional two and three party system, as the new Reform party represents the so-called “silent majority” in a bid to preserve the nation’s culture and traditional values. It remains to be seen, of course, whether Reform’s surge will be maintained. But, already, people are saying that the Tories should be worried.

ARNHEM – ‘A BRIDGE TOO FAR’

Many people are familiar with this name of an epic war film depicting the Battle of Arnhem during the Second World War which took place 80 years ago. At the time of writing, commemorations of the famous battle were due to take place over this weekend in the town of Arnhem in the Netherlands, as part of the remembrance ceremonies of important events during the war.

I draw attention to this today because of the significance of this battle towards the end of the war not long after the successful D-Day landings in France in June of that year.

As part of what was called Operation Market Garden, Arnhem was claimed to have been the largest airborne assault in history and one of the boldest Allied operations of the war. It was said to have been an ambitious joint airborne and ground forces endeavour designed to seize crucial bridges across the Rhine river as one element of an Allied attempt to outflank German defences in north-west Europe in order to hasten the end of the war.

Historians say that Operation Market Garden was a failure for the Allies since German forces were victorious at Arnhem. But, of course, the war ended the following year since Germany surrendered within months and the war in Europe ended on VE Day on May 8, 1945.

It must gladden the hearts of all those involved – including the families of the 2,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers who lost their lives at Arnhem - that Britain and its wartime allies keep alive the memories of such important wartime events; and the organisers should surely be applauded.