A Black Swan

Imagine my surprise today when I opened the Independent newspaper to find an article on the Middle East that was not only quite sensible, but really quite good. Given most of their coverage over the last month I was almost startled to see a reasoned and logical article adorn their pages.

The article is by Dominic Lawson and is well worth a read. Given that BBC-bashing is now the in thing, you might not find such a reasonable article anywhere else, ever again. The article concerns the decision by the BBC not to show the DEC appeal for Gaza on the grounds that they want to remain impartial:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-when-charities-turn-political-the-bbc-is-right-to-tread-warily-1516810.html


Now, I've not actually made my mind up about this one yet. It shouldn't really matter what the politics of a situation are; if people need help, and UK television watchers can give that help, then it could be argued that there is a duty to get the necessary information to as many people as possible.

However, what is written in the article above is also true, and it's a shame that charities such as Christian Aid should decide to muddy themselves with the nuances of the conflict and thereby devalue the good work which they could and should be doing.

Charities such as Christian Aid are not neutral entities. They could have been, but for reasons beyond my understanding they decided to start playing "UN" a number of years ago. The sad fact of the matter is that once an organisation decides to tell Gordon Brown to "push for the EU to suspend its talks with Israel on upgrading relations" because Israel is "in breach of international humanitarian law in targeting civilians in Gaza", then that organisation has lost some legitimacy.

I might also add, that if I was the BBC, the mere presence of Islamic Relief on that list of charities would be enough for me to be sure that I did not want to associate myself with the advertisement. See the post Le pièce de résistance below - that should explain things nicely.

The article also points out another folly that has been going on in this whole affair - the role of Galloway and his cronies in finding any opportunity for a bit of mayhem and Jew bashing. Lawson writes:

Those who felt most strongly that the BBC should be condemned for not backing down went on a march to Broadcasting House at the weekend. With George Galloway and Tony Benn at the head, it was quite a turn-out... I was especially struck by one of the speakers, who, to applause, praised Press TV, the British media arm of the Iranian government, which is prepared to show the DEC film, and cried "shame" on the BBC for not employing similar high standards of judgement.

Similar high standards of judgment? As the article goes on to explain, Press TV publishes Holocaust denial literature on its website - high standards of judgement indeed.

I'm not sure if I agree with the BBC on this, but I don't blame their caution. I do however blame firmly and resolutely the role that some charities are insistent upon taking in Gaza and across the Middle East. It is sad to see that these organisations, with so much capacity to do good, get sucked into the nihilistic relativism of Galloway, Livingstone and the rest of the loony left.

If they want to do their jobs properly, then charities should be charities and nothing more; least of all they should be vehicles for political expression, dabbling in international relations whenever they see fit.

A healthy reminder

I've just got back from the cinema after seeing the new film Milk with Sean Penn. I recommend it - it was very good.

The film is the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected into high public office in the USA (and, by extension, almost anywhere else in the world)

It is always good to be reminded that we did not just end up where we are by chance, that the freedoms we enjoy were not just a steady evolution of policy and culture but the fruit of hard fights by the people who came before us - pioneers who often gave their lives for the happier future which they never had the chance to enjoy.

Of all the various political campaigns of which I have been a part, it is the apathy in the LGB community which is most striking. In a way, this is due to the success of those like Harvey Milk. But things aren't right yet. Mental health problems still occur more regularly in gay young people, children still get incessantly bullied at school over their sexuality and full equality under the law is very close, but not quite there. Elements of our society also still seek to sideline gay people, indeed, to disenfranchise gay people and undo all that the Labour government achieved over the last ten years.

And let's not forget the nine countries in the world where homosexuality is punished by death, and the many more where it is illegal or met unchallenged by the state with violence, intimidation and murder. We live in a global age, securing one's own freedom does not entitle that person to make do and sit back.

Films like Milk are good - they are a healthy reminder that what we have should not be taken for granted - that society has many people to whom it owes thanks. I hope it also serves to remind the gay community that giving up now would be an unforgivable disservice to those on whose shoulders we stand. While hate crime against gays continues, while kids in this country suffer at the hands of a culture which oppresses them, and while teenage boys face public executions in Iran, the words and deeds of Harvey Milk still have much further to travel - I only hope it is films like these which provide the inspiration to march on.

Taking Note

Melanie Philips has written an absolutely cracking article in the Wall Street Journal today. After all the blog posts on here covering the Gaza crisis and Miliband's comments last week, this article just sums it all up fantastically.

Well worth a read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123240733254895655.html

My favourite parts are undoubtedly these:

Last Thursday, Mr. Miliband wrote in the Guardian that there was no single, unified Islamist threat but merely a set of various local grievances, such as Kashmir or the Golan Heights. Such startling ignorance of the goals and ideological antecedents of the Islamic jihad, from Hamas to Hezbollah to Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Taiba, is of a piece with the British government's stubborn refusal to accept that the West is under assault from a war of religion.

"startling ignorance" is exactly right - could not have put it better myself (in fact, I didn't put it better myself). This apparent policy shift by Miliband isn't just a moment of stupidity, and it is more than just an opportunistic piece of foreign policy, it constitutes a grave threat to the future of global security as a whole.

She also wrote:

"middle Britain" is beginning to grasp that the Islamists in Gaza are the same as those rampaging through the streets of London

This time, I can only hope she is right. As I wrote in my earlier post ("engines of anarchy"), the riots seen on London's streets over the last weeks are not the boiling-over protests of your average angry citizen. They are intentional, anarchical and dangerous displays of extremist politics and allowing theses individuals and groups to vent their fury unchecked on our capital's streets will set an all too dangerous precedent.

I'm not always her biggest fan, I'm certainly no fan of the "newspaper" she usually writes for, but let's hope, for all our sakes, that someone other than me is taking note.

Where are the UN?

Just a quick note - why has UNICEF been so silent about the way Hamas treats children? Why have they been so silent (for the last 8 years, not one comment) about he way Hamas uses innocent civilians as human shields?

I really have no answer (except to say that the UN is a corrupt, inept and nonsense organisation - I'll write about this eventually) - if you know, do share.

I'm not one for propaganda video's, but the link below is quite compelling. It is a little overdone, but the pictures speak for themselves

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8

A Khrushchev Moment

Yesterday, David Miliband made the remarkable decision to tell the world that the "war on terror" was a mistake - or at least that's how the papers reported it.

There is just so much to say on this that I don't even know where to start! First, as Ed Davey rightly points out, this revelation either makes Miliband a coward or an opportunist with few principles - and there isn't really a way around that. Three things could have happened: he could always have believed this to be the case - but was always too fearful of the backlash from Washington that he never said it - this would make hima coward; he could not have any opinion on the matter but he knows Obama thinks something similar so he's hopping on the next band wagon - an opportunist; or we could believe his answer to Davey's criticism - namely that the Foreign Office have not been using the term since 2006 and have long ago changed their terrorism policy - I think this makes him a coward and an opportunist?. Changing policy but not telling anyone about it is as bad as, or probably worse than thinking a policy is wrong but at least telling the people you work for before you decide to change it.

Anyway, I won't speculate as to which of those things is the truth - it will suffice to say that there is now a new reality in Foreign Policy. There was always a change coming with Obama, but is the Khrushchev method really the best way? denouncing what came before as evil and then starting something new without bothering to tie it down to foundations or an understanding of its origins? (don't get me wrong. Stalin was bad and when Khrushchev did it I'm sure I would have been wholly supportive!)

But, to be honest, I worry. There is certainly some truth in the assertion that using terms such as "axis of evil" and the "war on terror" were perhaps not as helpful as they could have been. But, in my opinion at least, the world remains divided into two camps; those who respect liberty and justice and those who do not. I'm uncomfortable with this new paradigm that some oppressive governments are not as bad as others. I am worried that the world will return to the state of play where a country is the friend of the US one year - and gets armed to the teeth accordingly - only to turn into its arch enemy the next.

The old Bush-Blair neoconservative doctrine was essentially a good idea. It drew clear lines in the sand. It didn't mean to say that a neoconservative should not negotiate with Iran - nor did it mean that encouraging democracy in foreign countries had to be done with tanks and F-16s. But it gave clarity. It had the courage of its convictions - it was not afraid to say "liberty good oppression bad".

So, as Miliband hammers the final nail in the coffin of neoconservatism the risk of walking backwards and of encouraging unjust and illegitimate authority to flourish seems to be becoming ever more likely. I, for one, will miss the days when the world was not afraid to say that liberty was deserved by all people, everywhere.

Told you so...

Ok, so I said I was a vocal critic of Israel when need be, and here is your proof.

Yesterday, a coalition of right wing political parties voted in the Israeli parliament to ban the two Arab parties from standing in the general election in February. This, in no uncertain terms, is an absolute travesty and an affront to any kind of democratic and liberal politics. (article below)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231760644913&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The parliamentarians concerned, Avigdor Lieberman (vile racist) and David Tal (unadulterated bigot), argued that the two Arab parties were undermining the State of Israel because they did not accept the right of Israel to exist and had caused controversy for suspected breaches of national security during the Lebanon war in 2006.

It is a sad, sad state of affairs when a ruling like this can pass a committee of a democratic parliament. It doesn't matter if Balad (one of the Arab parties) supports Israel or not. It doesn't even matter if they are the most raving right-wing racist nut cases this side of Jerusalem (which they aren't). Just like it would be unacceptable to ban the BNP in this country, who are racists, or the communist parties of continental Europe, who do not believe in the validity of the state, I cannot condone this decision - in fact, I am repulsed by it.

This decision is unequivocally deplorable.

In a democratic state, people have the right to choose whichever party they want - even if it is Hamas (remember, my issue with that is that they seized control and went beyond their mandate). A true democracy does not have the right to disqualify parties it doesn't like.

This is a real shame, Israel has shown itself up - especially after the comments from the Foreign Secretary yesterday (see below). Fortunately, Israel has a strong justice system which will almost certainly overturn this decision.

But regardless of what might happen in the courts, this is one of those moments where we find out if people mean what they say - if they are willing to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. To all those thousands who have called themselves ardent supporters of Israel this week, stand up for Balad and UAL. To all those who have said this isn't about Palestinians this is about Hamas, stand up for Balad and UAL. To all those who have used Israel's democracy as a linchpin of its defence, stand up for Balad and UAL.

I know I will.

Playing Catch-up

Yesterday was a bit busy and I didn't have time to write. Consequently, I have a whole day's worth of things to say and not enough time say them! Frustration.

However, as a quick note, there were two fantastic articles in the Times over the weekend which are well worth a read.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article5484881.ece

and...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article5489436.ece

I also want to say something about Miliband's statement yesterday. As there isn't much time to do this all I'll say is that it was good, if not a little too easy on Hamas. I was also quite taken aback by the lack of support for Israel in the House and a seeming lack of understanding among MPs - I find that quite worrying.

I am also not best pleased about the cries of war crimes; a claim which Miliband should have confronted rather than implicitly condoned. The criminals are Hamas (as per earlier post). I appreciate that Israel has made mistakes but there was no mention of the effort which the Israeli government goes to in order to minimise these civilian fatalities. For example the dropping of leaflets to warn the civilian population of impending action. People need to remember that if the IDF only had cold military objectives as their goal then they would not have given their enemy details of when they were going to attack and how they were going to do it - let's not forget that Hamas see those leaflets too, not just the civilians of Gaza.

However, despite all this I'll throw a bone to those crying out against Israel. My favourite part of Miliband's statement was this...

Israel is, meanwhile, a thriving, democratic state with an independent judiciary. However, one consequence of the distinction between a democratic Government and a terrorist organisation is that democratic Governments are held to significantly higher standards, notably by their own people. That is one reason why we supported resolution 1860—to uphold the standards on which Israel and the rest of us depend. As a beacon of democracy in the middle east, Israel’s best defence is to show leadership in finding a political solution to the crisis and comply with the standards of international humanitarian law.

He is absolutely right. It is those high standards which I am proud of and would never let slip. And it's why Israel should be criticised when it acts outside of international law... more on this later.