Daniel Rosenstone's Blog

A Black Swan

2009-01-27T16:37:00.004Z

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

2009-01-25T23:38:00.002Z

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

2009-01-20T15:49:00.004Z

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?

2009-01-16T11:37:00.002Z

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

2009-01-16T07:56:00.007Z

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...

2009-01-13T17:57:00.004Z

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

2009-01-13T15:09:00.003Z

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.

The Engines of Anarchy

2009-01-10T18:21:00.003Z

I wasn't going to blog on the weekend, but sat here watching the news I'm not sure i can help myself...

I'm watching the footage of the anti-Israel/pro-Hamas rally.* Why is it that shop windows need to be smashed and face masks worn by the protesters? Why are they throwing things at the police? (if you want to see a tamer version of today's rally, see the link on my second blog post)

Is this another example of the "loony left" using people's suffering to whip up anarchy and fear - just like in Athens last month? I dare say it is. Why can't the good people among that rally, out to protest for a cause they believe in, not see that they are being taken for a ride by extremists? They're being used as pawns by extremists islamist groups and groups such as the SWP who just relish the opportunity to throw things at the police and show Starbucks what for.

It's about time people started paying attention to what causes these rallies to turn so nasty so quickly. And don't tell me it is because they are so desperate. In this conflict, not only do I not believe that to be anywhere near enough of a good excuse for breaking the law and harming policemen, but it's only making the Palestinian supporters look like violent and out-of-control extremists.

*I call it that intentionally. It is not, as some news sources would have it, a pro-Gaza rally. I am pro-Gaza, but would never dream of attending that rally).

Sacrificial Lambs

2009-01-09T10:32:00.003Z

This article is spot on and well worth a read. Sums things up nicely.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5477420.ece

It is this point which is particularly powerful:

Many Palestinians see [Hamas' global Islamist goals] as a betrayal of their national aspirations. They do not wish to be the sacrificial lamb of pan-Islamist global ambitions

This is spot on and exaclty right. All those who claim to be standing up for Palestinians are actually doing them a shocking disservice when they back Hamas.

It's also nice to be reminded that Hamas only won 46% of the vote in the Palestinian elections for all those that insist upon their democratic legitimacy (see post below "on democracy")

Le pièce de résistance

2009-01-08T12:43:00.004Z

The best bit about the guardian article in the below post is this...

In what was said to be a testy meeting, representatives told Rammell the government's position on Gaza could provoke UK terrorist attacks. One of those present was Dr Hany el-Banna, youth worker and co-founder and president of the charity Islamic Relief. He told the Guardian: "We are all working tirelessly to try and cool them down. I am telling them to change and bring something positive, but they see these images and they trigger extremist thoughts in the simplest individuals. Many millions of people will see these images in the media, what do you think the affect will be?

What do I think the affect will be? well I don't know; maybe an angry letter to the Sunday Times? Or perhaps not voting Labour at the next election? oh no that's right, he means randomly killing innocent civilians - how silly of me!

Well, at least the government's not meeting with people from organisations with links to terrorism. And at least the Guardian aren't reporting what people from those organisations say and assuming its sensible - oh no, again, it seems that they are - Islamic Relief -

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/key-issues/protecting/charities_execorder_13224-i.shtml#_International_Islamic_Relief

Oh the absurdity!

2009-01-08T11:25:00.002Z

Am I the only one that finds the response to the Gaza crisis from elements in the UK Muslim community, and the response by the media and political community, to be utterly absurd?

The guardian reported this today...

Anger within Britain's Muslim communities over the Gaza conflict has reached "acute levels of intensity" that could have repercussions for national security, leading Muslims will warn Gordon Brown today

I just cannot fathom this logic. It's as if the Muslim community are implying that it's perfectly normal for someone to want to blow themselves up on Britain's commuter network because of something happening two and half thousand miles away in a foreign country - and the press and government don't even bother to question this rationale!

I understand that the conflict in Gaza will radicalise more Muslims and turn them to extremism but separate the symptoms from the sickness people! The Gaza conflict is not the root cause of Islamism and the sooner the press and elements of the Muslim community stop implying that it is the sooner we might begin to address the issue sensibly (both the issue of the Gaza crisis and the radicalisation of extremist communities).

Extremist Islamism existed before the Gaza crisis, it grew independently of the State of Israel and will continue to exist even if Israel ceased to. Islamist extremism is a product of modernity - it is a reaction to a changing world and has a whole plethora of complex political, social and anthropological causes.

Dumbing this thing down and blaming ourselves instead of tackling the issues will get us no where.

On "Democracy"

2009-01-07T15:55:00.004Z

I've heard it said a few times now that you can't get rid of, or be too harsh to Hamas because the Palestinians freely chose them in fair elections. This is a strong point (prima facie at least).

As the strongest advocate of democratic government I absolutely believe that one must respect the choice of government in a democratic election.

However, do not believe that the situation in Gaza is anything remotely close to a democracy and nor has it been for at least 18 months.

Democracy is more than just the act of choosing a party or politician. It is an ongoing process of deliberation and accountability. It is the rule of law, separation of powers and branches of government. It is a free press and a vibrant civil society. None of these things have existed in Gaza since Hamas forcibly and violently seized power from Fatah in 2007.

In fact, has anyone read the constitution of the Palestinian Authority recently? http://www.palestinianbasiclaw.org/2003-amended-basic-law. I think you'll find that what it stipulates is a million miles from what Hamas currently presides over.

So, my response to the point that Hamas were freely chosen is relatively clear. Hamas were indeed chosen by the Palestinian people and a large proportion of that vote came from Gaza communities. HOWEVER, Hamas were not elected to be the supreme rulers of Gaza but as the majority party of a Palestinian legislature. A legislature which, by the way, was only one branch of government alongside the Presidency and the judiciary - neither of which function in Gaza.

Hamas forfeited their legitimacy when they broke the rules of the democratic game (namely the constitution). Accepting Hamas as the legitimate spokespeople of Gazans would be very much like accepting the congressional Democratic party in the US as the legitimate authority of New Hampshire if it decided to dismantle all the federal institutions in the state by force. Just because most people in New Hampshire voted for democratic congressmen, it does not mean that those democratic congressmen alone are the sole representatives and government of the state.

Hamas will be accepted as legitimate, by me at least, when they abide by the constitution of the Palestinian people. A victory in one branch of government, however decisive, does not entitle that party to shut down the rest of government and proclaim themselves the supreme legitimate authority.

As a side note, it might be interesting to know that Hamas took control of Gaza by force, killing many Fatah supporters and officials in the Gaza strip.

Speechless

2009-01-07T12:24:00.001Z

I don't even know where to start with this one...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2103995.ece

Who are the criminals?

2009-01-07T10:13:00.003Z

I was genuinely quite troubled to hear reports yesterday that a UN school was hit by Israeli mortar fire killing over 30 innocent non-combatants in Gaza. Any loss of innocent life, as I've said (in my response to a comment on the first Gaza post)is unfortunate and almost unforgivable. Innocent death should be avoided and (again, as I've said) I genuinely believe Israel are putting their own soldiers lives at risk in order to minimise civilian casualties.

However, and there is a big however, the UN, as usual, needs to stop and think before it speaks. They need to quite seriously ask themselves who was to blame for that mistake and the loss of that life. Because while the blame can obviously never be completely one-sided, it is Hamas that need to take the bulk of the responsibility.

It has been stated over and over again in the press that Israel knew the exact location of the UN school and that the school was "clearly marked" as a UN facility. But if this is the argument levelled against the Israelis, that they should have been able to clearly identify the site even with no coordinates because it was "clearly marked", then why do the UN not expect Hamas to do the same?

Mark Regev was on newsnight last night and answered this question very well. It is not the Israelis that were at fault here. Forces on the ground were responding to fire from Hamas. If Hamas militants decide to use a UN facility as a launching pad for firing on Israeli troops or civilians then what are they expecting? Are they expecting that the Israeli troops will hold fire and go away? or maybe wait until the militants decide to move somewhere else? of course they won't, they will return fire.

A crime has been committed here by Hamas. Willfully turning a UN base into an offensive military position is sick and unacceptable. Why are the UN not saying this? why aren't they speaking out against Hamas? (it could be something to do with the illegitimacy and entirely illogical nature of the organisation - but I'm sure I'll come to that later). I'm not surprised the Israelis think the UN are out to get them. Their response, and the media's to this incident is truly gobsmacking.

Hamas are continuing their vile conduct in this sorry affair. Choosing to use a UN base as an offensive military position is unacceptable. I grant that the Israelis were perhaps a little careless in their response, but Hamas were outright brazen and unapologetic in using the lives of Innocent children as a shield for their endless aggression.

Some quick stats

2009-01-06T16:13:00.003Z

I have just been reliably informed that since Israel withdrew from Gaza well over 3,000 rockets were fired over the next three years. here's the breakdown..

2005 - 417
2006 - 968
2007 - 1645

that's almost three a day, everyday, for three years (2008 figures are obviously not even included in this figure)

Another first for youtube

2009-01-06T15:50:00.002Z

So here's an interesting point...

If the election of Barack Obama was the first truly "youtube election" then what is happening in Gaza would appear to be the first "youtube war".

As reported in The Times last week:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5424671.ece , the IDF has become the first national force to set up their own youtube channel.

I find this very interesting and, to be honest, very encouraging. Youtube is a powerful tool. It is the embodiment of how the internet aids democratic debate and government transparency (which is having interesting ramifications for regimes such as Iran's and China's - I'll write about this later).

In this case, it has given the IDF the opportunity to show the world that they are approaching this conflict in the proper way - no more false claims of massacres like with operation defensive shield in Jenin in 2002. This was in truth another example of the IDF behaving impeccably but various groups decided to spin the story to make it much more readable (for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1937048.stm. The truth of course was a long, long, long way from what was reported in this story)

Bring on the youtube revolution and the ascendancy of truth!

the IDF youtube channel: http://uk.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk

Gaza

2009-01-06T10:48:00.003Z

As you'll see in the post below, I've often criticised the actions of the State of Israel. I'm not a huge fan of the security barrier that runs along the West Bank and the situation at checkpoints needs improving (to name just two examples of my displeasure with the current status quo)

However, I cannot fault in a major way the actions of the Israeli government in the current conflict (there will always be isolated incidents resulting from error or the malice of an individual which i obviously exclude)

Hamas have been firing rockets into Israel on a constant basis for at least 18 months but closer to two years. There is no democratic government in the world that would allow this status quo to exist and I quite frankly find it remarkable that Israel has acted with such restraint until now. Indeed, almost a year ago rockets were reaching as far as Ashdod - a major Israeli city.

To put this into perspective, it would be like the IRA (except a more irrational extremist islamo-fascist version with no clear or realistic vision of victory) firing rockets onto towns like Stockport, Blackburn and Chester on a constant basis with the occasional missile landing on Manchester. How do you think the British government would react to this? I can't imagine Ken Livingstone would be calling for restraint (actually, wait, yes I can).

Hamas need to be removed from power and discredited. They are the destabilising factor in the Middle East. Peace talks were progressing at a steady rate until they chose to end the ceasefire.

Hamas is an islamo-fascist organisation with the declared intention of the complete destruction of Israel (and that's only when they remember to say Israel - because they mean "Jews"...

Fighting intensified on the northern outskirts of Gaza City yesterday as a Hamas leader warned that the Islamists would kill Jewish children anywhere in the world in revenge for Israel’s devastating assault. Times article)

Removing Hamas from power would only be a good thing for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Both suffer at their hands while it is only the few cronies running their vile show that reap any benefit at all.

For the record...

2009-01-06T10:29:00.003Z

I'm going to start writing about Gaza soon; but before I do, I've decided it will be prudent to put some stuff on the record first...

First, I'll say that I've always been a Zionist. I was brought up a Zionist and consider this an integral part of my identity. However, I must also add that for the last 5 years or so (since I spent a period of time living in Israel) I have sat staunchly on the left side of the movement.

This means that I fervently believe in the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. I believe in the speedy establishment of a democratic Palestinian State on most, if not all of the West Bank and Gaza along the pre-1967 borders. It also means I oppose Israeli settlement in that area and consider settlement activity an unjustified barrier to any peace process.

While I am openly and proudly a Zionist, I am not someone who will defend the actions of the Israel government blindly. I am and have always been a critic of the actions of Israel when I consider them to be unjust, heavy handed, illegal or all three.

I'll be happy to expand on any of these points on request.

Glad we got that sorted...

2009-01-04T17:18:00.003Z

If you wondering, it was the booing in this clip that really got me angry...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YC0aPF-u6rY

I should add that I am acutely aware that this throws up lots of juicy issues. For example the way that the police handle the right to protest in this country and the occasional claims of brutality. It also of course brings up the issue of Gaza, which I'll write about soon.

This clip is also particularly frightening...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8BTvGqN0Q

Introducing...

2009-01-04T16:27:00.001Z

Even though I know I should, I simply hadn't yet got around to joining the blogging revolution - until today of course. The events of the last weeks and months have caused my fury and utter disbelief with the world to reach that critical mass whereby I had to vent to whoever will listen (even if I remain the only one who will).

So, without further ado, please find my first blog post herewith....

Point of Fury and Utter Disbelief 1.

The police have been talked about a lot recently. They shot Jean Charles de Menezes - which was bad (although not entirely their fault - I'm sure I'll return to this at some stage), then there was the whole race allegations concerning Tarique Ghaffur - which didn't exactly aid their credibility, and then they topped off this run of form by "raiding" the House of Commons and arresting Damian Green MP - which was gobsmackingly unbelievable.

But, despite this comedy of errors - if such a term can be used to describe such a dire set of blunders - they remain the police force of Great Britain and the entity which exists, to borrow from the LAPD, "to protect and to serve" the citizens of this country.

And so my first Point of Fury and Utter Disbelief is the astonishing lack of respect which the police in this country are afforded. The police are people who leave for work every day with the sole intention of stopping crime and helping people. They have had a good day if they have stopped bad things from happening to good people (and usually bad people too).

Growing up, some of my friends used to refer to the police as pigs -many people now still do. this has always deeply offended me. The media have finally got around to appreciating the dedication and commitment of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if they don't necessarily believe that the causes they are fighting are just. It is high time they did the same for all those who serve the British public - especially those such as the police who put their lives on the line in order to do it.

Sometimes the police will get it wrong. But when they do let's blame the people giving the orders and let's the blame the cabinet ministers implicitly or explicitly sanctioning their activity. But please, let's respect the policemen and women who leave for work every day hoping that they when they get home, you are at least as safe and happy as when they left.