THE TABLET
THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY FOUNDED IN 1840
UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL
NETANYAHU’S DELUSIONS
Where would Israel be without the support of the United States? It would promptly have to look for a peaceful resolution of the long-standing conflict with Arab Palestinians. It could no
longer afford its armed forces at their present size, and it would have to find the best currently available solution to the problems of Gaza, not least the presence there of an undefeated Hamas. It would have to bring to an end, by force if necessary, the systematic bullying of Palestinians in the West Bank occupied areas. And it would have to reach an accommodation with Hezbollah in Lebanon, which implies finding a live-and-let-live agreement with Iran. So the Israeli government’s boast of “ourselves alone, if necessary” would only be tenable, once America withdrew its support, if there was a major change in Israeli policy.
The fact that none of these things seems likely to happen any time soon may logically imply that the US has a much greater responsibility for the way Israel conducts itself than it likes to admit. It certainly does try to exert influence, but with little evidence that it is ever really heeded. Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers have developed many nimble sidesteps to defuse American pressure. It rarely meets that pressure with a point-blank refusal. It enters negotiations in response to American demands for a ceasefire with Hamas and the unblocking of humanitarian aid, but holds out – deniably – for unachievable conditions.
Yet Netanyahu’s own position is weak, and it is likely he
would lose an early election. He has a strong interest in sustaining Israel’s present aggressive posture, as it helps him hold on to power. Indeed, defiance of American demands may make him more popular with sections of Israeli public opinion, especially those linked to Israeli West Bank settlements or sympathetic to a religious Zionist call for the restoration of the biblical Promised Land.
There is a section of American opinion among Evangelical fundamentalists which goes along with that as part of its own agenda. The prophesied Second Coming of Christ will not arrive until the Jews return to Palestine and the Gospel is preached to the whole world – and the Jews are converted to Christ. These somewhat implausible beliefs are a significant strand in American public opinion, close to the exceptionalist ideology of Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.
Both the US and Israel would do well to ponder the lessons of the Suez Crisis of 1956. Britain, France and Israel jointly attacked Egypt while denying “collusion”. In American eyes, particularly those of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Britain was in the grip of a post-imperial delusion, namely that it could still reorder the world to suit itself. So Eisenhower took steps to make plain that Britain’s economic ties with the US were at risk unless the Suez adventure was abandoned. And so it was, with a face-saving formula. President Joe Biden has never had the courage, or the willingness, to do to Israel what Eisenhower did to Britain. Would Kamala Harris do so, if elected? Would Donald Trump? We must wait – and hope.
PROTESTS AND PUNISHMENT
SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE
Just as the government was announcing the release of prisoners when they had served 40 per cent of their sentence instead of 50 per cent, a group of climate protesters were handed shockingly long sentences – including one of five years – for “conspiring to cause a public nuisance”. They had succeeded in shutting down part of the major road network by climbing on signal gantries, displaying the slogan “Just Stop Oil”.
Southwark Crown Court Judge Christopher Hehir was clear that he intended his sentence to shock, and indeed it is reported to have caused consternation and alarm among protest groups of all kinds. The most famous use of severe sentencing to “send a message” was the jailing of nine white youths for four years for their involvement – Mr Justice Salmon said they were its instigators – in the Notting Hill race riots of 1958. That was a good use of a judge’s sentencing discretion, and racist incidents in Notting Hill did subside.
The Just Stop Oil case is by no means so clear-cut. In defence of Judge Hehir, it can be said that the maximum sentence Parliament recently fixed for the statutory offence of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance is 10 years. It is an accepted principle that the size of the maximum sentence set by Parliament is designed to tell judges how seriously they should take that particular offence in the worst case imaginable. So five years equals 50 per cent of that
hypothetical worst case. But if the intention was to deter further protest activity rather than to punish the perpetrators, arguably a suspended sentence could have been as effective.
The length of a sentence is a measure of the harm allegedly done, yet Judge Hehir seemed to be also taking into account the harm that may be done in the future: in other words, he was sentencing these protesters – noting they were unrepentant – for future offences as well as those already committed. This is more doubtful ground. There is a strong case, therefore, for the Court of Appeal to review the use of this section of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, in this case and in general, not least because this section was only included as a populist signal that the Tory government was “getting tough” on certain types of crime. Conspiracy to commit a public nuisance was already a crime under common law, but with no maximum sentence specified.
The 10-year sentence under the 2022 act forms part of a more punitive pattern of sentencing policy. Releasing prisoners after 40 per cent of their term could have been timely recognition that jail sentences in Britain were too long anyway. Instead it was simply an emergency measure because the prisons are almost full, and many are in a poor state. A broad-ranging review of penal policy is long overdue, starting with the basic question: what are prisons for? And should prison sentences ever be used to deter peaceful protesters?
2 | THE TABLET | 3 AUGUST 2024
For more features, news, analysis and comment, visit www.thetablet.co.uk
