Pope Benedict’s support for a Palestinian state comes as no surprise. Papal backing for Palestinians and a Palestinian state has been around for years. The late Pope Jean Paul II met with Yasser Arafat a dozen times, set up diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority and consistently supported peace negotiations to bring about a sovereign Palestine. Even before that, Vatican policy was Palestine-friendly, so much so that there were inevitable clashes with successive Israeli governments intent on neutralizing papal influence. They and their supporters would counterattack, either by trying to blacken the Vatican’s image (usually by trying to paint the wartime Pope Pius XII as a Nazi quisling) or more directly, such as the arrest and, after three years’ imprisonment, expulsion of Archbishop Hilarion Cappucci in the 1970s or, in 1998, when Benjamin Netanyahu, in his first tenure as prime minister, attempted to spike the appointment of another Palestinian archbishop. Over the years, the present pope, as one of Jean-Paul II’s principal advisers supported Rome’s Palestinian policy. It would be strange then if he did not continue it. What is significant, however, is that Pope Benedict should declare his support so prominently while technically a guest of the Israelis, not once but twice, and on a trip that he said was a pilgrimage, not a political progress. It shows how deep and strong the tide in favor of Palestinian freedom is moving. The pope hardly stands alone in his call. On the contrary, it is Israel that now stands alone on the two-state solution. It now has no international support whatsoever on the issue. Even the US — most importantly the US — has abandoned it. President Barack Obama last week told the Israelis that they have to work for a two-state solution, stop any new settlements and remove existing ones.
The significance of such a statement is massive. Never before has a US president told Israel so publicly that it has to make changes. It fundamentally alters the Middle East paradigm — and it is difficult to see how Netanyahu, who is so opposed to a two-state solution, is going to play this one when he meets with Obama in Washington on Monday. It would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall at that meeting. He will certainly try to stall and prevaricate. His latest effort to sidetrack the peace process — that the Palestinian issue cannot be properly dealt with until the Iran nuclear issue is resolved — is so pathetic as to be laughable, except that Obama is unlikely to be amused. He wants answers and he is not going to take no for one. He wants the two-state solution back on track and he has the power of massive American public support behind him to ensure that Netanyahu toes the line. Netanyahu knows it; without the US, Israel is a broken reed, an empty vessel. It has to take heed of Washington’s demands. At long last, Washington is making them.
Remarkable though the change is, and profoundly encouraging, it would be folly, however, to believe blindly that peace is about to happen. There may be a surging tide flowing the Palestinians’ way and no dam in sight to stop it, but there have been tides before — and tides, it should be remembered, sweep out just as quickly as they sweep in. Hope may yet again be dashed. But that warning notwithstanding, the change in tone in Washington is fundamental and historic. It cannot but have consequences.
The vilest crime in the world
Excerpts from an editorial in yesterday’s Times:
Rape is a deeply unpleasant crime, and a highly emotive issue. There have been longstanding concerns that some police forces have been too quick to dismiss rape allegations. So when an international study for the European Union suggests that conviction rates for rape in Britain are the lowest in Europe — 6.5 percent in Britain compared with 25 percent in France — it deserves serious attention.
The issues are complex. The first thing to realize is that what are referred to as “conviction rates” are not, as is conventionally understood, the proportion of people found guilty at trial. On that basis, the number of people found guilty of rape in Britain is, according to the Ministry of Justice, similar to those found guilty of many other crimes. The 6.5 percent “conviction rate” refers to the number of convictions secured out of the total number of allegations made to police. It is low in Britain because so few cases come to court. The big question is why. The answer seems likely to be a combination of a reluctance to take cases seriously enough, and big increases in the number of allegations made, which have made police suspect that many are malicious.
The nature of what we understand as “rape” has changed. The public — and perhaps many prosecutors — still think of rape as primarily committed by a stranger, involving visible injuries. But the majority of reports that are lodged today are made against friends or acquaintances, and the victims do not have visible injuries. About half involve drink or drugs. Date rape can be no less distressing than stranger rape, but it is particularly hard to prosecute. Juries are the best people to make those finely balanced decisions. But they should not be prevented from hearing genuine cases.
