The Nether-World

Illegal Attacks - A new Anti-war music video by Ian Brown with Sinead O'Connor

2007-08-21T01:59:00.000+01:00

Time for a musical interlude...

Ian Brown, ex singer of the landmark British rock group Stone Roses and creator of four highly acclaimed solo albums, launched his latest single 'Illegal Attacks' as a Stop the War exclusive.
'Illegal Attacks' is an anti-war song and Ian Brown is joined in this powerful duet by Sinead O’Connor. Shot in London directed by Colin O'Toole, the video tells the story of a young British man who enlists in the army and is sent to war.
"It’s a commercial crusade, ‘Cause all the oil men get paid, And only so many soldiers come home, It’s a commando crusade, A military charade, And only so many soldiers come home, Soldiers, soldiers come home, Soldiers come home"
Lyrics from Illegal Attacks

Pass it on.

Tags: Illegal Attacks, Ian Brown, Sinead O’Connor, Anti-War

Alan Johnston Realeased

2007-07-04T10:06:00.000+01:00

Image courtesy of Bloggerheads

Also posted on Blairwatch

Some good news. BBC reporter Alan Johnston has at last been freed after 114 days in captivity.

It seems that Hamas, who had the kidnappers surrounded, managed to apply enough pressure to secure Alan Johnston's release.

Mr Johnston said Hamas's seizure of power in Gaza and its subsequent pledge to improve security in the territory had facilitated his release.
"The kidnappers seemed very comfortable and very secure in their operation until... a few weeks ago, when Hamas took charge of the security operation here," he said.

I'm sure the huge campaign to draw attention to the kidnapping added further incentive to get Alan Johnston freed. Quite what Israel and her allies will make of this Hamas achievement remains to be seen.

Tags: Alan Johnston, Gaza, Israel, Palestine, Hamas

Middle East Spiraling Into Chaos

2007-06-18T04:13:00.001+01:00

I haven't commented recently on the current chaos engulfing the Middle East. This is partly because events are moving so fast that anything written becomes almost instantly redundant, partly because others have have written very eloquently on the subject saying pretty much what I was going to say, and partly because the whole situation is so depressing and tragic that commentary on it becomes difficult. However, the events in the region are too important to ignore so some sort comment is necessary.

Firstly, it seems unwise to focus just on one aspect of the crises. Obviously what is grabbing the headlines at the moment is the situation in Palestine where Hamas have taken control of Gaza leaving Fatah in nominal control of the West Bank. There is plenty to say about this but Palestine is only a part (albeit a very large part) of a broader set of problems. What we are seeing is the destabilising of the whole region which was widely predicted before the invasion of Iraq, and more countries are now being affected. This is not to say that the Middle East was completely stable before the invasion of Iraq, far from it, but each particular problem was more contained. Now, as the Iraq war is spilling over into other countries, there is what looks like a chain reaction of instability throughout the region affecting Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt to varying degrees.

It might be unfair to blame all this instability on the Iraq war but it does seem to have acted as a catalyst for discontent to explode into anger and hatred. To me all these problems seem to be linked and behind it all is US and Israeli foreign policy. America has been condemned fot its handling of the Middle East in a UN report. Removing the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein created a vacuum in the region. Iraq, as it turned out, wasn't particularly powerful but it was thought to be, and so was feared. Also it was fiercely secular and kept a lid on sectarian tensions. The destruction of Iraq has made Iran much more powerful and it can much more easily influence events in southern Iraq and Lebanon. Whereas one of the excuses for the war was to combat terrorism, now terrorism is widespread and exists where it wasn't evident before, like in Iraq.

How does this have a bearing on the 60 year-old Israel/Palestine conflict? Hamas is said to be supported by Iran for a start. Just how true this is, and to what extent if it is true, is not really known. But the traditional Sunni/Shia divide which affects so much of relationships between Middle Eastern states is not a simple black and white issue. One thing all the states in the region have in common is a desire (stated at least) to see justice for the Palestinians. So many commentators have stated this obvious fact but it has been brushed aside by Bush and Blair in their unquestioning support for Israel. The Arab countries which benefit from support by the West have diluted their support for Palestine despite their rhetoric and this has created further divisions. At the start of the Iraq war, Tony Blair asked the Bush administration to renew its commitment to finding a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. After a token effort (if it can be called that), it became obvious that America would allow Israel to do precisely what it wanted and Blair quickly fell into line. Last year Blair again promised to concentrate his remaining time in office to finding a solution and again failed.

Another justification for the Iraq war was install a democratic government and make Iraq a beacon to the whole region; a model that other states would want to emulate. This crass propaganda has been sufficiently rubbished now. Who in their right minds would want to emulate Iraq? The continued oppression of the Palestinians with ever more restrictions, theft of land and unrestrained settlement building, has led to Fatah, mired in corruption, to be challenged by Hamas. Hamas won a free and fair election and was voted into power. America and Israel's commitment to democracy was instantly exposed as a sham when, with their pressure, all support for the Palestinian Authority (PA) was withdrawn leading to terrible suffering among the Palestinians. It was only a matter of time before they started fighting among themselves, and I think that this was so obvious that it must have been the plan all along. Like so many neocon plans, it backfired. Hamas, despite having more extreme views than Fatah were democratically elected and share the same aims as Fatah. When the wishes of the Palestinian people were ignored, Hamas formed a unity government with Fatah and the people were still collectively punished by Israel although the Europe and the US started to waver.

Now, as we have seen the tensions have boiled over and Hamas has seized Gaza in what Margaret Beckett (among many others) are calling a coup d'état. Whatever one's views of the situation are, elected representatives fighting to keep what they had already won at the ballot box is not a coup d'état. This is one of so many examples of the pernicious propaganda we are all faced with. So, as a direct result of American and Israeli policy the two-state solution is postponed if not dead and we now have what Jon Snow of Channel 4 news called a three-state non solution. No one knows how long this situation can continue. Hamas might have Gaza, but the situation for all Gazans will worsen. What little aid that was trickling through will stop. Israel has already halted deliveries of fuel into Gaza. This will mean more Gazans will try to flee, adding pressure on the Egyptian border. Israel's claim to have withdrawn from Gaza was demonstrably false. True they dismantled the settlements there and moved back the army but Israel still has military dominance of the Gaza strip and the disproportionate bombings in response to rocket attacks never ceased. One thing Hamas might achieve which would increase its standing in the West (if only temporarily) is to secure the release of BBC reporter Alan Johnston. As always there are mixed messages about this issue, with Hamas saying he could be released within hours and the kidnappers denying it.

Meanwhile in the West Bank, Fatah has been asserting itself. It has nominal control (for now at least) of the remaining areas the PA is allowed to control and Mahmoud Abbas has dismissed the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyah, and set up an emergency government. This move has been rewarded by America and Israel with some promises of aid. However, though more stable than Gaza, there is increasing instability in the West Bank and that is likely to put pressure on Jordan. Already we have heard of Palestinian factions from the Jordanian army preparing to help Fatah. Jordan is already under pressure from a huge number of refugees coming from Iraq. Instability spreading into Jordan is not inconceivable.

In Lebanon, the army is claiming that it has control of 90 percent of the Fatah al Islam strongholds in Palestinian refugee camps. If true then it still does not mean an end to Lebanon's problems. Katyusha rockets have been fired into northern Israel from Lebanon and this time Hezbollah are denying any responsibility. Let's just remind ourselves briefly that Fatah al Islam was originally backed by the USA and the Lebanese government in an attempt to have a force to challenge Hezbollah. Needless to say the plan backfired. The truce between Israel and Hezbollah is shaky at best and hostilities could resume at any time, particularly because Israel is still smarting from last summer's defeat and wants to assert itself. The assassination of another anti-Syrian MP is putting more pressure on Syria.

While that potential conflict is brewing, another flash point is starting to manifest. Both Israel and Syria have been massing their forces on each side of the Golan Heights in preparation for what might be another war. At the same time there have been talks (or talks about having talks) over the handing back of the Golan to Syria. This is potentially positive if it happens. The price for Syria would be to renounce any support for any Palestinian and Iranian groups and presumably any involvement in Lebanon. It remains to be seen if this is a possible peace or a possible war. It might be an attempt by Israel to make attacks on Lebanon and/or Iran easier.

We are seeing the long established pattern of positive diplomatic developments scuppered by facts on the ground. This usually happens when Israel is offered a chance for peace by its Arab neighbours and realises it has to make concessions. Then, suddenly, a conflict mysteriously flares up allowing Israel to scrap any deal. I've lost count how many times this has happened. Remember the last Arab League summit a few months ago when Israel expressed an interest in a Saudi sponsored peace deal which was in effect a return to the 1967 border in exchange for normalised relations with Arab countries? Lo and behold we now have a host of new conflicts brewing.

Once again the lost cause of Iraq has caused America to take its eye off the ball in the wider region. Anyone looking to the USA to solve these crises will be disappointed. Iraq is disintigrating with Turkey attacking Kurds in the north and a full blown insurgency and numerous civil wars. America, despite its ill-advised 'surge' can barely control 40 percent of Baghdad. The casualties on both sides are mounting and Bush's support is at an all time low. It is now blatently obvious that the Iraq war has been lost and Bush is trying to hang on so that another administration faces the humiliating withdrawal. Despite the hate campaign against Iran and Syria the hawks in Washington are now in the minority. Dick Cheney, and now Joseph Lieberman, calling for the bombing of Iran are looking ever more ridiculous. This must be worrying for Israeli hawks who have been pushing for America to commit to a war Iran as they did with Iraq. They could initiate an attack themselves and Washington would no doubt support it, but the resulting retaliation on so many fronts would lead to a catastrophe. For the Bush administration, time is short as the President prepares to limp and quack into the sunset, the Democrats, however, don't seem to be any less hawkish and their opposition to the Iraq war (such as it is) is merely a political game. Whether they can see the futility of further conflict and the failure to pandering to lobby groups like AIPAC is questionable. In Britain, Gordon Brown is sending mixed messages, a continued British presence in Iraq, failure to completely rule out involvement in an attack on Iran and yet more cash for the Palestinians.

With all these small regional conflicts so tangled up with each other, and with American power games playing such a large part in them, the chances of some sort of mishap triggering a bigger catastrophe increase. And that's even if America doesn't succumb to the insane plans of some neocons in Washington to launch an attack on Iran.

Related Bloggage

Tags: Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Israel,US Politics

Diplomacy, Dishmomacy

2007-03-28T08:39:00.000+01:00

It is no great secret that Condoleezza Rice isn't exactly the most successful of diplomats - especially when it comes to trying to solve the torturous Israel/Palestine conflict. Her obvious bias towards Israel means that more often than not she returns empty-handed from her numerous jaunts to the region. Her latest escapade was no exception. The difference this time, however, is that now Condi is being rebuffed not just by the Palestinians, who she can't seem to convince to recognise the state that is continually stealing their land, but also by the Israelis, who don't seem to be able to accept any form of compromise.

An Israeli journalist I spoke to was dismissive as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice left Jerusalem this morning.
"Diplomacy, dishmomacy," were his actual words.
This was Ms Rice's seventh visit to the region over the last few months.
A lot of talk, little to show for it, is the accepted wisdom amongst most Israelis and Palestinians.

Hmmm, not a very promising start is it? Worse still, Israel has refused Condi's offer to act as a negotiator between it and the Palestinians in what The Daily Telegraph calls a humiliating snub.

Condoleezza Rice received a humiliating snub from Israel yesterday when it refused her offer to act as negotiator between its government and the Palestinian authorities.
The US secretary of state, who was attempting to start final status talks on the creation of a Palestinian state during a visit to Jerusalem, was forced to postpone a press conference planned on Monday evening after tense talks with Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister.

Well if Israel won't trust its best friend to conduct negotiations, it does beg the question: who will it trust? One thing Condoleezza did manage to take away from her visit is a commitment for Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert to meet once a fortnight to discuss security issues which may later lead to discussions about the formation of a Palestinian state. A positive development no doubt, but slim pickings for America which desperately needs a success story in the region to detract attention from its appalling failure in Iraq and to get support for its attack on Iran.

Needless to say, Arab leaders were less than impressed with Condoleezza's appeal to them to 'reach out to Israel'. The idea here is that all the Arab countries recognise Israel and normalise relations with it without Israel being compelled to make any reciprocal moves. If she thought that was going to work then she really must be very naive to assume that Arabs would be so gullible as to fall for that trick. After all, Israel won't even recognise the new unity government in Palestine. America on the other hand, seems at last to be realising that the unity government is at least a promising compromise and, though it won't deal directly with it, is offering some support (to Abbas anyway). Perhaps this is the cause of the tension between Condi and Olmert.

All this diplomacy comes, of course, on the eve of an important summit among Arab leaders in Riyadh. The focus of this summit is to revive the peace plan proposed by the Saudis in 2002 in which all the 22 countries in the Arab League would recognise Israel and normalise relations with it in return for Israel withdrawing back to the borders it had prior to the 1967 war. This would make it possible for the formation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. When this plan was first proposed, it was immediately rejected by the then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The timing of the original proposal was unfortunate as the Palestinian second intifada was raging and suicide bombings were taking place in Israel. Also this was only a year after 9/11 and at the height of the build up to the Iraq war (Saddam Hussein was one of the Arab League members prepared to recognise Israel). Relations between Saudi Arabia and America had soured somewhat and the plan was seen as an attempt to improve things.

"I wanted to find a way to make clear to the Israeli people that the Arabs don't reject or despise them," Abdullah said at the time. "But the Arab people do reject what their leadership is now doing to the Palestinians, which is inhumane and oppressive. And I thought of this as a possible signal to the Israeli people."

The political climate in the region now is just as tense (if not more so) but the dynamics are different. Iran is seen as the big threat now and powerful Sunni states like Saudi Arabia don't wish to see Shia Iranian influence spread into Palestine. Israel and Saudi Arabia share this fear of Iran as does the USA, of course. It was Saudi Arabia which managed to broker the deal between Fatah and Hamas to form a unity government. Perhaps this is a good time to revive this five year-old peace plan. The big question of course is what will Israel's reaction to it be? So far, Ehud Olmert's response hasn't been the outright rejection of his predecessor. He has said there are "positive elements" in it worth pursuing. But this is hardly the ringing endorsement needed to carry the plan forward. This is the sort of language we frequently hear from Ehud Olmert. Israel has reservations about withdrawing from all the illegally captured territory which would obviously mean dismantling the illegal settlements (even Shimon Peres, Israel's deputy prime minister has said that the presence of Jewish settlers inside the West Bank city of Hebron has created an "unbearable situation"). It also objects to Arab East Jerusalem being part of a Palestinian state and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In other words, the only part of the plan it likes is the recognition of Israel by the Arab states and normalisation of relations. But the problem isn't going away and appeasing Israel's territorial desires hasn't eased the situation at all.

In the absence of any other workable plan, this one might be a reasonable starting point. Saudi Arabia's Prince Saud al-Faisal has made it quite clear that this is the only way for Israel to have peace with its neighbours.

"What we have the power to do in the Arab world, we think we have done," he said. "So now it is up to the other side because if you want peace, it is not enough for one side only to want it. Both sides must want it equally."
[...]
"If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war," he said.
[...]
"Other Arab countries have recognised Israel and what has that achieved?
"The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognised Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace."

Well, quite! Getting Israel to accept this plan will be hard and we can expect that it will do everything it can to avoid making any concessions. In that respect, it is unlikely that the summit will produce anything tangible. But hopefully more people are realising that endlessly appeasing Israel hasn't worked and still isn't working and maybe it might be time to try something new - actually applying pressure to Israel. That can be done quite easily by cutting the the huge aid packages it gets from the USA (something that seems unlikely at the moment considering the power of AIPAC). There should be more than the one lone voice in the Knesset calling for a boycott of Israel. And with news that Israel is supplying tear gas to Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe and after by the way British diplomatic staff have been treated by the regime, that position might gain some support, after all Palestinians have to put up with far worse. Olmert's position isn't that strong.

Olmert currently commands what may be the lowest approval rating for any democratic leader in world history: a measly 2%. Mired in corruption scandals and about to face the verdict of a commission of inquiry into the debacle of last summer's war in Lebanon, Olmert finds his premiership stalled and in a ditch. "He needs an initiative and this could be it," says one Israeli government official of the Saudi plan.

The former head of Israeli military intelligence, Shlomo Gazit, wrote an open letter to the Saudi regime in which he suggested bypassing Olmert and appealing over his head to the Israeli people directly.

Follow the path taken by Anwar Sadat of Egypt 30 years ago, Gazit urged: come to Jerusalem and call for immediate negotiations. Public opinion will rally and "no government in Israel will be able to reject that kind of initiative," he wrote.

As Jonathan Freedland says in the article, calling Israel's bluff over its stated desire for peace might just be a good idea.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Middle East, US Politics

Melanie Phillips And Her Vitriol Against Independent Jewish Voices

2007-02-08T16:59:00.000Z

Tags: Melanie Phillips, Independent Jewish Voices, Israel, Palestine

When I heard the news that a group of Jews had got together to speak out against Israeli aggression and to disassociate themselves from the right-wing Zionists claiming to speak for them, I breathed a sigh of relief at this very positive development. Finally some prominent Jewish voices are speaking out loudly enough to be heard above the surrounding din of extremism. I read the articles about Independent Jewish Voices and watched the recent Newsnight programme which featured rabbi David Goldberg and the poisonous Melanie Phillips.

It wasn't much of a debate I'm afraid. Rabbi Goldberg is far too cultured and genteel to deal with a foaming-at-the-mouth wingnut like Melanie Phillips. Too long a pause in his considered replies would be exploited by the rabid bitch. Even so Melanie was fairly restrained on TV. I don't know what possessed me to look, but I stumbled upon her webpage and found everything she meant to say... and it really is sickening. It just had to be fisked. So at risk of bringing on another attack by GIYUS, Israel's little army of cyber soldiers who I've seen off before, here goes:

*Deep Breath*

February 8, 2007

Jews for genocide
On Monday night, I debated on BBC TV’s Newsnight with Rabbi David Goldberg, one of the signatories of a group styling itself ‘Independent Jewish Voices’, an unlovely collection of congenital Israel-bashers, many of whom are unfortunately prominent in British public life and are lionised by the rest of the intelligentsia who share the same venomous prejudice.

What does it tell you Melanie, that a number of prominent Jews are prepared to finally speak out against Israeli injustices after remaining silent for so long? They were lionised by the population long before they broke their silence and their prominence in public life is due to their talents in their different professions. When it comes to "venomous prejudice", do you ever read any of the garbage you write? This latest offering of yours for example has more "venomous prejudice" than I've seen in an article for a long time.

Their main beef is that the Board of Deputies of British Jews dares to defend Israel in the name of the Jewish community. It has no right to do so, it seems, because it does not speak for them. Hello? The Board of Deputies?? Are they kidding? The Board is almost entirely silent on the subject.

No Melanie, their main beef seems to be (as Tom from Blairwatch says) that Jewish opinion in the UK and US is being efficiently corralled by PR into narrow support for the Israeli extreme right and their neo-con buddies in the UK and US. They want to speak for themselves, get it?

And since when were many of these signatories part of the British Jewish community anyway? Although some do identify themselves with it, many of them maintain either the most tangential or even no connection with the community or with Judaism whatever. It embarrasses them. The only time they ever identify themselves as Jews is in order to vilify the Jewish nation state, when — grotesquely — they use their ethnic Jewish identity to armour-plate themselves against the charge of Jew-hatred by wrapping themselves in the mantle of Jewish victimisation.

So because their views don't coincide with yours, suddenly they are not Jews, is that right? Have you explained that to any of the rabbis who have signed up to Independent Jewish Voices. You didn't do that on Newsnight when you 'debated' with rabbi David Goldberg. I'm sure he would be very surprised to learn that he doesn't identify himself as a Jew. Are you aware that there is a difference between 'Jew' and 'Zionist'? Apparently not.

And here they are again indeed posing as Jewish martyrs. Their complaint is that the Jewish establishment is trying to silence them in their heroic attempt to tell the truth about Israel, in which cause it is they who speak with the authentic voice of Jewish conscience. This is just surreal. These signatories are never out of the media with their revolting rants against Israel. Editors fawn respectfully over their every utterance. They dominate the discussion.

I don't think 'martyrs' is quite the right word is it? Is that what they call themselves? They speak with their own consciences. The media is not a monolith, some media outlets spout the same garbage you do (although usually with less of the "venomous prejudice" which you use). If their views seem to prevail, it might just possibly mean that they are right and you are wrong. Have you thought of that? No, of course not.

On the contrary, their intention is to silence others. The Board of Deputies — made of representatives who are elected by synagogues and other communal organisations and which therefore speaks for the mainstream British Jewish community — is not even to be allowed by these goons to say anything about Israel because, on the rare occasions when it does so, it dares to defend it. The voice of the Jewish mainstream is to be silenced — because they disagree with it.

You're putting the cart before the horse again Melanie. It is not them who are trying to silence others. The stifling of debate is done by nasty bullies like GIYUS, the on-line army of cyber soldiers sponsored by the Israeli government to shut down any debate which might expose Israel's crimes. If you are criticising Independent Jewish Voices for getting together to put forward a counter argument, how come you make no mention at all of GIYUS who behave in a manner far more in keeping with your unsubstantiated racist rants.

The essence of the signatories’ complaint, however, is even more offensive. They object to people saying rude things about them in response to what they say about Israel. They just can’t stand the criticism — and so want to silence their critics. They think freedom of speech means they are free to speak, but others are not free to speak about what they say. They think if the defenders of Israel call them names — ‘antisemites’, ‘betrayers’, ‘self-haters’ — this is stopping them from exercising their freedom of speech; but when they themselves call the defenders of Israel names — ‘the far right’, ‘sanitisers of war crimes’ or just ‘insane’ —they are merely stating demonstrable truths.

Sorry, who is it that can't stand criticism and tries to silence their critics? Is anyone preventing you from speaking? No, I thought not. Are you denying that critics of Israel are called ‘anti-Semites’ and if they happen to be Jewish are called ‘betrayers’ or ‘self-haters’? You imply as much in your third paragraph. You really don't read the crap you write do you? Either that or you have the memory of a goldfish. As for the labels used against the rabid rantings from your side of the 'debate', ‘the far right’, ‘sanitisers of war crimes’ and ‘insane’, well they seem perfectly apt to me, particularly the latter.

Enough of their ludicrous and self-serving bleating. What they say about Israel is loathsome, and fully deserves the maximum opprobrium. On Newsnight, Goldberg trotted out the usual canard that mainstream Jews object to any criticism of Israel. Not true. What his lot serve up is not criticism. It is instead a monstrous campaign of demonisation and delegitimisation based on systematic lies, libels and distortions which presents Israel, the historic victim of almost sixty years of Arab and Muslim aggression and ethnic cleansing from the Jews’ historic homeland, as the aggressors, regional bullies and oppressors of the innocent. Thus these people not only scapegoat the Israeli victims of aggression, but sanitise their killers and thus encourage them still further in their murderous project.

Can we also have an end to your 'self-serving bleating' please? What is loathsome is the attempt to justify mass murder of civilians, ethnic cleansing, starvation, house demolitions, assassinations, annexation of land and theft. I notice in your ravings that you fail to address those issues other than the anodyne lie that it's all self defence. I can see the pattern now in your diatribe; you accuse your opponents of the very crimes Israel is guilty of. Hence saying that Israel is the "historic victim of almost sixty years of Arab and Muslim aggression and ethnic cleansing from the Jews". Before 1948 there was no Israel, and the inhabitants of that land (the Palestinians) have been, and are still being driven out by people who are for the most part from eastern Europe. Melanie, it's you who is spouting the canard, and only the people who regularly consume your drivel would believe it.

The group’s founding declaration is: ‘Those who claim to speak on behalf of Jews in Britain and other countries consistently put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of the occupied people.’ But the rights of the Palestinians are being infringed for one reason only: that they are intent upon destroying Israel and murdering its citizens. Israel’s legitimate self-defence in this war of annihilation being waged against it is thus represented here entirely falsely as aggression. That of course is the trick of Palestinian propaganda, which has appropriated the history of Jewish victimisation and turned it on its head, casting the Palestinians as the new Jews and the Israelis as the Nazis — a vile inversion which has been swallowed in its entirety by the signatories to this declaration and by many others on the left.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves. If Israelis have the right to defend themselves against resistance, then the Palestinians have the right to resist occupation and indiscriminate slaughter. Both sides of this conflict are guilty of atrocities, Israeli atrocities are on a much vaster scale however. They might not be on the same scale as those of the Nazis but there certainly seems to be a strong whiff of Nazism in Israel's behaviour. What else would you call it when one of the world's best equipped and well trained armies uses its might against a people armed with rocks, Kalashnikovs, RPGs and primitive rockets little better than fireworks, and who are so desperate that some of them are willing to blow themselves (and civilians) up. You cannot deny that Israel is the stronger force and uses that force inappropriately contrary to international law.

On Newsnight, Goldberg stunningly dismissed the hundreds of rockets that have been fired from Gaza into Israel since Israel’s disengagement from that territory as being of no consequence. Thus this self-styled champion of human rights simply refuses even to acknowledge Jewish victimisation, while professing concern only for those who are trying to wipe the Jews out. This man is supposed to be a rabbi? This is not morality, but pathology.

Goldberg didn't dismiss the hundreds of rockets fired fired from Gaza into Israel, he merely pointed out (or tried to) that the rockets fired pale in comparison to the thousands of shells fired into Gaza. The rockets do occasionally kill and maim. Israeli shells and missiles create a much, much higher death toll. I challenge you to deny that. It is you Melanie, who dismisses the obvious imbalance and disproportionality here. By drawing attention to this fact, rabbi Goldberg was fulfilling his duty as a religious leader and human rights activist.

What has been the Palestinian response to Israel’s disengagement from Gaza? An unending barrage of rockets on Israeli towns and the building of tunnels and import of weaponry in order to unleash even greater death and destruction upon Israel. What has been Israel’s response to Palestinian aggression? Israeli hospitals are currently treating more and more Palestinians injured in the clashes between Fatah and Hamas — people who have been trying to kill Israelis and are now being given medical care in Israeli hospitals on equal terms with Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. Just who is upholding human rights here, and who is trying to extinguish them?

Israel never really left Gaza. Oh, yes the settlers were removed (and some of them relocated to the West Bank thus exacerbating that situation) but the borders were sealed with no easy way for Palestinians to travel, or trade. They have no access to the sea or air. They are in effect, imprisoned in a giant overcrowded concentration camp and subject to regular Israeli bombardment which for the IDF must be like shooting fish in a barrel. If poor defenceless Israel wasn't maiming Palestinians, they wouldn't need to be treated in Israeli hospitals. It should go without saying that if Palestinians had their own well equipped and properly staffed hospitals, they wouldn't need Israeli ones either, but Israel wouldn't allow that. That would be too much like independence wouldn't it? No, far better to show how humane and upholding of human rights Israel is by treating the Palestinians that have been blown to pieces by Israel in Israeli hospitals.

The phenomenon of this Jewish fifth column for Arab and Muslim terror is now doing serious damage to the struggle for survival not just by Israel but by the west in general. Two writers have recently produced withering critiques of these people and the harm they are doing: Bruce Bawer, author of While Europe Slept, and Professor Alvin Rosenfeld, whose article has horrified American liberal Jews who refuse to acknowledge their own faces in Caliban’s mirror.

I find it incredible that you would accuse Jews who object to the wanton violence of Israel as a fifth column. Have you looked up the meaning of that term Melanie? Here it is:

A clandestine subversive organization working within a country to further an invading enemy's military and political aims.

Now, does that term fit for a group of Jews concerned with Israeli atrocities? I would argue not. In fact if you drop the 'clandestine' the term would be fit much better to organisations like AIPAC in the USA or Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel or Lib Dem Friends of Israel. The clue (seeing as you don't have one) is "invading enemy's military and political aims". Who is doing the invading Melanie? And under the pretense of it being self defence... hmmm what does that remind me of?

One of the most painful aspects of all of the Jewish tragedy is that, throughout the unending history of Jewish persecution — from the medieval Christian converts to Marx and beyond —Jews have figured, for a variety of reasons, as prominent accomplices of those who wished to destroy the Jewish people. These signatories are firmly in that lamentable tradition. And since today’s principal battleground is — as the Islamists well understand but we in the west do not — the battleground of ideas, the contribution of these Israel-bashing Jewish intellectuals to the cause of those who hate Jews, the west and human rights is immense.

No one is denying that Jews have suffered terribly in the past because of European barbarism throughout the ages. It's a series of shameful episodes in our History. But speaking of History, look at how well Jews and the Muslims you so obviously hate got on in the past. Why should Muslims have to pay for European crimes. If you need a direction to point that huge chip on your shoulder, European Christians would be a more logical target. The current problems between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East stem largely from the theft of Muslim land, aided and abetted once again by European colonial powers. The suffering of Jews in the past does not give some of them the right to commit similar crimes now.

When Daniel Pipes was recently drowned out by Islamists at the University of California-Irvine, this (via LGF) was what they were saying:

They have no future. And it’s just a matter of time before the state of Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth.[Crowd: Takbir! Allahu akbar!] Justice will be restored then. Those people who are there legitimately … the people there will, will rule. There will be no injustice any more there. So just keep on doing what we’re doing. Our weapon, our jihad, our way of struggling in this country is with our tongues. We speak out, and we deflate their morale, and this is the best we can do right now….[Crowd: Takbir! Allahu akbar!]

Fine, go ahead and quote some angry nutcases in a crowd and try to imply that this is the view of all Muslims if you must. As I said earlier, the only people you'll convince are the idiots who devour your trashy vitriol with such gusto. Even in the passage you quote are words which defeat your 'argument'. "Our weapon, our jihad, our way of struggling in this country is with our tongues. We speak out..." Wow, Melanie, who's afraid of free speech now?

At a time when Iran is threatening to nuke Israel into kingdom come, the words of the prophet come to mind: your destroyers are among you.

So Iran is threatening to nuke Israel is it? Are you sure? Would you be so kind as to find me the relevant quote which shows that intention? It wouldn't be this would it? Oh you really are gullible aren't you Melanie? Whilst on the subject of nuking people, perhaps you would like to explain this:

A recent strike by nuclear-armed Israeli Air Force fighter-bombers bound for targets in Iran was turned back after being intercepted by U.S. fighters over Iraq, this reporter has learned.

Two sources have independently confirmed the encounter, which took place on January 7, 2007. Though the first informant offered few details beyond an initial tip, a second source long-known by this reporter to have well-placed U.S. and “non-U.S.” military and government contacts provided specific information regarding the raid, which was aimed at the radical religious ayatollahs holding ultimate power in Iran.

What's it to be Melanie, blanket denial or a claim of "self defence"? We've heard plenty of Israeli denials before, followed by admissions of "mistakes".

Having struggled though all that appalling crap I now need to lie down in a darkened room for a while.

Another Roundup of Middle East Turmoil

2007-01-15T08:11:00.000Z

Condoleezza Rice's latest trip to the Middle East cannot be described a peace-making mission. The motives for her trip appear to be to drum up support for the destabilisation force Bush is sending to Iraq, and to poison the minds of Arab leaders even more against Iran in preparation for what is looking ever more likely to be another Middle East war. However, some Arab leaders have had the temerity to impose conditions on the USA in exchange for their support. The price is US engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And so once again Condoleezza has to pretend that she wants to see a Palestinian state and is able to win meaningful concessions from the Israelis.

"I have heard loud and clear the call for deeper American engagement," she said after talks in Ramallah with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

So far she has met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah of Jordan. Today she will meet Ehud Olmert and then go on to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to promote war. It won't escape the attention of these Arab leaders that she has absolutely nothing new to offer. What she will try to gain is unconditional support for more chaos in Iraq and new Chaos in Iran and beyond by telling them that all this is in their interest.

In advance of her visit, the secretary of state said she was not bringing new proposals but would be listening, talking and looking for creative solutions.

At a press conference she had to deny that USA was too distracted by concerns about Iraq and Iran to have effect on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"The Palestinian people have waited a long time for their own state... and if there is anything that I can do and that the president can do to finally realise that day, why wouldn't we want to do that?"

The answer to that of course is that the Bush administration is so pro-Israel and controlled by Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC that it cannot possibly be considered as a fair arbiter in any negotiations and is responsible along with Israel for the appalling conditions in which the Palestinians are forced to live. America has had plenty of opportunities to restrain the worst excesses of Israel and has failed to do so every time.

Still, Condi should be able to drum up enough support for Bush's nefarious plans in the region. Iran is disliked and feared by many Arab countries, and by spreading the fear of Iranian influence over Iraq (even though it was America's invasion that created this problem) as well as pretending that sending another 20,000 troops into the quagmire will somehow make the situation more secure for the region she'll probably get enough support to give a veneer of legitimacy to her plans. Bush needs this support because it certainly doesn't exist back home where even the Republicans are in open revolt over the "surge" plans.

Bush has finally been forced to acknowledge that the invasion has made Iraq more unstable, but he still maintains that despite some mistakes he did the right thing.

But pressed on the issue, and told by a Fox News interviewer that Iraq was “much more unstable now, Mr President,”, Mr Bush replied: “Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.”
He added: “I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it.” But toppling Saddam was not a mistake. “We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude and I believe most Iraqis express that.”

Yes, that's right, he actually thinks Iraqis should be grateful for the murder and mayhem that that has engulfed their country because of the invasion. I don't know which Iraqis he's been talking to but 90 percent of them seem to think they were better off under Saddam Hussein.

Not content with wrecking one country, the Bush administration is now working flat out to try and wreck another. The recent incidents in Northern Iraq (authorised by Bush) where Iranian diplomats have been arrested and a consular office raided have increased tensions between the US and Iran. These diplomatic incidents look like being the first moves in an attempt to provoke a conflict. America is now threatening to "deal with" Iran and Syria over their alleged support of insurgents while Iran is demanding the release of its kidnapped diplomats. The White House is emphatically refusing to rule out an attack on Iran.

The attack could take the form of air strikes or cross-border raids, most likely it will be both. The legality of such action hasn't been discussed; the last time the UN was mentioned vis-à-vis Iran was last month when limited sanctions were imposed. Whether or not the US Congress can prevent its commander in chief make another even more catastrophic foreign policy blunder is unknown, but we have already seen how much respect Bush has for legal processes.

Tags: Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Syria, US Politics, Bush, Condoleezza Rice

About Time Too!

2006-11-15T08:15:00.000Z

In the past year, the Government licensed the sale of £23m worth of weaponry to Israel. This is a dramatic increase (almost double) on the previous year. Britain seems to have a nice little business going in selling weapons to despotic regimes.

However, under both EU (and UK) law arms cannot be sold to countries where they might be used for internal repression, international aggression, or contribute to regional instability. See Criterion Two and Criterion Four of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. So why are we doing it? Well, apparently we have received assurances from Israel that that arms sold to it from the UK would not be used in the occupied territories. Assurances that evidently were not worth the paper they were printed on.

Anyway, it looks as if this cosy business arrangement is about to be disrupted by a Palestinian who is taking the Government to court over the matter.

The government is being taken to court today over the sale of military equipment to Israel including parts for Apache helicopter gunships, laser range finders, and communications equipment.
Saleh Hasan, a Palestinian who lives in Bethlehem, argues that the sales are in breach of the government's guidelines covering arms exports and are unlawful. The guidelines say exports should be blocked when there is a "clear risk" they "might be used for internal repression".
Mr Hasan's lawyers point to comments by Foreign Office minister Kim Howells in the Commons in August that "almost any use of equipment ... could be used aggressively, especially in occupied areas".
They point out that after British military equipment was used in the occupied territories in 2002, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, said he would no longer take Israeli assurances into account. Mr Howells said that approach "still holds true".
Michael Fordham QC says in his court challenge on behalf of Mr Saleh that there is also clear evidence of human rights abuses by Israeli forces.
Source

Well, hopefully Mr Hasan will win his case. If he does win, it won't change facts on the ground, Israel gets most of its weaponry from the USA, but at least Britain will be less complicit in the slaughter of Palestinian civilians. A small victory.

If he looses the case and the UK continues to supply Israel with high-tech weaponry to be used on the civilians of Palestine then that will make a mockery of Tony Blair's recent rhetoric about solving the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, UK Politics

Ten Tips For Dealing With GIYUS

2006-11-12T05:04:00.000Z

If, like many people, you are disgusted by the behaviour of Israel and happen to blog about, say, the latest massacre in Gaza; the desperate situation the Palestinians are in; the carnage in Lebanon or the provocation of UNIFIL peacekeepers; the threat of attacking Iran or any of the other nefarious deeds that Israel is allowed to get away with, then there is a reasonable chance that you may attract the attention of GIYUS. You'll know when that has happened when you find your post bombarded by comments (usually anonymous and looking remarkably similar) attempting to justify those actions and attacking you for daring to mention them. A quick look at your stats will confirm that you've been GIYUSed. If this bothers you, here are some tips which may put a stop to the attack, or at least lessen the flow of moronic comments. Of course I can't guarantee that they will work, all I can say is that they seemed to work for me when I became their target. First of all don't be intimidated, that's what this little army of cyber soldiers want you to be. Instead you could try the following:

Update your post straight away explaining what has happened and adding a little bit about GIYUS for those unfamiliar with this annoying pressure group. This also let's the GIYUS bots know that you're on to them.
If possible, add some links to previous posts you might have written on the issues to show that you are not going to be intimidated by their antics.
Refute their 'arguments' in the comments. This is easy as they really don't have any. Their comments go along the lines of "it is about time that Israel completely ignore any condemnation of our effort to stay alive and have a simple life in a and keep pounding at the Palestinians...". Also they don't stick around to argue, debate is the last thing they want and its what they are trying to stifle. They just do as they are directed by GIYUS.
On no account say anything which they could construe as being anti-Semitic. That is exactly what they want. Not only is anti-Semitism so obviously wrong but you'll be lowering yourself to their level. Their main objective is to 'prove' that anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is a) anti-Semitic, b) a Holocaust denier, and c) an 'Islamo-fascist'. To do this they try to blur the distinctions between 'Zionist', 'Israeli' and 'Jewish'.
Use reliable news sources to back up your points. If you can find items from Israeli sources, so much the better. Haaretz and B'TSalem are useful.
Invite others to join in the fun, it makes the thread more balanced and much more interesting. It also saves you from having to repeat yourself or respond to every comment.
Don't delete their comments unless they really are particularly offensive. That just makes it look like you haven't got an answer to them. Leave their comments up so we can all have a good laugh at them.
Use humour. Believe me, these commenters have as much sense of humour as Ian Paisley on a bad day, and they don't like having the piss taken out of them (who does?). The issues are deadly serious for both sides of the argument but the point here is to stop GIYUS bullying you into remaining silent about them.
If other bloggers link to your post then even more people will see it thus rendering their efforts to silence you completely counter-productive. I'll take this opportunity to thank the Curious Hamster, Obsolete and D-Notice for linking to my post which helped GIYUS's attack on me backfire.
GIYUS has been particularly effective in distorting or wrecking on-line polls. If you are conducting a poll about Israel and you find that GIYUS members turn up in great numbers to distort the result, my advice would be to shut it down immediately and post a message explaining why. I haven't conducted a poll about Israel but it's what I'd do if I found my poll being distorted by GIYUS.

When I was targeted by GIYUS I did most of the things on this list and the comments slowed down and then stopped very quickly. And it wasn't because the GIYUS bots stopped visiting. As I write this they are still coming, they're just not bombarding me with their silly justifications for what is by any standard criminal behaviour. Groups like this don't like to be exposed in this way, so when a light is shined on them they tend to scuttle back to whatever dark recesses they emerged from. Mind you, having posted this I wouldn't be surprised if they tried again.

If you have been GIYUSed and your post is genuine comment on Middle East news and not anti-Semitic or conspiracy theory garbage, feel free to drop me a comment and I'll link to it. Freedom of speech is important and we have enough curtailment of it from our leaders, so we don't need these idiots to bully us into silence. If all this sounds like behaving little better than GIYUS, it isn't. I'm not advocating bombarding people's web sites with comments or hurling abuse at anyone. This is just a defence tactic which may or may not work if you find yourself under a coordinated virtual attack from a state sponsored pressure group. No state is above criticism and when a state behaves the way Israel does it should expect to be criticised for its crimes. Unfortunately many governments, particularly the American and British governments refuse to criticise these atrocities and are complicit in them, so it's up to us to do it.

Tags: Israel, Blogging, GIYUS, Palestine, Lebanon

While The World's Attention Was Focused on the American Elections...

2006-11-08T06:59:00.000Z

How very predictable of Israel. Knowing that a huge assault on the Palestinians would be likely to attract condemnation (not from the USA or the UK, of course) Israel waited until the most people became engrossed in the drama of America's Midterm elections before launching a massive tank attack on the beleaguered citizens of Gaza and the West Bank killing 18 people.

Initial reports say the dead were civilians, with women and children among the casualties.
Israeli military sources said they were unaware of the incident.
Earlier, four Palestinian militants and a civilian were reported killed in an Israeli army operation near the West Bank town of Jenin.
Source

The American Midterm elections were widely seen as a referendum on George Bush's policy on Iraq and the victory speeches of the Democrats, who won control of the House of Representatives (the control of the Senate is at time of writing, too close to call), were full of references to Bush's disastrous war. Unsurprisingly there was no mention at all of the mass murder being committed by America's closest ally.

If, as the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said, the Democrats would "restore integrity and honesty" to Washington and lead the "most ethical Congress in history", then a good place to start would be another look at America's unqualified support for the genocidal kleptocracy allowed free reign in the Middle East.

*UPDATE*

It appears that this post has incurred the wrath of GIYUS and it's little army of cyber soldiers. Well, I'm not exactly quaking in my boots. For those unfamiliar with GIYUS, read this:

Israel’s Government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda. The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages.
Source

Their aim is to stifle any any commentary on the barbaric acts of the Israeli regime and also to distort on-line polls. Notice in the comments how most wish to remain anonymous, how they have nothing to say about Israel's killing of civilians including women and children, the theft of land, the deliberate policy of starving of the Palestinians, the robbing of their banks, the theft of their tax revenues and their efforts to stop any aid getting to the malnourished Palestinians, and, of course their ethnic cleansing. They try to justify these actions by saying that they left the Gaza strip, without mentioning of course that there is no freedom for the people of Gaza, it is now the World's largest open-air prison camp. What these GIYUS commenters most object to is the Palestinians daring to defend themselves against such brutality. Yes, they fire primitive home-made rockets, little better than fireworks that occasionally cause injury or worse. Compare this to Israel's tank and missile attacks or the DIME weapons they test on the Palestinians. And yet Ehud Olmert refers to the IDF as "the most moral military in the world".

So there you go GIYUS people, there are some more posts for you to get upset about.

Ten Tips For Dealing With GIYUS

Tags: Israel, Palestine, US Politics

Israel's new weapon tested on the Palestinians

2006-10-13T13:12:00.000+01:00

Israel appears to have an experimental new weapon which is being used on the beleagured Palestinians. It is called a DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) and is thought to be similar to something the US military have been developing. So far the weapon is said by doctors to have caused 200 deaths and 62 amputations and severe burns in June and July.

The same team of Italian journalists who uncovered America's use of white phosphorous on Iraqis in Falluja have also been investigating Israeli weapons. The weapon is supposed to cause a powerful blast within a small radius.

Israel Air Force Maj.-Gen (res.) Yitzhak Ben-Israel, formerly head of the IDF's weapons-development program, told the Italian reporters that "one of the ideas [behind the weapon] is to allow those targeted to be hit without causing damage to bystanders or other persons."
Source

Doctors in Gaza reported inexplicably serious injuries which prompted the investigation. They found that the bodies of the dead and wounded had small entry wounds. Juma Saqa of Shifa hospital said that the victims had a powder on their bodies and internal organs.

"The powder was like microscopic shrapnel, and these are what likely caused the injuries," he said.
Habas al-Wahid, head of the emergency room at the Shuhada al-Aqsa hospital, told reporters that the legs of the injured were sliced from their bodies "as if a saw was used to cut through the bone".
The Dime is said to be made of a carbon-fibre casing and filled with tungsten powder and explosives. It is likely to be carcinogenic.
According to the website globalsecurity.org, the weapon was successfully tested during 2004 and 2005 but is being further developed.
Source

Samples of the particles found in wounds of the injured Gazans were sent for analysis to a laboratory at the University of Parma, in Italy where high concentrations of carbon and unusual materials, such as copper, aluminum and tungsten were found. The weapon is also likely to be carcinogenic.

Physicians for Human Rights has asked Israel's defence Minister, Amir Peretz for an explanation to these injuries. They shouldn't hold their breath for an explanation. The usual lies will be trotted out, and when they are exposed then claims that they are justified in using the Palestinians for weapons tests. The international community will just say that 'Israel has the right to defend itself' and give the Israelis something even more nasty.

Tags: Israel, Palestine

More Hypocrisy from Condoleezza Rice

2006-10-04T06:21:00.000+01:00

Condoleezza Rice is returning to the Middle East to call for end to the Palestinian violence caused by her policy of cutting off aid to the PA. Because of the desperate situation in Palestine, particularly in Gaza, different factions are fighting amongst themselves.

Ten Palestinians have been killed and more than 100 wounded since clashes between the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas began on Sunday in Gaza.
"Innocent Palestinians are caught in this violence," Ms Rice said.
She did not directly blame Hamas, but she said the Hamas government was unable to deliver for the Palestinian people - and could not represent a responsible government to the international community.
Source

To implement a policy of starvation and to allow repeated attacks by Israel and then to casually observe that the government is unable to deliver to the Palestinians is yet another breathtaking act of hypocrisy from the US Secretary of State. She is returning to a intolerable situation that she is partly responsible for causing. Her mission to the Middle East will achieve nothing as she has nothing to offer the Arabs except for more of the same misery. She failed in her objectives in Lebanon and managed to earn the hostility of the Lebanese Prime Minister, one of the very moderates she is supposed to be engaging with.

During the conflict in Lebanon, Israel used the confusion as a cover to further expand illegal settlements in the West Bank. And while the world's attention was focussed on Lebanon Israel was able to slaughter the Palestinians without very much in the way of media coverage let alone international condemnation. So just what does Condoleezza expect to achieve in her mission?

Speaking in Jeddah, Ms Rice urged a halt to fighting between Hamas and Fatah factions in Gaza. But she made plain there would be no let-up in the US-directed boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority which is stoking those tensions. And while paying lip service to a two-state solution, she did not diverge one inch from the administration's line that countering extremism in Iran and Iraq, and among al-Qaida and like-minded jihadists, was Washington's top priority.
Source

In other words this is more of an attempt to bolster support for Israel and to make the USA look like it is trying to do something positive in the Middle East before the November mid-term elections while in reality doing nothing of the sort. The very chaos Condoleezza Rice is speaking out against is exactly the chaos that her close ally Israel wants in order to prevent the possibility of a Palestinian state being created.

Tags: Condoleezza Rice, Palestine, Israel, US Politics

Israel makes a withdrawal from the West Bank

2006-09-21T14:26:00.000+01:00

However, it's not the kind of withdrawal that the Palestinians were hoping for. Rather than leave illegally occupied territory, the IDF (the most moral army in the world) has taken to robbing banks... again.

Israeli troops have raided a bank and the offices of money-changers in West Bank towns, confiscating funds they say were intended to fund militants.

The army said it seized almost $1.5m (£0.8m) in raids on premises in Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm and Ramallah.

The money had mostly come from Syria and Iran and was intended for Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants, the army said.

Palestinian sources have said that millions of dollars, documents and files were "stolen" in the raids.

At least eight currency exchange offices and a small bank were destroyed, the Israeli army said.
Source

Not content with withholding Palestinian tax revenue and persuading America and Europe to cut aid to the desperate PA in order to starve the Palestinians into recognising the kleptocracy which has stolen their land, Israel has stooped to helping itself to the meagre funds remaining. This is not the first time that Israel has resorted to robbing Palestinian banks using the excuse that what little money the Palestinians have is obviously for the use of terrorism. In 1994 the IDF raided four banks stealing millions of dollars in cash.

Tags: Israel, Palestine

Blair's Middle East trip

2006-09-11T01:52:00.000+01:00

Tony Blair's attempt to ~~look like a statesman~~ bring peace to the Middle East is continuing despite achieving very little so far. He has managed to get an agreement from Olmert and Abbas to meet for talks at some unspecified time but that is about all. But this trip was always going to be about Blair trying to prove that he has some sort of role to play in international diplomacy to justify his staying in office rather than achieving anything concrete in the region.

Despite the previous reluctance of the Israeli leadership to meet with Blair, he was met with a warm welcome by Israel, and with good reason. Blair has not once criticised Israel for the continuing building of illegal settlements, the disproportionate destruction of Lebanon and the genocide and starvation of Palestinians which he has actually helped with by doing his best to prevent a ceasefire in Lebanon and by imposing collective punishment on the Palestinians for daring to elect a government that does not meet with the approval of Olmert, Bush and himself. This pattern of no criticism has continued on his current visit.

Asked to condemn Israeli actions Mr Blair said "grandstanding" and apportioning blame would not help resolve the situation.
Source

Can you imagine Blair saying something similar if there was a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv? He would be grandstanding and apportioning blame for all he was worth, just as he grandstanded and apportioned blame to Hezbollah for the war in Lebanon while carefully ignoring the constant violations of Lebanese airspace and border incusions by Israel. It is precisely this obvious bias which makes Blair's claims of being a helpful influence for peace in the Middle East so ludicrous. And it's not just to please his American master who is ambivalent at best to peace in the region. Blair still feels he has to honour his pledge to his discredited Middle East envoy and personal fund-raiser, Lord Levy despite the collapse of his authority at home. That support for Israel is not unappreciated in the Jewish state:

Blair is currently probably the most popular British prime minister among the Jews here since the era of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, with the exception perhaps of Winston Churchill. Friendly towards Israel throughout the past nine years, he surpassed himself during the Lebanon War, insisting on a comprehensive solution to the Hizbullah threat before pressing for a cease-fire and refusing to place blame on Israel for a "disproportionate" retaliation to the attacks.
Source

Needless to say Blair's welcome in Ramallah was somewhat more formal than his welcome in Jerusalem. All Blair could do was say that he understood Mr Abbas' greivances and try to help. But without speaking to Hamas, the elected government, Blair will make no progress. What Blair is trying to do yet again is impose conditions on the Palestinians. This time he wants them to form a 'unity government' that recognises the theives of their land as a legitimate state. Blair would look far more even-handed if he put equal pressure on the other countries that refuse to recognise Israel to do so. I have not noticed similar pressure being put on:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Comoros, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
Source

Instead of starving that bastion of democracy, Saudi Arabia into recognising Israel, Britain is arming the regime to the teeth. So there is little wonder that Blair's visit to Palestine has been met with protests.

Around two dozen demonstrators, who accuse him of pro-Israeli bias, gathered outside the government compound where he was meeting with Abbas, waving Palestinian flags and holding up a placard that read: "Be a darling Tony and don't show your face here." [My emphasis]
Source

Even before Blair's arrival there was no doubt as to how the Palestinians felt about his visit.

A newspaper advertisement signed by hundreds of Palestinian figures [though none from Hamas or Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement] said: "He is coming here in order to wash his hands, that are dripping with Lebanese blood, with Palestinian water.

"We the signatories... notables, intellectuals and political figures declare that Tony Blair is persona non grata in our country."
Source

Blair will soon return from what will be seen as a largely ineffective mission in the Middle East to the turmoil he has created within his own party. I expect his welcome home will be similar to the welcome he received in Ramallah or the welcome he is about to receive in Lebanon where the speaker of the Parliament has already left the country to avoid meeting him.

Tags: Blair, Palestine, Israel

Some of speeches at the London 'Ceasefire Now' demonstration

2006-08-08T03:51:00.000+01:00

Having failed in my attempt to record Craig Murray's excellent speech at the protest, and having missed some of the other speeches, I was relieved to discover that Ady Cousins managed to film it in its entirety and also recorded many of the other speeches.

This is exactly what I was hoping to do at the demonstration. So here they are, the speeches than none of the news outlets wanted you to see, or just couldn't be bothered to show you. Shame on them.

Via The Antagonist who has a very good post on the protest.

Tags: Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, London Demonstration, UK Politics, Blair

Letter to the BBC

2006-08-07T05:18:00.000+01:00

Many people have expressed their dismay at the inadequate media coverage of last Saturday’s demonstration against the Israeli aggression in Lebanon and Gaza. While it is nice to know that some bloggers are doing a very good job of covering the event, it is the duty of news outlets, particularly the BBC, to cover such events properly. Once again the BBC has failed in its duty and so I have decided to complain. Here is the letter I wrote.

Dear BBC,

I wish to complain about the appalling coverage you gave to last Saturday's (August 5th) demonstration in London. You gave this huge demonstration with its unprecedented rally in Parliament Square very scant coverage. You quoted the police estimate of the numbers (20,000) as if the police was a reliable source. The police always revise down the numbers. True, you did also quote the Stop The War Coalition estimate (80,000 - 100,000) but in such a way as to imply that their figures were less reliable. You made no effort to come up with a figure for yourselves. What kind of journalism is that? Suspiciously, you did not show any aerial shots of the march that would have helped viewers get a better idea of the size of the protest.

Nor did you broadcast any of the speeches even though at least four of the speakers were MPs, three of them from the governing party. You interviewed only one of the speakers, but only about the news of the draft UN resolution, and that was after the demonstration against the backdrop of a now empty Parliament Square. You showed no reaction from the Government about this huge demonstration, and it really was huge as the many photographs show.

People do want an accurate report of the events of last Saturday and in order to find out what happened they have had to resort to the numerous blogs which gave this protest the coverage it deserved albeit with their own particular slants. The blog coverage includes photographs, video clips and quotes from the speakers. If people without access to the huge resources that the BBC has can do such a good job of reporting an event, why can't you? Even if you don't have the time on your news bulletins to fully cover the event, you still have an extensive website and the coverage on that was only marginally better than what you broadcast.

My criticism isn't just reserved for the BBC. None of the other major news outlets did justice to this protest and I shall be writing to some of them too. However, the BBC is funded uniquely by the obligatory license fee; therefore it has a special duty to report fully and fairly in as unbiased a way as possible. I think you have failed in that duty. And nor is it the first time your coverage of major protests has been unbalanced or just inept. The difference here is that this protest is about events that are happening in the world that we are seeing on our TV screens every day. In other words, it is a part of the current events that you are already covering and deserves more than the few minutes you allocated to it.

The scant coverage you and the other news outlets gave to this protest amounts to a media blackout. If that is the case then you should at least tell us that a media blackout has been imposed so that people know that they should find other methods to find out what is happening in our country. The fact that so many people turned up last Saturday without there having been any posters, or articles in the news (except for one in The Independent on the day of the protest) shows that many people are losing faith in news outlets such as yours and are relying on word-of-mouth and, of course the blogs and other internet sites. If I worked for the BBC, that would worry me.

I have listed below just a few of the blogs that have done the journalism that the BBC on this occasion has failed to do. The amount of hits that these blogs are getting reflect the interest there is about last Saturday's protest, and the comments I have been receiving over the report I posted on my blog on the event and the comments that I have read on other blog posts illustrate that there is a huge disappointment in the lack of media coverage.

I sincerely hope you do a better job of covering these protests in the future because there will be a lot more of them.

Yours truly

Davide Simonetti

http://nether-world.blogspot.com

Some of the blog coverage:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/08/at-least-100000-march-against-us.html
http://ernest.turro.cat/blog/2006/08/06/on-the-august-5th-demonstration/
http://www.septicisle.info/2006/08/uh-yeah-there-was-sort-of.html
http://ellissharp.blogspot.com/2006/08/massive-protest-against-blair-media.html
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/1271
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/1272
http://nether-world.blogspot.com/2006/08/august-5-demonstration-in-london.html

If anyone else feels the urge to complain to the BBC over its rubbish coverage of the August 5 demonstration, this is the link to the complaints department. I’ll let you know what the BBC’s response is if I get a reply.

Tags: BBC, Media, London Demonstration, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel

August 5 demonstration in London against the War in Lebanon

2006-08-06T07:07:00.000+01:00

By anyone’s standards (except for those of the BBC apparently) this was a big demonstration. Let’s get the obligatory numbers argument over with first. The BBC, which always says it is reporting the police estimates as if they were the sole guardians of the Truth, told the world that 20,000 people showed up. Hmm, the word I’m looking for here is Bollocks! The Beeb did also quote the Stop the War Coalition (STWC) estimate as well (100,000) but in such a way as to make readers and viewers distrust their figures. Of course they declined to show any aerial shots of the march. From the ground it is impossible to guess the numbers (at least it was for me), but Tom from Blairwatch applied his considerable mathematical skills to the problem and came up with a much more realistic 52,800 to 66,000 people marching. I would have put the number higher, at about 80,000 to 100,000 but based only on previous experiences of such protests and not on any real calculations.

I did ask a steward what she thought the turn-out was and she suggested it might be between 80,000 and 140,000. Apparently STWC calculate numbers by the not very scientific method knowing how many placards they have and assuming that one in five protesters will pick one up. This of course doesn’t allow for people joining the march as it progresses. Suffice to say, I haven’t a clue how many people were there but there were an awful lot of them. Judge the numbers for yourself from these photos and video clips. People were still pouring into a very crowded Parliament Square halfway through the rally with the march still winding up to Piccadilly Circus and Trafalgar Square.

The march started at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, went down Park Lane and then detoured off to go around the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square where there was a lot of shouting and booing at the building and its occupants surrounded as they were by the ubiquitous fortifications and battalions of day-glow police.

It then went back onto Park Lane, down Piccadilly to Piccadilly Circus from there onto and Lower Regent Street into Whitehall (Downing Street) and finished at Parliament Square where the Rally was held. Holding the rally in Parliament Square was a stroke of genius (I don’t know how the organisers managed to get permission to do that). It meant that the protest was impossible to ignore even with a near total media blackout.

The mood of the march was obviously very angry, and rightly so. However there was still a very friendly atmosphere, no doubt helped by the fine sunny weather (actually it was bloody hot and I’ve gone red) and the huge turn-out. There were people from all walks of life and of different ages and races, which was a very good thing to see. Lots of children attended too which helped to highlight the huge proportion of children’s’ deaths and injuries in this war (a trade mark of Israel).

As the march reached Whitehall, it got much noisier and angrier. The march slowed down as people hung about to hurl abuse at the Prime Minister. His Tonyness was in residence, apparently. We were treated to the frankly surreal spectacle of hundreds of shoes being lobbed towards Downing Street. The shoes represented the children whose lives have been snuffed out in this war. Later they were placed in a touching arrangement at the Cenotaph.

Finally we ended up in Parliament Square for the rally. I think I was somewhere in the middle of the march and so I missed some of the speeches. I would have liked to have heard John McDonnell’s speech as I have been reading his campaign blog recently. It seems I also missed Diane Abbot. I did get to hear Craig Murray’s speech which was very good. I tried to record it but my camera ran out of space so I only managed to capture the beginning (weirdly enough the same thing happened to Lenin on Craig’s speech).

I tried to capture the rest of what he had to say on my cell phone but the audio is so bad that I’m not going to post it here (all the other speeches I filmed on the mobile are also incomprehensible unfortunately – Note to self: buy another memory card for the camera, one with more storage space). I did manage to record the speeches of George Galloway, Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn after deleting some photos and accidentally deleting Bianca Jagger’s speech and some others.

I can’t remember all of the other speakers but I liked Jeremy Hardy’s speech about a secular and harmonious Middle East with Jews, Christians and Muslims living together eventually in one state, and Professor Manuel Hassassian’s speech (the would-be Palestinian ambassador to Britain if Palestine was allowed to exist).

After the Rally, the crowd dispersed fairly quickly and I made my way to the nearest comfortable pub with an outdoor area for a well-earned couple of pints. I don’t know how effective the demonstration will be. Demonstrations don’t have a very good record of changing Government policy, but it is important to register dissatisfaction while we still can. The media blackout on the protest is a pretty appalling state of affairs and the mainstream television news channels should be ashamed of themselves. I actually thought they would report this event in a misguided bout of optimism. As it is we will have to rely once more on the bloggers to spread the word and do the journalists’ jobs for them.

There is excellent coverage of the march from Lenin’s Tomb, Septic Isle, The Sharp Side and also Blairwatch. Also, a very good report from the antagonist which has video clips of Rose Gentle from Military Families Against the War, and also the whole of Craig Murray's speech. Little Richardjohn has some more good pictures. If I hear of more reports I’ll update this post.

Finally, while we were protesting, there was some movement at the UN. I say movement rather than progress because this looks like anything but progress. However, I may be proved wrong. The idea seems to be that Israel gets to occupy southern Lebanon (again) until the much-talked about peace keepers/enforcers arrive. Hezbollah has to stop retaliating while Israel can continue to attack provided they call it “defensive” action rather than “offensive” action which is what Israel has called its genocidal wrecking spree all along. This will go down like a lead balloon with Hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon. No immediate unconditional ceasefire, just “full cessation of hostilities”. Is that really the best the USA and France could come up with?

Tags: Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, London Demonstration, UK Politics, Blair

Demonstrate 5th August

2006-08-04T04:27:00.000+01:00

Join the national demonstration
Saturday 5 August: Assemble 12 Noon
Speakers Corner, Hyde Park, London
March to Parliament Square for rally

Here's why

For more details including information about coaches and trains click here.

Tags: Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, London Demonstration August 5

Fisking Tony Blair

2006-08-02T04:51:00.000+01:00

Tony Blair has delivered his major foreign policy speech on the Middle East to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. The media is calling it a coded criticism of George Bush, but I doubt Dubya will decode it as anything other than endorsement of his policies.

In the speech he called for a "complete renaissance" on foreign policy to combat "Reactionary Islam". I don’t usually fisk speeches or articles so I’m out of practice, but I couldn’t resist this. It’s such a load of the usual Blairite garbage it deserves a good fisking.

Overnight, the news came through that as well as continuing conflict in the Lebanon, Britain's Armed Forces suffered losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. It brings home yet again the extraordinary courage and commitment of our armed forces who risk their lives and in some cases tragically lose them, defending our country's security and that of the wider world. These are people of whom we should be very proud.

They are not defending our country’s security. Iraq was never a threat to us. They are risking their lives for Bush’s imperial mission, control of oil supplies oh, and your legacy.

I know the US has suffered heavy losses too in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We should never forget how much we owe these people, how great their bravery, and their sacrifice.

I planned the basis of this speech several weeks ago. The crisis in the Lebanon has not changed its thesis. It has brought it into sharp relief.

The crisis in Lebanon demonstrates yet again how many innocent people you are willing to see die, this time so that Israel can expand into Lebanon for the 5th time in 30 years.
The purpose of the provocation that began the conflict was clear. It was to create chaos, division and bloodshed, to provoke retaliation by Israel that would lead to Arab and Muslim opinion being inflamed, not against those who started the aggression but against those who responded to it.
The purpose of the “provocation” as you put it was to get some its prisoners back and to show support for the beleaguered Palestinians in Gaza who are being massacred.
It is still possible even now to come out of this crisis with a better long-term prospect for the cause of moderation in the Middle East succeeding. But it would be absurd not to face up to the immediate damage to that cause which has been done.
If it would be absurd not to face up the immediate damage to the cause of moderation in the Middle East, then why are you silencing the voices of moderation and encouraging extremism? You should be helping Lebanon, a moderate state. By encouraging the slaughter you are going to turn them into fanatics.

We will continue to do all we can to halt the hostilities. But once that has happened, we must commit ourselves to a complete renaissance of our strategy to defeat those that threaten us. There is an arc of extremism now stretching across the Middle East and touching, with increasing definition, countries far outside that region. To defeat it will need an alliance of moderation, that paints a different future in which Muslim, Jew and Christian; Arab and Western; wealthy and developing nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each other. My argument to you today is this: we will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world.

The point is this. This is war, but of a completely unconventional kind.

You have done nothing to halt the hostilities and, in fact, done everything possible to prevent the ceasefire that the whole world is calling for, except for the USA, Israel and Britain. A “renaissance of our strategy”? A complete re-think you mean, surely. Its been an unmitigated disaster right from the start and is getting worse. This “arc of extremism”, was that term thought up by the same idiot who came up with “axis of evil”? And this “alliance of moderation”, that’s you I suppose; rendition, Guantanamo etc. Last year you were saying “the rules have changed”. Your argument that you cannot win against global extremism unless you show even-handedness and fairness sounds good Tony. Have you just realised that? We’ve been saying it for years. Perhaps the fact that you are not winning shows that there is no fairness, no even-handedness, and as for values … explain them to the survivors of Qana of Fallujah. And as for war of an “unconventional kind”, well I’m not sure about that. After all in World War II thousands of innocent civilians were also deliberately targeted by superpowers levelling cities with WMD. And there were also resistance groups, only they weren’t called “terrorists” in those days; partisans, maquis or just the resistance, but not terrorists.
9/11 in the US, 7/7 in the UK, 11/3 in Madrid, the countless terrorist attacks in countries as disparate as Indonesia or Algeria, what is now happening in Afghanistan and in Indonesia, the continuing conflict in Lebanon and Palestine, it is all part of the same thing. What are the values that govern the future of the world? Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for difference and diversity or those of reaction, division and hatred? My point is that this war can't be won in a conventional way. It can only be won by showing that our values are stronger, better and more just, more fair than the alternative. Doing this, however, requires us to change dramatically the focus of our policy.
Yes Tony is all part of the same thing, if you look at the injustices heaped on these peoples prior to 9/11. That’s not justifying what they do, it's obviously totally wrong and has to be stopped, but it does mean you need to look at the causes then you can go about preventing these atrocities. You keep using the word “values”. Your values (whatever they are) haven’t succeeded in Iraq, unless utter chaos and anarchy are part of your values. And yes, you certainly do need to change your policy, not just the focus of it.
Unless we re-appraise our strategy, unless we revitalise the broader global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade, and in respect of the Middle East, bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine, we will not win. And this is a battle we must win.
You’ve failed on poverty, failed on climate change, failed on trade and failed with Israel and Palestine, and you will continue to fail until you stop putting the interests of the USA and Israel above all else.

What is happening today out in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and beyond is an elemental struggle about the values that will shape our future.

That word again, please stop using it until you know what it means.
It is in part a struggle between what I will call Reactionary Islam and Moderate, Mainstream Islam. But its implications go far wider. We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st century, about global values.
In other words you think that you and Bush should govern the world and there is no room for any other kind of governance, that doesn’t sound very tolerant and moderate.

The root causes of the current crisis are supremely indicative of this. Ever since September 11th, the US has embarked on a policy of intervention in order to protect its and our future security. Hence Afghanistan. Hence Iraq. Hence the broader Middle East initiative in support of moves towards democracy in the Arab world.
The point about these interventions, however, military and otherwise, is that they were not just about changing regimes but changing the values systems governing the nations concerned. The banner was not actually "regime change" it was "values change".

Not about changing regimes? That’s not what you said when you went about changing those regimes was it? I don’t recall you saying “values change” three years ago.
What we have done therefore in intervening in this way, is far more momentous than possibly we appreciated at the time.
You can say that again, it will take generations to put right, and Iraq is probably destroyed forever.
Of course the fanatics, attached to a completely wrong and reactionary view of Islam, had been engaging in terrorism for years before September 11th. In Chechnya, in India and Pakistan, in Algeria, in many other Muslim countries, atrocities were occurring. But we did not feel the impact directly. So we were not bending our eye or our will to it as we should have. We had barely heard of the Taleban. We rather inclined to the view that where there was terrorism, perhaps it was partly the fault of the governments of the countries concerned.
Have you any idea how you sound when you, a Christian, say which bits of Islam are right and which are wrong? Yes, there is obviously Islamic extremism. Look at the causes not the symptoms. Extremist Islam is the excuse for a much deeper problem.
We were in error. In fact, these acts of terrorism were not isolated incidents. They were part of a growing movement. A movement that believed Muslims had departed from their proper faith, were being taken over by Western culture, were being governed treacherously by Muslims complicit in this take-over, whereas the true way to recover not just the true faith, but Muslim confidence and self esteem, was to take on the West and all its works.
And you call us conspiracy theorists. The West and all its works is largely the cause of the extremism IMHO.
Sometimes political strategy comes deliberatively, sometimes by instinct. For this movement, it was probably by instinct. It has an ideology, a world-view, it has deep convictions and the determination of the fanatic. It resembles in many ways early revolutionary Communism. It doesn't always need structures and command centres or even explicit communication. It knows what it thinks.
What are you on about? Are you trying to convince us we should go back to the reds-under-the-bed McCarthy climate of fear that existed in America in the 1950s?

Its strategy in the late 1990s became clear. If they were merely fighting with Islam, they ran the risk that fellow Muslims - being as decent and fair-minded as anyone else - would choose to reject their fanaticism. A battle about Islam was just Muslim versus Muslim. They realised they had to create a completely different battle in Muslim minds: Muslim versus Western.

So Muslims decided to become fanatical and attack the West why, out of boredom with killing each other? No reason at all, whatsoever, just a unilateral decision to attack the West? Are you serious?
This is what September 11th did. Still now, I am amazed at how many people will say, in effect, there is increased terrorism today because we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget entirely that September 11th predated either. The West didn't attack this movement. We were attacked. Until then we had largely ignored it.
Yes, we were attacked on September 11th no one is justifying it or excusing it. Because you think that nothing at all was done to provoke it and that history started on that day (no mention for instance of the Gulf War and American troops in Saudi Arabia, the continuing Israeli expansion into Palestinian territories and the American arming of the Mujahadim in Afghanistan etc.) then I guess you think the resulting chaos across the entire region was proportionate, and successful.
The reason I say our response was even more momentous than it seemed at the time, is this. We could have chosen security as the battleground. But we didn't. We chose values. We said we didn't want another Taleban or a different Saddam. Rightly, in my view, we realised that you can't defeat a fanatical ideology just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its ideas.
You can’t kill an idea. And, now that you mention it, security seems like a pretty good idea, certainly better than what you achieved; a resurgent Taliban, Iraq in civil war and increasingly fanatical and theocratic. What were those values of yours again?
There is a host of analysis written about mistakes made in Iraq or Afghanistan, much of it with hindsight but some of it with justification. But it all misses one vital point. The moment we decided not to change regime but to change the value system, we made both Iraq and Afghanistan into existential battles for Reactionary Islam. We posed a threat not to their activities simply: but to their values, to the roots of their existence.
Wrong, first of all, you lied to us about WMD, remember? You’re so called values again no doubt. Again you never mentioned changing value systems. When the WMD lie was exposed, the reason for the invasion kept changing. We’ve had every conceivable excuse from you except the one about America’s need to control the world’s oil supply, and of course your famous legacy.
We committed ourselves to supporting Moderate, Mainstream Islam. In almost pristine form, the battles in Iraq or Afghanistan became battles between the majority of Muslims in either country who wanted democracy and the minority who realise that this rings the death-knell of their ideology.
You support moderate, mainstream Islam. Is that why women in southern Iraq can no longer work or go out or wear what they want the way they used to. Tell us some more about you’re support for the very moderate Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. From what I’ve heard, the death-knells in that country come from large vats of boiling water.
What is more, in doing this, we widened the definition of Reactionary Islam. It is not just Al-Qaeda who felt threatened by the prospect of two brutal dictatorships - one secular, one religious - becoming tolerant democracies. Any other country who could see that change in those countries might result in change in theirs, immediately also felt under threat. Syria and Iran, for example. No matter that previously, in what was effectively another political age, many of those under threat hated each other. Suddenly new alliances became formed under the impulsion of the common threat.
Not only did you widen the definition of reactionary Islam, you spread reactionary Islam, I don’t think Al Qaeda feels threatened by tolerant democracies, mainly because you have failed to create tolerant democracies. Countries do feel threatened and are banding together to defend themselves better from Anglo-American aggression.

So in Iraq, Syria allowed Al-Qaeda operatives to cross the border. Iran has supported extremist Shia there. The purpose of the terrorism in Iraq is absolutely
simple: carnage, causing sectarian hatred, leading to civil war.

That’s putting the cart before the horse don’t you think? Blair, it was you’re invasion of Iraq that caused the carnage, the sectarian strife and the civil war. None of that would have happened if you hadn’t invaded. Saddam was the lesser of many evils you have unleashed on that country.
However, there was one cause which, the world over, unites Islam, one issue that even the most westernised Muslims find unjust and, perhaps worse, humiliating: Palestine. Here a moderate leadership was squeezed between its own inability to control the radical elements and the political stagnation of the peace process. When Prime Minister Sharon took the brave step of disengagement from Gaza, it could have been and should have been the opportunity to re-start the process. But the squeeze was too great and as ever because these processes never stay still, instead of moving forward, it fell back. Hamas won the election. Even then, had moderate elements in Hamas been able to show progress, the situation might have been saved. But they couldn't.
Yes Tony, Palestine, and still you are misinterpreting it. Here a moderate leadership was squeezed by a vicious and brutal occupier supported by a superpower, with carte blanche do precisely what it pleased with total impunity and any nation or group trying to help labelled “terrorist” or “extremist”. The crushing daily humiliation and suffering on that population and no help at all from you caused them to vote in Hamas. The moderate element in Hamas vanished when you and your master ensured that all funding was cut off from them.
So the opportunity passed to Reactionary Islam and they seized it: first in Gaza, then in Lebanon. They knew what would happen. Their terrorism would provoke massive retaliation by Israel. Within days, the world would forget the original provocation and be shocked by the retaliation. They want to trap the Moderates between support for America and an Arab street furious at what they see nightly on their television. This is what has happened.
Wrong again, their retaliation provoked massive terrorism from Israel, and no one except you and the people you can dupe have forgotten the original provocation. They don’t want to trap anybody, they want to be free, and they want their land back. What they see on their television is real; Israel backed by you and bush bombing civilians …again. Of course they are furious.
For them, what is vital is that the struggle is defined in their terms: Islam versus the West; that instead of Muslims seeing this as about democracy versus dictatorship, they see only the bombs and the brutality of war, and sent from Israel.
It’s not about Islam, religion becomes an excuse (just as it does in America). It’s about occupation and freedom to decide one’s own destiny.

In this way, they hope that the arc of extremism that now stretches across the region, will sweep away the fledgling but faltering steps Modern Islam wants to take into the future.

I can’t help remembering that the “arc of extremism” you mention has the same shape as what historians call the “fertile crescent”. Is that just a coincidence? Perhaps if you left them alone they might find an easier path to democracy, because you’re interference certainly has the opposite effect.
To turn all of this around requires us first to perceive the nature of the struggle we are fighting and secondly to have a realistic strategy to win it. At present we are challenged on both fronts.
To turn this around requires you to stop what you’re doing and get out. The more you interfere the worse it gets. Can’t you see that?
As to the first, it is almost incredible to me that so much of Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of this global terrorism is somehow our fault. For a start, it is indeed global. No-one who ever half bothers to look at the spread and range of activity related to this terrorism can fail to see its presence in virtually every major nation in the world. It is directed at the United States and its allies, of course. But it is also directed at nations who could not conceivably be said to be allies of the West. It is also rubbish to suggest that it is the product of poverty. It is true it will use the cause of poverty. But its fanatics are hardly the champions of economic development. It is based on religious extremism. That is the fact. And not any religious extremism; but a specifically Muslim version.
Yes it is you’re fault, everyone knows that and if you don’t it is either because you are stupid, in denial or just lying again. It is global because, as you like to say, “We live in a globalised world”. Did you really think that globalisation was just about commerce? Do you think it’s a coincidence that the United States is in every major nation of the world? Just because these fanatics, as you call them, are not the champions of economic development doesn’t mean that you are either. And no, it is not just Muslim extremism. What country is banning stem cell research for religious reasons? Which country is going out of its way to prevent women from choosing whether or not to have children? Which country teaches creationism as if it was scientific fact? And which American president believes in all that and also the end-of-days theocracy with the rapture? Bush makes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad look sane.
What it is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is not about those countries' liberation from US occupation. It is actually the only reason for the continuing presence of our troops. And it is they not us who are doing the slaughter of the innocent and doing it deliberately.
It is exactly about liberation from US occupation. You went in, created chaos and then say that you have to stay there because it is chaos. It is they and you doing the slaughter of the innocent, but mostly you, and you’re bombing campaigns are no accident.
Its purpose is explicitly to prevent those countries becoming democracies and not "Western style" democracies, any sort of democracy. It is to prevent Palestine living side by side with Israel; not to fight for the coming into being of a Palestinian State, but for the going out of being, of an Israeli State. It is not wanting Muslim countries to modernise but to retreat into governance by a semi-feudal religious oligarchy.
It is the west that prevents those countries becoming democracies. Iran was once a democracy until American and British interference removed the Prime Minister. Saudi Arabia is under no pressure from you to be democratic, nor is Kuwait. Palestinians elected their government and you punished them for it. Lebanon is a struggling democracy and you are standing by as it is snuffed out. It will probably turn into a semi-feudal religious oligarchy now.
Yet despite all of this, which I consider virtually obvious, we look at the bloodshed in Iraq and say that's a reason for leaving; we listen to the propaganda that tells us its all because of our suppression of Muslims and have parts of our opinion seriously believing that if we only got out of Iraq and Afghanistan, it would all stop.
No, it probably won’t all stop if you leave the damage is done and I fear its irreparable.
And most contemporaneously, and in some ways most perniciously, a very large and, I fear, growing part of our opinion looks at Israel, and thinks we pay too great a price for supporting it and sympathises with Muslim opinion that condemns it. Absent from so much of the coverage, is any understanding of the Israeli predicament.
Israel should be condemned. Not condemning it shows a double standard. If Iran behaved like Israel would you justify it? No, I didn’t think so. How many UN resolutions has Israel ignored with impunity? How many did Iraq ignore?

I, and any halfway sentient human being, regards the loss of civilian life in Lebanon as unacceptable, grieves for that nation, is sickened by its plight and wants the war to stop now. But just for a moment, put yourself in Israel's place. It has a crisis in Gaza, sparked by the kidnap of a solider by Hamas. Suddenly, without warning, Hizbollah who have been continuing to operate in Southern Lebanon for two years in defiance of UN Resolution 1559, cross the UN blue line, kill eight Israeli soldiers and kidnap two more. They then fire rockets indiscriminately at the civilian population in Northern Israel.

You obviously don’t find the loss of civilian life so unacceptable that you are calling for an immediate ceasefire as the rest of the world does. Israel created the crisis in Gaza. The day before the “kidnap” of the Israeli soldier, Israel “kidnapped” Palestinians. It was even reported in the news albeit briefly before the story mysteriously vanished. Here it is.

Hizbollah gets their weapons from Iran. Iran are now also financing militant elements in Hamas. Iran's President has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". And he's trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Just to complete the picture, Israel's main neighbour along its eastern flank is Syria who support Hizbollah and house the hardline leaders of Hamas.

And you’re point is? America supplies the bombs that are dropped on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, and, as you know, they go through British airports.
It's not exactly a situation conducive to a feeling of security is it?
No, it certainly is not. Stop supplying weapons to terrorists.
But the central point is this. In the end, even the issue of Israel is just part of the same, wider struggle for the soul of the region. If we recognised this struggle for what it truly is, we would be at least along the first steps of the path to winning it. But a vast part of the Western opinion is not remotely near this yet.
Yes, the vast part of the Western opinion differs from yours, what does that tell you? Is it always the case that you are right and everyone else is wrong?
Whatever the outward manifestation at any one time - in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Iraq and add to that in Afghanistan, in Kashmir, in a host of other nations including now some in Africa - it is a global fight about global values; it is about modernisation, within Islam and outside of it; it is about whether our value system can be shown to be sufficiently robust, true, principled and appealing that it beats theirs. Islamist extremism's whole strategy is based on a presumed sense of grievance that can motivate people to divide against each other. Our answer has to be a set of values strong enough to unite people with each other.
The longer you stay in power the worse it seems to get, funny that. It is not a global fight against global values. That’s how you choose to spin it for your own agenda. It is lots of regional issues with similar causes. And, believe me, your values are no where near robust enough to beat the problems. It has come to our attention that you are not exactly “whiter than white”. Values will eventually help solve the problem, but not yours.
This is not just about security or military tactics. It is about hearts and minds about inspiring people, persuading them, showing them what our values at their best stand for.
The hearts and minds are blown all over the streets of Qana and Fallujah. Those that survive will remember Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Very inspiring eh?
Just to state it in these terms, is to underline how much we have to do. Convincing our own opinion of the nature of the battle is hard enough. But we then have to empower Moderate, Mainstream Islam to defeat Reactionary Islam. And because so much focus is now, world-wide on this issue, it is becoming itself a kind of surrogate for all the other issues the rest of the world has with the West. In other words, fail on this and across the range, everything gets harder.
It fails because it is based on falsehoods. Not even you can fool all the people all of the time. You are not empowering Moderate Mainstream Islam, you are scaring it.

Why are we not yet succeeding? Because we are not being bold enough, consistent enough, thorough enough, in fighting for the values we believe in.

You are not succeeding because you are utterly wrong. No amount of boldness, consistency, thoroughness, is going to help. Again, it’s your values that are flawed and in your arrogance you believe that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
We start this battle with some self-evident challenges. Iraq's political process has worked in an extraordinary way. But the continued sectarian bloodshed is appalling: and threatens its progress deeply. In Afghanistan, the Taleban are making a determined effort to return and using the drugs trade a front. Years of anti-Israeli and therefore anti-American teaching and propaganda has left the Arab street often wildly divorced from the practical politics of their governments. Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria are a constant source of de-stabilisation and reaction. The purpose of terrorism - whether in Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon or Palestine is never just the terrorist act itself. It is to use the act to trigger a chain reaction, to expunge any willingness to negotiate or compromise. Unfortunately it frequently works, as we know from our own experience in Northern Ireland, though thankfully the huge progress made in the last decade there, shows that it can also be overcome.
You are repeating yourself Blair. All your language is dressed in words like “battle”. It’s a dead giveaway. You’ll be talking about crusades next if you’re not careful. What is extraordinary about Iraq’s political process is that it has survived despite you not because of you, but I might be speaking too soon. The drugs trade in Afghanistan has got worse since the “defeat” of the Taliban. And just give up talking about Israel and Palestine until you are prepared to level equal criticism at Israel. I’m sure Lord Levy won’t mind.
So, short-term, we can't say we are winning. But, there are many reasons for long-term optimism. Across the Middle East, there is a process of modernisation as well as reaction. It is unnoticed but it is there: in the UAE; in Bahrain; in Kuwait; in Qatar. In Egypt, there is debate about the speed of change but not about its direction. In Libya and Algeria, there is both greater stability and a gradual but significant opening up.
In the short-term you are losing. In the long-term you or Bush won’t be around to screw things up any more than you already have. The way things are going there will be a series of revolutions among your Middle Eastern allies and things may well get significantly worse.

Most of all, there is one incontrovertible truth that should give us hope. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, and of course in the Lebanon, any time that people are permitted a chance to embrace democracy, they do so. The lie - that democracy, the rule of law, human rights are Western concepts, alien to Islam - has been exposed. In countries as disparate as Turkey and Indonesia, there is an emerging strength in Moderate Islam that should greatly encourage us.

Isn’t that so typical of Blairism, to spout a truism as though everyone was saying the opposite? Of course the Middle East is able to embrace democracy, if only you would let it. Lead by example not by bombing. British democracy evolved over years, we weren’t bombed into it.
So the struggle is finely poised. The question is: how do we empower the moderates to defeat the extremists?
By resigning, you are part of the problem and an extremist.
First, naturally, we should support, nurture, build strong alliances with all those in the Middle East who are on the modernising path.
You mean in places like Lebanon… Oops!
Secondly, we need, as President Bush said on Friday, to re-energise the MEPP between Israel and Palestine; and we need to do it in a dramatic and profound manner.
When has Bush done anything to help the MEPP? Oh, yes he made some noises about a Palestinian state and then said Israel could keep its settlements. He then vetoed any attempt to stop a wall being driven from what’s left of Palestinian land. Solving the problem in a dramatic and profound manner would be to have a process not run by Zionists. You wouldn't put a fox in charge of a chicken coup, would you?
I want to explain why I think this issue is so utterly fundamental to all we are trying to do. I know it can be very irritating for Israel to be told that this issue is of cardinal importance, as if it is on their shoulders that the weight of the troubles of the region should always fall. I know also their fear that in our anxiety for wider reasons to secure a settlement, we sacrifice the vital interests of Israel.
The vital interests of Israel being: the extermination of the Palestinians, the theft of their land and hegemony over all its neighbours as the only nuclear power in the region. A racist Zionist state controlling all the surrounding Muslim states.
Let me make it clear. I would never put Israel's security at risk.
Funnily enough I never doubted it.
Instead I want, what we all now acknowledge we need: a two state solution. The Palestinian State must be independent, viable but also democratic and not threaten Israel's safety.
Except that it can’t be because Israel continues to swallow up the West Bank and you have just said that you would never put Israel’s security at risk. So far we have not heard a word of criticism towards Israel, have we Blair?

This is what the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want.

If that was true then they would have it.
Its significance for the broader issue of the Middle East and for the battle within Islam, is this. The real impact of a settlement is more than correcting the plight of the Palestinians. It is that such a settlement would be the living, tangible, visible proof that the region and therefore the world can accommodate different faiths and cultures, even those who have been in vehement opposition to each other. It is, in other words, the total and complete rejection of the case of Reactionary Islam. It destroys not just their most effective rallying call, it fatally undermines their basic ideology.
Err what about reactionary Zionism that will never allow it to happen. You know the old ‘put the MEPP in formaldehyde’ trick.

And, for sure, it empowers Moderate, Mainstream Islam enormously. They are able to point to progress as demonstration that their allies, ie us, are even-handed not selective, do care about justice for Muslims as much as Christians or Jews.

There is just one problem with that. You are not even-handed, you are selective and don’t care about justice full stop.
But, and it is a big 'but', this progress will not happen unless we change radically our degree of focus, effort and engagement, especially with the Palestinian side. In this the active leadership of the US is essential but so also is the participation of Europe, of Russia and of the UN. We need relentlessly, vigorously, to put a viable Palestinian Government on its feet, to offer a vision of how the Roadmap to final status negotiation can happen and then pursue it, week in, week out, 'til its done. Nothing else will do. Nothing else is more important to the success of our foreign policy.
No Blair, it won’t. But who is it who sidelines Europe, the Russians and the UN? You have just destroyed one Palestinian Government, they might be rather cautious to form another one now that they know your attitude to democracy. Your foreign policy has been a dismal failure. You and your foreign policy have as much credibility as the Roadmap that we all know Israel will never allow.
Third, we need to see Iraq through its crisis and out to the place its people want: a non-sectarian, democratic state. The Iraqi and Afghan fight for democracy is our fight. Same values. Same enemy. Victory for them is victory for us all.
Too bad that what your foreign policy created in Iraq, was, in fact, a sectarian civil war then. How likely do you think it is that Iraqis and Afghans are going to buy cheap soundbites after what they have experienced? Some Americans may buy that crap but no one else will.

Fourth, we need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice: come in to the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us; or be confronted. Their support of terrorism, their deliberate export of instability, their desire to see wrecked the democratic prospect in Iraq, is utterly unjustifiable, dangerous and wrong. If they keep raising the stakes, they will find they have miscalculated.

Syria and Iran are doing no more than you are doing. If their export of instability is so “utterly unjustifiable” then why are you doing the same? Threats won’t help here. You need to talk to Iran and Syria. You don’t need me to tell you just how many problems Iran will give you if you try to confront it. They will play havoc with oil prices, spread even more chaos than you have in southern Iraq, and that’s before a war starts. Confront Syria and you risk consequences from Egypt which is very unstable at the moment.
From the above it is clear that from now on, we need a whole strategy for the Middle East. If we are faced with an arc of extremism, we need a corresponding arc of moderation and reconciliation. Each part is linked. Progress between Israel and Palestine affects Iraq. Progress in Iraq affects democracy in the region. Progress for Moderate, Mainstream Islam anywhere puts Reactionary Islam on the defensive everywhere. But none of it happens unless in each individual part the necessary energy and commitment is displayed not fitfully, but continuously.
What you need is a completely new strategy, and new people to carry it through. Everything you have done has failed. Everything you have done to try and correct the failure has made matters worse. You won’t make any progress in Iraq. Iraq is finished as a country. Your killing spree has ended Moderate Mainstream Islam in the region.
I said at the outset that the result of this struggle had effects wider than the region itself. Plainly that applies to our own security. This Global Islamist terrorism began in the Middle East. Sort the Middle East and it will inexorably decline. The read-across, for example, from the region to the Muslim communities in Europe is almost instant.
I thought you said that 7/7 had nothing at all to do with the war in Iraq. What brought on the change of heart? When you learn to show even-handedness both in the Middle East and at home then things might improve, but you are too enslaved to an American agenda for that.
But there is a less obvious sense in which the outcome determines the success of our wider world-view. For me, a victory for the moderates means an Islam that is open: open to globalisation, open to working with others of different faiths, open to alliances with other nations.
Open to exploitation by America and Britain you mean.
In this way, this struggle is in fact part of a far wider debate.
Here we go, your vision of the future.
Though Left and Right still matter in politics, the increasing divide today is between open and closed. Is the answer to globalisation, protectionism or free trade?
That’s part of the problem. You abandoned the left in favour of greed and exploitation.
Is the answer to the pressure of mass migration, managed immigration or closed borders?
If you hadn’t wrecked the rest of the world they wouldn’t be trying to get here in such numbers.
Is the answer to global security threats, isolationism or engagement?
In the case of you and Bush, isolation would be best until someone competent comes along.
Those are very big questions for US and for Europe.
It’s quite easy really.
Without hesitation, I am on the open side of the argument. The way for us to handle the challenge of globalisation, is to compete better, more intelligently, more flexibly. We have to give our people confidence we can compete. See competition as a threat and we are already on the way to losing.
Hmm we’re back to the problem of your ability to display intelligence and flexibility. I’m afraid you just don’t inspire confidence, and by the way, you’ve already lost. Your international credibility is slightly above zero.
Immigration is the toughest issue in Europe right now and you know something of it here in California. People get scared of it for understandable reasons. It needs to be controlled. There have to be rules. Many of the Conventions dealing with it post WWII are out of date. All that is true. But, properly managed, immigrants give a country dynamism, drive, new ideas as well as new blood.
That’s why in America they are building a huge wall across the Mexican frontier, and in Britain you don’t even know how many illegal immigrants there are. Unless of course they are ex-prisoners who should have been deported.
And as for isolationism, that is a perennial risk in the US and EU policy. My point here is very simple: global terrorism means we can't opt-out even if we wanted to. The world is inter-dependent. To be engaged is only modern realpolitik.
I think the world has had enough of your realpolitik. You talk about the dangers of isolation. You have isolated Britain from Europe and the rest of the world. America is seen as a pariah state, as is Israel. Three countries against everyone else, what an achievement!

But we only win people to these positions if our policy is not just about interests but about values, not just about what is necessary but about what is right.

Yeah right, everyone is flocking to your values… dream on.
Which brings me to my final reflection about US policy. My advice is: always be in the lead, always at the forefront, always engaged in building alliances, in reaching out, in showing that whereas unilateral action can never be ruled out, it is not the preference.
I’m sure they will be doing just that now that you’ve told them to.
How we get a sensible, balanced but effective framework to tackle climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 should be an American priority.
The American priority is to get its hands on the world’s remaining oil supplies and blackmail the rest of the world. Bush wouldn’t believe in climate change if California caught fire year after year and hurricanes took out large cities… Oh, it’s already happened.
America wants a low-carbon economy; it is investing heavily in clean technology; it needs China and India to grow substantially. The world is ready for a new start here. Lead it.
The growth of China, India and pretty much everywhere else is unsustainable. Resources are limited and we will be fighting over them in no time unless another system is found.

The same is true for the WTO talks, now precariously in the balance; or for Africa, whose poverty is shameful.

And guess who sabotaged the WTO talks? Not “precariously in the balance”… wrecked!

If we are championing the cause of development in Africa, it is right in itself but it is also sending the message of moral purpose, that reinforces our value system as credible in all other aspects of policy.

I wonder how many times you’ve used the word “value” so far. Hmm, 19 times, I bet that’s more than the words “peace” or “immediate” or “ceasefire”.
It serves one other objective. There is a risk that the world, after the Cold War, goes back to a global policy based on spheres of influence. Think ahead. Think China, within 20 or 30 years, surely the world's other super-power. Think Russia and its precious energy reserves. Think India. I believe all of these great emerging powers want a benign relationship with the West. But I also believe that the stronger and more appealing our world-view is, the more it is seen as based not just on power but on justice, the easier it will be for us to shape the future in which Europe and the US will no longer, economically or politically, be transcendant. Long before then, we want Moderate, Mainstream Islam to triumph over Reactionary Islam.
We are already in a global situation based on spheres of influence, we always were. That’s why Americans are not marching into North Korea, or doing anything about Chechnya. India and China already have relationships with the West. The longer the Bush/Blair axis lasts, the less appealing our world-view is, with both power and justice waning. Unless that axis is dismantled, Reactionary Islam will triumph.

That is why I say this struggle is one about values. Our values are worth struggling for. They represent humanity's progress throughout the ages and at each point we have had to fight for them and defend them. As a new age beckons, it is time to fight for them again.

21 uses of the word “values” and still no credible explanation as to what you mean. 10 uses of the word “fight”, 11 uses of the word “battle” and 3 uses of the word “peace”.
I’m sure the speech went down a storm.

Tags: Blair, Lebanon, Palestine, Isreael, UK Politics, US Politics

Proactive co-operation with Israel, USA and UK

2006-07-30T19:22:00.000+01:00

Photo from Clotaire K (excellent Lenanese band from Montpellier)

This comes on the day that Israel killed the biggest number of Lebanese civilians so far in one strike. The air strike on Qana, which is remeniscent of the 1996 massacre, killed 60 civilians including at least 37 children. Even the apologists for Israeli agression are having trouble justifying this. Not that international condemnation has had any affect on Israel's position. In the UN Israel's ambassador blamed Hezbollah for Israel's firing of American missiles from American war planes on civilians.

But Israel's ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, said Qana was a hub of the Hezbollah militants, who had kept civilians as human shields.

He urged the council not to call for an immediate ceasefire - for this would be helping the militants.

"I am beseeching you not to play into their hands, not to provide them with what they are seeking while sacrificing their own people as human shields and as victims," Mr Gillerman said.
Source

What they and everyone else are seeking is an immediate ceasefire, something Blair still can't bring himself to call for. Israel is now saying that it needs more time to complete its wholesale extermination of the people of Lebanon. Let's not forget that Israeli justice minister, Haim Ramon has said that everyone in Southern Lebanon is a target.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel would "continue to act with no hesitation against Hezbollah" which has been firing rockets into Israel from southern Lebanon.

He is reported to have told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Israel needs 10-14 days to press its offensive.

Israel's military has asked United Nations observers in southern Lebanon to evacuate two more villages - Ramyah and Ayta ash-Shab - before sunset, but they are unable to do so, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said.
Source

What this latest massacre has achieved is the unifying of the Lebanese people behind Hezbollah, even the Labanese Prime Minister now.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora denounced Israel's "heinous crimes against civilians", and said there was "no room on this sad morning" for talks until Israel had halted its attacks.

He called for an "immediate, unconditional ceasefire", and praised Hezbollah militants who were "sacrificing their lives for Lebanon's independence".

Fouad Siniora has now told Condoleezza Rice not to bother coming to Beirut until she calls fo an immediate ceasefire.

"There is no place on this sad morning for any discussion other than an immediate and unconditional cease-fire as well as an international investigation into the Israeli massacres in Lebanon now," Siniora said in a public address to the nation.
Source

With her usual honesty Condi has spun this by saying that it was she who cancelled the trip.

"In the wake of the tragedy that the people and the government of Lebanon are dealing with today, I have decided to postpone my discussions in Beirut. In any case, my work is here (in Israel) today," Rice told reporters of the cancelled Beirut trip.

Rice, who will leave for Washington on Monday, insisted she had cancelled the Lebanon trip and not the other way round.
Source

Tony Blair's position of standing "shoulder to shoulder" with America has been weakened further with this massacre. The splits in the cabinet are getting wider and Jack Straw's recent statement about the disproportionate response of Israel was been given more credence. More protests are erupting around the world and the UN buildings in Beirut and Gaza have been stormed in protest.

There have also been protests at Prestwick airport over Britain allowing US deliveries of depleted uranium tipped bunker-busting bombs to Israel to stop over, forcing the US to divert the flights to a military airport in Suffolk.

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, Blair, US Politics, UK Politics

Downing Street Protest

2006-07-27T05:17:00.000+01:00

Stop the War Coalition
London Protest Friday 28 July 5pm to 7pm
Downing Street, Whitehall, SW1

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, Blair

Protest at Downing Street and a letter to Tony Blair

2006-07-25T18:04:00.000+01:00

There will be a CEASEFIRE NOW protest which will take place in Whitehall on Friday 28, 5pm-7pm. The Protest is being organised by The Stop the War Coalition who will deliver a letter to Number 10 Downing Street.

Dear Prime Minister,

Most people in this country are, we believe, horrified at the bloodshed and destruction unfolding daily in Lebanon. There can be no justification for the conduct of the Israeli government and armed forces, which are laying waste to a country in an operation which will hugely damage the prospects for peace in the Middle East.

We are dismayed that the British government, almost alone in the world, is not calling for a ceasefire to enable the suffering to stop. This either shows a deplorable indifference to the plight of the Lebanese people or an attitude of total subservience to the foreign policy of the US administration. Either way, our country is being humiliated and our isolation from world opinion underlined once more.

We therefore call on the government to change its position and join the vast majority of the world’s states, the UN secretary-general and the Archbishop of Canterbury in calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Lebanon to save lives and prevent the destruction of that country.
Add your signature here

Please spread the word.

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, Blair

The most moral military in the world part 2

2006-07-25T05:07:00.000+01:00

Photo: From Israel To Lebanon

In part one of this story I mentioned that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert described the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) as “the most moral military in the world”. What prompted this outlandish claim was the shelling of a beach in Gaza that resulted in the blowing up of a family enjoying a picnic. Since then, of course, there have been plenty of other beneficiaries of Israeli ‘morality’. As the carnage in Lebanon continues, so does the unending slaughter in Gaza which has been largely forgotten by the world’s media. The IDF is the most moral military in the world in the same way that Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is a democratic republic.

Graphic: From Israel To Lebanon

The most moral military in the world has been justifying its methods in Lebanon with the explanation that they drop leaflets on a civilian population which tell them to leave before the bombing commences. What is not explained is why the fleeing civilians are also targeted as they try to escape the destruction as ordered.

Israel and its allies argue that Hizbollah does not care where its rockets land and this is indeed true. However, that does not mean that Israel, supposedly a sovereign state and not a ‘terrorist organisation’, can behave in an even worse manner by levelling cities. The protestations of Israel (a country notorious for ethnic cleansing) that it does not target civilians and civilian infrastructure are completely unbelievable. The last two reports from Dahr Jamail illustrate this better than other news sources.

This report focuses on civilian infrastructure:

BEIRUT, Jul 23 (IPS) - Much of Beirut is a devastated city, infrastructure in many areas lies in a shambles after the Israeli bombing. But the Lebanese are also just feeling devastated.

"Does our country not have the right to move forward like other democracies," says Nidal Mothman, a 35-year-old taxi driver in downtown Beirut. "We hate the American government for giving the green light for the Israelis to bomb us back to the stone age."
Mothman, like so many Lebanese in the capital city, is seething with anger over what he called "indiscriminate" Israeli aggression towards their country.

"How many Hezbollah have they killed," Mothman said. "Maybe just a few, while they've killed over 350 Lebanese civilians. What kind of war are they waging against my country?"

From the street to the leadership, most people seem to talk the same language. Last Thursday Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora told reporters that his country has been torn to shreds. "Can the international community stand by while such callous retribution by the state of Israel is inflicted on us?"

Siniora also accused Israel of massacring Lebanese civilians and attempting to destroy everything that allows the country to stay alive.

The facts on the ground add credence to his remarks. The humanitarian crisis continues to worsen by the hour, with close to a million Lebanese displaced. Officials say at least 64 bridges have been bombed. Many roads are cut by the bombing, and this is hindering transportation of food and aid supplies.

Other Israeli targets have included the country's largest milk factory, a food factory, two pharmaceutical plants, water treatment centres, power plants, grain silos, a Greek Orthodox Church, hospitals and an ambulance convoy.
Source

And this report shows the price civilians are paying, particularly children:

BEIRUT, Jul 24 (IPS) - About 55 percent of all casualties at the Beirut Government University Hospital are children of 15 years of age or less, hospital records show.

"This is worse than during the Lebanese civil war," Bilal Masri, assistant director of the hospital, one of Beirut's largest, told IPS Monday.

Not only are most of the patients children, but many of the injured have been brought in serious condition, he said. "Now we have a 30 percent fatality rate here in Beirut. That means that 30 percent of everyone hit by Israeli bombs are dying. It is a catastrophe."

The fatality rate was high, he said, "because the Israelis are using new kinds of bombs which can enter shelters. They are bombing the bomb shelters which are full of refugees."

Masri told IPS that he believed so many children were becoming casualties because of the "widespread and indiscriminate nature of the bombings" and because "children are least able to run away when the bombings commence."

This new 544-bed hospital was forced to open its emergency room six months early due to the current crisis. The hospital has had to handle "scores and scores" of casualties, according to the assistant director.
Source

Contrary to Israeli claims that their attacks are targeting only Hizbollah with ‘pinpoint accuracy’ with precision weapons, the IDF are using cluster munitions on civilian areas according to Human Rights Watch.

(Beirut, July 24, 2006) – Israel has used artillery-fired cluster munitions in populated areas of Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said today. Researchers on the ground in Lebanon confirmed that a cluster munitions attack on the village of Blida on July 19 killed one and wounded at least 12 civilians, including seven children. Human Rights Watch researchers also photographed cluster munitions in the arsenal of Israeli artillery teams on the Israel-Lebanon border.
Source

As well as cluster bombs, the IDF are also using white phosphorus on civilians which is an act banned under the Geneva Conventions. The IDF is also deliberately targeting ambulances even though the red crosses on them are illuminated and the flashing lights are on. Israel, of course, tells us that Hizbollah are hiding behind civilians, and again there is some truth in this, but surely that means they should consider their attacks more carefully. And it is not as if the most moral military in the world is adverse to using civilians as human shields. It is a common tactic used by the IDF in the occupied territories.

Both Hezbollah and Israel are guilty of numerous war crimes in this conflict under both the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Charter. All the focus seems to be on Hezbollah’s crimes which, though serious and should be punished, pale in comparison to the wholesale slaughter perpetrated by Israel and encouraged by the USA and Britain. If there is to be any credibility in the authority of international laws, then the people who commit and order these crimes should be punished. Whatever their nationality or religion and whoever their allies are. If Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic were liable for prosecution then so is Ehud Olmert. The emergency relief co-ordinator for the UN, Jan Egeland has already warned both sides in the conflict of the possibility of war crimes tribunals, as has the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour.

Legal experts say that although Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers falls within the laws of war, the group may be guilty of “hostage-taking”, under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions by trying to use them for a prisoner swap.

The firing of rockets at population centres across the border in Israel by Hezbollah also violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks in customary international law, codified in Article 51 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, the legal experts say.

The bombardment of residential areas and civilian infrastructure by Israel — including TV towers — falls foul of the long-accepted principle of proportionality, contained in Articles 51 and 57 of the First Protocol, they say.

That protocol also contains an outright ban on direct attacks on civilians or “civilian objects”.

[…]

Without a referral, the UN can issue human rights reports but not launch a criminal prosecution. That remains the responsibility of the courts in Israel and Lebanon.

David Crane, a visiting professor at Syracuse University in New York, served as a UN prosecutor in Sierra Leone. He said: “In my opinion, yes, there appear to have been war crimes committed related to civilians, but the reality is there won’t be any prosecutions.”
Source

The fact that prosecutions are unlikely is the reason why countries like Israel and the USA increasingly commit war crimes in their imperialist ventures. Once there are successful prosecutions against those countries, a powerful message will be sent around the world that no one is immune from the law. That might do more for the causes of peace than allowing states to commit mass murder with impunity.

All images are from the From Israel to Lebanon site. I was going to include others but they are so disturbing that I thought better of it. However, to get a clear idea of just how 'moral' the most moral military in the world is, I urge readers to go and have a good look and then campaign for an immediate ceasefire.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Hezbollah, War Crimes

The emergency demonstration in London against the carnage in the Middle East

2006-07-23T00:53:00.000+01:00

Just under 30,000 people showed up for this demonstration (one of several held around the country) according to the organisers, the Stop the War Coalition, speaking at the event. The BBC, of course, quoting police estimates, put the number at around 7,000 which is ridiculously low. It’s funny how the television news outlets no longer show aerial views taken from the numerous helicopters that buzz the demonstrations. From the ground it is impossible to estimate the number of people with any degree of accuracy but hopefully these photos will give some idea as to how many turned up. I think between 20 and 30 thousand is not an unreasonable guess.

The demonstration was peaceful and good-natured but with much more anger than I have found at demonstrations against the Iraq war. Embankment tube station was already very crowded when I arrived and the crowd continued to grow as I made my way to the relative shade of Whitehall Place where the march started from. There was a long wait in that street as the numbers built up and the energy of thousands of people raised spirits in the wilting heat. Unsurprisingly the people were predominantly of Muslim origin but there were plenty of people from other races and creeds, including a contingent of anti-Zionist Hasidic Jews.

The police seemed friendly enough but were obviously more worried than at pervious demonstrations. Even so, they contrasted greatly with the hundreds of grim-faced armoured coppers guarding the American Embassy which we passed making plenty of noise. By this time it started to rain which was a refreshing change although I felt no noticeable drop in temperature.

Going down Park Lane was a real slog and I was looking forward to resting at Hyde Park, but when we arrived we found out that the organisers had been denied the use of the park by the powers that be and so a small stage had been set up outside the gates for the rally. It was a real crush at the front where I positioned myself to hear the speeches, luckily stewards handed out bottles of water to make it more bearable. I didn’t have the means to record all 20 or so speeches so I selected a few to post here. They almost certainly won’t be broadcast or reported in the media.

George Galloway gave a rousing speech. Love him or hate him he’s a great orator. I don’t agree with everything he said but he certainly illustrated the hypocrisy of the Israeli position by mentioning the glorifying of the bombing of the King David Hotel on its 60th anniversary by the current Israeli leadership.

A representative for the Jewish Socialists’ Group also gave a good speech which showed how many Jewish groups are against the current Israeli genocide and ridiculed the argument that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

Tony Benn, tireless as ever, compared the current crisis with the Suez crisis of 1956 and the shameful acts of the British Government then as now. He also stated that this invasion was planned months ago by Bush and Olmert in Jerusalem. Imagine my surprise!

Probably the best speech, in my opinion, was by Jeremy Corbyn who didn’t delve into history but reserved his venom for the New Labour Government and its double standards. Unfortunately I ran out of space on my camera and so had to record it on my cell phone so the quality is terrible but its worth struggling through.

There was a brief appearance from Mohammed Abdul Kahar, who was shot by the police in the botched Forest Gate raid, and his brother, Abul Koyair. They had just attended a memorial to commemorate the first anniversary of the ~~public execution~~ accidentdal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. After a few more speeches the rally wound up and people dispersed fairly quickly through the park. Like most demonstrations it is ulikely to make much of a difference but it does at least send a message to Blair who has done the impossible by making himself even more unpopular than he already was.

The crisis in the Middle East is set to worsen in the next few days. Already there are pitched battles in Lebanese towns between Hizbullah and the IDF. To get an idea of the results of Israel’s disproportionate response take a look at these very disturbing pictures (via Blairwatch) and then sign the petition for the ceasefire that the leaders of all countries are calling for with exception of the leaders of the USA, Israel and the UK, the real axis of evil.

More pictures at a higher resolution here.

*UPDATE*
Lenin's Tomb also covered the event and has plenty of photos. From the comments on that site, there are photos of the Manchester demonstration. Blairwatch has an interesting report on the Manchester protest.

Tags: Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, London Demonstration, UK Politics

Middle East war crimes and a possible rift between Blair and the Foreign Office

2006-07-21T07:49:00.000+01:00

Image by Beau Bo D'Or via Blairwatch

The situation in the Middle East is continuing to deteriorate as Israel fails to do any significant damage to Hezbollah and has instead inflicted massive damage on the people and infrastructure of Lebanon. Rather than try to resolve the conflict in a more productive way, Israel has decided to step up its collective punishment on innocent civilians safe in the knowledge that it has a green light from the USA and Britain. As the foreign nationals leave Lebanon the attacks will escalate into all out war.

ISRAEL ordered all civilians to leave southern Lebanon yesterday so that it can wage all-out war against Hezbollah, including a possible ground offensive.

Using radio broadcasts and text messages to local officials, the Israelis told the remaining inhabitants to move above the Litani river, about 25 miles north of the Israeli border.

[…]

About 800 foreigners were evacuated by sea, leaving Tyre’s remaining inhabitants fearing the worst. “The foreigners have gone. That means the war will really begin now,” said Hassan Bazzi, a port worker. Amir Peretz, Israel’s Defence Secretary, said that a full-scale ground attack to stop Hezbollah rockets was an option. “Let no terror organisation feel we would cower from any operation,” he said. “We have no intention of conquering Lebanon but if we have to act to complete our tasks and reach a victory we will do it.”
Source

If Israel does decide to re invade Lebanon up to the Litani River which was the land it annexed the last time it invaded before it was thrown out by Hizbollah after an 18 year occupation, then the crisis will escalate significantly with the hitherto inactive Lebanese army forced to defend its land (not that Lebanon has a particularly effective army).

Officially Britain is still supporting and encouraging Israel in its current rampage in line with US foreign policy, as one would expect an obedient client state to do. The unbalanced situation was illustrated beautifully by the front page of today’s Independent which shows on one side all the states demanding an immediate ceasefire (as has UN Secretary General Kofi Annan) and the only three states blocking any such move; the USA, Israel and the UK.

Two countries, the US and Britain, defiantly refused to back the international clamour for an immediate ceasfire between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas. Their ambivalence about civilian deaths in Lebanon has given Israel a powerful signal that it can continue its attacks with impunity.
Source

However, the huge number of civilian casualties, damage to infrastructure and singular lack of success Israel is having in defeating Hizbollah is creating a rift between a subservient Tony Blair eager to please his master and an increasingly worried Foreign Office which has looked ahead at the looming spectre of war crimes tribunals. It should surprise no one that indiscriminate bombing of civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime, as is complicity with such actions. A quick look at principles of the Nuremberg Charter (particularly principles VI and VII) will confirm this. And, of course, collective punishment of innocent civilians is also contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is a given that Israel is as guilty as Hell when it comes to war crimes but if the UK is found to be complicit in these crimes then it too is liable to prosecution unlikely though that may seem at the moment.

Margaret Becket has tried unsuccessfully to appear both concerned for the plight of the Lebanese and Palestinians and also tough on terrorism, satisfying nobody.

Ministers faced strong criticism from across the House of Commons yesterday as MPs accused the Government of helping to fuel the crisis in the Middle East.

Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, faced angry claims from Labour and Opposition benches that the Government had given diplomatic cover to continued Israeli bombing by failing to call for an immediate ceasefire.

In the Commons, Labour MPs led by Clare Short, the former international development secretary, attacked the Government for its stance on Israeli attacks.

Ms Short warned that "massive killing of innocent Lebanese civilians and destruction of infrastructure" amounted to a war crime. She said: "We are heading for further violence and catastrophe. And I'm sad to say that our Government is following President Bush's errors and pouring petrol on the flames."
Source

A rift is now opening up between Downing Street and the Foreign Office which is reminiscent of the difference of opinion between Jack Straw when he was Foreign Minister and the Bush/Blair axis. He famously said that an attack on Iran would be “inconceivable” and “completely nuts”. Those remarks ended his tenure at the Foreign Office, possibly on the instructions of the Bush administration. Could Margaret Beckett, who voted strongly for the Iraq War, be about to make a similar mistake?

Tony Blair is publicly highly supportive of Israel and has declined to call for an immediate ceasefire. But some in the Foreign Office are now privately urging greater restraint by Israel amid concern that the scale of the bombardment is counter-productive, disproportionate, and undermining the political stability of the Lebanese government.

Margaret Beckett, who only became foreign secretary three months ago, is trying to straddle the divide between Downing Street and her department. But she refused to bow to intense Labour backbench pressure yesterday in the Commons either to call for an unconditional ceasefire or condemn the Israeli action as disproportionate.
Source

As the crisis escalates, Blair’s justification for the genocide will be harder to maintain, but Iraq has shown us that he has as much concern for international law as he does for the suffering of innocent people. A new UN resolution is being prepared after the vetoing of the last one a few days ago and that is likely to be vetoed too if it criticises Israel in any way for its disproportionate response. At some point however, the death toll will be high enough to provoke a louder international outcry than we have heard so far, especially if, as Israel desires, Syria and Iran are drawn into the conflict, which a land invasion of Lebanon may well do.

Blair and Beckett are soon going to be presented with a difficult choice, to support yet another regional war that could easily turn into something even more catastrophic than the current crisis, or to pull back from the brink and work for peace earning the displeasure of the United States and Israel. Beckett will be sacrificed if necessary, but Blair’s support has all but evaporated amongst the electorate and is own party. He wants to stay in power for another year despite the cash for honours scandal and the police investigation getting closer to him. His pro Israel Middle East envoy and party fundraiser has already been arrested and is facing more questioning. Will Blair gamble that he can stay on in with another war exploding around him (even though the British military is too overstretched to be involved at this point), or just leave with an impossible mess for his successor to deal with?

Tags: Bush, Bliar, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon

Emergency demonstrations against the slaughter in the Middle East this weekend

2006-07-19T23:34:00.000+01:00

Click for larger image

There are going to be emergency demonstrations held all over the Britain to protest at the current Israeli aggression in Lebanon and Gaza. The Stop the War Coalition is organising the demonstrations in London, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Kirkcaldy, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich, Sheffield and York.
Here are the details for the London demonstration:

London: Saturday 22 July Whitehall Place, SW1, 12 Noon
(Nearest tube: Embankment. Please note there are some restrictions on the Northern Line this weekend)
Route: Whitehall Place, Trafalgar Square, Pall Mall, Piccadilly, Berkeley Street, Grosvenor Square (by US Embassy), Park Lane, Hyde Park.
Organised by: Stop the War Coalition, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Muslim Association of Britain, British Muslim Initiative, Lebanese organisations.
Contact: office@stopwar.org.uk Tel 020 7278 6694

Here are the details for the other demonstrations:

Birmingham: Saturday 22 July. 1-3pm, outside Waterstones at the entrance to the Bullring.

Bristol: Friday 21 July. 5.30-6.30pm. City Centre, opposite the Hippodrome

Exeter: Saturday 22 July 11am-1pm at Bedford Square on Exeter High Street

Edinburgh: Saturday 22 July Assemble 2pm: The Mound precinct, Princes Street.

Glasgow: Saturday 22 July Assemble 12 noon: George Square

Kirkcaldy: Saturday July 22 Assemble 12 Noon outside Kirkcaldy Town House

Manchester: Saturday 22 July Assemble 1.00pm: Outside the BBC. Oxford Road. Contact: info@mancsagainsttanks.org Tel: 07760224580

Newcastle: Saturday 22 July Assemble Grey's Monument 1pm Nearest Metro: Monument. Organised by Tyneside Stop the War Coalition and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign: Contact 07914606452

Norwich: Saturday 22 July, From 1pm. The Haymarket, Norwich city centre.

Sheffield: Saturday 22 July Noon. Town Hall.

York: Saturday 22 July. 1.00pm. St Sampsons Square

For more details about the demonstrations click here.

Bloggers who are appalled at this carnage please spread the word. The internet is the only way information about these demonstrations will get out.

Tags: Palestine, Labanon, Israel, Iran, Syria, UK Politics