Good for the Goose?

THERE was Boris in the Commons, hair all over the place, arms waving, responding to a question from the sartorially pristine Sir Kier Starmer, about Israel and Palestine.

Sir Kier wanted a “two-state solution” (is this ringing any bells?). Simple enough, you might think. It was. Boris reminded Sir Kier that “the position of the British government remains the same”. In other words, the UK supports “a two-state solution”. Fine, but amazing.

If “two states” is appropriate for Israel and Palestine, why isn’t it for Cyprus? Good question, eh? Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have been at loggerheads for decades, sadly, often violently. So have the Israelis and Palestinians. There is one big difference: the violence in Gaza, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem goes on. Hamas goes on firing rockets into Tel Aviv and the

Israelis bomb Gaza in retaliation, historically, time and time again. In Cyprus, peace has reigned since 1974. Two states exist. It works. It’s just that the likes of Boris and Sir Kier refuse to recognise the fact.

So in proposing “a two-state solution” to the Israelis and Palestinians, what message does the UK think it is sending to Cyprus? If you appear to reward continuing violence with recognition, what lesson is there in that? Violence works? Is the UK inadvertently suggesting that if Turkish rockets were continually falling on Nicosia, two states in Cyprus would happen? Of course not, but that is the stupid, consequential logic of what the UK is telling warring Israel and Palestine and refusing to say about peaceful Cyprus.

What’s good for the warring goose should be good for the peaceful gander.