"I S R A E L D E F E N S E F O R C E S

Order No. 1650

Order regarding Prevention of Infiltration (Amendment No. 2)

Pursuant to my authority as commander of IDF forces the Area, I hereby order as follows:

Amendment to Section 1 1. In the Order regarding Prevention of Infiltration (Judea and Samaria) (No. 329), 5729-1969 (hereinafter: the Order), In Section 1: A. The definition “lawfully” shall be deleted. B. The definition of “infiltrator” shall be replaced by: ““infiltrator” – a person who entered the Area unlawfully following the effective date, or a person who is present in the Area and does not lawfully hold a permit.”. C. The definition “resident of the Area” shall be deleted.

Amendment to Section 2 2. Section 2 shall be replaced by the following: “Sentencing of an Infiltrator 2. A. The infiltrator shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years. B. The provisions of Subsection (A) notwithstanding, where an infiltrator has proven his entry into the area was lawful – he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years.”.

Amendment to Section 3 3. In Section 3 of the Order: A. The following shall be added at the end of Subsection (A): “; for the purpose of its implementation, a deportation order shall be considered an arrest order issued under Section 78 of the Order regarding Security Provisions (Judea and Samaria) (No. 378) 5730-1970, this including for the purpose of carrying out the arrest inside Israel under Section 5(A)(1) of the Order regarding Punitive Measures (Judea and Samaria) (No. 322) 5729-1969.”

B. The following shall be inserted following Subsection (A):

A1. A deportation order shall not be issued under Subsection (A) until the infiltrator has been provided with the opportunity to plead before an IDF or Police officer and until the infiltrator’s claims had been brought to the attention of the military commander.

A2.Where a deportation order had been issued under Subsection (A), the infiltrator shall be deported from the Area as soon as possible, unless he leaves the Area of his free will earlier.

A3.Where a deportation order had been issued under Subsection (A), the infiltrator will be given information in writing or orally, as far as possible in a language he understands, regarding his rights under this Order as well as his right to have a person close to him or an attorney be notified of his being held in custody.”

“ C. The following shall be inserted following Subsection (B):

C. Where a deportation order had been issued under Subsection (A), the infiltrator shall not be deported unless 72 hours had elapsed from the time he was served the written deportation order, unless he agreed thereto; the military commander may delay the date of execution of the removal as per the request of a person against whom a removal order was issued.

D. The provisions of Subsection (C) notwithstanding, where the military commander is aware that the infiltrator had entered the Area some time ago, he may order his deportation before 72 hours elapse from the time he is served the written deportation order, provided the infiltrator is deported to the country or area from whence he infiltrated and the matter is executed within 72 hours of the time at which a soldier or police officer had reason to suspect that the same had infiltrated the Area.”.

Amendment to Section 4

4. In Section 4 of the Order, “life sentence” shall be replaced by “a term of imprisonment of twenty years”.

Replacement of Section 5

5. Section 5 of the Order shall be replaced by the following:

“Evidence 5. A. In any proceeding under this Order, a person is presumed to be an infiltrator if he is present in the Area without a document or permit which attest to his lawful presence in the Area without reasonable justification.

B. For the purpose of this Section – “A lawful document or permit” – a document or permit issued by the commander of IDF forces in the Judea and Samaria Area or someone acting on his behalf under the provisions of security legislation, or issued by the authorities of the State of Israel under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, as it is periodically valid inside Israel, which permit the presence of a person in the Area.”.

Addition of Sections 6A-6B

6. Section 6 of the Order shall be replaced by:

“Expenses of Execution of a Deportation Order

6. A military commander may charge the expenses of executing a deportation order, including the expenses incurred by holding in custody, on the infiltrator, provided the total expenses do not exceed NIS 7,500; the military commander may also order the seizure of the infiltrator’s monies to cover the expenses.

Release on Bail

6A. A. Where a deportation order was issued against an infiltrator under the provisions of this Order, the military commander may order the release of the infiltrator on personal bail, whether exclusively or with the addition of a guarantor, or with a monetary bail posted by the infiltrator or a guarantor, or with part thereof as bail and part thereof as a deposit. B. The provisions of Subsection (A) notwithstanding, the military commander shall not order the release of an infiltrator if he is of the opinion that:

“ 1. The deportation of the infiltrator from the Area is prevented or delayed due to lack of full cooperation on his part, including refusal to return to the country of origin, or

2. The release of the infiltrator may endanger the security of the Area, public safety or public health.

C. Release on bail shall be subject to conditions set forth by the military commander in order to guarantee the infiltrator reports for the purpose of his departure from the Area or deportation on the date set, or for the purpose of other proceedings under this Order or under any law or security legislation.

D. Where the military commander is aware that an infiltrator who had been released on bail broke or is about to break the conditions of his release, he may issue an order to remand the infiltrator to custody.

E. Where an infiltrator broke his release conditions, the military commander may order –

1. Payment of all or part of the amount set for bail to the treasury of the Area headquarters;

2. Seizure of all or part of the deposit for the Area headquarters.”.

Cancellation of Section 7

7. Section 7 of the Order is cancelled.

Commencement 8. This Order shall take effect six months from the date of its signing. Name 9. This Order shall be called the “Order regarding Prevention of Infiltration (Amendment No. 2) (Judea and Samaria) (No. 1650) 5769-2009”.

25 Tishrey 5770

13 October 2009

Gadi Shamni, Major General Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Area"

I make no apologies for reproducing it in full. The wording is vague - it amends a previous order which defined an "infiltrator" as someone coming from Jordan, Syria, Egypt or Lebanon. Now it includes those of any nationality, any nationality, including Palestinians born, bred and living in the West Bank. In other words, anyone who is not in possession of a permit issued by the Isreali Defence Force (IDF). Palestinians face prison sentences of between three and eleven years and deportation. I assume that my visit to the West Bank last October would now be considered illegal and myself being regarded as an infiltrator.

The process has already started: Mohammed Abu Tir, Ahmed Othwan, Mohammed Tutah, and Khalid Abu Arafa, all MPs, have been informed that their Jerusalem residency has been revoked. Israel is more than capable, indeed it is again standard practice, of revoking permits, declaring shanges of status, in order to cause people to fall foul of military orders.

Note A3: "A3.Where a deportation order had been issued under Subsection (A), the infiltrator will be given information in writing or orally, as far as possible in a language he understands, regarding his rights under this Order as well as his right to have a person close to him or an attorney be notified of his being held in custody.”

"as far as possible in a language he understands" sounds reasonable, unless you know that it is standard Israeli practice - the practice of occupiers and oppressors throughout history - to issue documentation only in their own language, in this case, Hebrew, even, maybe especially, in East Jerusalem, so that the non-Jewish population are hampered from understanding laws and edicts.

One more ominous sign: a veterans groups, the National Committee of Retired Military in Jordan - Jordan having made peace with Israel more than a decade ago and a "moderate" state - has called for Palestinians in the West Bank to be supplied with missiles.

Does Israel care? No, as another intifada would suit Israel very nicely: blaming the Palestinians, murdering several hundred/thousand more, deporting many more. Furthering their aim of a West Bank empty of Palestinians, empty so that the aim of a "Jewish state" (their term, which is inherently racist) can be achieved.

Let this order remind all of us, yet again, that the West Bank is not an almost state, just a few diplomatic steps away from full statehood. It is a land under military occupation, where the occupiers ruthlessly and, even worse, arbitrarily, impose their will by military force. Once more, on this site, when are Western politicians going to act?

   "In this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks." So said Mr Harold Hongju Koh, a US State Department Legal Advisor, in connection with the use of unmanned drones, which some people call unlawful and refer to the use of drones as extra judicial killing. Note that Harold Koh refers to leaders "planning attacks". This raises the question of evidence: how can you know, let alone show beyond reasonable doubt, that Osama bin Laden, for instance, is planning attacks, especially specific attacks? He is a terrorist, yes, but I do not accept for one moment that terrorists forfeit all rights to a legal process. Perhaps the current US (and UK) adminstrations would have just shot all Nazis and dispensed with the Nuremberg trials?

It links with a spurious argument by a former UK Minister, Tony McNulty, about a suspected terrorist being held for over four years without trial. His argument was that there will always be some people in the "grey" area, where insufficient proof exists to bring a terrorist suspect to trial but secret information purports to show he is a threat. He conveniently omits to mention that his government created this "grey area". It is not an integral aspect of law: murderers, even serial killers, are not killed out of hand. It was created deliberately by means of the anti-terrorism laws.

The use of drones to murder suspected terrorists and the use of secret information, kept secret from the accused, to hold people without trial are two aspects of how the so-called civilised world has reduced its standards of civilised behaviour and in so doing made many of its citizens ashamed and provided ample reasons for those in the parts of the world being attacked to resort inceasingly to arms.

It is ethically wrong and practically counter-productive.

June 9th 2010

   So Israel is now to allow soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, biscuits and sweets into Gaza. Which means these materials, obviously posing a deadly threat to Israel, can now be used by Gazans against Israel. How magnanimous of Israel to compromise security. In fact, such ridiculous "easing" of the blockade emphasises how petty and vindictive the Israelis are.

Meanwhile Israel, predictably, refuses to cooperate with an international enquiry into the killing of the activists, saying any external enquiry would be biased against Israel. Has Israel ever stopped to consider why an external enquiry is seen to be biased? That Israel might actually be in the wrong? Playing the poor victim of anti-semitism is a ploy that has worn very threadbare.

I heard one commentator saying rather helplessly what could be done if Israel fails to cooperate re the plight of Gaza. The answer is quite simple but will not happen. The US could simply stop subsidising Israel. Lack of money might just concentrate the minds of the Israeli people. Their government is past influence.

June 4th 2010

   There is, for the moment, the attention of the world on Gaza. particularly the naval blockade. Now Israel is actually entitled to blockade Gaza: a coast which is not tightly comtrolled is open to weapons smuggling. (Israel of course is not reasonable in the way it enforces the blockade, but that is another matter) The plight of Gaza however is real, but there is a relatively straightfoward answer. Let Israel block access by sea. There is no access by air. The UN should assume full responsibility for all land access, assessing what Gazans need and ensuring that essential goods get through and no weapons slip through.

The bill should be picked up by Israel, as Israel refuses to be reasonable in ensuring Gaza can have a basic standard of living. This means of course the US taxpayer picks up the bill, as Israel is bankrolled by the US - a fact studiously avoided by Israel. This in itself has some merit, as, unless the US has changed its policy recently, the US over the years has failed to pay its full UN dues. It will never be acceptable, of course, but practical ways of resolving issues are rarely palatable to politicians.

June 1st 2010

   I have just returned from travelling in Syria and Turkey, but comments on that can wait. Once again Israel demonstrates what happens when a state gets out of control. Any sense of rationality disappears. The Israeli soldiers "showed great restraint and bravery while under attack by hooligans, anarchists and terror supporters". This by Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Not a low-ranking civil servant, a senior minister. Presumably "restraint" means the world should be grateful that Israeli commandos did not kill all those on board. I don't think the world is prepared to give Israel any credit for showing "restraint" by commandos armed with automatic weapons faced with civilians "armed" with sticks. It is the familiar story: Palaestinian youngsters throw stones, this is provocative enough, according to Israel, to gun them down. It's not new. The only difference here is that it happened to people of other nationalities, in international waters. Israel claims the right to board vessels in international waters: this may or may not be an accurate interpretation of international maritime law, but why not wait until the flotilla was in "Israeli" waters? Again, Israel shows an arrogance, a carelessness, towards others, whilst claiming victimhood.

Israel is now claiming it is being isolated by the world community, with the implication that this is unfair. It is not unfair. Israel deserves to be completely isolated, politically, economically, culturally, in the sporting field, until Israel's government starts to behave in a half-civilised manner. Avigdor Lieberman, the people who are really brave are those willing to do something to help those in Gaza - for whom you are responsible - who receive, according to the UN, a quarter of the aid necessary to maintain a basic standard of living. Just as those in the West Bank get less water than the UN regard as minimal for continued existence.

Back

May 2010

May 9th 2010

   The British media, faced with negotiations about a coalition - common in other countries - parrot a common phrase "an agreement is necessary soon because of the markets". "Markets" of course means financial markets. No-one appears to draw the obvious conclusion: global financial markets, operating on a nanosecond to nanosecond basis for the benefit of a wealthy few, hold national political processes to ransom. The globalised financial market is a cuckoo in the political nest. Politicians created it. If politicians want to reclaim any power within their national economy, they must throw out this cuckoo and start taking care of their own. If I were talking to a UK politician on the above lines, I would be reminded, as so many UK politicians have said, that no country can act alone in a globalised world, but they do not draw the obvious conclusion and say "So, I have no power in my own country." They parrot again the benefits of globalisation, but fail to say who benefits, other than the wealthy few who can manipulate the markets to their advantage.

Future historians will shake their heads in wonderment and despair at how late 20th century nations allowed their national autonomy to be taken away from them and placed the power over their nations to a group of institutions who have not been elected and who have no accountability to anyone but themselves. All due to the extreme dogma of the Chicago School of Economics and the stupidity of Reagan and Thatcher.

When will someone in power say "The emperor has no clothes"?

May 7th 2010

   The British general election has produced the usual undemocratic and un-representative share of seats. Below is what happened and what would have happened under a pure proportional representative system (which admittedly would not exist in such a form but a fair result would have been nearer the pure form than the actual results:

Party	Actual seats	Seats proportional to votes
Conservative	306	235
Labour	258	189
Liberal Democrat	57	150
Democratic Unionist Party	8	4
Scottish National Party	6	11
Sinn Fein	5	4
Plaid Cymru	3	4
Social Democratic & Labour Party	3	3
Green	1	6
Alliance Party	1	1
UK Independence Party	0	20
British National Party	0	12
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force	0	2
English Democrats	0	1
Respect-Unity Coalition	0	0
Traditional Unionist Voice	0	0
Christian Party	0	0
Independent Community and Health Concern	0	0
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition	0	0
Scottish Socialist Party	0	0
Others	1	7
Totals	649	649

The argument of course is that parties like the British National Party would gain seats. Well, people voted for them, it is a legal party. That's the way democracy is supposed to work. The other striking point of course is the almmost inevitability of a coalition government, something which many democracies are used to and make work quite easily. It is the Anglo-Saxon model in which two parties slug it out and everyone is disenfranchised. Also look how much easier it is to form a coalition in a PR system and how many choices there are.

Time for a change, a real change.

May 5th 2010

   It is interesting that the US has supported the move to make the Middle East a nuclear weapons free zone. If this does get progressed it will force Israel, presumably, to confirm that no nuclear weapons are under Israeli control. Rather like Saddam Hussein's declarations of not having weapons of mass destruction - which was true - will we believe Israel? More importantly, will Israel accept international inspectors, which is the only way of verifying such claims. Don't hold your breath.

May 3rd 2010

   Another example of successful harrassment of Palestinians in the West Bank. At Wad el Maleh, where Palestinians have lived for decades, settlers moved nearby in tents. The reaction of the IDF? The usual. Declared that the area was a closed military zone. The settlers moved back to their settlement, itself illegal, but the Palestinians too had to move out.

I note that Israel has denied Iyad Burnat, of Bil'in in the West Bank, access to visit Jordan. I visited Bil'in last year, spoke with Iyad Burnat, who receives invitations from the international community to speak about life under occupation, peaceful resistance and how he is trying to defend his community and regain confiscated land, but who faces an uphill struggle - as witnessed by this week's refusal - to escape even temporarily from the prison which is the West Bank. In Bil'in too, the scene of peaceful protests against 60% of the village being taken from the Palestinians, the "closed military zone" tactic is employed: between 8am and 8pm on Fridays the area between the village and the wall is closed to internationals and Israelis. Another example of Israel's determination to stifle protest and reduce the support given to the Palestinians by internationals and Israelis who do not support Israel's oppressive regime.

This is what happens in Bil'in, tear gas routinely deployed, resulting in injury and death:

Iyad Burnat, last October. I have refrained from publishing pictures of Palestinians I met, for fear of endangering them, but Iyad Burnat's appearance is well known to the IDF:

One day he may be free to travel the world and return.

Back

April 2010

April 20th 2010

   There is some comment re Israel/Palestine that the 1924 Anglo-American Treaty - giving the mandate over Palestine to Britain - is the legal basis for Israel occupying the whole of Palestine. Well, firstly, the 1947 UN Resolution supersedes the 1924 Treaty and remember that Israel accepted that resolution, even though Israel now occupies considerably more territory than that proposed by the UN. Secondly, if the 1924 Treaty were still valid, the UK would have full rights to

"The Mandatory [ie Britain] shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies."

amongst mant other responsibilities and 'rights'. The 1924 Treaty invested the government of Palestine to Britain. Those wishing to abide by this obsolete treaty are wishing the independence of Israel away.

Let us just consign the treaty to history, where it belongs.

April 22nd 2010

   "Our countries are bound together by shared values, deep and interwoven connections, and mutual interests. Many of the same forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States and our efforts to secure peace and stability in the Middle East. Our alliance with Israel serves our national security interests. As we continue to strive for lasting peace agreements between Israel, the Palestinians, and Israel’s neighbors, all sides should understand that our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable and that no wedge will be driven between us. We will have our differences, but when we do, we will work to resolve them as close allies.” Barack Obama's letter to the Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

If we assume the US President meant this, at a time when Israel is simply refusing to accede to America's request to abide by international law and stop building in East Jerusalem, then the future for peace in the Middle East is bleak.

The phrase "Many of the same forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States" is particularly unfortunate as at least some of those threats stem directly from the behaviour of Israel. Israel may have a right to exist, but Arab states were not antagonistic towards the West before the creation of Israel and the relentless violence and oppression meted out by Israel on her neighbours and those for whom Israel has responsibility is the main reason why such antagonism developed, has grown and continues to grow as Israel persists in such barbaric behaviour.

   I am of the generation which grew up before the development of mass air travel. The last few days, happily ones of blue skies, reminded me of just how much of the beauty of the skies we have lost. The realisation of how it used to be provokes quite a deep sense of grief and I use that word advisedly. The grief surfaced yesterday as I travelled under the aircraft polluted sky. The blue skies stretching to the horizon were replaced by a network of white trails which gradually merged towards the horizon presenting a uniform whiteish sky. The sky was largely white and all of it was due to vapour trails: there were no natural clouds.

Another example of how much we lose in the name of progress. We sully one of nature's glories, carelessly, thoughtlessly.

April 19th 2010

   Another indication of the fragility of the brave new world of global capitalism. European airlines have not operated for five days. Private capital prides itself on its ability to take risks and make profits. Yet here is British Prime Minister Gordon Brown considering European state aid for the airlines, saying "I hope that we can see the European solidarity fund or other funds used to help not just airlines but people who have been stranded." and "We're conscious that we will have to look at the financial position not just of airlines but of associated companies." Note the order of concern: airlines are mentioned before people. Even "associated" companies are mentioned as warranting state aid.

Just what is the point of having unfettered free market capitalism if, as with the banks and now the airline industry, state aid, taxpayers' money, is needed to prop up these exemplars of globalisation when economic difficulties arise. The forecast at present is that some European airlines may go out of business as a result less than one weeks' enforced idleness.

Perhaps any company which is so fragile economically should not be in business. It is not so difficult to forecast the possibility of such enforced gaps in activity: we know that any major terrorism scare or action will trigger flight cancellations on a massive scale and the effect of volcanic eruptions on aircraft was also well known, as was the volatility of volcanic activity in Iceland as well as the prevailing wind currents. At one level it is the result of short term thinking, short term profit taking, rather than long term business building, because the nature of free global capital movements militate against the long term approach.

April 15th 2010

   The Conservative party has taken the emperor's new clothes trick to a new level. Faced with a wonderful (for them) opportunity to slash government spending because of the deficit, they have the wheeze (dreamed up by David Willetts?) of putting a positive spin on it by inviting us all to do it ourselves. Government can't or won't. Like all con tricks it's plausible.

What it hides is a descent into greater inequality. If people really will develop their own local facilities, you can be sure that these people will be those well off enough to have the time and energy to devote to such activities. Those working all the hours they can to make ends meet will not have the time. It also extends the 'philosophy' of me, me, me: only doing things that benefit the individual.

In other words. this Conservative policy will only succeed in making "broken Britain", as the Conservatives' see the country, becoming more broken.

April 12th 2010

   What is shocking about the leaked video footage of a US Apache helicopter killing civilians including two Reuters journalists is not the killing of civilians: that is unfortunately frequent in war, one reason why I am against all war. What is shocking is the attitude and language of the US troops. Remember, they were not in the heat of battle, when we can have some understanding of macho attitudes under fire. They were all in the relative safety of a helicopter, they were not being fired upon. "Hahaha. I hit 'em." "Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards." It shows the sheer desensitisation of troops in modern warfare. The "enemy" are not people, they are just targets, like the cardboard cutouts of mosques used by the British in training. It is indeed like a computer game played with real people and it is sick.

April 8th 2010

   We know that the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) is inept but even the MOD surprises us sometimes. Cut out models of mosques are being used as target practice for training British soldiers. Apart from the negative effect on Muslims generally, risking further alienation and increasing the possibility of "radicalisation", apart from the insult to a world religion, does not the MOD know that religious buildings are protected in conflict? Conditioning trainee soldiers to shoot at mosques is just plain stupid.

April 2nd 2010

   "The IDF will not tolerate any attempt to harm the citizens of the state of Israel and will continue to operate firmly against anyone who uses terror against it. The IDF holds Hamas as solely responsible for maintaining peace and quiet in the Gaza Strip." An IDF spokesperson about the air strikes against Gaza.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." and

"Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

Extracts from the Fourth Geneva Convention. Izrael ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1951.

Now Israel appears to consider every Palestinian in Gaza as a "spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power". Israel is entitled to that opinion, but nowhere in the Geneva Convention does it state or imply that such persons can be attacked by F16s. Quite the opposite. Since Israel maintains a complete blockade on Gaza, arguably not even allowing in essential goods, Israel is still an occupying power, with responsibilities towards those people whose land is occupied. In essence, as I have said before, the people of Gaza and the West Bank should be treated with the same respect as Israelis, indeed, because they lack statehood, they are, de facto, Israelis, in the absence of any international agreement on statehood.

Israel, by oppressing, starving and killing Palestinians are oppressing, starving and killing their own people, albeit people who they do not want and who do not want to be part of Israel.

A comparison. If the UK had sent in air strikes into the Catholic areas of Belfast following the killing of members of the Ulster Defence Force, the world would condemn such action, yet that parallel is exact. That is exactly what Israel does, repeatedly.

The parallel goes further. Thanks to the peace process, whilst Ireland is not entirely peaceful, progress has been made towards peace and reconciliation. The UK had the primary responsibility for that peace process. Israel also has that responsibility. The time is long overdue to start exercising it.

Back

March 30th 2010

March 2010

March 30th 2010

   Prime Minister Salam Fayyad symbolically ploughed Palestinian land and planted a tree in the West Bank village of Qarawat Bani Hassan to commemorate Land Day: the day in 1976 when Israel seized the whole of the West Bank and has kept hold of most of it, keeping the rest under military occupation. What I did not read in the reports, but found by researching Qarawat Bani Hassan further is that settlers destroyed a spring near the village on March 8th, aided and abetted by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). The IDF dispersed the Palestinians and internationals witnessing the sabotage by using the old tactic: declaring the area a closed military zone. It will be no coincidence that the previous week Palestinians and internationals spent time and effort clearing the area around the spring. It will also be no coincidence that the villagers of Qarawat Bani Hassan held a demonstration on December 31st 2009 against increased settlement expansion in the area.

This is, sadly, just another example amongst thousands of illegal, violent, vindictive attacks on the basic right of Palestinians to live peacefully in their land. It really is no exaggeration to say that to report on all such events would be a full-time task. These events are happening daily alongside the casual way in which Israel decrees that over Passover, the West Bank will be sealed off, totally. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) estimates that Israel has destroyed 10,000 Palestinian olive trees since 2006. Western leaders know what is happening, unlike their citizens, who are for the most part kept in ignorance by the Western media. The Western leaders know and seem oblivious to the opprobrium which history will heap upon them. For the persecution of the Palestinians for over half a century, in full view of the world, will be taught in schools and colleges in the future. The leaders of Israel, the US, the UK and other Western nations will be held in contempt for their brutality, indifference and inhumanity.

March 24th 2010

   The expelling of an Israeli diplomat over the forged passport affair may or may not be justified: I am always uneasy over actions which seem to lack absolute proof behind them. Nevertheless, the reaction of two Knesset members is illustrative of the contempt Israel holds for a supposed ally. "I think the British are behaving hypocritically and I don't want to offend dogs on this issue, since some dogs are utterly loyal. Who are they to judge us on the war on terror?": MK Aryeh Eldad. One of his colleagues, MK Michael Ben-Ari said "The British may be dogs, but they are not loyal to us, but rather to an anti-Semitic system, and Israeli diplomacy partially plays into their hands. This is anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism."

As usual, any criticism of, or action against, Israel draws the charge of anti-semitism. Why, in any case, should the UK be "loyal" to a country which has reneged on a promise made in 1987 not to misuse/forge British passports? In this issue Israel is a serial, persistent offender: UK 1987, Canada 1998, New Zealand 2004, UK 2010.

More evidence of Israel being a rogue state, contemptuous of international law and international standards of behaviour.

I hope Prime Minister Netanyahu had a very uncomfortable time with President Obama.

March 22nd 2010

   A month ago, on February 22nd, I wrote to the four UK "broadsheets", who are supposed to be vigilant in bringing information to the British public about issues which may not be populist, but which should be brought to the public's attention. The subject was the British takeover of the Turks and Caicos islands. See (A very British coup?) The text is reproduced below:

"As you will be well aware, the UK government took direct control of the Turks and Caicos islands in August 2009. I have taken an interest in this and have been disturbed by some reports on the web. However, it is puzzling that none of the UK "broadsheets" appear to have published anything on this issue since the takeover, other than articles relating to Lord Ashcroft's tax affairs - the Turks and Caicos islands being incidental to this. Are the Turks and Caicos islands not newsworthy in any shape or form, or are there other reasons why you have not informed the British public what is happening there? I shall be interested in your replies, if any."

The Guardian, Telegraph, Times and Independent newspapers have not replied. They were all aware that the others had been contacted. I am not surprised but the question remains: who does not want this covered by the media and by what means are the media prevented from covering it?

March 18th 2010

   The killing of a foreign worker in Israel cannot be defended or justified in any way. Let us note something which may escape attention. It appears that Hamas did not carry out the attack, although Israel holds Hamas responsible. (By the same token therefore Israeli politicians are reponsible for the excessive violence going way beyond self-defence carried out in Gaza in 2009) A group 'with links to al-Qaeda' - tired old phrase - Ansar al-Sunna apparently carried out the attack. So, we see a relatively moderate faction, Fatah, ousted in Gaza by a more hardline group, Hamas. Is Hamas going to be supplanted by an even more hardline group? If so, who is responsible - the people of Gaza or the people of Israel who all but starve the people of Gaza, making the influence of extremists more likely. The Palestinians have not been blameless over the decades since 1947 but I would defy anyone to assert that Israel has treated the Palestinians with respect and decency at any point since 1947. Having been to the West Bank and listened to first hand testimony, I am amazed and full of admiration at how reasonable people are there in spite of all the provocation, oppression and denial of essentials such as water. Gaza is and has been for decades treated far worse than the West Bank. They have been unable to overcome the "in spite of".

This links to the wider issue: the 'war on terror'. The whole tension and violence between some parts of the Islamic world stems from two primary sources: the behaviour of Israel and the imposition of Western culture on very different cultures, beliefs and traditions. The world would become a better place and the influence of extremists be substantially reduced if Israel were forced to behave reasonably and if the US in particular did not see it as a God-given right to impose its culture on the rest of the world.

The US sees Iran as a threat. Why is Iran a threat? Because of the US insistence on supporting Israel come what may. Let us not forget that the Arab world was not hostile to the West before Israel came into being (by force). It is not a question of Israel existing or not. It is a question of allying yourself with states of like mind and, if as the US claims, this means civilised, reasonable democratic principles and behaviour, then Israel should not, in spite of Hillary Clinton's assertion, share US values. If the US really does share Israel's 'values' - which are Israel first and last, carry out pre-emptive attacks on anyone perceived as a threat, take all the money you can from others, expand your territory by military means, cleansing the occupied territories of its previous inhabitants and refuse to allow anyone but those of your own race to settle in your country, then the sooner the world enters into a post-US era the better. I do not think the US does share Israel's values, but the US needs to make its differences to Israel crystal clear to the rest of the world.

Is the post-Bush US - and I mean the people of the US - willing to look at the reality of Israel's bevaviour and conclude that present day Israel is more of a liability than an asset? Israel is not an ally against "fanatical" Islam, against al-Qaeda. Israel, through persistently appalling behaviour, is part of the cause, the reason why US troops are fighting and dying across the world.

March 17th 2010

   "It is we Jews who triumphed and re-created Jewish sovereignty in 1948 and proclaimed Jerusalem our capital....... We deeply appreciate America's friendship, but it must be clearly understood: we are a free and sovereign nation, and we have a right to determine our destiny." Extracts from a letter sent to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by the Chairman and Executive Director of Yesha Council.

Let's just examine this. The Jews "triumphed.... and proclaimed Jerusalem our capital": well, Tel Aviv formed Israel's capital, as the UN declared Jerusalem a separate entity. Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital in 1980, and the UN Security Council Resolution 478 declared it "null and void", requiring nations to move their embassies to Tel Aviv, if not already there. Only two embassies are still in Jerusalem. So the world community hardly accepts Israel's claim - based on military conquest - to Jerusalem.

"we are a free and sovereign nation, and we have a right to determine our destiny" in relation to the US. Fine. The US is also free and sovereign and might just decide to stop pouring billions of dollars of aid into Israel.

As written a few days' ago, Israel behaves like a spoiled child. It's time the US parent said "enough" and turned the financial tap off. If Israel is "free and sovereign" then let it be responsible for its own economy. Let it be actually independent, rather than being dependent but pretending to be independent.

March 10th 2010

   I have said many times that Israel does not want peace and that any moves towards peace will be deliberately thwarted. Well, the announcement of another 1,600 illegal homes to be built in the occupied area of East Jerusalem, just before "proximity" talks are about to begin is yet another example. Worse, it happened whilst US Vice-President Joe Biden was in Israel and followed closely on the announcement of further building in Beitar Illit - in violation of Israel's own commitment to freeze new developments in the Occupied West Bank.

What Israel is doing is like the behaviour an over-indulged child would take: push the parent by ever-increasing poor behaviour until the parent says 'enough' and establishes a boundary. The time for the US to say "Enough" is long overdue and until this is done, publicly, Israel will continue to flout international law and continue to oppress the people whose territory it illegally occupies and colonises. Israel has proved inacapable of self-reform. The UN is powerless because the US protects the spoiled child. The US needs to act. Now.

March 7th 2010

   It is very disturbing to witness the witchhunt being whipped up by the press over the recall to prison of Jon Venables who murdered 2 year old James Bulger at the age of 10. It may well be that he has committed one or more serious crimes, but we do not have any right to know. One of the fundamental principles of the UK justice system, of any decent justice system, is that the history of an accused is not known at a trial, so that a fair and impartial consideration of the evidence for the current allegations is possible. I am not generally in favour of witholding information which can be considered to be in the public interest but Jack Straw is right to resist giving any details. It is not in the public interest that information about what Jon Venables may or may not have done be made public, because this sort of publicity may create a valid arguement for any trial to be held behind closed doors and it is certainly not in the public interest for any further erosion of the "justice being seen to be done" principle. If proceedings against Jon Venables are taken and taken in camera, then the media will be responsible for that, not the government.

I would prefer the media to help focus the public's attention on justice - which everyone, without exception, deserves - rather than retribution, vengeance amd mass hysteria.

March 4th 2010

   So, the story, with alternative scenarios, as we know it. May 20th 1999, letter to William Hague, then Conservative leader, from the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, turning down William Hague's proposal of Michael Ashcroft for a working life peerage. May 23rd, 1999, William Hague wrote to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, a letter of four pages, which includes the assertion that "He is committed to becoming resident by the next financial year in order properly to fulfil his responsibilities in the House of Lords. This decision will cost him (and benefit the Treasury) tens of millions a year in tax yet he considers it worthwhile"

Interpretation: William Hague and Michael Ashcroft communicated with each other and William Hague was convinced by him.

March 2nd 2000, William Hague re-presents Michael Ashcroft's name. In this application, he says "Firstly his non-residence in the UK was felt to be relevant. Mr Ashcroft has since publicly undertaken to resume residency in the UK. Given the complex nature of his business and financial affairs this cannot be achieved immediately but his lawyers have been instructed to resettle his affairs so as to achieve his residency in a well ordered manner."

Interpretation: The first signs of "wriggle room." Note no date or period of time is specified. His lawyers did not indicate how long it would take either.

March 23rd 2000, another 'No' from the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. Included in their reasons, with reference to the William Hague assurance that residency would be by the next financial year, is the statement: "...we considered the issue of residence, as this seems central to the exercise of responsibilities as a working peer ......it is unlikely that commitment will be realised " and "We hope you will agree to invite Mr Hague to let us have firm evidence of an unequivocal decision by Mr Ashcroft that he will have taken up residence in the UK, on a permanent basis, before the end of the calendar year. " [I.e 2000, for the next Honours List] "Even with the assurance about such a decision (which we hope would be put in the public domain) we would propose also that the Conservative Leader should reach an agreement with Mr Ashcroft that he should not be introduced into the House of Lords until he has actually taken up that residency in the UK in the timescale we have mentioned."

Interpretation: We don't quite believe you or trust you. Prove it by deeds. Note also that the responsibility for making sure that Michael Ashcroft was resident "on a permanent basis" was clearly laid at the Conservative's door, not Michael Ashcroft's.

March 23rd 2000, A memorandum from Michael Ashcroft to William Hague stated "I hereby give you my clear and unequivocal assurances that I have decided to take up permanent residence in the UK again before the end of this calendar year......I hereby firmly agree that I will not seek to be introduced to the House of Lords until I have taken up residency in the United Kingdom within the timescale above mentioned............These are my solemn and binding undertakings to you" On this basis Michael Ashcroft was made a life peer.

Interpretation: Everyone believed him, but no-one followed it up. No-one appeared to check that the 'residence' term was subsequently amended. Or did they? Over the nearly ten years since October 2000, when Michael Ashcroft entered the House of Lords he has until now refused to divulge his residency/tax status, as indeed have all Conservative politicians, in spite of repeated questions.

March 1st 2010, a statement by Michael Ashcroft. "In subsequent dialogue with the Government, it was officially confirmed that the interpretation of "permanent residence" was to be that of "long term residence" of the UK.......My precise tax status therefore is that of "non dom".

Interpretations: The difference between "permanent residence" and "long term residence" affects tax liability. William Hague's assertion/belief that Michael Ashcroft's willingness to pay millions of pounds per year in tax in order to get into the House of Lords did not have much substance.

The Political Honours Scrutiny Committee laid the responsibility on the Conservatives to ensure that Michael Ashcroft honoured his promises, but they appeared not to have checked his renegotiation with the Government, if they knew about it. Maybe the discussion went along the lines of "residency" and, conveniently, the term "permanent residence" or "long term residence" were not used. It also raises the question of how the renegotiation of terms happened - at whose request and why should the Government accept the new wording? As usual, the UK government is its usual open and transparent self and is saying nothing. The Freedom of Information request (made on April 4th 2008) which would have clarified the situation re Michael Ashcroft is still outstanding, but a commitment has been made to answer by April 4th 2010. Hence the admission on March 1st, but two years to supply information about one individual?

There remains the question of what the Conservative party, and indeed the Government, knew. William Hague has finally said he knew Michael Ashcroft's tax status a few months ago and David Cameron says he knew within the last month. Was David Cameron more effective at persuading Michael Ashcroft to come clean? Did he try? Knowing the potential fall-out, what persuaded William Hague not to tell his leader?

What we do know is that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee were sceptical that full residency and therefore tax liability would be taken up. In that they were absolutely right.

Back

February 2010

February 28th 2010

   Israel continues to provoke in order to place more obstacles in the path of any process towards peace. The decision to declare sites in the West Bank holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Rachel's Tomb and the cave of the Patriarchs) to be included in a list of Jewish heritage sites ahs even been called "provocative" by the US. The decision also to build another 600 settlement homes in East Jerusalem is also counter productive in terms of progress toward peace, but then, Israel is not interested in peace: continuous conflict suits Israel's purposes well. When will the world learn this and act on it?

Some small positive news: The European Court of Justice has ruled that goods made in Israeli settlements in the OPT are not Israeli and therefore not eligible to be included in the trade deal between the EU and Israel. Each small step forward in responding to Israeli illegality is to be welcomed.

February 22nd 2010

   Oil and gas. It is depressing to come across evidence that these natural resources continue to dominate power politics even in (for the layman) unlikely places. Those places are the Caribbean and the Mediterranean. Apparently Haiti may have reserves of oil, which may explain why the US has deposed elected leaders of Haiti and has taken the opportunity afforded by the earthquake to pour large numbers of troops into Haiti. My understanding of geology is hazy to say the least, but the Turks and Caicos islands are near Haiti: is the British government seeing possibilities of getting its hands on undersea wealth?

Secondly, Israel invaded Gaza in 2008/9. Progress on the exploitation of gas deposits of $4bn off the shore of Gaza - rightfully the property of the Palestinians - had stalled. Speculation was that Israel was seeking ways of taking over the field: the cut price supplies from Egypt and from Israel's own fields were running down. The day after Israel declared a cease-fire in Gaza the announcement of a new $15bn gas field off the shore of Northern Israel was annnounced.

Do you believe in coincidences? No, neither do I.

   So the building of a "giant mosque" 400 yards from Sandhurst is deemed a security threat. Would a "giant synagogue", or a "giant church", or a "giant temple" be deemed a security threat? I think not. Sandhurst is a training academy. Are there military installations - weapons etc - that are so secret that they should be protected from any outside eyes? I suspect not. Why do the authorities always assume that mosques will become havens for terrorists? When will those in positions of power realise that the routine labelling of Islamic sites as security threats increases the chances of Muslims becoming "radicalised" to use the jargon? When will people realise that the actions of the British military forces, under orders from the British government, are the most effective ways of creating hostility from the Islamic world? If you treat people as enemies or potential enemies, do not be surprised if some of them do in fact become enemies.

February 17th 2010

   It is depressing to read all the outrage expressed over the issue of false passports by those who murdered Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Most are concerned that, on the assumption that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad carried out the murder, they falsified passports of a "friendly" nation, as if this were the major crime. The major crime is that an organisation of state or a quasi-state organisation murdered someone. Murder is murder and no-one deserves to be arbitrarily killed. No-one. It does not matter if Israel disposed of someone it sees as the enemy, or some other organisation sought by the method of killing him to incriminate Israel. Extra-judicial killing - the weasely euphomism for murder - is wrong, whoever carried it out and for whatever reasons.

February 15th 2010

   We believed or thought that President Obama would be more ethical than President Bush. In one respect we were wrong. The US now relies on unmanned drones to kill foreigners on non-US soil. Depending upon whose account you read/believe, 700 Pakistani civilians have died in drone attackes that killed 5 militants. No-one can know how many innocent people have been killed by someone pressing a button in Nevada, but this is not my chief point. Even if drones were 100% effective and killed only 'militants', not even people immediately next to them, it would be unethical. Unethical because it is executing people against whom no evidence has been produced or tested in any judicial process. We may believe a person is a terrorist. We may have evidence - evidence that so often, so conveniently, cannot be revealed for 'security' reasons. It is never tested for accuracy. Why should we believe the assertions of security forces that base their conclusions on sources that were proved to be so catastrophically wrong about Iraq? Why should we believe the assertions that these people are indeed militants? The US has lost any ethical credentials it ever had and it is a tragedy that President Obama has compromised his principles in such a counter-productive (700 families alienated) and uncivilised way.

Why do the administrations of the US and UK never pose the question: why do so many people regard us as their enemy to the extent that people are prepared to blow themselves up to kill and wound a few of our citizens?

February 10th 2010

   It is astonishing how much effort the UK government puts in, at taxpayers' expense, to hide the activities of government and the intelligence services. A US court publishes details of how Binyamin Mohamed was treated in US custody, the US government does not contest the details, yet the British government appeals against a UK ruling to release the information and even more damningly leans on the judges, as they throw out the appeal, to amend their criticism of the British security services. The UK government is a hopeless case, determined to censor everything it does in the name of 'security'. What is even more worrying is reading comments from the public, expressing sentiments agreeing to the use of torture and assuming that being sent to Guantanamo Bay is proof of guilt. Truly the government propoganda is effective and we live in an increasingly intolerant society.

February 8th 2010

   Gordon Brown has yet again come up with an plan which is too prescriptive and shuts out alternatives. I refer to his plan to hold a referendum on changing the UK's electoral system to the alternative vote principle. Why so precise? Why so exclusive? Why come up with just one alternative, which smacks of 'I've thought about this and this is the correct way forward. This and only this.' No, Mr Brown, there are other alternatives and the way forward would have been to offer a referendum asking voters if they would like to change the system. Is it that this would have been overwhelmingly voted for and thus made it difficult for any future government to stall on reform, whereas the offer of just one system may only command lukewarm support, thus enabling a future government to delay things yet again? Once more, he is found to be trying to be too clever by half.

February 4th 2010

   I notice that worries are being expressed about future electricity supplies for the UK. Apparently "the market", that hallowed omnipotent force that sorts out all human problems may not work adequately in this case. That maybe the state needs to intervene to provide some capacity. Well, well, maybe the penny is beginning to drop. Maybe UK politicians are finally beginning to see that government has a responsibility towards its citizens in terms of basic services. A direct responsibility. That private capital is geared to one aim: generating more private capital. That private energy companies, without state regulation, would choose to generate 1KW at several £m rather than millions of KWs at pence per KW, if the former were more profitable. That competition is only really effective in conditions of what economists call perfect competition: sufficiently large numbers of suppliers and customers that no one supplier or customer can influence the supply and price. Well, apart from being a necessity, power has large numbers of customers but few suppliers, so "the market" cannot be expected to be an effective mechanism. Never could.

Meanwhile the Conservative Party hopes to win votes by promising a greater role for private capital in the future in the economy as a whole. This is the equivalent to saying: "Trust the financial world to provide the right funding, at the right time, to the right people." As we all know, but maybe the Conservatives have not grasped it yet, the financial world is only interested in providing funds in order to maximise its own profits. Benefits for society are incidental/accidental. Until private capital is forced to take the public good into account Western society will remain sick, trapped in an ever tightening spiral of inequality, of ordinary people scrambling to keep up, at ever increasing levels of stress and illness.

Back

January 2010

January 30th 2010

   Much has been written about Tony Blair's performance - and don't forget he is first and foremost an actor - yesterday. The things that stand out for me are: the continued conflation of 9/11 and Iraq - Saddam Hussein did not harbour terrorists and ran a secular state; the wilful refusal to admit to the aim of regime change whilst continually using the term "remove Saddam" as an aim - the two phrases are interchangeable; the refusal to express any sympathy for the relatives of those killed, on both sides, in Iraq and the denial that the aftermath was not a humanitarian catastrophe - how many hundreds of thousands of deaths would it take to get him to admit to the disaster which followed the invasion.

Tony Blair is a consummate actor, he believes in his own created world. He is a small and less than admirable human being.

January 25th 2010

   I am not sure because the terminology may be different, but if Barack Obama means by his proposal to divide the banking industry that banks which only hold and lend money to individuals and organisations should be completely separate from those organisation which gamble their own ond others' money by ever more complex machinations divorced from the real world, then I fully support this, a proposal which is way overdue. "Traditional" banks whose ability to honour their commitments to lend and repay should be absolute - underwritten ultimately by government in exceptional circumstances - should be a separate sector. Regulation of assets to liabilities ratios etc is required. If individuals and organisations wish to speculate/gamble with their own or others' funds, then that is their risk and no-one should be required to bail them out if their gambles fail. This is so obvious and it is a measure of how far big business, especially big financial business, has gained overweening power that this situation has developed at all.

Clearly universal legislation on this is preferable, but it would be surprising if other major countries did not follow the US lead (if the measure succeeds). It is in every country's interests not to be vulnerable to a small group of people intent on adding to their individual wealth oblivious to the effects on other people and indeed countries.

January 21st 2010

   The latest pronouncement from Binyamin Netanyahu provides further proof of Israel's determination not to advance towards a peaceful solution and lie about the reasons for the statement. "In the case of the future settlement with the Palestinians, this will require an Israeli presence on the eastern side of the prospective Palestinian state." he said, citing security against rocket attacks etc as the reason. Well, of course, like the separation wall, it has nothing to do with security. It is to do with control - completely surrounding a Palestinian state and preventing free access to water - the river Jordan, just as the wall is also to do with control of the water supply. It also contradicts what he has said many times about negotiations without pre-conditions: here is yet another pre-condition.

Together with all the other pronouncements by him on what would be acceptable conditions for an 'independent' Palestinian state: no armed forces, no airport, no seaport, we can be sure that while he is power there will be no peace unless the Palestinians agree to become a vassal province of Israel. He is playing a long, cynical, inhumane game: keep talking peace, keep dropping in another pre-condition when it appears that some progress might be made. Have you noticed the press reports lately talking up the possibility of progress? The hope is that eventually the Palestinians will no longer be able to contain their violent minority and then they can be blamed yet again. It is truly amazing how patient the Palestinians have been and are being. It must be very frustrating for the Israeli administration. It is also prejudicial to their aims: the longer the Palestinians stay patient, the stronger the internal dissidents in Israel become. Have you also noticed the reports of increased harrassment and arrests of Israeli activists?

January 17th 2010

   The UK government is apparently going to amend to law on universal juisdiction next week so that accusations about anyone visiting Britain against whom there is a prima facie case of crimes against humanity must be vetted by the Attorney General first. This of course follows the attempt to serve arrest warrants on leading Israelis visiting Britain. Let's forget for the moment this prime reason - not to upset Israel - for the move. It is a retrogade step purely and simply because it takes the responsibility for deciding whether or not to issue an arrest warrant - which is by no means automatic - from the politically independent judiciary and places it in the hands of a political appointee. It may be that the decision ought to higher up in the judicial hierarchy than a magistrate, but we only have to look at the contortions around the justification for the attack on Iraq and the BAe affair to know that British Attorney Generals are vulnerable to political pressure. So we can expect selective use of the principle - which Britain was influential in creating - political friends can visit, whatever accusations are held against them, whereas poltical enemies are likely to find themselves the subject of arrest warrants. Even if the Attorney General were absolutely fair, there is no way of proving it. Only the independent judiciary can provide the assurance that the law is being applied fairly.

January 9th 2010

   I have written about the UK's coup in taking over direct one-man rule over the Turks and Caicos islands. (A very British coup) There are accusations that the takeover is damaging the local economy and that civil servants' pay is threatened or paid late. Well, the UK certainly isn't spending much UK taxpayers' money on "cleaning up" the alleged corruption on the islands.

"Question

Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the anticipated additional cost of imposing direct rule on the Turks and Caicos Islands. [HL6014]

10 Nov 2009 : Column WA154

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): The majority of the costs of implementing the recommendations of the Turks and Caicos Islands Commission of Inquiry, including the suspension of ministerial government and the House of Assembly, will fall to the Turks and Caicos Islands Government. The Government are funding the provision of additional staff for the Governor's Office, and additional advisers for the Turks and Caicos Islands Government. It is not yet possible to specify the full costs of the provision of such advisers prior to the restoration of an elected Government on or before July 2011." (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91110w0006.htm)

As usual, British colonies bear the costs of British rule.

January 6th 2010

   So Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon regards the British law which enshrines the principle of universal jurisdiction as "intolerable." I wonder if he would regard as "intolerable" that same law being applied to suspected former Nazis visiting the UK, or suspected Hamas or Hezbullah militants doing the same. I could guarantee that if a Jewish group applied to the British courts for a warrant to arrest such people, he would also find it "intolerable" if the UK government aided and abetted such people to avoid a warrant being served. It's called double standards, based on the assunption that everything Israel does has to be good and everything that Israel's opponents do is evil. He also said in the same context that Britain and Israel "share common values and interests." Really? Common values? Did the UK kill anywhere between ten times and a hundred times as many people the Irish republicans killed? Did the UK attack Dublin and occupy the Republic of Ireland? Did the UK build a wall between the two parts of Ireland? Did the UK blockade the Irish Republic? Clearly the Israeli leadership follow the same precepts as Ariel Sharon who said in 2001: "Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."

Common interests? Does the UK share this 'interest': "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." ? Ariel Sharon again, in 1998. Does the UK share this sentiment expressed in 1989 by the present Prime Minister of israel: "Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories." The current term for that process is ethnic cleansing and ethnic cleansing, carried out in stealthy and opportunistic ways, is what Israel has been doing since 1948. Does the UK share Israel's interest in ethnically cleansing Palestine of all Palestinians?

What I find "intolerable" is the insistence of Israel that Israel is always right and that no-one is allowed to voice any criticism of Israel's actions.

January 4th 2010

   Following the failed terrorist attack on the plane bound for Detroit and the running around like headless chickens response of the Western governments comes the demand for an end to the process of closing Guantanamo Bay. This is on the basis that the "terrorists" held there, if released, will revert to their previous terrorist activities. Firstly, no-one has been able to prove terrorist activities against those detained - if there had been any real evidence they would have been tried. Secondly, there is the blatant disregarding of the alternative scenarios: a) that holding men who may be innocent without trial for years may convince some of them that, if released, they will turn to violence in revenge and b) their countrymen are more likely to turn to terrorism when witnessing the injustice meted out to those detained.

It is also significant that those caught in the act are described as being "radicalised". This is no accident. It implies that they are in some way not totally guilty or evil - although that won't stop long sentences - because there are others more guilty and evil who dupe these deluded individuals. The reason for this? Simple: we fear more those we cannot identify, those who remain the menacing bogeymen in the shadows. I still believe that history, if we survive long enough for that history to be written, will record that al-Qaeda, to the extent that such an organisation exists, was born of the West's decision to create such an entity. It gives every disaffected non-Western individual an umbrella organisation to be affiliated to and it gives Western politicians the external focus of fear, rather like "Communism". Governments need external enemies to pacify their citizens.

Back