I learn the interesting news that David Aaronovitch tweeted to Joan Smith and Jenny Jones that I am:
“an angry and dangerous man who could as easily be on the far right as the far left”.
I had no idea I was on the far left, though I suppose it is a matter of perspective, and from where Mr Aaronovitch stands I, and a great many others, look awfully far away to the left. I don’t believe you should bomb people for their own good, I don’t believe the people of Palestine should be crushed, I don’t believe the profit motive should dominate the NHS, I think utilities and railways were better in public ownership, I think education should be free. I guess that makes me Joseph Stalin.
But actually I am very flattered. Apparently I am not just angry – since the invasion of Iraq and the banker bailouts everybody should be angry – but “dangerous”. If I can be a danger to the interests represented by a Rupert Murdoch employee like Aaronovitch, I must have done something right in my life. I fear he sadly overrates me; but it does make me feel a little bit warmer, and hold my head that little bit higher.
So what was in this single shell that hit his bedroom, Komodo, or was it in the tea brought to soothe his wobbly knees? served to him by a Judas/close associate?
My crystal ball is being serviced, so I cannot tell you. Except that with Sarkozy out of the loop, it is possible that the result of the exhumation and examination might reflect less favourably on Israel.
@ Computer Hobbiest –
Hobbyist, when I last consulted the spelling police….
“@komodo
Hobbyist, when I last consulted the spelling police…….”
I’d noticed that as well. But I didn’t like to say…hehe
Komodo amusingly asked “Can we take it, then, that you are in favour of a diverse, multi-ethnic and multifaith Israel?”
Yes, me and Daniel Barenboim, who is not boring at all.
“This is what now confuses me. Are you proposing that Israel move somewhere else? If so, fine, here is where we disagree. Can you outline how you would propose this in a way that garnered support amongst the Israelis?
“I agree there was a wholesale theft, but it is where it is, and I am not sure we can change the past. I think any solution is going to be a bit messy, and the idea of restoring everything back to its owners isn’t feasible”.
Of course there is no exact parallel between the legal constraints on individuals (and corporations), and those on nations. Nevertheless I think it is worth considering the analogous statements: “Are you now proposing that [such-and-such a gang of robbers] give back what they stole? Can you outline how you would propose this in a way that garnered support amongst the robbers?”
Pragmatically, what nations take they keep (provided they can defend themselves against their victims). Especially when those nations are close allies of nations like the USA and Australia, which could not exist if they gave back the land they took from its original owners only a few hundred years ago.
But ethically? Compare and contrast the revulsion and hatred (and forcible retribution) that greeted Saddam Hussein’s recovery of the traditional Iraqi territory of Kuwait, with the universal approbation with which the foundation of Israel received – even after an absence of nearly 2000 years. How can anyone justify condemnation of any nation’s annexations (China’s of Tibet, for example) if we assume that any bunch of people who used to live somewhere within the last 2000 years are free to stroll back in and eject the current inhabitants by force?
If that is allowed to go unpunished and not set right, what meaning does international law have?
Komodo amusingly asked “Can we take it, then, that you are in favour of a diverse, multi-ethnic and multifaith Israel?”
Yes, me and Daniel Barenboim, who is not boring at all.
Jolly good. Spread the word. (Though Barenboim certainly does it better)
And see –
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/herzlex.html
Don’t trip over the fundamental concept…
@ Computer Hobbiest –
Hobbyist, when I last consulted the spelling police….
Ah! ummm…. er…. I recycle old computers into clog-like shoes?
More on the unindicted war criminal in South Africa:
http://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-08-27-call-to-arrest-tony-blair-during-sa-visit-gains-momentum
This scoundrel earns 6000 quid a minute when he opens his mouth and costs the taxpayer 400,000 quid pa. in security, pension etc. Hell, we can’t afford NOT to arrest him.
@Tom Welsh – good answer, even though I disagree with it. I smiled at your robbers analogy, since that is a hard one to get out of – who in their right mind would ask a gang of robbers if they wanted to keep their spoils?
But there are two objections to that analogy. Firstly, the injustice is an ancient one, and many have since been born in Israel, and so forcing their repatriation is arguably another injustice. The other objection is the elephant in the room – Holocaust guilt – do we want to see lines of Jewish people marching again? Will the newly created backlash not magnify the (sometimes misused) legacy of this atrocious crime?
In fact, I suspect the second issue tips the balance for me. If not for the Holocaust, I think repatriation might be an option on the table. But, as I say, we are where we are.
Which brings me back to my oft-repeated and rarely-answered question, this time politely asked of you: if today’s Israeli’s should not live in Israel, where should they go? How can enough Israelis be persuaded it is the best solution out of a bad bunch?
Financial inducement possibly? A house and US$500K per family in the new promised land? I don’t know if that would get many takers – would it not be regarded in Israel as treasonous/treacherous for anyone who took it? And as much as I disapprove of it – see above – what of the religious significance of Israel? And what would it take to move the settlers, attached as they are to their fundamentalist interpretations of their dusty books? Force? If so, by whom?
PS. The ICC only seems interested in war crimes committed by Africans so it would be a delicious irony were Blair to be arrested by Africans.
@ Tom Welsh
I don’t believe, when push come to shove, international law does have any meaning. In all matters that affect the real world in any significant way, it is little more than an after the fact codification and justification of the status-quo. On those occasions where it seeks to stop nations from doing bad things to other nations, it only seems to work if the offending nation is weak enough to be forced into accepting its edicts.
Might might not be right. But, sadly, but it tends to get its way, nonetheless.
In other words, international law seems to only work when we least need it and completely fails when we need it most.
@Jon
At the very least, Jon, Israel should be forced back to the 67 borders. There is no argument at all that I can see that can justify anything other than that. As for the “world as it is” argument. I do accept the pragmatism inherent in that. However, it has it’s limits. By that logic, if The rest of the Arab world waged all-out war on Israel and not only took back the post 67 lands but also took half of what remained of Israel as well, at massive loss of life to both sides, would you then “accept the world as it is”? That argument has no bottom except, perhaps, where the injustice is at least a lifetime away. Even then that still doesn’t make it right, though I concede it does become more manageable.
Even then, the wounds persist (Scotland, Ireland etc)
@Steve:
Not until it has happened. Until that point, peaceful efforts should be made to ensure it does not.
I agree, for the Two State Solution. However the point of the One State is that anyone can live anywhere, and that both sides would be required to share. One of the features of a T&R Commission would be an anti-discrimination body that looked even-handedly at cases where someone was not sold/rented land/property on the basis of their race.
“@Jon
I agree, for the Two State Solution. However the point of the One State is that anyone can live anywhere, and that both sides would be required to share. One of the features of a T&R Commission would be an anti-discrimination body that looked even-handedly at cases where someone was not sold/rented land/property on the basis of their race….”
I think the one-state solution only works if the differences between the two peoples do not have religion as major aspect of the basis for that division. If there are significant differences in the economic power of the two or more parties involved, that only further exacerbates the problem. Different languages makes it even more intractable. All of these problems are in evidence in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.
History shows that all singular states were, once upon a time, several smaller states that were subsequently subsumed into larger super states. “Nations”, in other words. Nearly all of those nation states, though, were formed at the point of a sword or the barrel of a gun. Israel being no exception to that rule. It’s only a century or two after the fact that everyone forgets the old grievances and so can move forward as a single nation. Even then, cultural memories and their attendant enmities may still persist. We only need to look at Scotland’s and Ireland’s protestants and Catholics to see that to be the case. And they even speak the same language and believe in the same god!
@Jon, I had never mentioned a one state solution in earlier posts, any posts, you were replying to another poster, who has never re-surfaced. I was apalled by the rapidity with which it was trampled on and ridiculed, even if you then indicated your own position was not so far from that and could see the merit in such a solution.
I agree with you in hoping for some sort of Truth and Reconciliation movement and structure, for the purposes of constructive dialogue and healing, however much of an uphill struggle that would be with all that has gone before. I mentioned some magnanimity required on the part of the Palestinian people and their representatives, to make the best of unfortunate circumstances, it is hopeless optimism, wishful thinking on my part and it understandably is a difficult thing to ask of them, but the desire to lead normal lives free from terror, fear, uncertainty and stress is common to all of humanity. It also requires humility on the part of the Israeli side, which is not much in evidence, far from it amongst those in power there. Argument for a two-state solution more often boils down to permitting continuation of the same policies and brutality which span the decades and suit one party just fine, is seen as successful, ignores the human cost (the Palestinians ARE human beings too). More so as the shape of the Palestinian shrunken state offered would be some emasculated bantustan, economically unviable, no territorial integrity, with no access to fresh water resources, the sea for fishing and port facilities for trade and export. Then there is airspace, electromagnetic spectrum and a thousand other issues where the Palestinian state would be kept in a position of weakness and disadvantage. The solution to a rogue state run on the basis of religious supremacy, is not to create a Muslim mirror image Palestinian state run along similar lines, though there is nothing to suggest that a Palestinian state would be exclusively Islamic and not contain minorities racial and religious, would even include a small safe, well and happy Jewish minority I would hope.
None of these big disadvantages would plague a single state with equality for all.
Any hoo… back to Assange; the journalist Brendan O’Neill wrote a less than flattering piece on JA, about a week or so ago, but seems to be balancing, indirectly anyhow, with this pertinent piece:
http://brendanoneill.co.uk/post/30450437458/it-is-wrong-to-say-sex-without-consent-is-rape
“Though Barenboim certainly does it better…Don’t trip over the fundamental concept…”
Oooh, get you, Komodo. Having a bad hair day?
Otherwise, Barenboim and everyone else working for peace & creativity is very fine, I do agree.
Viva,
I wasn’t aware that Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic were African.
@Cryptonym – not sure who you think “trampled and ridiculed” the One State Solution; I didn’t, even prior to my minor edit. Anyway, I suspect we’re mostly in agreement.
@Steve – very interesting points about the ability of a One State Solution to work, and how it is influenced by a split in religion and language. Yes, very intractable. Ultimately which of the two main solutions we go for* should be down to a democratic decision from the two peoples, for the most part.
(* That’s assuming other solutions aren’t workable, although I’d be genuinely open to hearing the move-Israel solution, which I think is politically impossible. Tom?)
@Steve, also:
Yeah, I’ve been thinking about that. Part of the solution would have to be a differentiated mechanism to correct that, and to taper it off over the long term (20-40 years). Some sort of financial injections – maybe a good use of that US$5B/annum presently going to Tel Aviv?
I think those praying that a two state solution will work without mutuality and acceptance of ancestral rights by two semitic tribes, not to speak of a plethora of religions also claiming rights for their own relics and tombs.
Just as Marwan Barghouti, I would prefer the one state solution, were both factions are forced to live next to each other, their children are going to the same schools and hear positive messages of living together in a shared Palestine, for exactly the reasons Jon mentioned above, and because they have done so for hundreds of years before. I wish for this, because I can’t believe that one Apartheid state in denial, with a zionist leadership and expansionary policies in place, can live peacefully side by side with a wronged people, who’s yearning for the land and grave’s of their forefathers is still raw, with the realisation that their children one day, again, might be overrun, occupied and ghettoised.
Both factions will have to grow up and realise that their children are being raised in a climate of hatred and violence, that they have to work out their differences. But unless both factions are forced to come to arrangement, ideally by their people and the rest of us, the middle east nightmare will carry on, a two state solution is no more than a postponement of the real debates to come, a longer cease fire, but not peace.
Cut Israel off its financial support and we will soon see movement.
oops, sorry, shopuld have read after …tombs, are mistake imho….
CE: some facts from the Prison Reform Trust – Women in Prison 2010 report:
63% of women are in prison for non-violent
offences, compared with 45% of men.
More women were sent to prison in 2007
for shoplifting offences than any other
crime.
Over half the women in prison say they have
suffered domestic violence and one in three
has experienced sexual abuse
Around one-third of women prisoners lose
their homes, and often their possessions,
whilst in prison.
Indeed, Widdecombe approved of the policy which was to shackle (using handcuffs and chains) such pregnant women to beds ‘until labour began’. Is that somehow acceptable?
For those of us who support Palestine, our resolve to continue the BDS campaign is even stronger today.
BDS roundup: Following Corrie verdict, activists strengthen divestment campaigns
In this roundup of news from the global boycott, divestment and sanctions movement: Campaigners strengthen calls for divestment against Caterpillar following the Corrie verdict; Indian activists, scholars and artists denounce India-Israel free trade agreement; South Africa approves measure to correctly label products from Israeli settlements; and Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (Vancouver) denounces pinkwashing, calls for adoption of BDS guidelines at Vancouver Queer Film Festival.
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora/bds-roundup-following-corrie-verdict-activists-strengthen-divestment-campaigns
Caterpillars are still being used to demolish Palestinian homes. Imagine if one rolled up to your home and started work, how you would feel. First the glass is broken, then the timbers creak and split, then the bricks start falling and so on. Mohammed Omer who is a young journalist in Rafah and who won the Martha Gellhorn Prize, saw his mother injured when their house was demolished. Several of his siblings have been killed or injured. {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omer}
John Pilger wrote about him. I had the good fortune to meet John Pilger and Mohammed Omer at that prize giving and Dahr Jamail who was also awarded the prize that day for his unembedded reporting from Iraq. Two very brave and talented young men.{http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/israelandthepalestinians.civilliberties}
Viva,
I wasn’t aware that Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic were African.
You are not very well informed, are you? The above were indicted by the ICTY, not the ICC.
I didn’t claim anything AW said was acceptable, I was merely correcting an inaccuracy in Mary’s post when she claimed AW insisted on women being shackled during childbirth. She didn’t, but why let the truth get in the way of a good rant?
Most of the figures from the PRT are to be expected. Across both genders it is likely to be people facing other social problems who end up committing crimes and facing incarceration. But what about the many others who also face these problems without breaking the law?
With regards to shoplifting, are we expected to feel sympathy for those who end up in jail for this offence? This is a crime that has an impact on all of us and I would expect you would have to be a massive repeat offender to face a custodial sentence.
“An attendee at the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday allegedly threw nuts at a black camerawoman working for CNN and said “This is how we feed animals” before being removed from the convention, a network official confirmed to TPM.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/an-ugly-incident-in-tampa-133600.html?hp=l10
These ugly, ugly people vote to elect an American President, who, according to a Republican female convention attendee on Sky News yesterday is (still) the “Leader of the Free World”.
It would be risible if it wasn’t so serious. These idiots actually believe that they’re still “free”, and think they can impose their form of “freedom” on others at the point of a gun, or preferably the point of a drone.
I get so angry I could spit. Literally.
I’m still watching ‘Defamation’, by the way. The site insisted I download it instead of just watching it, and that alone took 1.5 hours. I’m now watching it in slices. Fascinating so far.
CE: yes, good to correct inaccuracies. The original topic was whether women should have their clothes cut off them in prison, and I think the answer is no.
People below the poverty line frequently have to resort to small scale crimes to survive, whether it’s not being able to pay their car insurance, or not being able to afford school shoes, or food, or drugs. Of course I feel sympathy for them. Jail does not seem to be any sort of humane answer, see statistics on how many women lose their homes as a result.