Since the sixth of May was declared as the date for the upcoming legislative elections in Britain, I have been trying to determine the difference between the policy of the Labour Party and that of the Conservative Party, regarding the Middle East. All I could find with some certainty is that the Labour is with Israel and against us, while the conservatives are vice-versa, i.e. against us and with Israel. I know that this issue is too important to be a subject for ridicule; however, my judgement relies on what I know from and about these two political parties: since the date of the elections was set, I have been trying to find anything new in their policies that concern Arabs and Muslims, but to no avail, as both parties seem to focus completely on domestic issues, to the extent that all other issues were overlooked. This is because the voters and people in general, think with their pockets and not with their minds or hearts. There is an ongoing global and local financial crisis, and both parties will increase both direct and indirect taxes, while trying to sugar coat these painful increases and trick the voters, at least until the day the latter cast their votes. If we are to examine the manifesto of the Labour Party, which was published two days ago, we find that it is comprised of 78 pages and ten chapters, followed by a list of fifty objectives that Labour wants to achieve. But in fact, the reader would have to wait until the last chapter entitled ‘Global Future: Confronting modern challenges', to read something about the Middle East. As for the manifesto of the Conservative Party, foreign policy was placed in the middle, and to separate it from neo-conservatism, it was described as a liberal conservative foreign policy. The Labour Party's manifesto is in more than 300 thousand words; nonetheless, the part on the Middle East is one paragraph in one hundred words or so that mentions supporting a viable Palestinian state and the need to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but without making any references to Israel's nuclear arsenal, which is also what the conservatives did. I also found out that the word Palestinian is mentioned twice in the Labour Party's manifesto, while Iraq is only mentioned once, and that the emphasis in other paragraphs was on the war in Afghanistan and the danger of al-Qaeda. On the other hand, the conservatives' manifesto sufficed itself with talking about peace and the two-state solution in the Middle East without giving any details or names. The fifty objectives of the Labour Party are also within this scope: following the pledges regarding the economy, jobs, the minimum wages, healthcare, education, security, the postal service and the environment, there are five objectives related to foreign affairs beyond British borders, such as the strategic defence review, strengthening security and stability, Britain's role in the European Union, the Millennium Development Goals and reforming the United Nations. The campaign slogan of the Labour Party is ‘A Future Fair for All' and ‘National Renewal'; this is despite the fact that Labour has been in power since 1997, and had ample time to guarantee fairness to all during all that time, and ample time for renewal had they had the will to do so. I do not intend to discuss here domestic issues with Labour or the conservatives. As both parties want to win the elections, they are willing to say anything and to pledge, promise and commit to whatever they think the voters want, and this approach is often used in every election in any country. The British newspapers dealt with the issue of elections just like the two parties. Since I read eight English newspapers every day by virtue of my profession, I can conclude with certainty that these newspapers overlooked foreign affairs in the thousand and one news stories they ran about the elections. Just like the two parties are seeking to win, the newspapers too are seeking to increase their sales, since the crisis beleaguering the printed press preceded the global financial crisis. For this reason, their emphasis was on what interests the local readers, such as taxes, healthcare, jobs and so forth. In short, the foreign policy lines of both the Labour Party and the Conservatives in the Middle East are almost one and the same, namely, full subservience to the U.S policy that is in favour of Israel. While there were those who praised the British government's expulsion of the Mossad Station head in London in response to the forgery of the British passports in the Dubai assassination, the same decision allowed the Mossad to send another representative within six weeks; in other words, the decision meant nothing or meant null. In fact, Margaret Thatcher had taken a similar decision in a parallel situation. I have kept a rare news story on foreign policy, based on a speech given by the Conservative leader David Cameron in Pakistan near the beginning of this month, in which he rejected the policy of neo-conservatives and opposed the imposition of democracy by force of arms. However, he seems to have overlooked the fact that he personally, along with his party, supported the U.S invasion of Iraq, and that Britain participated in the war with much enthusiasm. I hope that the Arab countries will treat both parties, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, firmly, because if not deterred, they will do as they please. However, I do not see the Arab countries doing that, as they seem to have adopted being afraid as their policy. [email protected]
