For a start this is what the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) say: "On 14 August 2009, the FCO Minister responsible for the Overseas Territories instructed the Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands to bring into force an Order in Council suspending ministerial government and the House of Assembly, and replacing them with an Advisory Council and a Consultative Forum. This followed the submission to the Governor of the final report of the Commission of Inquiry set up in July 2008 to look into possible corruption or other serious dishonesty in recent years of past or present elected members of the legislature. In that report, the Commissioner found that there was information in adjudance pointing to a high probability of systemic corruption and/or serious dishonesty. The suspension will last no longer than it takes for the necessary reforms to be implemented and to take effect. The UK Government has said that elections should be held by July 2011."

This text omits to make clear that the Governor rules absolutely: the 'Advisory Council' is just that - advisory. The premier at the time of the investigation into corruption was Michael Misick, who resigned when the report was published (March 2009). He was succeeded by Galmore Williams who was deposed by Britain in August 2009 - he described the actions of the UK as a "coup": "A coup is anything that has been done without the will of the people and being a colony anything the British government wants to do to us they can do to us.". The UK for whatever reason believed the islands could not remedy the situation themselves. Direct rule by one man however is not the end of the story. Not only has the parliamentary system been suspended, a fundamental aspect of the judicial system has been abandoned in the decision to abolish trial by jury. Britain has also appointed a special prosecutor from the UK to investigate any corruption charges - Helen Garlick, together with assistance from the UK. Unfortunately she has given the impression that the UK may be there longer than the two years indicated: "have a permanent presence" and has said "I continue to encourage members of the public to contact us, if they have information that they wish to give, or if they have any concerns that they want to take up with us." Now that may sound reasonable under a democratic political system with an independent judiciary, but in a one man rule state (the governor also gets the say about the judiciary) it is alarming and itself encourages inaccurate, vindictive or mischievous reporting.

It gets worse. The imposition of direct rule from the UK was not democratically decided - the UK MPs did not have a vote. An Order in Council (drafted by the UK government and signed by the Queen) was all it took to remove all independent government from the islands.

It gets still worse. The islands' economy is, understandably, in a poor way, but, having imposed direct rule, the UK has decided that no UK money is forthcoming, so civil servants have been paid late in the last two months and a 2.5% cut in public expenditure has been imposed.

Can it get worse? Yes. Visitors to this site know of my opposition to the way in which Israel does not honour its obligations to the citizens of the territories that it occupies. Well, under direct rule by one man, homes in Five Cays are being demolished by bulldozers on the basis that they have been built illegally. Sounds much like the West Bank.

I do not claim to be an expert at all on the Turks and Caicos islands and the local politics but what has happened and is happening is alarming to say the least. Here in the UK there is a deafening silence, I would guess that 99.9% of the population has no idea what is being done in their name.

   Ethnic cleansing is a nasty phrase. Racism contains evil within it. For forty years Palestinians living in their homeland in the area of East Jerusalem have been evicted and/or rendered stateless by bureaucratic machinations of the occupying power, Israel. It is bad enough that in the 40 years from 1967 to 2007 over 8,500 Palestinians have been stripped of any residency rights in East Jerusalem, but Israel is becoming more vindictive and ruthless, if that were possible. In 2008, one single year, over 4,500 Palestinians were stripped of their residency.

Racist? Jews who emigrate to Israel are granted citizenship; Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem have the legal status of immigrants but are not granted citizenship, just residency, as if they are foreign nationals. As lawyer Yotam Ben-Hillel said: "They are treated as if they were immigrants to Israel, despite the fact that it is Israel that came to them in 1967."

I know I have written this many times, but it bears repetition and I wish I could personally repeat it constantly until it is heard by the likes of Binyamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown etc etc: as the occupying power, Israel is responsible for all people within the territory that it controls. Israel claims and occupies the land: it is therefore responsible for the wellbeing of all those who live there, who were born there. Discriminatory practices, let alone persecution, of people on the basis of their ethnicity is against every principle of international law, conventions and human decency.

Back

November 2009

November 30th 2009

   The referendum vote by the Swiss to ban the building of minarets is profoundly illiberal, discriminatory and dangerous. What precisely is the difference between a minaret and a Christian church spire? They are roughly the same shape and serve exactly the same function: to reach out to/connect with/point to God/Allah - God and Allah also being one and the same Abrahamic deity. One traditional phrase in Christianity refers to the "church militant" and a favourite English hymn runs: "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war": if people believe that minarets represent "militant" Islam, maybe we should start taking a long hard look at Christian words and symbols that are explicitly militaristic.

November 26th 2009

   Why should Israel expect anyone but Israel's die-hard supporters to welcome the latest "offer" to the Palestinians? A ten month hold on settlements (why 10 months, why not a year?) which does not include East Jerusalem is not a concession. All settlements are illegal. A criminal saying he will not commit any more burglaries but will hang onto what he has already stolen will not find any favours with the law-abiding populace. It is the usual ploy, the usual PR to con the world into believing that it is the Palestinians who are in the wrong, whereas it is the Palestinians who have been robbed - of land, homes, water and freedom.

November 22nd 2009

   Hamas announces that all groups in Gaza will stop firing rockets into Israel whilst reserving the right to retaliate against Israeli attacks. Is this welcomed by Israel? No. Consider what Israel has done in turn: carried out air strikes on Gaza, injuring seven Palestinians; arrested five Palestinians in the West Bank, including three from the Palestinian security forces: orders the halt to an internationally financed football stadium in al-Bireh on the basis that Israel wants some of the site for its own exclusive control. There is the usual Israeli claim that the correct permits have not been granted, but permission was received in 1983. The stadium is all but finished, being financed by FIFA, France, Germany and Gulf states. If Israel follows through on its order - which we know is done thousands of times a year in relation to 'illegal' houses - then the stadium will be demolished. Over half of al-Bireh's citizens live in refugee camps. It is in Area A of the West Bank, supposedly under the sole control of the Palestinian National Authority.

Is it any wonder that we do not believe Binyamin Netanhayu when he says he wants peace?

November 20th 2009

   Thinking about the situation in the Middle East and how Israel seeks always to expand, to confront, to provoke, to ignore all advice or pressure to behave in any half-decent ways towards her neighbours and the world in general raised the question of why. Yes, we know about the psychological realities of the abused becoming the abuser, but we also know that not all those abused do become abusers and those that do can change their behaviour. There is something more and I am coming to believe that it consists of two strands. Israel's self-image is that of victim and outsider. Now, if you are a victim and an outsider in society, how do you connect with others? It is almost impossible, except through fear, distrust and violence. Because of this I believe that Israel will never engage with others until sufficiently mature to set aside victimhood and the notion that Israel's uniqueness - which is real and valid - sets the country apart from the rest of the world. The tragedy is that of all those millions of people who suffer through this process of growth to maturity.

November 17th 2009

   More signs that the third intifada is on its way. If the Palestinian Authority does seek a unilateral declaration of being an independent state and the the US, predictably, vetoes this, if Israel carries out its threat to permanently annex West Bank settlements: "Any unilateral action will undo the framework of past accords and lead to unilateral actions from Israel." (Binyam Netanyahu) and "If the Palestinians take such a unilateral line, Israel should also consider ... passing a law to annex some of the settlements," (Environment Minister Gilad Erdan), "We must be clear and say that if they are going in that direction, a unilateral declaration must be followed by a declaration of our own and imposing Israeli sovereignty over all Area C.", (National Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau) then it is difficult to see how the Palestinian security forces could contain a new wave of violence. As usual, Israel ackowledges the progress in security in the West Bank without giving anything in return. The strategy is clear: allow/encourage the growth of more and more frustration on the part of Palestinians, then wait for the few to respond violently. Then crack down with tanks etc and blame the Palestinians. The whole world is very familiar with the script.

Israel also continues to trumpet actions that merely relax slightly intolerable restrictions as "concessions": "Already now one can see how our steps have contributed greatly in easing the movement of Palestinians within the West Bank." (Binyamin Netanyahu again)

November 11th 2009

   There is some welcome statements from Jordan on the Israel/Palestine situation. Jordan made peace with Israel back in 1994 and is regarded as the most moderate 'Arab' state. So King Abdullah's words have particular significance when he says: "Jerusalem is the red line. The Israelis must understand Jerusalem's standing among the Arabs, the Muslims and the Christians, and should not play with fire." in relation to the demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem. On the subject of settlements in the West Bank he said: "If the demand is not achieved to freeze the settlements in order to commence talks, there will be a need for binding American and international guarantees in writing via the UN that will confirm that the negotiations will cover all the issues of a permanent settlement, the borders, Jerusalem and the refugees, and will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders with east Jerusalem as its capital, in the frame of a clear timetable." On the prospects for peace: "I have warned more than once that if we do not make progress towards a solution, and if there is no clear and convincing progress, the region is open to some dangerous and difficult possibilities. Maintaining the current situation is unacceptable, and it means that the region is headed towards an abyss. If we miss this opportunity and peace is not reached in a year or tow, I believe our generation will not see peace."

His words should be listened to with attention by world leaders.

November 8th 2009

   I listened to a Remenbrance Sunday service, hearing words such as a war to bring peace and justice. Whilst I admire the bravery and professionalism of the armed forces, what is missing from such occasions is any reference to the fact that war almost always constitutes a massive costly detour from the path that leads to peace and justice. The hurt and pain of war has to be healed, taking many many years, before true peace and justice is achieved, if ever. War is too often the first resort, not the last. As for the present conflict in Afghanistan, Gordon Brown is now trotting out the worst possible reason for war: to keep UK citizens save in the UK. In other words we are selfishly killing people, inevitably innocent civilians, to protect ourselves and to support a government that has been proven to be corrupt.

November 5th 2009

   The Boston Globe reported yesterday on excavations being carried out by an Israeli group near to the al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, referring to it as "provocative". I hope I am wrong, but this has echoes of Ariel Sharon's provocative actions there which facilitated, if that is the right word, the second intifada in 2000. Nothing inflames Muslim hearts more than the possibility of the mosque being put in any jeopardy. Jordan and Egypt have asked for such work to stop. So this might be another "Sharon" moment, a ploy to provoke violence, reduce the chances of peace and make the Palestinians look responsible. All this is in line with Israel's purpose in gaining time to seize and hold more and more land. If it is planned in this way I hope the Palestinians are able not to rise to the bait, but heaven knows the Israelis will just proffer more and more such bait. It reminds me of an incident last week in Jerusalem. The Israeli tour guide, on describing the Roman cardo, said with a perfectly straight face that the second row of columns could not be excavated because it would damage peoples' houses and 'we wouldn't do that'. I had to bite my tongue not to retort: "You don't have any qualms about bulldozing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem in order to move settlers in."

Israel has been and continues to be the major threat to world peace. The war in Afghanistan is partly because of the anger in the Muslim world at how the Palestinians have been treated. The explicit threats to Iran, the unilateral attack on Iraq, the demolition of Lebanon, all fan the flames of Islamic fundamentalism. The most important world-wide task apart from climate change (as opposed to domestic tasks) for President Obama is to calm the Middle East down, make positive moves towards a just peace. His first job here is to rein in his Secretary of State. He will have to decide what is most important: ensure a second term or make a difference. Perhaps he can do both, but if he is the person he claims he is, then he needs to risk the second term.

November 2nd 2009

   I have just returned from a trip to Israel and the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. I met people from different levels of society, from families living in refugee camps to those with influence at the political or NGO spheres. When I have had the time to process what was a challenging process both physically and emotionally I will reflect my thoughts and conclusions on this site as well as pursuing whatever courses of action are appropriate and available to me.

Meanwhile, the US administration, in the form of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, miserably reverts to type after the hopes engendered by the election of Barack Obama. She understands Israel's settlement programme as follows:

"It has to do with their security needs and fears, about trying to have a defensible perimeter around Israel." Now the Middle East is a complex place, but everyone, including the Secretary of State, knows that this is simply untrue. Settlement building has nothing to do with security whatsoever. If Israel were solely concerned with security, the odious wall would have been built following a very different route. (The wall itself of course has nothing to do with security: it has more holes than a colander) Settlements are about expansion and reduction: the expansion of what Israel increasingly calls the Jewish state and the reduction of the land available to the native Palestinian land in ways which would prevent the formation of any viable Palestinian state.

In this sense and only in this sense is Hillary Clinton right: if by Israel's security you mean the impossibility of a Palestinian state and the permanent slavery of Palestinians and/or their expulsion from the Occupied Territories. If the US pursues a policy in line with such a notion of 'security' then the future is bleak indeed, because such a course is profoundly unjust and injustice is not only ethically wrong, it is unsustainable.

Back

October 2009

October 19th 2009

   I applaud Gordon Brown's speech about climate change: the first major serving leader as far as I know to have used the words "catastrophe" and "there is no plan B". He said: "In every era, there are one or two moments when nations must come together and reach agreements that make history because they change the course of history and Copenhagen must be such time. There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course for the next few decades. Once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice, by then it will be irretrievably too late, so we should never allow ourselves to lose sight of the catastrophe we face if present warming trends continue. We cannot afford to fail, if we fail now, we will pay a heavy price. If we act now, if we act together if we act with vision and resolve success at Copenhagen is still within our reach. But if we falter the earth will itself be at risk, and for the planet there is no plan B"

He is right. He is also right in his urging other leaders to attend the Copenhagen conference. Climate change is the biggest issue bar none and it warrants attention at the highest level of government.

October 17th 2009

   Further to the Trafigura attempt to gag the reporting of Parliament, might there not be a case of contempt of Parliamen against Carter-Ruck? A letter from Carter-Ruck to the Speaker and copied to all MPS said "Clearly, the question of whether this matter is sub judice is entirely a matter for your discretion, although we would observe that we believe the proceedings to have been and to remain "active" within the definition of House Resolution 194-195 of 15 November 2001 in that arrangements have been made for the hearing of an application before the Court." Might this be very close to threatening MPs, which is a contempt of Parliament? Yes, it is certainly couched in the usual legalese, but many of know that letters from solicitors 'advising' us of the potential consequences of action can be very intimidating. Parliament has the right to summon those considered to be in contempt to the Bar of the House. It might be salutary for law firms who pocket huge fees from the rich and powerful to be reminded that the law of the land is made and upheld by Parliament. Commentators are already speculating that Carter-Ruck did this to test out what they could get away with. Maybe the line needs to be drawn forcibly at an early stage.

On the subject of so-called super injunctions, is there anything to stop newspapers from publishing the fact that they have received (another) one? If a newspaper could not print that an injunction ordering it not to reveal that it has received an injunction on a particular date, together with a summary of how many of those it has received so far that year, then the world has gone absolutely mad. Such information reveals nothing confidential, nothing that can be traced to a particular person, organisation or issue. What it would do is reveal to the public just how widespread the practice is and that is in the public interest.

October 14th 2009

   So much for British democracy and freedom of speech. But for the Internet, no-one would have known that it is possible for a company - in this case Trafigura - to take out an injunction not only to prevent the media disclosing information but also to prevent the media from disclosing that there is an injunction at all. In this case, the lawyers for Trafigura overreached themselves in getting an injunction to prevent the reporting of Parliament itself. Now, citizens are entitled to know what MPs are saying and asking and the rights of any individual or organisation should be subservient to those rights. This is not an islolated case: the Guardian says that it has received 12 injunctions this year. This is another case of the rich and powerful finding ways of preventing their activities becoming public knowledge. This is the question that Paul Farrelly MP asked in Parliament:

"To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura."

The Guardian (and therefore other newspapers) was forbidden to say who asked the question, to whom the question was addressed and why it was forbidden to report it. There is still an injunction on the reporting of the contents of the 'Minton' report (produced in 2006), maybe even of its existence, although that report is accessible on the Internet.

October 12th 2009

   What is so ridiculous about Gordon Brown's proposal to sell off state assets (at a time when they will fetch next to nothing) is that it was not too much state ownership that caused the financial crisis, it was the failure of private capitalism. So capitalism fails and the state, ie. taxpayers, pay the bill.

October 9th 2009

   Listening to a report on the radio about an unusual meeting - unusual in that it was at ambassadorial level - with Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, it was mentioned that 'official' talks with anyone in Burma are limited to low level diplomatic staff. This is a reminder of how diplomacy is still conducted according to the protocols of the West's imperial past. Put another way, it is the childish behaviour of the playground: I don't like you so I won't talk to you. It's about time diplomacy grew up. There are good reasons why any country should talk at all levels with other countries with whom there are differences of opinion/behaviour. It might lead to greater understanding on both sides which may well lead to a reduction in mutually hostile views, let alone hostile actions, including war. It also enables the West to report what the 'other' side are saying/thinking on an ongoing basis, so their citizens are informed about what the issues are in actuality. We should be talking to Iran, to North Korea. As for sanctions, note that they are always imposed by the rich/large countries on the relatively poor/small countries. We do not refuse to talk to China or impose sanctions because of Tibet and Chinese human rights for instance. China is too big/powerful. Refusal to talk and the imposition of sanctions on those with whome we disagree is not only childish, it is bullying pure and simple, with the underlying arrogant belief that 'we' are right. George W Bush had many faults, but at least he was honest about this: the US is/was right, the others are wrong. Arrogance and/or fear (sometimes fear just of the unknown) are poor bases for conducting international relations. If the West were not arrogant/fearful - and let us not forget that the inculcation of fear in your domestic population is useful politically - then the West would be saying to Iran, North Korea etc, "Sure we'll talk to you any time and respond to you and to our people on what you say to us. We seek the truth and a way forward." Confident people/states who do not seek to dominate/control look for positive ways forward with the belief that truth and commonsense will follow if dialogue is pursued. The West is neither confident - all of us are well aware of the fault lines in free market capitalism - nor free of the wish to dominate: seeking to bring 'democracy' to Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone control of such things as oil reserves/supply are indicative of the power politics mindset.

October 6th 2009

   When Alastair Darling provided billions of taxpayers' pounds to banks like RBS he made it clear that the taxpayers would get their money back. Now, I appreciate that this will have to be over a period of years, but it is depressing to hear all the parties simply talking about public service cuts to make up the shortfall in public finances, a shortfall largely caused by the funds provided to the banks. Why not require the banks that received taxpayer assistance to pay back, say, 20% per year of the 'loans'. After all, the financial industry should be accustomed to the notion of paying back borrowings. To those that say we need the financial sector and such a requirement would make the UK financial sector 'uncompetitive', no financial institution is going to pass up genuine investment opportunities that provide a high probability of a good return. In other words, if UK organisations are sound, if UK individuals' income support the loans they request, then the financial sector will provide the funds. What would probably disappear would be the highly leveraged noise around the markets, the very unsocial activity that provided obscene sums to individuals and no benefit to society. The sort of noise which created the financial crash in the first place.

Secondly, I do not hear any party being honest in terms of what we should/must be doing in terms of climate change. We still hear talk of getting back to economic growth, rather than what we should be aiming for : zero growth. Zero growth is the only sane option in the West. Politicians are being dishonest in not being clear about it. The implication of zero growth is also quite clear: in order to maintain decent standards of public services, companies and wealthy individuals need to contribute more nearly according to their means. That is, if we want a fair, just, compassionate society, rather than an anarchical society in which the fittest and most ruthless take the wealth and those that fall behind are left to rot and die.

Back

September 2009

September 28th 2009

   It is disappointing that, given the mess that free market capitalism has made of the world, that both Germany and Portugal have moved tp the right ie the parties of big business. Maybe the parties of the left are not putting over the simple message - we know what a mess the free market has made, would you prefer more of the same or a party which is willing to manage the economy and not just allow a free for all.

September 23rd 2009

   There is no sense of honour in British politics. The Attorney General, responsible for upholding the law, is herself found guilty of breaking a law she was active in passing. Now it may be that the Prime Minister would have been prepared to refuse her profferred resignation, but no such resignation was forthcoming. Instead she compared her offence to forgetting to pay the congestion charge. Since when did not paying the equvalent of a parking fine cost £5,000? The honourable act would have been to offer her resignation, leaving the political decision to her boss, but she appears to have caught the same condition as many Westminster residents: that being such a resident affords immunity to laws that apply to others. Politicians are playing a dangerous game in their disdain for decent behaviour.

September 19th 2009

   There is a predictable furore over the publication on the Internet of documents purporting to cast doubt on the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing. One argument is that by forgoing another appeal he admitted his guilt. Another assumption is that 'our' justice system is fair.

Lets us just look at it from another perspective. A UK citizen is convicted abroad of a terrorist atrocity. The foreign justice system orders an appeal because of serious concerns about the safety of the conviction (the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ordered the appeal) but the convicted UK citizen is terminally ill, many miles from his family. Whether or not he is guilty, would not the UK generally welcome the release on compassionate grounds? Would we not also have a lingering thought that maybe the country concerned saw this as a way of resolving a difficult issue - that an appeal might succeed, which then raises the issue of compensation and a reopening of the question, if not him, then who?

As for our wonderful justice system - it probably is better than many, but we in the UK still have this idiotic catch 22 process whereby a convicted murderer stays in jail for ever if he maintains his inncocence, which has led to several people, wrongly convicted, spending decades in jail for crimes they did not commit and for far longer than those who were indeed guilty. The latest victim of this nonsensical system was Sean Hodgson who spent 27 years in jail for a crime he did not commit. He was finally released and given just £46. He will have to fight, probably for years, to get any compensation for wrongful conviction. We are not perfect.

September 15th 2009

   There are signs in the interviews being conducted on the anniversary of the Lehman crash that the financial world is likely to revert to business as usual, which is a totally predictable course as the selfishness of free market capitalism takes no account of the effect on others of rash 'get rich quick' schemes. When will Western governments act to regulate financial activity effectively in the interests of all? One reported stumbling block to action is stated to be that banks are too big to be allowed to fail. Well, states could soon remedy that: break them up so that each part cannot hold the state to ransom by acting recklessly (meanwhile enriching its executives) in the knowledge that the taxpayer will bail it out (whilst those executives keep 'their' money). If banks knew that the business has to look after itself, then sensible business practices would soon follow. After the debacle of the last year, we are in greater peril of another crash than before, as banks believe that risks undertaken to enrich personally those in charge will be borne by the state. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the leaders of most, if not all, the developed nations to state jointly and publicly that no state will again bail out its financial institutions?

September 11th 2009

   None of us is surprised by the report about the 'Phoenix Four' who paid £10 for MG Rover, took £75m from BMW, also took £427m interest free loan from BMW, then proceeded to organise the company into different entities which enabled them to charge MG Rover interest on the loan from BMW, which in turn meant they could run the company holding the loan at a 'profit', which in turn meant that they could pay themselves £42m whilst the MG Rover company, which they were supposed to be running, went out of business. We are not surprised either that Barclays Bank and the auditors Deloitte were involved and saw nothing wrong. We are not surprised as this is the sort of behaviour which is 'normal' for post-Reagan/Thatcher/Friedman capitalism. It is yet another reason why we need fundamental change in our political and economic systems. To adapt Shakespeare "Something is rotten in the state of the UK" (and the US)

September 6th 2009

   In all the discussions about the recession, bank bail outs, bankers's pay etc etc, the one certain pre-requisite that all politicians trot out is that it is a 'global' problem and that action by any individual country would not only be ineffective, but also possibly detrimental to that country. Has none of them considered the obvious: that globalisation is one of if not the cause of the problems. If each country or bloc of countries were able to set their own terms of financial management, then we might see effective action bening taken.

One other thought on this. Politicians are afraid that if they regulate their financial sector more strictly than other countries, their own financial sector would emigrate. Well, maybe some of it would, but all countries have to have a domestic financial sector. In the medium term, when lightly regulated financial sectors are struggling through excessive risk, where might the financial markets then turn to ensure a relatively safe place to invest? Why, those prudent countries who ensured that their financial sectors were properly run.

September 4th 2009

   There is currently a debate about how to curb excessive drinking, minimum prices, ban 2 for 1 offers etc. It seems to me that there is a very simple way in which excessive drinking can be reduced, without infringing individuals' autonomy and rights. Just as there is, rightly, a limit on the amount of alcohol in the blood when in charge of a car, so there could be a (higher) limit on the amount of alcohol permitted to be in the bloodstream of any person, no matter what that person is doing or where that person is. Such a limit could be worked out by scientists. Fines of £100, more for repeat offences, would soon persuade people to reduce their consumption. The justification? Health, anti-social behaviour, crime, addiction: all caused by excessive alcohol.

Back

August 2009

August 30th 2009

   James Murdoch gave a remarkably inept speech the other day: his main arguments can be easily dismissed. Firstly he compares commercial media with state media (meaning in this case, the BBC) in terms of Darwinism and creationism. In other words, the free market resembles Darwinism at work and the BBC resembles creationism. Does this make the BBC God? What tosh. He also says: "Heavy regulation and a large public sector crowds out the opportunity for profit, hinders job creation and dampens innovation." Ah, the opportunity for profit: as we shall see, profit for James Murdoch is his sacred cow. In fact, his real complaint about the BBC is that the BBC is innovative, leaving the private sector to catch up - or not, but of course he cannot bear to admit this. "Pay-television has succeeded in Britain by providing programmes in genres which public service broadcasting served inadequately: to begin with, largely 24-hour news, a broad choice of sport, the latest films." Well, the reality is somewhat different. The BBC used to transmit sport eg. the test matches, until Sky outbid them, if yoy look at Sky 24 hour news I guarantee you wull fall asleep very quickly or else be able to recite what is about to be said before it is said yet again. (The same goes for BBC 24 hour news) The latest films? Can you imagine his fury if the BBC were able to outbid Sky to broadcast the latest films? The latest films are "premium" ie luxury products that commercial television should be there for. News is not a luxury, nor is national sport.

"The UK and EU regulatory system also tightly controls advertising: the amount per hour, the availability of product placement, the distinction between advertising and editorial and so forth." Well, thank goodness it does. "Product placement" means of course the visibility of products that the sponsor of the programme or the advertisers want the public to see within the actual programme, in other words, advertising by stealth. Deliberate product placement is by definition deceit, making a character display a brand of product with little or no genuine connection with the story or theme of the programme.

James Murdoch also equates television made for profit with independence and state television with dependence and partiality. As a broadcaster he is well aware of the uneasy relationship between the BBC and the UK government. The BBC is only dependent upon the government for the total amount of money. How that money is spent is down to the BBC. He says: "Independence is sustained by true accountability to customers. ......And people value honest, fearless, and independent news coverage that challenges the consensus." OK, we know that the BBC takes on the government. Let us take another scenario: Corporation X provides Sky with a substantial proportion of its advertising revenue. Corporation X is suspected of illegal or unethical practices. Sky has a decision to make. To be "fearless" and risk losing revenue and profit, or to tone down the reporting. Whatever the decision it gives the lie to "independence". Commercial broadcasting is dependent upon not only revenue from paying customers, but its (powerful) commercial sponsors. Finally, the most chilling statement of all, his final statement. I say "chilling" with reference not just to the content, but the manner in which in was spoken: coldly, even bleakly. "There is an inescapable conclusion. The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit." Profit. That's all that matters, but as we can see, such independence does not extend to being independent of the influence and revenue from large corporations.

Whilst we can expect that those who obtain their living via the 'free market' will defend it, we also expect a half-decent defence. There is also another lesson to draw from this. It is that those who have power via the free market will not give up that power and the money which flows from it easily. As always, power is not given away, it has to be taken.

August 26th 2009

   The UN General Assembly in 1947 recommended the partition of Palestine into two states: Israel and Palestine. Included in the plan was for Jerusalem to belong to neither state: "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below". (from the current Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site.) According to the same web site: "The resolution was accepted by the Jews in Palestine, yet rejected by the Arabs in Palestine and the Arab states." So, the government of Israel officially quotes the original UN resolution in a positive manner, yet Israel's current Prime Minister said yesterday that "Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is the sovereign capital of the State of Israel. We have been building in Jerusalem for 3,000 years." Well, I know who I believe to represent the real belief and intentions of Israel and it is not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Official words appear reasonable, designed to portray Israel as a moderate state. Those in power in Israel speak differently: step by step, whenever an Israeli leader thinks he can get away with it, the quest for a greater Israel and the complete expulsion of all Palestinians goes on unabated. Put another way, Israel appears to accept international resolutions then simply ignores parts of them at will. The victims of such expansionism are the Palestinians, who also have been living in the land, including Jersualem, for 3,000 years.

Binyamin Netanyahu said of his meeting with Gordon Brown, regarding the possibility of IDF officers being brought before British courts: "I told him that is simply did not coincide with common sense. We're fighting the same terrorists and we're exercising our right to self defence. No one accuses the British Army of anything and no one should accuse the IDF or its officers." Well, two errors here. The UK and Israel are fighting different bands of terrorists: I do not see Hamas being occupied by establishing Islam across the world (which is the story put out about al-Qaeda), they are too busy in their own backyard. Secondly, the British army is criticised both at home and abroad and whilst I believe they (like the British police forces) are over-protected by government, nevertheless there is some accountability in spite of the dysfunctional UK Ministry of Defence's attempts at denying responsibility for anything.

August 24th 2009

   "Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of 'compassion'". The director of the FBI said this of the decision to free the 'Lockerbie bomber'. Now, you must be intelligent to become the head of the FBI, so how does he come up with anything quite so stupid? Let us put ourselves into the mind of a would be terrorist. He is not a suicide bomber, as death is meaningless to such a person, so he values his life. The deterrence of a long sentence, maybe literally for life, is the logic of locking people up for years. But here now is a proposition: instead of being locked up for years and dying in prison, there is the possibility that, having been caught, I get some terminal disease, get released just before I am due to die and die at home. Wow, that surely will make it easier for me to turn to terrorism: get out of jail by dying early.

August 20th 2009

   In the nineteenth century, Britain was labelled as 'the land without music' - a charge not wholly true but it contained (and contains) some truth. At the present time, a similar tag can be applied to the US. The insistence on a system that alllows only relatively rich people to get health care, with the implication that poor people are poor through their own fault and the fierce opposition to the release of the 'Lockerbie bomber' on compassionate grounds - opposition that regrettably includes the White House - leads to a tag that can be applied to the US. The United States: a people without compassion.

August 16th 2009

   It is amazing what organised propaganda can achieve. I am referring to the hysterical lies being peddled about the NHS in the health care 'debate' in the US. On just about every measure, the NHS, whilst certainly not perfect, is superior. Costs half the price in relation to GDP (that gives the lie to the US/UK mantra that private-everything is cheaper than public-anything), higher infant mortality rate in the US, higher life expectancy in the UK, the UK does not have 15% of its population without any healthcare provision. Some lies are just pernicious: that elderly patients are refused treatment and left to die. It is those, elderly or not, people in the US without funds who are denied treatment.

I have lived in the UK for over 60 years and never used private health care (some jobs provided it, but I never used it). I have had a number of operations, a number of exploratory procedures, all free of charge. More importantly, my daughter, who was born with a very rare condition, has been treated over decades, including open heart surgery undertaken within the restrictions of being allergic to the normal medication prescribed in these situations and therefore requiring alternatives. I shall never forget the time when, being acutely ill, the medical staff were forced to use the normal drug (amiodarone) and then fight to counteract the effects. As they said afterwards, it was the only way to correct fatal ventricular fibrillation. Let no-one dare tell me that the NHS does not provide first class services.

I know that if I am ill, I shall receive treatment according to the severity and urgency of my illness. (Yes, I have been taken to hospital on a Saturday evening by blue light flashing ambulance and been operated next morning, Sunday. Free of charge). How many US citizens without the funds for medical insurance can say or expect the same?

August 14th 2009

   I am reading Occupied with Nonviolence by Jean Zaru (added to the book list). Jean is a Palestinian Christian, a Quaker and therefore committed to peaceful action. Whilst I have a good understanding of what happens in the Occupied Territories, there is always something else, something new and shocking. So I wonder how many Christians, especially Zionist Christians, especially also those who have been to Jerusalem know that Palestinian Christians cannot visit there? Jean's children and granchildren were all born in Jerusalem but cannot visit their birthplace from Ramallah (10 miles away) without permission which is difficult if not impossible to get. So Palestinian Christians cannot visit their holiest place, even though they live a few miles away.

Another example of the Israeli apartheid system: any Palestinian who lives abroad for 10 years or more will never be able to return. Binyamin Netanyahu spent 12 years in the US, but it didn't stop him from becoming Prime Minister.

On page 25 there is a wonderful sentence: "But I will never kill for truth, for truth is incompatible with violence." I would urge anyone who seeks information about the situation in Palestine expressed in a moderate and factual manner to read this book. If you do, you may find yourself wanting to write letters to your political leaders and your religious leaders. If you do, spare time to let Jean Zaru know of your support; people like her need all the help they can get.

August 10th 2009

   As the arguments continue about whether or not the UK government and its 'agencies' such as MI6 are or are not complicit in torture, it is noteworthy that no government minister answers the 'complicit' question. To be 'complicit' is to break international law/agreements, so ministers carefully use the word 'collusion' which has no legal pitfalls or answer a non-existent question. Kim Howells - chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee (appointed by the Prime Minister) - said this morning: "I can tell you that we've found no evidence that there has been collusion (my emphasis) between the intelligence services, any Government department and governments that torture their individuals." in answer to the 'complicit' question. He added one further extraordinary statement in the midst of a long rambling journey through the by now familiar byways of keeping people safe ploy to get away from the direct issue: "If we don't have that information from other intelligence agencies, how can you be sure that there aren't jihadists who are trying to murder citizens on the street or Irish republicans who want to blow people to pieces in order to further their cause? You have no way of knowing that." Two things to draw from that. In other words, carefully 'not knowing' about possible torture is justified in keeping peole safe, but if this 'not knowing' is a Nelsonian blind eye, then the government is complicit. Secondly, is there still an IRA threat? One which is on a par with what he calls "jihadists"? And is not the phrase "Irish republicans who want to blow people to pieces" just a little bit dramatic and alarmist?

The only person to answer directly the question on complicity is the head of MI6. In answer to the qustion "So, no torture and no complicity with torture?" he answered "No torture and there is no complicity with torture." There was a pause before the phrase about complicity and he was careful to stay in the present tense - no assurances of no complicity in the past. Make of that what you will. Oh, his name? John Scarlett. You know, the one who approved the dossier which led to the invasion of Iraq, the dossier which asserted that Saddam Hussein's (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction could be unleashed on us with in 45 minutes. What he says is therefore clearly authoritative, even though his political masters have difficulty in being so 'authoritative'. Then again, they can be held accountable for errors and lies, if found out. Following the rubbishing of the whole WMD material John Scarlett was promoted to his present position.

Once more, predictably, the government is ruling out any enquiry into the complicit in torture issue.

August 9th 2009

   I understand that Stephen Hester will be paid £9.6m a year to run Royal Bank of Scotland. Any criticism appears to be based on the fact that RBS is largely owned by the taxpayer. The real problem is that anyone can be paid these sums, whether or not from the public purse, whether or not they work in the city, kick a football around or whatever. Even in the UK such a salary is obscene, it is even more so in the world context. We know the corrosive effect of inequality and I believe also that if some people would only take such a job for this level of remuneration, then they do not deserve to be given it. I do not want people in charge of organisations that are solely motivated by such inordinate greed. If any political party were truly interested in equality, there would be a cap on salaries based on a multiplier of the lowest wage. Anything paid above that would just be taken back in tax. The law of the jungle is just not good enough.

On a similar subject, billions of people have to live on less than a dollar a day whilst Americans can now fly their pets around on special 'pet' aircraft. It's sick.

August 4th 2009

   The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (a committee made up of UK MPs and House of Lords personnel) makes depressing reading. This is the list of those who decided that they would rather not give evidence to the committee on the subject of possible British complicity in the torture of suspects outside the UK: the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, (the third request to these two was not even acknowledged), the Director General of the Security Service, (again, twice, even though at the time he was quite happy to talk to the Society of Editors and the press).

I listened to an interview on the subject this morning with a Foreign Office Minister, Ivan Lewis. I do not have a transcript of his statements but he mentioned a 'balance' between human rights and the need for national security. There is no 'balance' to be struck. Beyond a certain point - and torture is way past that point - human rights trump security. If it does not, then we are saying that uncivilised actions are justified by the wish to keep our citizens safe. Put another way: the human rights of a terrorist suspect (and note that the majority of those tortured are only suspects) are less valuable than the human rights of 'our' citizens.

One aspect points to the guilt of the British establishment. The committee struggled with engaging anyone with the concept of 'complicity', a legal term which demonstrates guilt under the international agreements on torture. The interview this morning followed the same path: when asked about complicity, Ivan Lewis replied to the effect that he did not want to go down that route. This is tantamount to the police suggesting to a suspect 'Did you rob that bank?' and the suspect replying 'I do not want to go down that route'. Not an admission of guilt, but a reply that strongly suggests there are things to hide.

I understand there are 15 separate allegations that the UK was complicit in torture abroad. Together with the refusal of ministers even to attend a parliamentary committee we have a prima facie case for an enquiry. Will we get one? Unlikely, as the government will hide behind the usual fig leaf of 'national security'.

Well, I for one am fed up with my government claiming it is protecting my safety by fudging the issue of others' human rights. I do not want to be safe at the expense of other people.

August 3rd 2009

   I have just been listening to the head of Barclays bank trying to justify the profts and bonuses on the basis that banks are indespensible to individuals and companies because they enable people and organisations to borrow money etc. In other words, banks are experts in the use of money and in the risks associated with lending and borrowing money. Fair enough, but what is simply overlooked is that society is paying a high price for banks having either been incompetent in such expertise or simply reckless in their assessment of risk - risk assessment being their particular field of expertise. This forms the basis for the argument that retail and corporate banks should be split up. Individuals cannot be expected to be experts in risk taking re loans and mortgages and retail banks therefore need to be regulated in terms of the circumstances in which they lend to individuals. (A personal note on this. I took out and endowment mortgage many years ago. It looked wrong, there must be a catch, as it was cheaper than a straightforward repayment mortgage but I couldn't spot it. Now everyone knows what the catch was. Fortunately, I moved house before the endowment mortgage debacle and escaped financial loss). Lending to corporations is different. If a corporation is stupid enough to borrow recklessly and a bank is too stupid to pick this up, then they both deserve to lose and do not warrant public bail outs. There may well be a case for small businesses to borrow from retail banks, as small businesses also will not have financial expertise.

Back

July 2009

July 31st 2009

   It is good news that the law in the UK on so-called assisted suicide is to be clarified. Whatever anyone's thoughts, beliefs or principles are, clarity in the law is essential in any aspect of life. Hopefully the Director of Public Prosecutions will make the law absolutely clear so that everyone in this situation can establish what is possible and what is not possible. It is particularly welcome that the DPP is to issue interim clarification for those presently caught in the midst of a law that is inadequately drafted and enforced.

July 24th 2009

   Israel defends the decision to build "Jewish" (their term) homes in East Jerusalem on the basis that a)Jerusalem is Israel's original capital and b) Palestinians are allowed to build in West Jerusalem. As for a), the creation of Israel divided Jerusalem into East and West - Israel was only to govern West Jerusalem. Israel is therefore breaking international agreements in occupying and settling East Jerusalem, which the international community intended as the capital of a Palestinian state. As for b), West Jerusalem is designated as state land managed by the Israel Lands Authority. This authority forbids anyone to buy land in West Jerusalem, (curiously, this rule did not apply to Ariel Sharon - in East Jerusalem) but Jews, under the process of aliyah (right of any Jew to emigrate to Israel) are allowed to lease land in West Jerusalem, which is fine as it belongs to Israel and also in East Jerusalem, which is not fine as it does not belong to Israel. Needless to say, Palestinians, even those driven out of Israel, have no such lease rights under aliyah. They have no right of return to their homes, whereas Jews from any country, never having been to Israel before, are allowed to lease land in East Jerusalem (and throughout the Occupied Territories).

[I have always been reluctant to use the term 'Jew' except where strictly necessary as it opens up the charge of anti-semitism, but Israel's spokespeople increasingly use the term Jew. I simply follow their preference, even though I know that it is calculated, among other things, to generate opportunities to quote 'anti-semitic' opinions]

There is no known case of a Palestinian acquiring property in West Jerusalem. There is no equality.

There is a British saying which goes: half a loaf is better than no bread. Well, before 1948, Jews had no bread, no homeland. Since, 1948, they have had half a loaf (legally) in terms of Jerusalem - the Western half. Since 1967 they have taken the whole loaf. And in terms of the Palestinian lands and people they want the whole batch of loaves, taken by force, kept by force to the oppression and humiliation of the rightful owners.

July 22nd 2009

   Alan Milburn's report on social mobility is based upon the assumption that "the professions" are the key to UK prosperity and that as entry into the professions is limited to rich and 'connected' families, this is bad for Britain in terms of reduced social mobility and wastage of talent from those not from 'elite' families. Well, there is a lot of logic behind this, but I would question the overweening importance of the professions. Every country has key jobs being carried out by those regarded as non-professional. Those jobs are just as important as those of judges, barristers etc. I also see no reference to nepotism (or family tradition to call it by a more friendly term). We have all noticed how actors tend to come from 'acting families'. Is this because of inherent talent, or the expectation of following in parents' footsteps? To the extent that it is the former, it raises the question which no-one wants to bring up officially: genetics. The professions demand a minimum level of intelligence as well as application. Now, clearly, parents who are of less than average intelligence do not automatically produce offspring of less than average intelligence, as those of higher than average intelligence do not automatically have children of high intelligence, but there is probably some level of correlation. Another factor, a major one in my view, is that of schooling. Comprehensive schooling was introduced to provide equal opportunities for all pupils, irrespective of background and ability. If the report is in any way accurate, comprehensive education has failed in this country, even though similar systems work well elsewhere. One aspect of this is cultural. I grew up in a working class environment and went to working class grammar school. Socially devisive, yes - the local taunt was "grammar grub" - and Oxbridge was way off the aspirational radar of the school. I succeeded in getting into a redbrick university and sort of joined the professional class. That I did so was because of one positive factor and in spite of one negative factor. The positive factor was the quality of the teaching and the aim of teachers to provide a good and broad education. The negative factor was the culture of not being seen by your peers to do well or to aspire to anything , even in a selective grammar school. The stereotype of the school swot is still alive and well. If that pervaded a grammar school, it is likely to be even more influentional in a comprehensive, in which, truthfully, a significant number of pupils are aware that their limited abilities will not take them far in the economic and social spheres.

I am no great fan of independent schools, but what they can do is aim high and treat elitism as a positive concept. This is another factor: words are important. Elitism is a dirty word, yet it is only the elite who gain positions of eminence in society, whether this be as politicians, musicians, scientists, sportspeople etc. So in the UK we look down on the word 'elite', holding pupils back from their aspirations, yet look up to those who are in fact the elite once they have reached the top of their sector. If we could rehabilitate the word 'elite' and restore to it the concept that anything can, and ideally should be done well, plus the belief that every activity and everybody has value, then our youngsters might be encouraged to aim for whatever is possible for them and take pride in whatever they end up doing, in the workplace and in society.

As always in these areas, it is cultural change which is required. This takes time, a lot of time, and the way forward is not via changes to the organisational issues of education or the workplace, let alone tinkering with the educational system yet again.

July 17th 2009

   The decision to delay any expenditure on the replacement for Trident until after the next election is welcome. Whether or not Trident will actually be replaced or not is another matter, but, rather like a prisoner on death row, any delay gives rise to hope.

Meanwhile, military spokespeople are taking advantage of the present death rate in Afghanistan to make the case for more military spending, full of assertions that the UK needs to spend more on 'defence'. (For defence read 'attacking smaller countries whose policies/actions are disapproved of') There is no evidence that invading Iraq and trying to expel the Taliban in Afghanistan makes us or the world safer. Yes, there is a case for helping countries like Afghanistan, if it is proven beyond doubt that the people as a whole want such help and a more suitable assistance would be in providing secure facilities ie strongly defended facilities, to train local people in securing a stable political, social and economic environment. Killing, with foreign troops, those with whom you disagree, is both ethically wrong and ineffective: their successors just come back the stronger. If sufficient local resources are available, the country can resolve its own issues without the need for foreign troops. If the country is unwilling or unable to carry out such a policy, then withdrawal is the only option and allocating resources to genuine defence at home. Why should the Afghans in any case pay the price for the US and UK trying (and failing) to make themselves safer by 'defending' themselves half the world away?

July 14th 2009

   It is not much, but it's better than nothing. At least the UK government has done something to acknowledge the oppressive measures Israel took in Gaza by revoking export licences for parts used in Israeli ships. Compared with the massive shipments of arms to Israel from the US it is a drop in the ocean, but at least the UK government is prepared to send some sort of signal to Israel. It is a pity that only 5 licences were revoked out of 182. As Amnesty International has said, there is evidence that Britain supplied engines for drone aircraft instrumental in the killing of civilians in Gaza.

Meanwhile we have Binyamin Netyanhu using Nazi terminology in a grotesque and offensive manner. He used the term 'Judenrein' to describe the Palestinian demands for dismantling the (illegal) Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In other words he used the Nazi term for ethnic cleansing of Jews. This is from the Prime Minister of a state which did largely ethnically cleanse what is now Israel of the Palestinians who were living there when Israel was created. This is the Prime Minister of a country which is steering a course which says: Israel as an exclusively Jewish state, any Palestinian state must have no means of defending itself and include all Israeli Jews who choose to stay/move there with full rights. So, non-Jews not welcome in Israel (as we know from Israeli legislation), whilst any possibility of Palestinians reclaiming land illegally seized by Israeli settlers is compared to the Nazi holocaust.

Are these words not gratuitously extremist and racist? And will it not be for the Palestinians to decide how to run their state, not for Israel to dictate terms?

July 11th 2009

   It is bad enough that our privacy is breached by new laws introduced by government, but it is astonishing that criminal breach of privacy can be settled in court (as in the case of Gordon Taylor) and for the court to be able to seal the evidence so that no further enquiries can be made. It is also astonishing and very regrettable that the police immediately refuse to re-open the case(s) following the Guardian's story: at least from a PR point of view, a suitable delay followed by a refusal would have been more credible. As it is, one wonders why the police are so quick to refuse to follow up what may be a common, but illegal practice. As usual, the citizen's rights are subservient to the interests of the powers that be. Of course, there may well be absolutely no substance to the allegations made by the Guardian, but in a matter as important as this, justice should be seen to be done. Bland assurances from News International and the police are not enough. If the Guardian is wrong, it is rather ironic that the only remedy News International would have is to sue: the only course of action open to those who believe newspapers have libelled them and a course of action, because of costs, open only to the very few.

July 4th 2009

   Hearing Gordon Brown in an interview talking about growth: 'growth will get us out of recession' etc reminded me that one of the greatest threats to humanity in terms of our survival as a species is democracy. This will be regarded as heresy no doubt and any alternative is far from clear, but the politicians' wish/need to give people what they want in order to get back into power is part of the reason why we have such an acquisitive society. There is the shallow belief that more material objects will make us happy. Together with the need for business to sell more through 'innovation' in the short term (these days in business there is no long term), the West strips the world of resources and accelerates global warming.

Work which supports this drive to greater and greater material acquisitions is lost through automation, whilst work which would be meaningful, for instance caring for elderly family members, mothers having a real choice in caring for their young children, is deemed uneconomic or paid at a subsistence rate. A change in the political system is not what is required. What is required is a change in the values of Western society. A shift from competition to cooperation, from winning to caring, from greed to compassion, from individualism to community. Whilst this ultimately has to come from the grass roots, politicians could help the process by being honest about the real cost of the free market economy.

That cost is extinction.

July 1st 2009

   It has attracted little media interest but the UN is conducting an enquiry into what happened in Gaza, holding a public meeting in Gaza on June 28th. "The purpose of the public hearings in Gaza and Geneva is to show the faces and broadcast the voices of victims – all of the victims." said the chairman, Richard Goldstone. In spite of the fact that Richard Goldstone took part in South Africa's constitutional court, was a prosecutor in the UN tribunals on Yugoslavia and Rwanda and is Jewish, Israel, predictably, accuses the UN of anti-Israel bias. It is a dismal, depressing refrain. One day Israel and the Israeli people will wake up to just how unreasonable, not to say evil, their successive governments' behaviour has been and continues to be.

Back

June 2009

June 29th 2009

   Coming back from holiday on Friday, having been news-free for a week. the BBC 6pm news was primarily devoted to the death of Michael Jackson, indeed the second half started "and now other news". A parallel is evoked in the hyperbole about Michael Jackson's genius and eternal legacy. There was another musical child prodigy whose father took him around Europe on concert tours. He too offended people by his outrageous behaviour. He too died young - but much younger than Michael Jackson. He too had debts when he died. In contrast to all the media hype and the rush to buy anything remotely connected with Michael Jackson, this other musician was buried in a common grave. His name? Mozart. It is safe to say that more people have listened to Mozart than have listened to Michael Jackson and that Mozart will be listened to when Michael Jackson is regarded rather as Sammy Davis Jnr is today: a good entertainer. Hype and popularity are, inevitably, shallow, serving commercial interests. One more example of how market capitalism works and its prey are not even aware of how they are targeted and fleeced.

June 17th 2009

   Lord Carlile blows the whistle on the predictable and predicted abuse of the draconian anti-terror laws. "Whilst arrests for other crime have followed searches under the section, none of the many thousands of searches has ever resulted in a conviction for a terrorism offence."

"I cannot see a justification for the whole of the Greater London area being covered permanently. The intention of the section was not to place London under permanent special search powers."

"I have evidence of cases where the person stopped is so obviously far from any known terrorist profile that, realistically, there is not the slightest possibility of him or her being a terrorist and no other feature to justify the stop."

Up to 10,000 people are stopped and searched per month under the act. The police do not have to have any reason to justify the stop and search.

The Home Office's response? "As part of a structured anti-terrorist strategy, the powers help to deter terrorist activity by creating a hostile environment for would-be terrorists to operate."

For "a hostile environment for would-be terrorists" read "a hostile environment for everyone" and don't you just love the "structured anti-terrorist strategy" Orwell-speak?

June 15th 2009

   Some more extracts from Binyamin Netanyahu's speech: "The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People."

The use of the term 'Eretz Israel' is deliberate and ambiguous. For some it means a land from the Nile to the Euphrates, but it at least means what Israeli's refer to as Judea and Samaria, land known to the rest of the world as the West Bank. He is therefore saying, or implying, that the West Bank belongs to Israel.

Further, in tracing the history and right of the Jewish people to their homeland, he says "The truth is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians. We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives. We do not want to force our flag and our culture on them." Note the "now", as if the Palestinians had just arrived. Note also the implication of not wanting to rule them, not wanting to force our flag and culture on them. In other words, they should leave Eretz Israel, ie. leave the West Bank. This is made more explicit in the following sentence: "In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighbourly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbour's security and existence." As long as the Palestinians move out if Israel. There cannot be two free peoples, each with their own flag, government, anthem (except the Palestinians would have no independent means of defence or travel) living in the same area of land.

Commentators have said that the Palestinians are now wrong-footed: now that Israel (by no means for the first time, of course, it's only the first time Binyamin Netanyahu as PM has said it) has stated a willingness to agree to a two state solution, the Palestinians will be seen as the problem, not wanting peace. Well, my advice to Mahmoud Abbas, who incidentally was born in Safed, Galilee and ended up a refugee in Syria in 1948, in the short term is to play the Israeli's at their own 'game': agree to, but only to, a demilitarized state for the Palestinians on condition Israel is also demilitarized. This will be refused of course, but Israel will be seen to insist on having a different status and be seen to be refusing. Israel produces politicians who are past masters at proposing the preposterous as if it were reasonable. Would that the Palestinians could do the same in that being pro-active and proposing solutions might change the general world perception that the Palestinians just react negatively and violently to all these 'reasonable' Israeli proposals.

I wish too that the world could see through the spin that purports to show this speech as a step forward. Israel has taken so many steps backwards, that any one step forwards gets nowhere near the starting line. At present, the starting line appears to be the 1967 boundary pushed back in so many places and ways that any independent Palestinian state is not viable. The Palestinians should be putting the reasonable case for 1967 and no settlements, making this clear that this is a huge concession from the original area of Israel as agreed internationally in 1948. Israel may talk of Eretz Israel, but any land beyond the 1948 boundaries has no foundation in law, quite the opposite.

   Another subject, new to me, but to which I will direct my attention. Another people oppressed, branded as terrorists, or simply forgotten. Below is an edited version of an email I received today:

"Villagers along the northern Iraqi Kurdistan border have been subject to repeated cross-border bombardment from Turkey and Iran for over two decades. Turkey has identified the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and Iran cites the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) as their targets. Those groups have been resisting Turkish and Iranian repression of their Kurdish populations, and both are on US and EU lists of terrorist organizations. Meanwhile thousands of villagers have been forced to flee. Those from around the town of Zharawa are 137 families from eleven villages, totalling more than 600 people, now sharing 45 tents. In 2008, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) contracted a private company, Qandil, to build an IDP camp outside Zhawara. The conditions at the camp are terrible. There is no shade, and summer temperatures here can reach 48 degrees Celsius (118 degrees Fahrenheit). "I spend most of my day looking for shade for my children," one parent told us. The people have no electricity to refrigerate their food. Latrines are dangerously close to their tents. They anticipate rampant illness, and worry about how the elderly will survive. There is no employment; whatever resources people had are dwindling away. "Some families cannot buy even a bag of fruit," one man told us. There is no prospect of an early return to their homes. Something must be done urgently before people start dying. So two women from the Christian Peacemaker Team will move into the tent camp on 14 June 2009. We hope their presence will help to focus international attention on the plight of the IDPs. A week later, all being well, the men from the team will follow them. Please help us to tell the world what is going on. Join us too in praying for the IDPs, and for a just solution to this sad conflict."

I do not know on what historical basis the Kurds claim to have the right to their own country, which is divided up between Iraq, Turkey,Syria, Armenia and Iran but it is probably similar to that of the Israeli claims, ie. it stems from ancient history.

June 14th 2009

   "If we have guarantees on demilitarisation and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as a state of the Jewish people, then we arrive at a solution based on a demilitarised Palestinian state alongside Israel. Each will have its flag, each will have its anthem. The Palestinian territory will be without arms, will not control airspace, will not be able to have arms."

"I call on you, our Palestinian neighbours, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority - let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions."

Extracts from Binyamin Netyahu's speech today. Maybe the sense of the speech got lost in translation, but doesn't the first extract contain conditions? Conditions which render a Palestinian 'state' a mere demilitarised zone, toothless, not able to defend itself in any way, its citizens not even able to fly in and out independently.

Further, there are several references to Israel as a "Jewish state" and a "state of the Jewish people." If this means anything at all, it is racist: implying exclusivity, that non-Jews are not welcome (as indeed they are not) and are second class people in the 'Jewish' state, otherwise why use the term? On this site I have tried to be scrupulous in my terminology: my distaste for Israel's policies and actions should not be confused with a genuine respect for Jewish people everywhere and Judaism as a religion. It seems to me that the deliberate mixing of 'Israel' and 'Jewish' is geared simply to make it easier for people like myself to be accused of anti-semitism. Well, I will continue to use only the term 'Israel' in my criticism of state action.

Finally, from the same speech: "The refugee problem must be solved outside of Israeli borders. Their return goes against the principle of Israel as a Jewish state." As a statement of 'principle' this is breathtakingly racist, inhumane and fascist in nature. It directly echoes Hitler's view of Nazi Germany as only for "Aryans", not for Jews. Nowhere else in the world would a leader say such things and not expect the condemnation of the rest of the world. The refugees belonged in the land that is now Israel, many still have the deeds and keys to their former homes. Israel should not and should not be allowed to wash her hands of a problem that she herself created.

June 11th 2009

   To a large extent it must represent domestic Israeli politics but it is interesting what Ehud Barak, Israel's Defence Minister said this week. "You know the government is made up of several parties. Our party, the Labor party, joined the government, among other reasons, because we agreed that this government will abide by all agreements made by previous governments. That's why we think we should clearly state that we commend President Obama's initiative, that we are committed to the Road Map and that we want two states for two peoples, all this without compromising on our security concerns. It would not be right for Israel to get in the way of American efforts to form a Palestinian state according to the vision of two states for two peoples. Pre-empting what Binyamin Netanyahu will say on Sunday, or an indication of division? He also, unfortunately, threw out hints of possible Israeli action on Iran: . "When we said we are not taking any options off the table, [regarding Iran] it's like a hint that we are also considering other things, without talking about them, and we mean it. But because there are cameras and recording equipment here, I cannot say any more than that."

In this context it is depressing that Israel, even if allowing the possibility of a two state solution, demands that any Palestinian state should be demilitarised. So: it's OK for Israel to devastate Lebanon in 'self-defence', to devastate Gaza in 'self-defence', to attack Iraq unilaterally in a pre-emptive strike, to threaten Iran unilaterally, but a putative neighbouring state would not be allowed any means of defence. Yes, Israel has been attacked far too much and far too often, but the damage Israel has caused to all her neighbours is out of all proportion to the actual threat posed by her neighbours. Any independent state has, unfortunately in the present uncivilised way of human behaviour, the right to defend itself, otherwise it is not independent, but a mere vassal of another state. If I were a Palestinian, in the context of the history of the region, I would not agree to such a status.

June 9th 2009

   The UK government has learned nothing over the expenses issue. Shahid Malik stepped down after it was revealed that he may have broken the ministerial code relating to low rental on a property and that he claimed £730 fro a massage chair, plus £2,600 for a home cinema sytem and £65 for a summons for not paying council tax. The government announced that Sir Philip Mawer to investigate. Well, Sir Philip's report has been carried out, but only into the alleged breach of the ministerial code. Furthermore, the report is not going to be made public because "It is not our intention to publish the report. It goes into quite a lot of detail about Mr Malik's personal affairs." A redacted version removing the personal details will not be issued either. So the government follows its old way of limiting severely any investigation (as in the various watered down 'investigations' into the Iraq war) and failing to be transparent.

So much for thoroughly investigating MPs' claims which may have broken the requirement to honour the rule: "You should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious." in order to begin the task of restoring public confidence. The inference is that so many MPs have made "extravagant" and "luxurious" claims that there would be few left.

Shahid Malik has now been appointed a junior communities minister. He commented that his time (a few weeks) on the backbenchers had been "incredibly stressful" As stressful (he is a Yorkshire MP and a Muslim) as his constituents are about the BNP gaining an MEP for Yorkshire and Humberside?

June 8th 2009

   Everyone is wringing hands about the BNP MEPs being elected. Well, remembering the Edmund Burke saying: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." then the fault lies with those mainstream voters who did not bother to vote. Whilst not comparing the BNP with Hitler (their manifesto is carefully worded), we should not forget that Hitler first came to power via a democratic process: Germany was a democracy at the time. It also points up again the danger of the draconian laws that this UK government has passed to reduce our liberties: they are ideally suited to be used/abused by extreme parties. We should never fall for the "We won't abuse the powers" argument, unless we are more stupid than Red Riding Hood.

June 6th 2009

   What a welcome change from George Bush: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." And: "Let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed." Barack Obama.

A remarkably similar to the words of the Pope recently - certainly regarding the plight of the Palestinians.

Israeli government spokesma Zalman Shoval: "No democratic government can be expected to stop people, hundreds of thousands of people, living legally and under the law, wherever they live, of having children or putting up additional buildings. Look, this is not a dispute; this is a fact of life." The flaw in this response? The words "living legally and under the law". Each and every West Bank settlement is illegal as they go beyond what the international community agreed to be the boundaries of the state of Israel. Any country which annexes land unilaterally becomes a colonial power. As has been written before, Israel is a colonial power, one of the few left, a colonial power that not only builds illegal settlements for its own citizens, displacing those already living there, but also a power which oppresses and humiliates the occupied population, a fact that Barack Obama also noted.

Back

May 2009

May 29th 2009

   "We see it as a racist statement to say that the Jews can't have children, or that Jews can't build their houses, or the Jews can't add a room onto their house because they want to have a larger house." An Israeli settler. Well, as far as I know, no-one is saying Jews cannot have children and no-one is denying the right of Jews to build and enlarge homes in Israel. What the world is saying is that Jewish settlers in the West Bank should not build or enlarge homes on other peoples' land. International law is quite clear. UN resolutions are quite clear. If Israel were willing to be the remotest bit reasonable and fair she would agree to the 1967 borders. International law would rule in favour of the 1948 borders. The Palestinians, in even considering the 1967 borders, are making huge concessions.

May 23rd 2009

   Most commentators seem to agree on two things concerning the UK MPs' expenses fiasco. One, the way forward should not be party politically based. Two, that the sooner a way forward is found the better. Well, this suggestion may suit. All MPs - who should by now have intimate knowledge of their own expenses, even if the Telegraph hasn't got around to them yet - circulate to their constituents all expenses claimed over the last four years. Clearly this would be summary form, but the stipulation would be that if subsequently the list is found to be inaccurate, misleading or incomplete, the MP forfeits the right to stand again. This to be done in the next fortnight. Secondly, each party agrees to a vote on each MP by their constituents, having seen the expenses list, on whether or not the MP is acceptable to the constituents. As a general election takes place within 3 weeks, this could be done within three weeks. Any MP falling below, say, 40% of the votes cast (constituents supporting another party might vote against a 'clean', respected MP) would be ineligble to stand at the next election.

May 21st 2009

   "I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts had failed. Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values, but no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things." Dick Cheney. "Unpleasant things" being of course torture. "Captured terrorist" being so labelled without any process of law. So Dick Cheney believes that the American people's moral values include torturing a suspect, a suspect that only the CIA and other agencies have decided is not "innocent". He believes that Americans are prepared to have suspects tortured in order to advance their own safety. I hope his view of Americans is wrong.

Dick Cheney works on the 'principle' that the end justifies the means. This is a threadbare, unethical way of thinking and behaving. No 'end' justifies unethical behaviour and torture is profoundly unethical.

May 17th 2009

   "The Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) reimburses Members of Parliament for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence (referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes."

"You must ensure that arrangements for your ACA claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money. Members should bear in mind the need to obtain value for money from accommodation, goods or services funded from the allowances."

"You should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious."

These are some of the rules which MPs have fiercely professed to have followed. So:

£300 for Mock Tudor beams?

£1,800 for a rug?

£18,000 for 2 bookcases?

£8,000 for a TV?

£2,600 for a home cinema system?

£730 for a massage chair?

Some examples of what MPs thought were "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred" for their duties and which were not "for purely personal or political purposes" and were not "extravagant or luxurious."

These claims do not say much about MPs judgement and that some were allowed does not say much about the fees office.

This does not even start to address the issue of those who claim mortgage interest which was not actually being paid: a prima facie case of fraud only defensible if a judge and jury really believed it was a genuine oversight. I wouldn't like to defend myself against a charge for which my only argument was my intention.

May 15th 2009

   It makes a change to welcome good news from the UK government, but Jack Straw's withdrawal of proposals to hold inquests in secret is welcome. A pity that the change of tack is only because he believes he could not get it through Parliament but this is also welcome. Parliamentary democracy is still (just) alive.

May 13th 2009

   It is surprising, but welcome, that the Pope was so clear in his stance on Israel-Palestine:

"The Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your fathers, secure and at peace with its neighbours, within internationally recognised borders"

"I know how much you have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the turmoil that has afflicted this land for decades. Have the courage to resist any temptation you may feel to resort to acts of violence or terrorism. Instead, let what you have experienced renew your determination to build peace. My heart goes out to all the families who have lost so much"

"My heart goes out to the pilgrims from war-torn Gaza. Please be assured of my solidarity with you in the immense work of rebuilding which now lies ahead, and my prayers that the embargo will soon be lifted."

It is quite clear: The Palestinians deserve a homeland, violence should not be used to achieve it, the blockade of Gaza should be lifted. I believe few outsiders will have difficulty accepting those statements.

Will Israel's leaders respond positively? Or will they resort to the usual charges of anti-semitism, bias against Israel etc?

May 10th 2009

   Have you noticed the illogicality in the various UK MPs and ministers about the expenses revelations? It is that they all say that the rules are wrong but justify what they have claimed by saying that their claims are within the rules. So are we expected to accept that our rulers obey rules that they claim to be wrong? To their credit, some ministers appear not to have taken advantage of the clearly lax and inadequate rules. Those that have taken advantage may not have done anything illegal but what they have done is certainly unethical. Of the two alternative courses, illegality or unethicality, I would rather my MP do something illegal, on principle, disagreeing with the law, rather than obeying rules to his/her advantage which s/he knows to be unethical.

May 5th 2009

   It used to be Iraq, Egpyt, Jordan, Syria. Now that Israel is running out of neigbouring states that are obstacles to peace with the Palestinians, Iran is the problem. No matter, that like Iraq, there is even less evidence of WMD, of the nuclear variety. Iran is the convenient obstacle.

"The biggest obstacle to a comprehensive solution is not Israel. It's not the Palestinians. It's the Iranians. It's impossible to combat any problem in our region without resolving the Iranian problem. This relates to Lebanon, to influence in Syria, their deep involvement with Egypt, in the Gaza Strip, in Iraq. If the international community wants to resolve its Middle East problems, it's impossible because the biggest obstacle to this solution is the Iranians." Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Israel must dread the US coming up with an accord with Iran to resolve the Iranian "problem".

Meanwhile, Israel criticises the UN report which finds Israel culpable in 6 out of 9 incidents where Palestinians died under UN protection: "The commission prefers the positions of Hamas, a murderous terror organization, and by doing so misleads the world public." Hamas is a murderous terrorist organisation, but that does not means that it always, or even frequently, lies. Strange how Israel always accuses those who are critical of being biased. Maybe some of the criticism is justified. Just maybe.

May 4th 2009

   30 Years since Margaret Thatcher came to power. The accolades pour in. Why? David Cameron praises her for "bringing the trade (sic) unions within the law". What she actually did was pass laws stripping labour of any real power: this was part of the plan to provide unfettered power to business, ie unfettered power to capital. Amongst other policies it directly led to the gross imbalance of power between the factors of production which led to the current financial crisis. She demolished British industry in the process, believing that the control of money and the need therefore to build up the financial sector was all-important. Again, we know where that has led us. Abolition of exchange controls led to globalisation, with all its attendant ills. Privatisation led to riches for some, little or no improvement in services for the many.

"Thatcherism" was always a gamble (how appropriate: as the City exists purely to gamble, usually with other peoples' money). It was always divisive. It was always likely lead to a greater gap between rich and poor in the UK and a greater gap between rich countries and poorer countries. It was a gamble thar ultimately failed everyone: even the "winners" have been corrupted by the worship of money. Only a radical change in values and a willingness on the part of governments to govern for the sake of all, not just the few, will redress the baleful legacy of Thatcherism.

Back

April 2009

April 27th 2009

   In my web browsing I came across an advertisement for a trip to Israel, aimed at Americans. Amongst other delights, they will be offered the following experiences:

briefings by Mossad officials and commanders of the Shin Bet, briefing by officers in the IDF Intelligence and Operations branches, inside tour of the IAF unit who carries out targeted killings, live exhibition of penetration raids in Arab territory, observe a trial of Hamas terrorists in an IDF military court, first hand tours of the Lebanese front-line military positions and the Gaza border check-points, inside tour of the controversial Security Fence and secret intelligence bases,meeting Israel's Arab agents who infiltrate the terrorist groups and provide real-time intelligence. See THE ULTIMATE MISSION TO ISRAEL Monday, June 8 – Monday, June 15, 2009

I hope those that paid US$2,795 plus air fare enjoyed their vacation.

April 23rd 2009

   Just about the most fundamental principle of any judicial system that honours justice is that everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty by due process of law. The UK has thrown away that fundamental principle and the latest example is that of the young Pakistani students who were considered to be plotting a terrorist attack, but no, or insufficient, evidence has been found. No, or insufficient is all we can say because the whole process is shrouded in secrecy, thus violating another fundamental principle of justice: it needs to be seen to be done. Having been "released" without charge, these students have simply been transferred into the custody of the UK Borders Agency. If the process follows the usual course, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) will have the final decision on whether or not they are deported. SIAC conducts its affairs behind closed doors. So no-one will ever know to what extent, if any, one or more of these students are guilty of anything, but it is significant that a judge refused to allow the police to hold the men any longer: probably because of the sheer lack of credible evidence against them. We have to assume that judges will err on the side of caution whilst investigations are being carried out. So eleven possible innocent people's lives are blighted, anti-UK and anti-Western anger is fuelled, the country is less rather than more safe.

Would not a better result, more consistent with justice, have been to release the men, with the warning: "We will watch you like hawks, one solid piece of evidence that invalidates your visa sees you on the next plane home." If they are innocent, no problem. If they are guilty, deporting them to Pakistan risks giving them the freedom to continue to plot.

April 21st 2009

   Why are the nations up in arms about the accusation that Israel is a racist state? Just two examples provide the proof. Any Jew, from anywhere in the world, has the right to settle in Israel. No Palestinian, having fled from what is now Israel during the conflict as Israel was founded, is denied any right to return, even if he or she has the deeds and keys to their former home. Secondly, any Israeli who marries a Palestinian must either live singly in Israel, or live together with his or her spouse in the West Bank or Gaza. If these are not racist policies, then the term racist is meaningless.

   I have written the the police in the UK are rapidly becoming the enemy of the people. Now we find out from former senior police officers - who are taking the G20 police tactics to Chief Inspector of Constabulary - that police are trained to regard the public as their enemy in protest situations: "Officers are trained to be on guard against attack, to regard every situation, no matter how seemingly benign, as a threat situation. The lesson is that the public are your enemy." David Gilbertson, a retired Scotland Yard commander and assistant inspector of constabulary. No wonder then, with this sort of training, that some riot police hit out at any protester that gets near enough.

April 18th 2009

   Why does it not surprise me that police, in vainly trying to provide evidence for the Home Secretary to stop/reduce leaks, treated an opposition MP as though he were a serious criminal? It is reported that he was threatened with the prospect of life imprisonment, his home was thoroughly searched and photographed. Reading love letters between him and his wife, checking their daughter's music book, searching the bed, telling his wife that they would have smashed the door down if there had been no-one at home. Now it is revealed that their search went much wider: into the activities of Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty. Since when had there been any indication, or opinion expressed, that Liberty, or Shami Chakrabarti, are in any way undertaking activities that threaten the security of the UK?

Let us not forget that these raids were under cover of the draconian anti-terrorism laws. It is another example of how bad law - justified by the government that it will not be mis-used - does get mis-used and in short order. Since 1997 the UK government has become more and more authoritarian and has passed laws that pander to the more authoritarian and Stalinesque sections of the police.

The findings of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in deciding there was no point in prosecuting included the following: "The information contained in the documents was not secret information or information affecting national security: it did not relate to military, policing or intelligence matters. It did not expose anyone to a risk of injury or death. Nor, in many respects, was it highly confidential. Much of it was known to others outside the civil service, for example, in the security industry or the Labour Party or Parliament. These examples are not an exhaustive list of the types of information that may be damaging for the purposes of the offence of misconduct in public office." In other words, this was a 'normal' leaking. Regrettable maybe, but not justifying the full drama of raiding the Houses of Parliament, ransacking houses and perhaps most importantly, taking the opportunity to check on the activities of others not involved in this but who are critical of the government.

This site, with others, has for a long time been warning of the slide into a police state. That is why I am not surprised. When is the general public going to wake up to this?

April 15th 2009

   In view of Daniel Barenboim's courageous development of the East-West Divan orchestra - an orchestra composed of young Israeli Jews and Palestinians Arabs - it is sad to see the reactions of the Palestinian authorities to Wafa Younis. Wafa Younis, an Israeli-Arab, had taken her West Bank Strings of Freedom youth orchestra to the Israel town of Holon as part of Good Deeds Day. Her 'crime'? To play for some elderly Jewish Holocaust survivors. Her orchestra has now been disbanded and her life threatened. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict badly needs some 'good deeds', some reaching out, some communication of common humanity and shared values. Music can provide a vehicle for this. Instead, mistrust and ill-feeling have been increased by this mean-spirited reaction.

April 11th 2009

   Let us assume the worst case scenario, even though there is no evidence for this. Ian Tomlinson was shouting abusive comments to and about the police, the police involved had just been severely provoked, were tired, had seen fellow officers abused and assaulted. Even in these circumstances there is no excuse for a lone man, hands in pockets, back to the police, no-one else in sight, to be assaulted from behind in such a way that he fell heavily. That he died was tragic and may have no connection with the assault - although there are allegations of other police actions against him not caught on camera. But had he not died, the incidence would have gone un-noticed. Now there are 120 allegations so far regarding police behaviour during the G20 summit.

One would expect a full, independent judicial review of what happened, but under this government that is most unlikely. We are still a long way from returning the police into an organisation which serves the people, rather than what it does now with increasing brutality: serving the interests of those currently in power, whether or not those interests coincide with those of the people.

April 7th 2009

   No wonder our politicians are in such disrepute. The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said in an interview that her expenses claim for two houses are legitimate because she has "furnished two houses" (one in London, one in Redditch). In the same interview she said she shared the London home with her sister. So, either she is claiming half of the costs of the London home and so has not "furnished two homes" or the taxpayer is paying for the costs of furnishing a home for the Home Secretary's sister as well as the Home Secretary.

Meanwhile Margaret Beckett, Alastair Darling and Geoff Hoon are all said to have lived rent-free in state-provided London residences whilst renting out their London homes and claiming expenses for a home in their constituency. All say that they are acting within the rules. If so, the rules not only need to be changed quickly, but it is high time that MPs and Ministers acted within the spirit of the rules, not the letter. What they are doing may be 'legal', but it is certainly unethical. Rather in the same category as Fred Goodwin, with less money involved.

April 3rd 2009

   An apology to those who access this site frequently. My web host let me down badly and I have been off the air for a week. Not only that, all my emails appear to have been deleted. I had in any case to reload the entire site manually yesterday. I am looking for another host.

   The police in the UK are becoming more and more the enemy of the people rather than an organisation set up to protect the people. Yesterday again we saw the odious tactic of "kettling", ie the penning in of people for hours at a time, refusing to let them out, irrespective of whether or not they were protesters, appearing to be potentially violent etc etc. When, eventually, the police were willing to let anyone leave, they insisted on taking the person's name and address and taking a photograph of them. Those that refused were put back in the pen.

This is not how a society which calls itself free and democratic behaves. Violent protest has to be stopped robustly, but peaceful protesters - who have every right not only to protest but more importantly have the right of free passage - should not be harrassed and humilated (eg having to urinate in public) in this way. The slippery slope gets steeper.

Back

March 2009

March 30th 2009

   Well, it didn't take long. The Israeli soldiers' reports of violations of human rights by the IDF in Gaza have been dismissed as "hearsay" by Israel. How convenient. What is also convenient is that no-one knows who made the statements and whether or not they had been anywhere near the alleged events.

Justice delayed is not justice, neither is unseen 'justice'.

March 24th 2009

   A UK government whip claims over £37,000 for "expenses" in having two homes. One home is in Wembley, the other in Stratford (London). Both are about 30 minutes away from Westminster by underground, 8 or 9 miles by car. A UK government minister claims £60,000 for two homes in London, one in Harrow, the other in Hammersmith.

The response of MPs? Oh, we will give up the allowance in exchange for an increase in salary of £36,709 on the present salary of £63,291. An increase of 37%. At a time of financial crisis, with hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. Desmond Swayne MP: "A clean reform would be to give MPs an incremental salary and take away the allowances. The current system is a constant source of grievance for the public, who now hold us in contempt. They hate us and think we all have our snouts in the trough."

Does he think the public will not hold MPs in contempt and see them as having their noses in the trough if they award themselves a 37% increase? And they have the gall to criticise Fred (he doesn't deserve the "Sir") Goodwin!

The Tony McNultys and Dawn Butlers of this world, who show a greed of dubious legality and is certainly not ethical should be termed "doing a Fred Goodwin". Fred Goodwins' persistence in taking the taxpayer's widow's mite should be 'rewarded' by a such a phrase. He deserves to remembered with disdain in perpetuity.

March 23rd 2009

   So Israel may have as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. The same Avigdor Lieberman who lives in an illegal Israeli settlement, Noquedim, in the West Bank. Who has said:

"If he wants to speak with us then let him come over here. If he doesn't want to come, then he can go to hell." Said of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's President.

"Any attempt or removal of settlements or outposts, as far as we are concerned, will force us to quit immediately."

"From our point of view, the concept of land for peace is out of the question. The principle must be exchanges of territory and population."

"It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that’s the lowest point in the world." Of Palestinian prisoners.

"The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions - that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main fact of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict."

"Our problem is not with the Palestinians but with the Israeli Arabs." Which is presumably why he wants to remove all Arabs from Israel.

"All negotiations on the basis of land for peace are a tragic mistake. Whoever says the conflict is over territory is misleading the public. If we go back to pre-1967 lines, the conflict and the terror won't end. We cannot accept the asymmetry of a Palestinian state and a binational state with a sizable Arab minority. That's why the solution has to be exchanges of population and territories and not land for peace." Sounds like policy of ethnic purity to me. Where have we heard that before? The Balkans and, oh yes, Hitler's Germany.

"I fear that this mission has absolutely no chance." On former Senator George Mitchell's arrival in Israel as President Obama's emissary.

These are the words of the man chosen to represent Israel to the outside world.

March 16th 2009

   The UK government has predictably rejected calls to set a minimum price on alcohol. Yet something needs to be done and the technology is available. If there was a law to specify the maximum level of alcohol in the blood - on the lines of the present driving limits, but higher - then we would have a definitive, measurable test of alcohol abuse. At present the 'drunk and disorderly' law is too vague. A specific crime of having too much alcohol in the blood would not affect those who drink sensibly, could be targetted at those who put themselves and others at risk. For example, A & E departments could request a blood test (could probably do it themselves) to be taken by the police. Alcohol-related illness cost the NHS £3bn per year. Penalties should include fines and community service. I see no reason why the offence should not be made universal, but would draw the line at random testing. So if the police had reason to believe a person was over the limit, a test could be administered, wherever the person was - even in their own homes. Sounds draconian, but many women who suffer at the hands of drunk, abusive partners would welcome such support.

March 11th 2009

   We now know that in the UK, if you participate in a lawful, peaceful protest, your photograph will be taken and your details stored on a national database. We also know that the UK government is rolling out a programme that enables the government to collect details of everyone who enters or leaves the country by rail, sea or air and keep those details on a database for 10 years. These details will include contact details, financial information etc. We also know that the government intend to distribute patient details kept in the NHS to other organisations, such as insurance companies, no doubt selling such information.

Meanwhile, shots on the television showing for example, police officers at peaceful protests, officials accompanying Binyam Mohamed off the plane from Guantanamo Bay blur their faces so they cannot be identified.

Can you think of a better way to divide the nation into them and us? We, the proletariat, can be photographed, personal details kept, sold on, frequently lost, treated as though we have no right to privacy, treated as if we were, or could become, criminals, whilst those responsible for keeping those in authority in power are protected by anonymity. I think you will search long and hard to find a police officer in the UK charged after a civilian is killed by police, let alone a successful prosecution. See: Inquest

The forces of law and order must be an integral part of the community or we will indeed become a police state. We are well on that road.

March 6th 2009

   The neo cons are still in charge. Western politicians are still talking as globalisation is good for the planet, that "protectionism" is bad, that capitalism is the only way to organise our economic affairs, that large multi-nationals provide more benefits than the difficulties - in tax avoidance and wage depression - they create in enabling states to run their own countries.

Which country - or grouping as in the EU group - will be the first to set different priorities? A policy which says that if we can make it/provide it, we will, even if it is not at the lowest global price. This helps to fulfil one of the highest responsibilities of a nation state: full employment. A policy which rewards, massively, the development of small businesses, thus also aiding employment and paving the way to the third policy. Saying to the multi-nationals: you will pay the going rate for labour in this country and you will pay a fair rate (ie higher) of tax so that we can provide decent services for our citizens. If you don't like it and leave, we will survive without being blackmailed by you. A policy which manages the flow of capital into and out of the country so that greedy speculators stop ripping us off. A policy which aims to reduce the gap between the richest and the poorest, as we know that such inequalities come with a high price, crime being just one.

I am well aware that such policies would fall foul of such organisations like the WTO. Tough. Let these agreements go. It is time governments started to concentrate on two ares: reduce/eliminate the power of the multi nationals and reduce the focus on economics and switch to focussing on what sort of society they want to foster. Trade agreements can be renegotiated and form, or should only form, part of what governments are there for.

Back

February 2009

February 26th 2009

   First the UK government allows private companies to cream off the most lucrative parts of the UK mail service (bulk mail). Royal Mail is still expected to deliver each and every letter to each and every property in the country six days a week. The payment made to the Royal Mail by the commercial bulk mail companies to deliver all this mail by hand is capped by regulation (we can't have a monopoly, especially a public monopoly, making profits). Now the government is shocked - it cannot be surprised given the arrangements summarised above - that Royal Mail is not making enough money to support its pension scheme. It is amazing, given the loss of the profitable part of the business and the duty to deliver 99% of mail to the end recipient that Royal Mail makes any sort of profit. So private capital - privatisation by another name - is to be introduced in order to make it more 'competitive' and the pensions deficit is to be passed to the taxpayer. Once again private capital will be provided with the means to make profits whilst awkward costs are shuffled off to the taxpayer. Once again there is a blind belief in the mantra: "private is good, public sector is bad".

Truly we live in the Orwellian world. Remember "four legs good, two legs bad?"

February 25th 2009

   In the UK we have a Freedom of Information Act which, as far as the activities of government is concerned, may as well not exist. What is the point of having an Information Commissioner and an Information Tribunal to rule if it is in the public interest to release information if Government Ministers can simply veto the ruling? We may as well have a legal system in which judges' decisions as to whether a person is guilty or not guilty can be overturned by the government.

Oh yes, I forgot. We do indeed have such a legal "system". BAe, Binyam Mohamed, the detention of terrorist suspects: all are above the due process of law. Three cheers for democracy!

   Re Binyam Mohamed. There is much debate about whetehr he should be free or not. Well, even if he were a terrorist, even if he were to go on the commit terrorist atrocities, the US and UK governments bear the blame for illtreating him and rendering any evidence inadmissable. When will the US/UK axis realise that the rule of law, objectively applied, is our greatest source of security and claim to be civilised?

February 24th 2009

   "Europeans must understand that Hamas is a dangerous and murderous terrorist organisation and must stop immediately showing any sympathy and support as this attitude prevents the continuation of the peace process." Israel's President, Shimon Peres. Hamas may be a terrorist organisation. So is/was the IRA. The only way to peace is to talk to every organisation involved. Leaving groups out does not marginalise them or cause them to wither away. It is just as likely to draw more support for them from the disaffected.

Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is calling for a national unity government which will include Hamas. Will Israel boycott such an organisation if it were ever formed? Probably, as it serves Israel's purpose for the peace process to proceed slowly, if at all. After all, in spite of all the rhetoric from Israel, it is the Palestinians who suffer the most from the lack of peace.

February 18th 2009

   I see that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) is publishing its own figures on the Palestinians killed in the attacks on Gaza. The Palestinians say that 1,338 Gazans were killed, of which 895 were civilians. The IDF via its Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) function claims to have identified 1,200 Gazans killed and that 580 of those were conclusively "incriminated" as militants. Leaving aside this "incrimination" - would it pass any process of law - the IDF figures still show more than half of those killed to be civilians. The IDF also identified 300 of those killed as women, children and and men over 65. They are busy trying to see how many of the remaining 320 can be placed into the "militant" category.

The figures become meaningless in that each side tries to justify its stance, but even if all the 320 men could be proved to be Hamas fighters, this still leaves the IDF figures showing a quarter of all fatalities as being non-combatants. What else (and maybe worse) can anyone expect when crowded urban areas are hit by 2,000 pound bombs? The word irresponsible does not even start to cover it. Criminal recklessness is nearer the mark.

There remains the wider issue: even if all the casualties and fatalities could be conclusively proved to be "militants" or "combatants" or "terrorists", how can it be justified that all and sundry are just bombed to extinction? Gazans are officially under the protection of Israel: Gaza is not a state, has no armed forces, no independent access to the outside world. Israel oppresses the population for which it bears responsibility to the edge of starvation, then bombs that population with all the force of modern warfare employed between armies (short of a nuclear strike) from land, air and sea. Because? Because mainland Israeli cities are being bombed from Gaza? Because hundreds or thousands of Israelis are being wounded or killed? No, because a few hundred, maybe a few thousand "miltants", "combatants", "terrorists" have fashioned home made rockets and some have landed in Israeli towns. Crimes certainly. Acts that should be punished. But no-one can possibly justify the carnage wreaked on Gaza, whether the 'true' figures are those of Hamas or Israel.

February 12th 2009

   The results, when they are finalised, will show that Israelis have learned nothing. The failed policies of violent confrontation, which have increased with the attacks on Lebanon and Gaza have not enabled Israelis to learn the lesson that violence solves nothing and creates more problems. There is only one logical conclusion to these policies: the complete destruction of the West Bank and Gaza, their annexation by Israel and settlement of the territories by ethnic Jews. I assume the US and the world will not let that happen (and believe also that only a minority of Israelis wish it). Why then pursue policies which have no chance of conclusion?

The intention of Yisrael Beiteinu to demand 'loyalty' oaths from Israeli Arabs is contemptible. We in the UK have a party with similar concepts: it's called the BNP. Whilst analysts are pessimistic about how the US may now be able to further the peace process, I believe that Barack Obama has a simple but effective option. He can reduce aid, substantially, to Israel and he could also make his "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." statement apply specifically and explicitly to Israel. The world needs to know that the US is willing to apply pressure to rogue states of whatever creed or nationality.

February 2nd 2009

   An oil refinery in the UK contracts with an American corporation in California to carry out work at the refinery. The US company sub-contracts the work to an Italian company. The Italian company ships its Italian workers to the UK, putting them up on acommodation barges for the duration. The UK government sees nothing wrong with this. Well, just about everything is wrong with it. I am a staunch supporter of the EU and have no problems with the free movement of labour, but note that no UK organisation has had any say in these arrangements. So what is wrong? The UK has allowed its strategic industries to be taken over by overseas companies. Companies now, for the sake of avoiding employment costs, contract out, thus losing direct control of the staff doing the work. The contractor then sub-contracts, weakening still further any control the original company has. Worst of all, the sub-contractor ships workers around the world like so many mercenaries, not even bothering to check if home-grown labour could do the job.

It is these arrangements that the UK government is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge. The anger is not to do with labour in one country competing with labour in another. It is the craven way in which successive governments have allowed key industries to slip outside direct UK control, the use of contracts to force people into short term employment, the use of what are effectively mercenary forces, rather than individuals who choose where to work.

I hope the protests continue and bring the government to a position where sense will prevail and some regulation is introduced.

Frbruary 1st 2009

   "If there will be firing on residents of the south, there will be a strong Israeli reaction that will be disproportionate. We will act according to new rules that ensure we will not be dragged into an incessant shoot-out that prevents us from living normal lives in the south." Ehud Olmert, Israeli Prime Minister. "Disproportionate"? How more disproportionate can Israel's actions get? How can Israel have the arrogance to use a word that by common consent causes the state that acts 'disproportionately' to condemnation by world opinion? Equally, "We will act according to new rules": rules? Rules made up by Israel, internal rules, undeclared rules. The word is meaningless: the words strategy or tactics are the more accurate.

So, Israel has decided to act even more disproportionately, to act even more outside the rule (actual rule) of international law, to inflict more suffering on innocent people. Before anyone says 'self defence' (eg Hillary Clinton), if someone taps me on the nose, I am not entitled in self defence to shoot or stab him. The argument of self defence is always accompanied by the word proportionate. Israel thus puts itself outside the law.

Back

January 2009

January 28th 2009

   Following the cease-fire, Israeli ships continued to shell Palestinian civilians on Gaza beach and refugee camps. No comment from the outside world. Gazans blow up an Israeli military jeep: all the world shouts about a violation of the cease-fire. Israel bombs Southern Gaza, reportedly striking at the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt. Israel refuses to allow cement and iron bars into Gaza, both rather crucial in any reconstruction work following the destruction wreaked upon the infrastructure in Gaza. Is there any wonder that the tunnels were built and will continue to be built? The tunnels are the only reasom why Gazans have survived at all.

"Israel is going to act according to a new equation. We are not going to show restraint anymore." Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Having killed over 1,300 Palestinians in the last few weeks and wounded over 5,000, what does she mean? Next time - today, tomorrow, next week? - Israel will kill 2,000 Palestinians, 5,000, 10,000?

"Hamas controls Gaza and is responsible for everything that happens. Whenever they fire at me from Gaza, set off a bomb or launch a missile or smuggle, Israel will respond." Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Presumably she also accepts responsibility for any unlawful killing of Palestinian civilians by the IDF? Whatever the circumstances and history of the Middle East, Israel is now a state out of control, a rogue state, like an animal that, having been bitten and continuing to be bitten by insects (Palestininas cannot inflict any serious harm on Israel) goes on a rampage of killing anything and anyone in sight.

Gaza may be razed to the ground; it will not stop the conflict. Israel and the world know this. When is Israel going to stop these futile killings and actually look for a solution?

January 25th 2009

   Two sad examples of inhumanity. First of all the decision by the BBC not to screen a humanitarian appeal for the people of Gaza. Any human being in need deserves support, no matter what the reason for their need. The BBC's decision means that Gazans are rated as less worthy that Rwandans, people of Darfur, Sri Lanka, Burma. It is an indefensible decision.

Secondly the complaints by British troops that wounded Taliban fighters are being treated on the same wards as wounded British troops. Are they not people? Also, in spite of the fact that I have no sympathy for the Taliban, whose regime was odious in many respects, they were ruling Afghanistan until the allies invaded. The Taliban therefore are fighting to regain (may they not succeed) their land against foreign occupiers. Might it be that they feel "uncomfortable" at sharing the same wards as those of their wounded occupiers? Again, the rights and wrongs of a person's views and actions are irrelevant when a person is in need. Whatever our differences we share a common humanity, common needs. We have more things in common than things which divide us. I was reminded only this morning of Edith Cavell's words, executed in the First World War by the Germans for treating allied and German soldiers equally: "I know now that patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred towards anyone". Would that some politicians learn this lesson.

January 23rd 2009

   I must have been just one amongst millions to breathe a sigh of relief at the sight of George Bush's helicopter taking off from the White House. The world suddenly seemed a better place. It is too early to tell if Barack Obama can retrieve America's reputation in the world, but it would be good if this site and others had much less to criticise in the future about the US.

   "As an army which is unsurpassed in its moral traditions, the IDF has done all that it can in order to adhere to international law, in order to avoid harming civilians who are not involved in fighting." says Ehud Barak. The use of phosphorous in weapons is banned in civilian areas and the evidence of its use in Gaza is pretty compelling proof of war crimes being perpetrated by Israel's armed forces, the IDF. Israel persists in asserting that it will carry out investigations into these incidents. Such investigations are irrelevant: it is not for Israel to decide whether or not war crimes were committed, it is for an international body to investigate. A suspected criminal's activities are not investigated by his family. An international tribunal is needed, under UN auspices, to investigate what happened in Gaza, on both sides. Only then might justice be done and be seen to be done.

January 16th 2009

   As a ceasefire in Gaza edges closer, attention is being paid to what were the objectives, where now, etc. Well, it is clear that Israel simply wanted to punish their own citizens in Gaza. Israel broke the cease fire by killing five Gazans on November 4th and when Hamas predictably retaliated, Israel then set about the punishment. It has been going on for decades: Israeli provocation, retaliation, the killing of Palestinians in large numbers. Have you noticed that, in spite of Israel complaining that the West Bank and Gaza are lawless, naturally the fault of the Palestinians, the first people killed are policemen etc. In other words Israel simply wants to make sure that the West Bank and Gaza remain divided and weak. Gaza can be left to rot and the West Bank can be steadily taken over as part of Israel. Apart from a flagrant disregard for civilian deaths, Israel concentrates on destroying the infrastructure. It was the same in Lebanon. What is alarming is that these 'punishments' are becoming more and more bloody and more frequent.

Where now? Two answers. What should happen after a ceasefire: the removal of Gaza from Israel's malign control, the opening up of the borders for normal trade and the establishment of a UN force both to enforce border controls, especially the elimination of arms importation, and to establish internal security in Gaza leading to the establishment of a viable administration. The investigation of actions on both sides and the referral of any breaches of international law referred to the appropriate courts. Barack Obama could facilitate this: Israel should be kept in line by a quiet word to them: back of, shut up and keep quiet for a while, or the aid stops. No need to make it public.

What will happen? Not the above. The international community will pussy foot around the issue, hoping that it will somehow sort itself out. Sooner or later the whole thing will flare up again. Thousands of Palestinians in the last few years, let alone the last few decades, will have died for absolutely nothing,

I hope I am wrong.

January 12th 2009

   “Israel is a country that reacts vigorously when its citizens are fired up, which is a good thing. That is something that Hamas now understands and that is how we are going to react in the future, if they so much as dare fire one missile at Israel.” So says Israel's Foreign Minister and would be Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni. So we can accurately predict the future unless the world forces Israel to change policy. Against a backdrop of Palestinians being cooped up in a ghetto, relative calm until the Palestinians either do fire a rocket or look capable of so doing, followed by 1,000 or so Palestinians killed by aircraft, naval and tank bombardment; another period of relative calm followed by etc etc. Israel has carried out this policy for over fifty years. Are we to face another fifty years of this utterly bankrupt and inhuman behaviour?

January 11th 2009

   British citizens sickened by what is happening in Gaza are invited to sign the petition asking for sanction against Israel wHich I have just come across: No 10 Petitions Israeli Sanctions

I have listened to Israeli spokespeople saying that their aim is to wipe out Hamas/militants, by violence of course as we are seeing. Even if every last militant and weapon are destroyed what then? Israel knows full well what then. The bitterness will create another generation of Palestinians resolved to use violence against Israel. Any respite will be temporary. Israel knows that full well. Israel also knows that talking and negotiation are the only ways to resolve disputes. We have to ask why Israel does not act on that knowledge and have to conclude that the killing of Palestinians is gratuitous. There is no ultimate purpose behind it. It is killing for the sake of it and there is absolutely no credibility in Israel's assertions that everything is done to prevent harm to civilians, not when you see these figures: 854 Palestinians dead, 270 are children, 68 women, and 90 elderly people. The claim also that Hamas is to be blame for breaking the cease fire is also false: the killing of six Hamas members on November 4th started it and a joint Tel Aviv University-European University study has shown that Israeli violence has been responsible for ending 79 per cent of all lulls in violence since the outbreak of the second intifada, compared with only 8 per cent for Hamas and other Palestinian factions.

We know that Israel provokes the violence and therefore conclude that Israel has a vested interest in maintaining a violent confrontation. The question is, what is the world going to do about it? It is our responsibility as well. Schiller wrote, and Beethoven set it to music, 'all men shall become brothers'. For that to happen all of us have to act as brothers. To all, Israeli, Palestinian, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc etc. We cannot leave it to 'the others'. We may not have the power of a head of state but we are not powerless and can use ehat power and influence we have.

January 9th 2009

   The details of the Zaytun killings and failure to aid the injured get worse. Israeli forces ordered the people into a house and told them not to leave. Twenty four hours later they shelled the house. Earth barricades were set up, meaning ambulances could not get through. The dead and injured were ignored for four days and when aid workers were allowed to help, they were fobidden to carry cameras, radios or mobile phones and had to evacuate the people by donkey cart. The actual circumstances may be different of course, but if anything warrants international investigation as a war crime, this is it.

The Israeli military continually asserts that it does all it can to avoid civilian casualties and also prides itself on the precision and accuracy of its weaponry targeting. Yet it appears that at least a third of all those killed so far are children. Which would Israel prefer to own up to: it does not care about civilians or the weaponry/training of its troops is poor?

We know that Israel prevents any reporting from Gaza, so that all we have are pictures and information transmitted from inhabitants with great difficulty. Contrast that with the invitation to over 30 journalists to Sderot to hear a presentation about the rocket attacks. Right on cue, two came in and within a few minutes the journalists were were inspecting the still hot fragments. No-one was hurt but the disparity in the visibility of the threat to Israel versus the suffering of the Palestinians matches the disparity between the weaponry each side uses.

January 8th 2009

   More evidence, if any were needed of Israel's disdain for any life other than Israeli life. It took four days for Israel to allow the International Red Cross to go into the Zaytun area of Gaza city. There they found four starving children alongside the corpses of their mother(s) and other people, twelve in all. For those four days, the Israeli soldiers were just 80 metres away. Can there be any clearer evidence of Israel's brutality and belief that the Palestinians are at best second class humans.

The grotesque three hour ceasfire each day - you can receive food and aid for three hours, then we will resume killing you - is not only inadequate - how can you get supplies to 750,000 people in three hours? - it is not even honoured. So two UN convoys are fired upon by Israel, even though the UN vehicles are clearly marked and their movements notified in advance to the Israeli military.

Fighting in a built up area, if it has to be done and this does not have to be done, must be carried out in a way which minimises civilian casualties but usually there is somewhere the civilian population can escape to. In Gaza there is nowhere to go to: Israel's grip on the noose in which it has strangles Gaza for more than fifty years ensures that, like the Nazi ghettos, those inside can be picked off at will. I abhor violence , but if Israel concluded that the threat from rockets was unacceptable and aimed to cut off the supply, as has been said, then the area immediately next to the Egyptian border could have been targeted, having given enough warning for the civilian population to flee to Gaza city. There was no need for all this carnage. Except the wish for communal punishment masquerading as legitimate defence.

Meanwhile the US Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, pass a motion supporting the Israeli actions. Mention is made of "our historic bond with the state of Israel" Historic? I am older than Israel. Truly we can understand why Iran calls the US 'the great Satan'.

January 7th 2009

   This week the BBC is broadcasting a dramatisation of The Diary of Anne Frank and the other day also broadcast a programme of diaries found two years' ago of a young Polish girl who eventually died (of cholera) in Auschwitz. Both are moving testimonies to the horrors perpetrated on the Jews by the Nazis. The parallels, especially in fact with the announcement that there will be a three hour pause in the destruction of lives and property in the Gaza ghetto, with the current Israeli operation in Gaza are striking. The forcible eviction of people from their homes just because the occupation forces want to use them, the arbitrary allowing of food and the equally arbitrary witholding of food, the casual killing of anyone who appears to be in the way, the blaming of 'the other' for anything that happens. The Nazis blamed it all on the Jews; the Israelis blame it all on the Palestinians. Effectively both Nazi and Israeli say to their adversary (which need not be an adversary) 'You are in our way. You are superfluous, unwanted, a nuisance.'

Israel has said that it will not stop until Hamas stops firing rockets. Can we interpret that as 'unless or until all Palestinians are dead?' Or is there a point at which even Israel will stop the slaughter before there is no-one left to kill.

I notice that the media refer to Israel as a 'Jewish state' more frequently. This is regrettable. Attacks on Jews have no place anywhere in the world and such language is likely to encourage the unthinking to conflate the Jewish people with the state of Israel. Jews, like all peoples, come in all shapes and sizes, act like all peoples across the ethical spectrum. The state of Israel on the other hand acts despotically, arrogantly (because the US bankrolls it in every way) and brutally towards anyone, internally or externally, who disagrees with it or acts against it.

The ground invasion of a densely populated area such as Gaza is totally uncivilised and should make Israel a pariah amongst nations. The 'no alternative' excuse is worthless: there are always alternatives. Israel chose this action. The 'any nation would do the same' is factually incorrect: a fragile peace in Ireland came not through F16s, helicopter gunships, tanks and infantry. It came through talking. The 'Hamas targets our civilians' excuse is is lacking all responsibility: a state has a duty to act in a civilised manner to all, especially towards its own citizens and, like it or not, the citizens of Gaza are Israeli citizens by nature of the absolute control over their every move by Israel. They should not be. The sooner someone with authority enables Gaza and the West Bank to be taken out of Israel's malign grip the better. The sooner the borders can be controlled by the UN and the Palestinians in both areas return to some semblance of normality, trading with other areas, able to manage their own economy - continuously crippled by Israel - the better. Any settlement, if any comes in my lifetime, which does not include the management of the borders between Palestine and Israel by the UN for the decades necessary until each side can start to trust the other will fail.

A final thought for this day, stemming from the BBC programmes mentioned above, a very bitter thought. Israel learned very well from the lessons of the Holocaust.

January 5th 2009

   I have wondered why Israel does not have the capacity to intercept the rockets being fires out of Gaza. Research indicates that there are technical difficulties in doing so, but I came across this interesting piece on this subject by Robert Ivker on The Jewish Policy Center's website. Whither Israeli Short Range Missile Defense? by Robert Ivker The interesting point for me is: "There is no doubt that the Jewish state has the ability to develop a missile defense system capable of reducing this threat. As one Israeli general stated, "Priorities, not budget, is the problem." To some in the military, Israel's continued vulnerability to Qassams and other deadly rockets stems from its historical reluctance to commit to missile defense. The reason for this is that it runs counter to the guiding principles of the Israel Defense Forces. Indeed, no matter how "active" the system is characterized, it is still defensive. The Israeli military takes pride in its proactive approach to warfare, always seeking to fight its battles as far as possible from its own civilian populations."

This in a nutshell sums up what we have witnessed of the last fifty years: Israel not concentrating on defending itself but aggressively attacking any state or organisation seen as a threat. So the principles of cost and pre-emptive strikes win out. Putting it another way, the costs of defence are largely transferred away from the Israeli taxpayer (or, more accurately, the American taxpayer) to the lives of Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians.

This aggressive principle was embedded into Israeli military policy from the beginning: attacking Egypt with France and Britain in 1956, a state just eight years' old willing and able to send warplanes to bomb the territory of another state.

There will be no peace in the Middle East until Israel changes its approach and only an American President can facilitate that. If this were to happen and if the other parties were wise enough to respond positively to this change, then peace could be established. The order however is as above: the USA to lay the boundaries and ground rules, Israel be seen to change. Hamas and the Palestinian people certainly have responsibilities, but there is a fundamental power principle involved. Those with more power, and Israel has massively more power than the whole of the Arab world, have the greater responsibilty to set the agenda, to make the first move. To say the opposite, which is what bankrupt Bush says, is the equivalent of saying that the French Resistance should have stopped their activities first and only then would their Nazi occupiers have had the responsibilty to change their tactics.

January 3rd 2009

   What do Israel and Zimbabwe have in common? What makes Ehud Olmert similar to Robert Mugabe? Robert Mugabe bans foreign reporters from Zimbabwe so that the outside world cannot see what he is doing to his people. Ehud Olmert, defying his own courts, does the same in banning reporters from seeing what he is doing to his people. For let us not forget, Israel has the responsibilty for the safety, health and economic state of the Occupied Territories. Israeli bombs are in effect raining down on Israeli citizens in that Palestinians are subject to Israeli rule under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The parallels with Zimbabwe continue: even if we set aside the totally unacceptable deaths of innocent civilians, what is the difference between the beatings and killings of MDC supporters in Zimbabwe and the assasinations of political leaders in Gaza? That Palestinian leaders can conveniently be called 'terrorists'? That in the sick Bush era terrorists, or those that are suspected of terrorism can be denied all human rights whatsoever and hunted down like prey even though no charges have or ever would be brought. What fundamental difference is there between Hamas rocket fire that by chance kills innocent people and Israeli rockets which by chance kill innocent people?

The difference is, or should be, that terrorists violate agreed behaviour in seeking to achieve political and military aims. States are expected to have a higher level of conduct and to follow internationally agreed behaviour. Israel fails in this respect and is therefore no better (and it can be argued is far worse because it has the responsibilities of a state) than those who fire rockets into Israel. Innocent people die because of unacceptable terrorist behaviour and I fully support efforts to stop terrorism and bring to justice all terrorists. In this respect all terrorists should include all those in power in states which carry out state terrorism. The people and the number of such states are many, but peace and justice will never be progressed whilst the present double standards continue.

Colloquially, two wrongs do not make a right. The USA, in its role as the major setter of standards, has done much since the Second World War to pretend that the US 'wrongs' (the long list of illegal interventions in other nations' affairs and governments) can make a situation 'right', thus eroding international standards of behaviour. How long before the US starts to set acceptable standards for the rest of the world to follow? A good start would be make it clear to Israel what the limits to Israel's power are. Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama could do it. Will he?

Back