Our View: Time to stop island’s servility to Israel
The noise Akel has made about the circular sent by the government to municipal councils asking for the “strengthening of actions for fighting anti-Semitism and the incitement of racial hatred in Cyprus,” was perfectly justified. Someone had to make a public issue out of yet another practical display of the servility with which the Christodoulides government is accused of dealing with the state of Israel.
It was a reminder of the one-sided relationship, which consists of Cyprus satisfying the security demands of Israel while asking for nothing in exchange. This unequal relationship was established during the Anastasiades presidency and has been taken to another level by Nikos Christodoulides, who has ensured that Cyprus is one of the EU member-states least critical of Israel. And he must have been greatly relieved Cyprus would not have to recognise the Palestinian state as many EU member states are doing because the Republic has already done this. It recognised the state of Palestine in 1988.
Everything was started by a letter from Israel’s Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli, dated August 11, and sent to the director of the president’s diplomatic office. He forwarded the letter a month later to the interior ministry, the permanent secretary of which, on the minister’s instructions, sent it with a cover letter, to the presidents of the union of municipalities and the union of communities. The permanent secretary also passed on the interior minister’s instructions for the “immediate removal of any such slogans from municipalities and communities.”
This allowed Akel to go on the offensive, asking whether “the Netanyahu regime is running the country” and accusing the government of a “subservient stance towards the criminal Netanyahu regime. It argued that the “excessive and selective sensitivity about hate speech is nothing more than a pretext for silencing every expression of solidarity towards the Palestinian people.”
The staggeringly shabby way in which the government handled the matter opened the way for the justified criticism. That the interior ministry sent the letter from the Israeli minister to the union of municipalities defied belief; it was as if it considered it perfectly normal to pass on instructions from Israel’s government. The only problem was that it failed to inform the unions of municipalities and communities how to identify an anti-Semitic slogan – would any criticism of the Netanyahu government, the flattening of Gaza or any expression of support for a Palestinian state be considered anti-Semitic?
As for hate speech, it should be tackled by local authorities, without the interior ministry issuing instructions – and not only when it is directed at Israelis. It is these actions and decisions that support Akel’s case, although when Russia was interfering in our internal affairs the party did not view it as a violation of our sovereignty that should be opposed. Russian interference was welcomed by Akel, in the same way that today Disy sees nothing wrong with Israel issuing orders to our government. Disy suddenly became the defender of the government.
All interference by foreign states in our domestic affairs and policies must be resisted. Have we not realised yet that this interference is not to our benefit?