Sleepless nights

Now, I am not suggesting that John Demjanjuk should not be on trial. Indeed, I believe that it is morally right that any man who might have committed war crimes be tried and, if found guilty, convicted for those crimes. Indeed, I would go so far as to agree with Rabbi Marvin Hier, the Dean of the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, when he says: "We should not make the mistake of thinking that a case against one war criminal is a case against just one man, when the bell tolls for John Demjanjuk, it is also tolling for every other war criminal. Even if it just gives them sleepless nights."

Of course, coming from the Rabbi this is pathetic pathos, verbal diarrhea or, to put it quite simply, the Rabbi is full of shit. For it to be otherwise he would be have to be wishing half of the population back in his "Geistige Heimat", at the very least, insomnia, and somehow, I don't think he does. Over to you Rabbi and maybe you would like to qualify your statement.

An English upper class twits get-together

During its long history the 'Times' never was radical and, since the ascendency of Rupert Murdoch, it most certainly hasn't become so. Therefore, when we read of  highborn civil service mandarins failing to disguise the crimes of their government by employing "those linguistic tricks and sleights of semantics that made Yes Minister such a pleasure to watch", we can rest assured, the war in Iraq was illegal and so obviously so, that there might even be sectors of the British establishment who are ready to drop Anthony Charles Linton Blair, the spin and grin man, war criminal and hypocritie extraordinaire, like a hot or, at least, hottish potato.

Already, this week we have the myth of the "Saadam threat" laid bare for what it was; namely, a threat that had to be manufactured to provide justification for an illegal war that Blair had already committed himself to in the middle of 2002 after a nice cosy little meeting with George W Bush. Therefore, the intention to take Britain into an illegal war and the political and personal committment to do so , were establish facts despite Blair continuing to tell the British public and the House of Commons that war could be avoided. He had decided to take Britain to war but continued to mislead the public as to his intentions!

Moreover, Blair was absolutely aware that he was taking Britain into a war that was illegal for, although a rogue, hypocrite and war criminal, the man with the spin and the grin is certainly no idiot. Therefore when, on July 29th 2002, Lord Goldsmith,  Mr Blair's top law officer at the time, told him that deposing Saadam would be a breach of international law, while pointing out exactly why this would be so, Blair had no reason to doubt him. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that he ever did but rather prefered to bully Lord Goldsmith to back down.

If anything surprises it is the audacity with which this pathetic "gentlemen's" club reveals facts that points to all of them being effectively involved in a war crime. Well, "audacity" is probably the wrong word and the evidence would seem to suggest that they really do live in a little world all of their own where they don't take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Rob Liddle, in the 'Time's' article mentioned above, writes: "This whole procedure is a little like a very upper-class version of the Channel 4 series Come Dine with Me, with charming, learned and polite knighted people asking the gentlest of questions of charming, learned and polite knighted people, before breaking for lunch." No, while Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassodor threatened to resign, he didn't, none of them did and what might that have done to their pathetic little careers? On the other hand, what might it have done to Tony's war? We can only speculate but because we can only speculate the little upper class twits get-together  that is so lackadaisically blowing the whistle on its ex-boss is in the process of incriminating itself and if they think that they didn't have an alternative to going along with what they knew was a crime then they are spineless creatures of the worst sort and in an ideal world they would all be following Tony to the Hague and a trial in front of the ICC. 

"Schwarzwaldtorte" , a shanty village and a palace

We went for afternoon coffee in the Addis Sheraton, one of those obscene first world bubbles that you find all over the third world, the kind of place where you sup steamy latte at the pool and chomp into the kind of "Schwarzwaldtorte" that they would be proud of in Freiburg, Forbach or Forcheim.

There is a little lane to the left of the main gate and when you walk up that little lane you will find a slum, a shanty village of sorts, corrugated roofing, mud walls, snuggled in behind the hotel, stuck almost out of sight, under the main road and there we were latte gulped down, "Schwarzwaldtorte" scoffed, taking the short cut to our next bubble. Chris had decided that he wanted to swim not in the Sheraton pool but in the one at the slightly more "down to earth" Hilton. The route through the slum offered a short cut and the alternative would have taken us the long way round, past the ostentatious presidential palace, up the hill and across the road and we would, no doubt, have made our route slightly longer just to have had a look at the Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi's, even more ostentatious home.

Prime Minister Zenawi has his "wee house" perched above the Sheraton, perched above the presidential palace and perched above the little Shanty village and with armed guards perched in little watch towers all around its walls, you wouldn't want to be looking too closely or too long and, having been in power uninterrupted since 1991, it would appear that the occupant is not in a hurry to move out. Yes, Meles Zenawi belongs to that "rare" breed of African "democrat" who finds it difficult to give up power, who believes in jobs for the boys and who, if necessary, knows how to deal with the opposition. No, he is no Jean-Bédel Bokkasa, he is no Idi Amin Dada or Mobuto Sésé Seko and indeed, Mengistu, the man he forced from office, was a much worse tyrant than he was or will probably ever be. No, the present Prime Minister of Ethiopian "only" heads a government that remains practically unaccountable to its citizens, in theory democratic but in practice not and, while not as corrupt as many other countries in Africa, nevertheless corrupt.

That is why while we can agree with Meles Zenawi when he says that the developed countries, having bailed out the bankers, cannot oppose funds to fight global warming, and while we also might agree that Africa is suffering from a mess that it didn't create, we should be a bit wary when it comes to giving Africa the reported $300 billion in financial support and technology transfer to mitigate the impact of climate change that he is apparently asking for. Meles says in the 'Guardian':  "It is about moral values that make it appropriate to rescue bankers, who expect everyone but themselves to pay for the mess they created, and inappropriate to compensate the world's poorest people, whose survival is threatened precisely because of the mess created by developed countries." If Mr Meles were really concerned about the "world's poorest people', he might just open the doors of his palace to those poor souls who are stuck in a shanty village somewhere between the Addis Sheraton and the Addis Hilton and until he does, the western taxpayer should be paying neither for the extension to his "wee house", nor for the extension of his term in office.

The Iraq War Inquiry

Today Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the UN from 1998 to 2003, was giving evidence to the inquiry on the decision to invade Iraq and the most interesting thing for the mass media appears to be his saying; "I regard our participation in the military action in Iraq in March 2003 as legal but of questionable legitimacy in that it did not have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states, or even perhaps of the majority of people inside the UK." Well, is this the beginning of a great media whitewash that will see the decision to go to war as legal and end up by arguing that it should, however, have had broader support?

Of course, the war was illegal and when Bush in his speech to the UN on September 12, 2002, described Saddam's regime as "a grave and gathering danger," that threatened the United States, there was absolutely no evidence to support this. which, of course, means that Chapter VII, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which allows for states to use force in self-defence, is not applicable here. Moreover, any attempt to envoke Article 42, which allows for "operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations" as an ultimate resort to enforce a UN resolution, is surely doomed by a number of factors despite the superficial appearance of legitimacy given to the crime by some of "Uncle Sam's" sychophants.

On the 24th of February, 2003 the US, the UK and Spain presented a draft resolution to the Security Council which declared that Iraq had failed to comply with UN resolution 1441, the supposed breach of international law which was used provided the sole "legal" basis to attack Iraq. However, the resolution was eventually withdrawn, with many countries in the UN, opposing it. Indeed, when Kofi Annan, the UN General Secretary, was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish." He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Of course, another point that we can only hope will be exploited at the inquiry is that both Bush and Blair knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. On September the 18th 2002, . Bush was told by the CIA director, George Tenet, that, according to two former senior CIA officials, Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. It was information that Bush "thought" worthless although in fact it was absolutely accurate. There is also evidence to suggest that Blair had similar information at least ten days before the invasion. Indeed, the late Robin Cook claimed that two weeks before Iraq was invaded Blair had privately conceded that Iraq had no usable WMD. 

Sir Jeremy Greenstock is right to say that the war did not have popular support. Nevertheless, that is no revelation and once again we have a British official and the mainstream media trying to whitewash what is a crime against humanity.  Washington and London tried to hijack international support to lend credibility to an illegal war, they then lied to convince the international community that this war was necessary and, finally, when their reason for going to war was directly undermined by real facts, they conveniently choose to ignore them. However, we should not rely on people like Jeremy Greenstock to have these criminals pulled in front of the ICC. The inquiry might, however, start to become interesting when the UN weapons inspectors themselves to deliver testimony.

sovereignty; two unrelated pieces of news

Today's 'Haaretz'; "Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday ordered the IDF to issue a temporary freeze order, but at the same time allowed the construction of 28 new public buildings in settlements."My advice to the Palestinians; breed like rabbits, forget this nonsense about a two state solution and start getting loud about one state for all the people. Or if you cannot get around to that, at least think of some strategy because believe me the Zionists have theirs and it hasn't changed one bit since 1948.

The other piece of news that has caught my attention is the British govenrment's outrageous decision uphold the order to extradite Gary McKinnon, who is accused of  breaking into US military and Nasa computers. The 'Independent' reports: "The case has highlighted concerns about the Extradition Act 2003 which critics maintain erodes the rights of individuals in Britain without a similar concession being given in the US. They argue that Britons can be extradited without any assessment of the evidence against them and on cases so weak that they would never reach court at home." On the other hand, American authorities only have to produce an arrest warrent to get someone extradited. Yes, the decision by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, is just one more indication of Britain surrendering sovereignty to Washington.

Built on sand

Coming up for air meant a three hour drive from Ibri down, up, over, to Dubai; three hours because in Al Ain the first latte of the week would be supped either at 'Starbucks' or 'Gloria Jeans', wifi too, but no pork sausages. Moreover, there were the abayas and the hijabs tailored more for Mecca or Riyadh than for cutting a dash in Dubai, Manama or even Jeddah. No, it was on and on to Dubai, that Arabian El Dolarado and approaching from Al Ain one is suddenly confronted with a skyline that is closer to New York or Shanghai than it is to Muscat or, both literally and figuratively, Medina or Mecca.

The closer one gets to Dubai, however, the more it becames apparent that this really is a "city" that's built on sand and through the high-rise, half completed, office blocks one can glimpse the desert. Nevertheless, this is, or was, Arabia's "higher, faster, bigger, better" and although the less short-sighted could always see that this accumulation of superlatives was being used to describe a house of cards, there were many for whom the emirate epitomised the quick profits that fictitious capital promised. The news today is that Dubai is bankrupt, with one business analaysist saying: "Unpaid bills, abandoned cars and empty buildings are all too obvious. Some analysts put the real (debt) figure at close to $160bn." Moreover, with it now looking as if Abu Dhabi won't bail its sister emirate out after all, it might just be that Dubai is not too big to fall after all.

For me, however, this always was a place that was built on sand and while the Westerns will move on and even the exploited workers who built the "dream" will return to the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere, I always had the impression that the emiraties themselves had never left the desert, that they had never left the sand and many of them might even simply sigh, mumble "inshallah" and swap their mercedes for something smaller..... a camel maybe!

Georgia sends troops to Afghanistan

What do you know; there was me saying, that the extra troops going to Afghanistan, and extra troops are going, might not be the 40,000 that General McChrystal has been asking for but that it is going to be close be that number with most educated guesses hovering between 30,000 and 34,000 and in today's 'New York Times' we discover where General McChrystal's "missing" troops are coming from with the paper reporting that the United States is scrambling ot coax NATO to provide 10,000 to allow the hype man to come close to the 40,000 extra troops that are required for the surge.

However, with public support for the war at an all time low in Europe's capitals, it is not going to be easy for even the hype fellow to convince his NATO allies to send the required troops. Oh sorry, I almost forgot Tblissi is in Europe and we have the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili pledging between 700 and 1,000 soldiers to Washington's war. Well, those lads are really not to be envied and if Saakashvili doesn't get them killed by the Russians, then they might just forfeit life and limb in Afghanistan for a war that really has nothing to do with them.

Nevertheless, Saakashvili is nothing, if not a gambler and one wonders what the hype man might be promising him; NATO membership is, of course, on the agenda and, who knows, Mr fix-it Obama might even have promised to help him get into the EU. We don't know but what we do know is with demonstrations on the streets of Tblissi seven months ago and with a mutiny in the army as recently as May, "Uncle Sam's" new pal is himself just about as stable as Afghanistan and his country in the longer term could cause more trouble than he is worth.

Marwan Barghouti

The significant news to come out of Israel is not the drivel about Ehud Barak telling the IDF to ensure the temporary freeze on construction projects in the West Bank. As I said only yesterday, this so-called freeze is a farce and as Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, has stated, there is nothing new in this announcement that would justify a return to the negotiating table. On the other hand, the news that Israel will include Marwan Barghouti in those to be freed as part of the deal to get the captured  Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit back is most interesting although it has been a possibility for some time.

It is interesting because only about a year and a half ago the then Israeli Infrastructure Minister, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, said that "Hamas will soon take over the West Bank. The only person who could put a stop to that is Barghouti." Yet, here is Hamas putting Barghouti at the top of their list of prisoners to be exchanged for Shalit. Now, that might be because Barghouti has won the respect many of those Hamas leaders who are also in prison and it might even be that Barghouti, who was recently elected to Fatah's Central Committee, can regenerate Fatah, become the next PA president and heal the bitter rift with Hamas.

Now, why Palestinians should want this is obvious. However, why Israel would be willing to release the man who can bring life into the dying Fatah while bringing about a reconciliation with Hamasand who, unlike Abbas, sees the armed struggle as an option to achieve his aim of a Palestinian state within the June 4, 1967 borders, with east Jerusalem as its capital, is beyond me. Moreover, all the more so as Barghouti will most definitely not compromise on these goals. Indeed, if nothing else, the evidence would seem to suggest that one Barghouti is worth 1,000 Schalits and not the other way around.

The next few days and weeks are going to be interesting and it looks as if we will be hearing a lot more of Marwan Barghouti who some are beginning to see as Palestine's Nelson Mandela. It is there, however, that our optimism should end with Barghouti himself saying that Israel does not have a Frederik Willem de Klerk. 

Sorry

Taken from the 'Scotsman' this morning: "THE Khmer Rouge's chief torturer and jailer has expressed "excruciating remorse" over the deaths of more than 14,000 people killed under his watch at a notorious prison during Cambodia's Maoist revolution of the 1970s." The man apologising is, Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Duch, who was in charge of the notorious S-21 prison in Pnom Pen and to be a little more specifice he is apologising for "crimes against humanity, enslavement, torture, sexual abuses and other inhumane acts"

Well, somehow Duch, I don't think an apology is going to swing it and I am afraid that this is a little bit more serious than bumping into someone in a supermarket and saying, "sorry". Nevertheless, while it might be difficult to get the charges of "sexual abuses" to stick against Blair and Bush, their motley crews and that band of raggle taggled Zionists down Palestine way, a similar apology from them might be interesting and, who knows, we might even take it seriously if they make it before the ICC has indicted them.

Moreover, while we should be more than a trifle sceptical about Duch's defence that he "was like a screw in the machinery of a car that could not be removed", which is a bit like, "I was only obeying orders", it might, nevertheless, be emphasised that the band of criminals mentioned above ultimately gave the orders. No, "sorry", I am afraid, is just not good enough, certainly not for Duch and for the others mentioned in this post? Well, would we have accepted a "sorry" from Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot?

Netanyahu announces settlement "freeze"

Netanyahu has announced a ten month settlement freeze. A "settlement freeze" that will only apply to the West Bank and will not include east Jerusalem, which will only apply to new construction and will mean that housing already underway will continue. Moreover, not only will existing construction of housing not be stopped but Israel will also continue to build synagogues, schools, kindergartens and public buildings essential for normal life in the settlements.

The Palestinians have, quite rightly, been quick to condemn the announcement, which obviously does not represent a moratorium and which would effectively deprive them of east Jerusalem. However, I wonder if they are aware of the how serious the implications might be if they were to be fooled into negotiating before their demands for a complete stop on construction in both the West Bank and east Jerusalem are met. This would be more than just a tactical error on the part of the Palestinians, it would also be seen as a tacit recognition of certain facts on the ground and once that recognition takes place, we would soon have de facto recognition of Israeli sovereignty over what is de jure, Palestinian land. That is why, it really is five to midnight for the Palestinians and there can be no compromises whatsoever when it comes to their rights under international law.

Netanyahu's announcement is an insult and it really isn't enough for Palestinians to reject it by saying that it offers nothiing new. It is time to scream that there can be no negotiations before Israel starts to comply with international law and the first step in complying with international law has to be a complete and immediate cessation of construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem as a precusor to a complete withdrawal. 

Cutting and Running

Déjà vu in more ways than one and not only for the soldiers of the "Queen my lads, we have been my lads." Got the following from an online copy of 'Time Magazine': "Because an army emulates its leadership, ARVN all too often runs roughshod over the people it is defending while in the field. The offenses range from chicken thievery to rape to the indiscriminate use of artillery. Corruption has long been a way of life, with tribute exacted all along the chain of command until the squeeze reaches the peasant at the bottom." This appeared in the magazine on April 19th 1968, seven years later Saigon was to fall.

Moreover, while it is only part of the truth, as many of the ARVN rank and file fought bravely long after they had been abandoned by the United States and their own generals, the parallels with Afghanistan today are all too evident and another potential parallel appears with  General Mohammad Zahir Azimi, the chief spokesman for the Afghan military, recently saying; “Within the next four years we will take the complete responsibility of the security from the international community, and the international forces will stay on their bases to support Afghanistan National Army forces.” Well, no doubt, "Uncle Sam" will be noting down such rhetoric and, ready or not, the exit strategy is beginning to take shape and, while we can only speculate on how many of Karzai's government and how many of the Generals in the ANA will be making the final stand. However, the evidence would seem to suggest that for every Le Minh Dao  here will be ten who decide to cut and run with the Americans. Although, that is where the parallels might actually end, and in Afghanistan it is sometimes easier to change sides than make the trip to sunny California.

Obama decision next week

Oh, what a coincidence; we had Bob Ainsworth saying, in his own somewhat incoherrent almost incohesive way, to MPs on the Defence Committee that Mr Obama's humming and hawing on the number of troops he is going to send to Afghanistan is making it difficult to win support for the campaign, and then we had Obama declaring within hours that he would be making an announcement within days. First of all, the relevant part of Bob's rather incohesive almost incorrent speech: "“We have suffered a lot of losses; we have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal’s plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections - which have been far from perfect let us say - and all of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress. And to put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are."

A wee bit difficult to follow but in there somewhere is the necessary exophoric reference and Bob was giving Barack a wee prod and, lo and behold, there was Barack saying to all and sundry that he will make his decision next week on the number of troops to send to Afghanistan and that he intends to “finish the job” that began back in 2001. Of course, if Washington does get to hear about Bob's speech the most likely reaction is going to be, "Bob, who"? Yes, while the British Defence Secretary can play to the gallery and jump on the "send more troops" bandwagon, it is in Washington that the decision will be made.

Therefore, let's forget Bob's rather incoherrent and almost incohesive speech and forecast what Obama's decision will entail next week. Well, it might not mean the 40,000 extra troops that General McChrystal has been asking for but it is going to be close to that number with most educated guesses hovering between 30,000 and 34,000. Oh, and yes Bob, you will be happy to know that a few Brits will be joining them. However, we might all sleep easily as the White House decision will be about more than simply the number of troops with officials saying that the announcement will include an outline of an exit strategy and don't worry Bob, I am sure, "Uncle Sam" will tell us all before he finally decides to cut and run.

Moral Responsibility

In an interview recently Norman Finkelstein was asked if he was optimistic that the conflict in Palestine would be resolved and while, I would like to be optimistic, I found his answer both intriguing and revealing, he said; "No, but in one sense it doesn’t matter to me if it is resolved. You don’t do something because you think you will win or lose, but because you feel a sense of moral responsibility. Moral responsibility is not a diffident, political calculation. Of course you think what is the best way to achieve your goals, because you want to succeed, but my involvement is not determined by that, but is determined by the fact that there are people suffering and in need, so I will continue to support them."

This position reminded me of the one  adopted by John Pilger when he interviewed James Schlesinger for his documentary on the fate of the Chagossians.  Mr Schlesinger, the US Secretary of Defence under Nixon and Ford, could not understand John Pilger's interest in the fate of some 4,000 human beings and said that "this is a very small matter. It is being pinpointed now for reasons that I cannot ascribe to anything other than a quest for publicity." Yes, in Mr Schlesinger's great scheme of things, the Chagos islands is indeed a "small" matter and partly because it was such a "small" matter Schlesinger's irritation was soon to become visable, he said; "What is your motivation, if I may ask. Purely a guestion of justice?" To which Pilger replied; "yes, it is." 

Justice has a moral dimension and, of course, Dr Finkelstein is right when he says: "You don’t do something because you think you will win or lose, but because you feel a sense of moral responsibility. In  Philip Pan's marvelous book, "Out of Mao's Shadow: The Struggle for the Soul of a New China", the young "Red Guardist", Lin Zhao, decides that she will not morally compromise herself. She is to pay the ultimate price. However, if we should doubt that such resistance is worth it, we would do well to heed her own words when she says that "it is better to be destroyed than give up one's principles!" Hers was the ultimate sacrifice and people like her are the conscience for all of us. However, Mr Pilger's and Dr Finkelstein's "moral responsibility" should be grasped by all of us now for while, Dr Finkelstein is right when he says "you don't do something because you think you will win or lose", we haven't yet lost, we haven't yet been destroyed.

Israel + one

Of course, they need the PA and Abbas on board to pursue their farcical negotiations rigmarole. Therefore, we have 'Haaretz' reporting that Bibi is going to seek cabinet or governmental approval for a ten month suspension of the construction in the West Bank. Well, it won't be difficult to illegally break the freeze in the illegal construction and, not to worry, it's only going to be for ten months and anyway, we are talking about the West Bank here and not East Jerusalem.

Oh, on the last point, 'Haaretz' reports that Washington's position is still unclear. Are they going to object to the continued colonising and ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians, after all, want as the capital of their future state? The mind really boggles; shouldn't Washington be getting itself in line with international law and is there nobody on Capital Hill who has actually read UN Security Council Resolution 242? The position, of course, that America should be taking, but isn't, is that all not only is the continued building of settlements against international law but also the occupation itself is illegal. Now, what a welcome addition they would be to the negotiations if "Uncle Sam" adopted that stance, the legal stance. Of course, that won't happen and for the foreseeable future we are going to have weakened and generally weak Palestinian negotiation teams "negotiating" with Israel + one!

Qualified for the job

"Die Süddeutsche Zeitung", is the morning read these days and it normally comes with a cup of coffee and a "butter brezel". Anyway, munching, supping and reading, I noticed from an article on the front page that Catherine Ashton will have to go through the ordeal of a questions and answers session with members of the European Parliament to see if she is competent to do the job of representing the EU's foreign policy.

Now, I was thinking this is not actually a bad idea, or rather it would be a good idea if it were to be applied to all politicians and here we are all moaning about Catherine not having the experience and forgetting that no politicians have the experience for a particular job until they actually do it. Or did Angela Merkel actually know how to "run" a country before she actually began to "run" it, did Guido Westerwelle actually have hands on experience in his job as German Foreign Minister, and Milliband, Brown, Sarkozy and, yes, Obama etc.etc.? Of course, they didn't and that is the point; none of them can actually do the job we would like them to do but then that is not why they have the job. No, they are all there to prop up a wee system, to go along with policy decisions that have been decided well in advance.

Let's take Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary, as an example. Now, no doubt, MPs feel hard done by when they compare their "paltry" salaries with those commanded by the captains of industry, so what better way to boost their renumeration than by stealing from the public and when it came to stealing public money Bob was right up there with the best of them. Of course, twats like Bob are only theoretically accountable to the public and real accountability is to that wee system I have mentioned above where the decisions have already been made for them.

So, why do we need the likes of Bob? Well, we, as in you and I, don't need them but then it is not about us. Bob is quite simply one of those mediocrities who has been choosen to give credibility to the machiavellien "Realpolitik" that is pursued by the real rulers of the world. Anyway, there he was telling the 'New Statesman', "We are in Afghanistan because the Afghan security forces are not able to tackle al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups on their own." Now, if there were some truth in this statement we might be able to forget the fact that not only has Bob been pocketing public money, but his own Ministry has also failed to provide young British soldiers with the necessary support and equipment. However, the "we are in Afghanistan to tackle terrorists" nonsense just does not wash. 

The troops are there to support the geopolitical interests of corporate America and the so-called "international community" and it would appear that that so-called community is quite happy with Hamid Karzai, the man in the nice shawls, a corrupt hypocrite, a liar and a thief. Yes, he is the sort of guy that politicians in the the West can identify with and this despite news from the 'Guardian' today that Afghanistan's chief prosecutor has challenged him by threatening to prosecute two corrupt cabinet members who have ministerial immunity from prosectution unless the Karzai strips them of it. Of course, that is not going to happen and the said ministers can sleep sound in their bed. After all, the last thing that they want in Washington and Kabul is any sort of honesty being brought into the equation for who knows what will happen when we start bringing thieves and liars to justice and we might find a lot of "qualified and experienced" politicians losing their jobs, at the very least, and not only in Afghanistan.

The theft continues

Salim Khoury Shaya's seven children, lived in the house in Jaffa their father built. In 1948, three of them were visiting relatives in the Lebanon, when the Zionists started their land grab and, like all other Palestinians, they were not allowed to return. The other four children remained in the house. Therefore, one might expect the family to have been protected in their property from the 'Absentee Property Law' passed by the Knesset in 1950. In theory this disgusting law is meant to be a temporary measure to preserve absentee properties and prevent them from becoming abandoned and open to looting. Of course, the reality is, the absentees are forbidden from returning and the state comes into possession of their property. Still, four members of the Shaya family remained in the house, so surely they would not be affected by the law.


One should not underestimate the guile of the Israeli state though and sure enough they came up with a formula that allowed the state to take over 40% of the house, or that part of the property that they deemed belonged to the three missing members of the family; an "arrangement" that was to remain in force even although those members of the family who were in exile in the Lebanon signed an affidavit to the effect that they had sold their share of the house to the rest of the family. The affidavit was rejected by an Israeli court and in 1963 the Israel Lands Administration received custody of 40 percent of the house where the family is still living and now what do we have? We have the state claiming back rent and threatening to sell all of the house. Of course, the long and short of it is, by hook or by crook, this is just one more Palestinian house that the Israeli state wants to and probably will get a hold of. At least, this particular family will have its day in court. Nevertheless, I am sure that they have no illusions when it comes to Israeli justice.


In the meantime, we have Peres telling Mubarak that Netanyahu has pledged to stop expanding the settlements on the West Bank once peace talks with the Palestinians begin, while adding that, " it's a marginal issue; it is some building of houses that became a central issue for the wrong reasons." Of course, this is anything but a marginal issue and the ethnic cleansing and land grab that was legitimised by that 'Absentee Property Law' of 1950 has continued through the building of illegal settlements in and around East Jerusalem and in the West Bank and when Palestinians are already living in the area to be colonised? No problem, as is demonstrated in Silwan near Jerusalem where settlers, claiming a biblical right to the land, have been moving in in increasing numbers since the early 90s.

The "Jewish democracy" is unmasked; the people are chased off of their land and under the guise of the 1950 'Absentee Property Law' their holdings are seized with them being declared as "absent". "But we are here", the Shaya family is crying out. Yes, they provide the link to the illegal settlements in the occupied territories and to the land grab in Silwan. This is an ethnic cleansing that began in 1948 when three members of the Shaya family were visiting relatives in the Lebanon and it continues to this day and Mr Peres is neither a "marginal issue" nor is it something Netanyahu intends to stop.

Facts and Opinion

A Sunday that sort of began with my having a telephone "conversation" of sorts, on, among other things, some unknown author, who I suspect was either Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. Now, I invariably find myself agreeing with Hitchens and Harris when they discuss religion. However, there views on politics leave something to be desired. Anyway, there was my friend on the other end of the phone reading a direct quotation from Dershowitz and something that was either plagiarised from Dershowitz, or paraphrased in such a way that it made no sense whatsover. Plagiarising Dershowitz, now isn't that a world turned upside down?

No sense, or nonsense, to anyone, except those who have come to believe that opinions should not be contradicted by facts and are even then sufficiently naive as to mistake someone quoting facts as an expression of that person's bias and opinion while they themselves continue to rely on an opinion that is misinformed and liable to bias. Of course, opinions have to be informed by facts if they are not to rise into the air like some soap bubble where they burst and evaporate and the fact is that Dershowitz's lack of any academic credibility whatsoever is admirably exposed by Norman Finkelstein who reveals Dershowitz's "masterpiece", 'The Case for Israel', as being the plagiarised piece of junk that it is. He shows that the books "arguments" rely largely on source material that is taken directly from Joan Peter's monumental hoax, "From Time Immemorial". Finkelstein writes, "Dershowitz not only copies Peters shamelessly, but knowingly does so from a book serious scholars have uniformly condemned."

Unfortunately, Dershowitz has not yet risen into the air like the metophorical soap bubble, he is here, there and, indeed, everywhere, as seems evident by my friend, who until recently had never read anything at all by him, actually quoting him. It is this that should worry us and while the great pretender can resort to being ingratiating, as he appears to be at times during his attempted monologue" with" Noam Chomsky,  and, while he can be vindictive, as he was when he was orchestrating pressure to have Dr Finkelstein relieved of his tenure at DePaul’s College, it is the uniformed mind that is left exposed; Chomsky and Finkelstein are immune to the vile bile, the nonsensical drivel of Alan Dershowitz and his ilk. Indeed, it is for them to expose the charlatans. However, the mind that ignores facts, or mistakes drivel for facts, provides fertile ground for these gobblydegookers, these newspeakers, these falsifiers of history.   

No high profile leader for Europe

Well, that is it in a nutshell then; Tony's close friends are saying that he is "entirely happy" bringing peace to the Middle East, democracy to Africa, sorting out global warming and getting all of the planet's various god squads talking to each other and, anyway, with the job description for the  President of the European Council not facilitating Mr Bair's figurehead status, well, he wouldn't have wanted it anyway. Yes, Tony I am also "entirely happy" that you didn't get the job and Tony, there are lots and lots of people who are happy that you didn't get it, including, of course, Angela Merkel.

So, Europe is going for the safe bets and little-known Belgian poetry fan Herman van Rompuy gets the job that Tony didn't want and the great British egos are reconciled with Catherine Ashton, the European commissioner for trade, slipping into the role of foreign policy chief and all of a sudden the same people who didn't want Mr "spin and grin" ego Blair getting the job are complaining that the roles have already been devalued because they have gone to two relative "nobodies" and there is Daniel Cohn-Bendit, co-president of the Green group, saying: ““They (the EU leaders) have followed their weak choice of Commission president with a bland Council president and an unremarkable foreign affairs high representative." Other complaints about Ashton in particular refer to the fact that she has no experience in foreign affairs. Of course, one wonders what experience Westerwelle, Milliband or any of the other EU foreign ministers had of foreign affairs before they actually took office.

The fact is the European Union doesn't want "personalities" like Blair and really do any of us need to be confronted by this hypocrite and liar? Moreover, the shift of power within the EU that a Blair presidency would have entailed is not to be welcomed in the person of this "spin and grin" war criminal who will lend legitimacy and support to an "Uncle Sam" that continues to break international law while exerting far too much influence on Europe. No, Belguim gets the presidency, Britain gets the foreign policy advisor and the other offices that are up for grabs in this "revised" EU where the real power still appears to reside in the different national parliaments .

Nevertheless, for the time being, this shouldn't be seen as being wholly negative and I for one would agree with the 'New York Times' assessment of  Herman van Rompuy's and Catherine Ashton's appointments: "The duo look set to tread a pragmatic path, and supporters said the bloc needed to walk before it could run on the international stage." Yes, learning to walk, developing a common foreign policy for the EU and not rushing strait into Washington's arms, all have to be welcomed. Yes, the appointment of the little known Belgian and the even less known English women might not represent a significant shift of power within the EU for the time being it does mean that an independent Europe can still develop a common foreign policy, which is free from outside interference. One thing is certain and that is that a high profile leader, who has consistently demonstrated that he is a "bad European", is the last thing that Europe needs.

Sarah Palin, Incitatus, Mr Ed and horses for courses

The lady who understands Russia because it is not too far from Alaska, Ms Sarah Palin, is back tackling the big issues after her guest appearance on 'Oprah' and there she is having a wee dig at the hype man, and generally getting ready to get herself back onto the world stage. Yes, if we thought Caligula making his horse, Incitatus, a senator was a big bad joke enter Ms Sarah Palin.

'The Jerusalem Post' reports her giving her tuppence worth on the illegal settlements and deciding that the settlements have to expanded because, "Jews need a place to live". Yes, they have to expand because, as this full grown half wit says, "that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead." Of course, Sarah is too dense to even consider where they are flocking from. Yes, they are just flocking, flocking, flocking!

Unfortunately, Sarah really makes it easy for us not to take her seriously and this is the problem. For while we might agree with the 'New York Times' critic, David Brookes, when he called her a joke, we should be wary when he says, "The idea that this...is considered seriously for the Republican nomination? Believe me, it will never happen." Sorry, Mr Brookes, sometimes we get a better view here on the outside looking in, and there is more than enough evidence to suggest that this lady can go all the way.

Finally, it is not known how much about Incitatus is truth and how much is legend but we do know from a certain Mr Ed that horses, when they do speak, don't have to spout out the sort of drivel that we have come to expect from Ms Palin. We also know that Mr Ed's tuppence worth was only heard by Wilbur and that unlike Incitatus he had neither a political sponsor nor political ambitions of his own. Now, isn't it time that Ms Palin's family and friends were the sole beneficiaries of her "words of wisdom"? Unfortunately, it would appear that, despite David Brookes thinking otherwise, Ms Palin will be the next Republican candidate for president and, while I don't want to flog a dead horse and I certainly don't want to put the cart before the horse, it really is going to be horses for courses and this particular trojan horse for big business is certainly not going to be a dark horse. After all, coorporate America does not back the wrong horse and, yes, we are going to be hearing a lot more drivel from this particular horses mouth.
The embedded clip is Mr Ed and not Ms Palin, who is a bit less credible than Mr Ed

Human Rights and the EU deal with Turkmenistan

The evidence would seem to suggest that in Turkmenistan, President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, who came to power on 14 February 2007, after the death of former President Saparmurad Niyazov, has failed to keep his promises; Turkenistan remains a one party state where human rights abuses are widespread.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the European Union has been severely criticised for doing business with the regime in Ashgabat in order to secure its future gas supplies. Nevertheless, with EU gas supplies dependent on an invariably fickle Russia and that Russia also enjoying good relations with a Ukraine, which is just as unreliable, from a purely pragmatic point of view the deal with Turkmenistan makes good sense and, it might be added, while  Berdymukhamedov's regime is as draconian and repressive as that of his predecessor, we would have to ask ourselves twice before we did any business with almost anyone.

Yes, the altruistic gesture of putting pressure on Berdymukamedov, would do much for Europe's image, but, with China having signed a 30 year deal with Ashgabat to secure 40 billion cubic meters of gas annually from the central Asian country, and with the 7,000-kilometer pipeline between the two countries that will carry it nearing its completion, such a gesture would neither pressure Turkmenistan, nor would it be anything other than detrimental to Europe's needs. Indeed, for this to be otherwise, it would require China to also criticise the human rights abuses in Turkmenistan before moving onto business as usual. Of course, that happening is every bit as unlikely as America criticising Saudi or any other of the disgusting little regimes that it has in place throughout the globe to protect its geopolitical interests and secure its energy supply.

As sad as it may sound, and it is very sad indeed, the European deal with Turkmenistan is only an indication of the EU's participation in that murky, distasteful world that is governed by "Realpolitik" and it is only by establishing a foothold in that world that the EU can later begin to address those human rights issues that an indifferent, hypocritical, "Uncle Sam" has failed to address for some time. Indeed, the Europeans should not be too ashamed of having to do business with the regime in Ashgabat. Indeed, when it comes to securing energy needs, it would appear that it constitutes not only a necessary "evil" but also a lesser "evil" than the machiavellian geopolitical strategies which are employed by both the United States and a rising China.

Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

A friend sent me a copy of the 'Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict', while advising me to concentrate on the executive summary. The report itself covers 1,776 points, including its recommendations to all parties. Therefore, it makes good sense to follow my friend's advice not only for practical reasons; even a cursory reading of the executive summary is sufficient to refute the gobblydegook, zionist, drivel that we are confronted with. 

The drivel, of course, doesn't confine itself to the content of the report and we had a number of newspeak "gobblydegookers down in 'Zionistan' doing all that they could to discredit the head of the Mission, Justice Richard Goldstone, even to the extent where some of them were agreeing with Yuval Stenitz's, the  Israeli Finance Minister, when he called Goldstone a Jewish anti-semite. Here it is superflous to say that Goldstone is Jewish, that his daughter lived in Israel, that he was a trustee of the Hebrew University, no, it is enough to say that he is a former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda.  However, it is the report itself that really highlights just how offensive the Zionist gobbledegook really is.

Firstly, the myth that Israel fought a war is revealed for the nonsense that it really is. This was not a war, it was a slaughter, a slaughter in which some 1,400 Palestinian men, women and children lost their lives while,  "according to the Government of Israel, during the military operations there were 4 Israeli fatal casualties in southern Israel, of whom 3 were civilians and one soldier, killed by rockets and mortars attacks by Palestinian armed groups. In addition, 9 Israeli soldiers were killed during the fighting inside the Gaza strip, 4 of whom as a result of friendly fire." A total of thirteen Israelis were killed and four were killed by the IDF. Of course, with the evidence appearing to suggest that they were shooting indiscrimently here there there and everywhere, we can hardly be surprised that they were responsible for some 30% of their own casualties. Indeed, in Gaza if you were an Israeli soldier the chances of you being killed by friendly fire were about the same as you being killed by enemy fire.

Furthermore, the report shows that since the beginning of the occupation, some 700,000 Palestinian men, women and children have been detained by Israel and that "according to estimates, as at 1st June 2009, there were approximately 8,100 Palestinian ‘political prisoners’ in detention in Israel,including 60 women and 390 children." We hardly hear about them, yet we are told time and time again about Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who was captured in an IDF uniform, a soldier we are told who held the rank of corporal at the time of his capture but has since been promoted to staff sergeant; A staff sergeant in the same IDF that imprisons thousands of Palestinians, that illegally occupies the West Bank, that murders Palestinian innocents in Gaza.

Finally, we are confronted with Israel’s plans for a further 73,000 settlement homes to be built in the West Bank, while pointing out that, if these plans are realized, the number of settlers in occupied Palestinian territory will be doubled and, of course, we might start to wonder, how any "two state solution" can be possible. Yes, while, Palestinians dream, Bibi shows all and sundry what a good Zionist and a good realist he is. Moreover, "Uncle Sam" might even object to Israeli plans to build another 900 homes in the Gilo neighbourhood, but he won't object too much and neither in Washington nor in Jerusalem are they paying too much attention to that bit in the report about the number of settlers "in occupied Palestinian territory". Yes, "occupied territory", illegally occupied, and we shouldn't be discussing a freeze on the settlements, we should be discussing a full withdrawal. 

Nevertheless, the report also points out that while there was a lot of support for the slaughter in Gaza from many Israeli Jews, there were hundreds of thousands Israeli citizens who protested. Moreover, while those who protested were mainly Palestinian citizens of Israel, they were not exclusively so and, although the degree of discrimination and differential treatment between Palestinian and Jewish citizens of Israel who were brought before the courts for protesting was at times all too obvious, it does not detract from the fact that there are many Israeli Jews who are no longer prepared to support the actions of their government. This might offer us some hope, as might those Jews from all over the world who are not prepared to let this Israel speak for them.

Building on someone else's land and getting ready to attack Iran

After a point, it is seems almost as pointless writing about it as it does reading about it. However, you cannot just give up, can you? Furthermore, while people might react with a, "so what", "and" or an "I have heard it all before", we really do have to keep making the point, don't we?

Anyway there is Bibi telling everyone again that Iran is a threat not only to Israel but to world peace and there is Moshe Ben Shushan, the chairman of the Gilo community administration, expressing his amazement that the Americans, apparently, are objecting to Israeli plans to build another 900 homes in the Gilo neighbourhood. It doesn't matter one jot that Gilo itself is illegal, that it is beyond the 'Green Line' and that Palestinians are being thrown out of their homes on a daily basis.


Israel, not Iran, is a very serious threat to world peace and, while there are a lot of reasons not to like the mullah regime in Teheran, it is Israel that is breaking international law on a daily basis as it persecutes and kills civilians, as it illegally occupies someone else's lands, as it refuses to disclose and, indeed, dismantle its nuclear arsenal, as it imprisons thousands without trial, as it refuses to give the UN maps of where they dropped cluster bombs in 2006 when bombing the civilian population of the Lebanon, as it ignores UN resolution after resolution,. It is the true story but it is not a new story, it is only a variation of a repetative theme, a theme of theft and murder, of ethnic cleansing and genoicide. It is a story that has very little to do with Iran and it is a story that didn't start with the 900 homes in Gilo. But is anyone listening?

Capitalism: a love story

Went to see the new Michael Moore film, 'Capitalism: a love story' and while Michael often forgets to cross this "teas" and dot his "eyes" when he is researching, he really does hit the nail on the head. The manner of his exposé on his particularly relevant, particularly pertinent and, jesus, aren't they making fools of all of us?

There was the majority in the House of Representatives, trying to retain their dignity, trying to obey the constitution and there they were rejecting the first bailout package: "The vote against the measure was 228 to 205, with 133 Republicans turning against President Bush to join 95 Democrats in opposition. The bill was backed by 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans." So, off Mr Paulson went, gathering his troops from Wall Street, Washington and the media, we had a scare campaign and a bit of behind the scenes pressure for a few days, and then, on October 3rd 2008, only days after it had been originally rejected, President Bush was presented with a bill approved by Congress that would provide $700 billion to the failing financial industry.

So, who got the money? Did "Joe Soap" get it to help him with his mortgage, was it given to failing companies in the manufacturing sector to tide them over and save jobs, was it used to create new jobs? No, no, no, "Silly"; the banks got the money and 'Goldman Sachs', the 'Bank of America' 'Citigroup', 'Wells Fargo', 'JP Morgan Chase', 'Morgan Stanley' they got silly money, or to be more appropriate they got your money "Silly". Moreover, they are not accountable to anyone regarding how they spend the it. Still, if there is a wee bit left over maybe, just maybe, we will get them "investing" in jobs, houses, hospitals etc. and at this point the band begins to play "believe it if you like", after all, altruistic these people are not, indeed, despite his neglecting his "teas" and "eyes", Michael really does hit the nail on the head and that is what makes this a worthwhile film to watch. Still, Michael, "criminal" is not the term I would use to describe the in-crowd in Wall Street; thieving bastards they are, all of them!

Like most of Mr Moore's films, a black sense of humour is required when watching it and like most of them it is not for those who prefer serious academic research. Nevertheless, like all of Mr Moore's films it is a good exposé of a few home truths and it has a reoccuring thesis statement that even the most serous academics would find hard to challenge.

You are being watched!

In a previous post I pointed out how the United Kingdom suffers from not having a written constitution, how its so-called "unwritten constitution" is based on laws passed in parliament, precendence and tradtion and how this really isn't good enough because certain rights can simply be eroded by the passing of a law in parliament, which then becomes an "Act of Parliament".

The problem with these "Acts of Parliament" is quite simply that the government in the United Kingdom can pass them almost at will, often does, and often to curtail certain freedoms; yes, the government in the United Kingdom has introduced an increasing amount of laws which allow and facilitate increasing state interference while invading peoples' private spheres.

How scary it is all becoming can only be gauged by the attempts, dropped for the time being due to public opposition, to pass the 'Communications Data Act'. If it becomes law this act will, as one blogger says, "transpose EU Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of communications data." We should, however, not start blaming the EU and we would do well to understand "transpose" here as meaning "transform", for as another blogger, when talking about the EU Directive, says, "the aim is to ensure that the data retained is available for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime, as defined by each member State in its domestic law." Apart from in Britain the citizens of all EU countries have certain protections regarding the privacy. Moreover, those protections are written into each country's constitution. We can only imagine how the law will be defined in a "big brother" blighty and commentators are already aware that the bill in the UK might indeed lead to legislation that exceeds the EU Data Retention Directive.

Still, there might be some consolation for all of you up there in the land of the free, for with the Rt. Hon. Sir Paul Kennedy, the current Interception of Communications Commissioner, telling us that "there are approximately 474 local authorities throughout the UK (already) approved by Parliament for the purpose of acquiring communications data," you shouldn't be too worried about the bill even if it is passed. You are already being watched!

Neglect

It is sometimes best to let the statistics tell the story and the news from Afghanistan is that the death of a British soldier in Helmland this morning means that the number of British military personnel who have died in Afghanistan since the start of operations there in late 2001 is now 233. However, the picture of what is really happening there only emerges on a closer look at how those statistics are broken down.

Only sixteen months ago we were lamenting the 100th fatality when three paratroopers were killed in one day in early June 2008. This means, of course, that in only sixteen months 133 have died and 96 of those 133, the 'Guardian' informs us have been killed this year, or in other words, in the last eleven months.

However, the dead are only part of a bigger picture that emerges through articles like the one in the 'Independent' on 30th of August this year: "Shortages of helicopters and surveillance equipment mean troops are only as safe as far as they can see with their rifle sights or binoculars. The Taliban also know it and are careful to lay their lethal mines and improvised explosive devices just out of sight. Soldiers work on the basis that every time they patrol there is a one in four chance one of them will die. Privately, senior British officers say they currently work on the assumption at least a "limb a day" will be lost." Furthermore, the same article claims that the number of those leaving the services with "neurotic disorders", including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), has soared and that "Successive governments have had a very poor record and have cut, cut and cut again the care for our service people. Having to rely on the NHS is not good enough. It has no capacity to deal with the extra people who need medical attention, and all this has been compounded by the reluctance of the MoD to admit how big the problem is."

Therefore, what we have are politicians who are not only content to send young British soldiers to their deaths for a lie but are also failing to support them both on and off the battlefield. Unfortunately, we live in a culture where they can actually do this with impunity. 

A future Palestinian state

From today's 'Haaretz': "The Palestinian Authority is considering seeking recognition from the United Nations Security Council of a Palestinian state along 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital, senior negotiator Saeb Erekat told Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam in a report published Saturday." 

Now, contrary to popular misconception that is hardly going to get Bibi and his boys shiting their pants and, no doubt, we would have them working towards some sort of agreement with the international community whereby there would be some sort of internationally recongised Palestinian de jure sovereignty on the West Bank but de facto the settlements and Israeli sovereignty over them would remain. In other words, there wouldn't be much change from the present status quo.

However, the question must also be asked, what is Mr Erekat talking about? It would appear that in talking about "a Palestinian state along 1967 lines" he has already surrendered a big chunk of Palestine before he even gets to the negotiating table. Of course, Mr Erekat and all Palestinians should be talking about the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from November 1947 and he should be talking about the right of those Palestinians who were forced out of their homes, wherever those homes were in historical Palestine, to return to them. This right of return is, of curse, also embodied in international law and is given expression in the UN General Assembly Resolution 194 article 11. It would appear that not only have the Zionists managed to move the goalposts but in doing so they really have managed to turn the PA into an accessory to the crime.

Brown's new man in Westminster

Wasn't it nice watching the locals in Glasgow north east heckle the BNP man, Ballie? Unfortunately, when it came to the election itself he was hardly given short shrift, coming fourth with 4.92% of the the total votes cast. A grand total of 1,013 to be precise, or 62 votes less than the local Tory. Still with only some 33% of the electorate going to the polls, I wouldn't worry too much about the rise of fascism in Glasgow. Or, should I?

No, the BNP is not a problem but I am left asking myself the question what about the 67% who didn't vote? Well, if nothing else because they didn't vote, it meant that they didn't vote Labour and that would suggest that a lot of them just don't want Labour. Unfortunately, their not voting allowed the Labour candidate, Willie Bain, to win a landside victory in taking almost 60% of the votes cast. So, they didn't vote and what happened? Well, they strengthened a Labour Party in London that has long since ceased to represent the interests of the working class, a Labour Party whose imperialist adventures even a BNP government would be proud of. Oh, and they got Willie Bain, a local boy, as their MP, a law lecturer who still he stays with his parents in a fourteen storey tower block when not working three days a week in London. Thirty six and still stays with his parents, this man is at least as weird as Charlie Baillie.

Mad Jack

 
That is alright "Jack" you should have told us sooner and we wouldn't have had to arrest you. Anyway there he was, Yaakov (Jack) Teitel with two murders, three attempted murders and other acts of violence, under his belt, telling a Jerusalem courthouse on Thursday that "It was a pleasure and an honor to serve my God," I have no regret and no doubt that God is pleased."

Well, if some IDF soldiers are to be believed "Jack" might not be the misfit loaner that the Zionist press would like potray him as and as early as mid-February this year one particular soldier told a forum of army veterans that, before the IDF went on its killing spree in Gaza, soldiers were provided with literature by the army's rabbinate, which "had a clear message - we are the people of Israel, we came by a miracle to the land of Israel, God returned us to the land, now we need to struggle to get rid of the gentiles that are interfering with our conquest of the land." Hey, is that, or something similar, not what "Jack" thinks?

Meethinks, "Jack" should have got himself a few buddies to go on his murdering spree with, they should have then told the courts that they were doing it for Israel, got a little bit of media backing on the issue and they would all been out of jail after serving six months of a two year service. Sorry, "Jack" but religion is not an individual delusion, it is a mass delusion.

Baloney Brown and more "Blah, Blah, Blah"

What a disgusting populist and today we have the 'Guardian' reporting that Gordon Brown wants tougher immigration laws. Well, he might just get away with it, after all he is talking about plans to introduce measures that will reduce the number of professions that can recruit from outside Europe. However, how this will benefit the great British worker is debatable and not a debate that I want to pursue here. Nevertheless, there are two other points in the 'Guardian's' report that I would like to pick up on.

Firstly, a review of student visas is intended a review which would logically have as its outcome a reduction in the number of foreign students coming to the United Kingdom. Well, they will be trembling in all the little English Language Units at all the little universities and colleges up and down the country. Does Mr Brown even begin to understand how important the revenue from foreign students is for some colleges and universities and for the flourishing little "English for Academic Purposes" industry that has taken root at most, if not all, universities in particular? Does he know how difficult it already is for all but a select elite to come to the UK to study? Moreover, is he interested in the good will that many of those people take back to their own countries?

Secondly, Brown is saying that, "those from within the EU who incurred a conviction would be kicked out of the country if they received a sentence of twelve months or more." Oh, does this mean that British citizens who have served their sentences in another EU country should now be returned to the UK? Well, Mr Brown I certainly have nothing against putting you and all the other "Westminster Scots" in front of the ICC and then deport you to Scotland after you have sat out your sentences in Wormwood Scrubs. Indeed, I have nothing against you doing your time in Barlinnie or Peterhead. However, it doesn't work like that and you can no more get rid of another EU citizen than you can get rid of a fellow Brit once they have completed their sentence. Indeed, just think of a situation where a German citizen who has lived in the UK for most of his or her life and had family there were deported after serving a sentence in HM prisons.

Of course, as far as the latter point is concerned, Gordon knows he cannot get away with it. Indeed the government's own "probation circular 11/2007" states: "The Directive requires the CCD to show that an EEA National’s conduct represents a ‘present, genuine and sufficiently serious threat’ to society to justify deportation. The fact of having been convicted of an offence is not necessarily sufficient to justify a decision to deport; neither can a person be deported as a general deterrence to others. In addition, the Directive sets out a tiered hierarchy of protection linked to a person’s length of residence in the UK, to be applied before an EEA National can be deported."

Therefore, what we have, at least on the surface, is more huff and puff, from Gordon. Nevertheles, we should all be aware that this particular "little brit" doesn't really care if most other Brits wake up one morning and find that it is almost impossible to get a visa for all of those nice places that they like to go on holiday too and when a few English tutors join the dole queu, that is not his problem either. However, what about the 'probation circular' isn't that the law? Well, yes it is, but then we know that laws can be changed and modified quite easily in the UK. Nevertheless, what we have this time is a UK law, which sees itself as bein in line with with the European Parliament's "Directive 2004/38/EC', we can only expect that any move to change that law in any form will be challenged. Still, Gordon won't care too much about that or anything else for that matter if his "tougher immigration laws" stance, gets him reelected.

The Glasgow North East byelection

The term "brilliant politician" has to be an oxymoron, unless we have some new, weird and wonderful definition of the adjective "brilliant". Was Nietzsche not at least partly right to suggest that politics are for the mediocre? Well, he was right as far as all those little nonentities who seek career advancement and power in one form or another are concerned. Moreover, when it comes to the practical application of politics, it is those mediocrities who are invariably in the driving seat.

This morning I had a brief look at the mediocre when I watched a short clip, 11 minutes and 38 seconds long to be precise, on the approaching by-election in Glasgow north east. Now I don't know all of the characters in this plot but characters they seem to be; the little lady from the Tory party, who says all the right things, and all the other little people, and the slightly taller chap from the SNP, who also say all the right things and, yes, not to forget, Tommy Sheridan from 'Solidarity', who doesn't really tell us why the real left is split. Still as he says, nobody is talking about the split capitalist vote. Oh, and I almost forgot, there was the BNP man, Charlie Baillie, saying all the wrong things.

The one good thing on the video was to see how the working class people of Glasgow north east gave Mr "fascist" Baillie short shrift. Nevertheless, I had to think wouldn't it be nice if they could see a bit further than "smoke screen Charlie" and, if nothing else, at least, all adopt the attitude of one young lad at the local college who hits the nail on the head when he gives reasons why he won't be voting. Yes, boys as the young lad says, they lie and, I might add, you, or your own, die, and while Charlie has to be exposed for the charlie that he is, well wouldn't it have been nice to have had those punters shouting abuse at all the candidates except, of course, at the chap who was running for the "United Left", oh but then he wasn't running, was he?

China-Africa commitments applauded

The World Food Programme (WFP) Executive Director, Josette Sheeran, has praised China for its investment in agriculture and infrastructure in Africa and with Wen Jinbao promising 10 billion US dollars in loans at the two day 'China-Africa Cooperation' in Sharm el-Sheikh over the next three years, every indication is that China will continue to increase its role on the continent.

People don't do anything for nothing, do they? Well, not normally and with the old adage, "charity begins at home", very pertinent in a China where you first and foremost look after your family, then your friends and then, perhaps, you extend civil behaviour towards those who you come into regular social contact with, we cannot imagine that the Chinese are in Africa for altruistic reasons. However, was anyone ever there for altruistic reasons?

No, China is not in Africa because of some socialist concern for the downtrodden of the planet and, with its growing economy desperate for raw materials, the give will most definitely be accompanied by the take. Nevertheless, for the West to condemn Chinese engagement in Africa as some sort of new colonialism is pure hypocrisy. China's "exploitation" of Africa is accompanied by many positives for Africa itself. First and foremost, it might give Africans the opporunity to free themselves from their old colonial relationships with the West; relationships that began not with loans without conditions such as those that the Chinese provide but with ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and blatant colonialism. Moreover, the West's blatant colonialism has given way to a more subtle form of exploitation through the IMF and the World Bank. Therefore, while many Africans remain wary of the Chinese presence for a number of reasons, it is Beijing that might offer Africa a new beginning and a new chance.

Tony's tuppence worth

Of course, it is going to be very difficult to get the motley crew of war criminals in front of the ICC and we can expect Bush, Blair and Brown , Cheney, Condelezza and the Clintons, Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Barack Obama, etc. etc., and Rumsfeld, of course, all to be foot loose and fancy free for some time to come. However, wouldn't it be nice not to have to listen to their drivel once they are out of office? Anyway, there was Tony, "doing" his job as special envoy to a part of the world where he is already responsible for countless deaths, the Middle East, "earning" his big fat salary in an interview with the Israeli army radio station, and telling everyone that Abbas's decision not to run for office in the next Palestinian elections came from frustration.

Well, maybe it did, maybe it didn't, and just maybe Abbas realised that his resigning was the right thing to do in order to freeze any "negotiations" that would have been no more than a sham and would, indeed, have sounded death knell of the remaining vestiges of his political credibility, and that is where Tony comes in with his nonsense about an agreement between the PA and Israel, under Abbas's leadership, being the best possible course for the Palestinians, while continuing that such a deal would weaken 'Hamas' in Gaza.

Of course, Tony was never one to bother about the whole picture and maybe someone has to tell this rather silly man that history didn't begin yesterday. Neither a "flourishing" economy in an Israeli controlled West Bank nor a "two state solution" which deprives the Palestinians of their legitmate national aspirations will achieve anything. Mr Abbas, is possibly not the complete political clown that he sometimes leads us to believe and it would appear that he is not to be the Zionist "Uncle Tom". That is to his credit and now it is up to the Palestinians to look for someone who will demand serious negotiations.

"Nachruf" for two states

Well, we had Sarkozy at the wall spouting his tupence worth and then there was Gordon Brown, with his condescending "blah, blah, blah" and then there was Dimitry Medvedev and, finally, Hillary representing the hype man, and there they all were praising, and raisng their glasses to those who got on the streets and ended up forcing Günter Schabowski's slip of the tongue, that opened the wall and off they all went, "Wir sind ein Völk",  pouring down Bornholmer Straße all of twenty years ago. Well, 20 years down the road, it might suit Gordon, Hillary, Nicolas and, yes, even Dimitry, but it didn't quite turn out as we expected, did it?

No, there was me back then also thinking there was a chance, that there might be this, that and the next thing that we could learn from the "other Germany". However, all we got was the wee green man. In fact, in retrospect, for the last twelve years we have been increasingly finding ourselves in a country that, back in 1989, most, then, West Germans, would not have accepted. Oh right, the social system is still there, but it is being dismantled, and with "Hartz 4" we have arrived in a world of means testing and, while the "Zwei Klassengesellschat" (two class society) was always there it now really is a world where the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. American conditions, if they haven't arrived, are knocking on the doorstep.

Finally, we have a Germany that breaks its own constitutional law in order to assist its allies in pursuing an illegal war. Sort of breaking the law twice, they are! Yes, the 9th of November, remember, remember, and there was another 9th of November in Germany, back in 1938, "Reichskristallnacht" and where did that lead to, well it lead to Meineike's "Deutsche Katastrophe" and the constitutional consequence in the new Bonn Republic that "Nie wieder darf von deutschem Boden ein Krieg ausgehen" (never again will a war be pursued from German soil). Well, with German boys dying too in America's dirty wars, it is safe to say that it was not only the GDR that was to begin to disappear on that heady evening twenty years ago.

Thoughts on the fall of the wall

Remember, remember the 9th of November, 1989. Well, having spent most of my adult life in Germany, I most certainly do and a little word on the fall of the wall is almost mandatory. What was I doing? Happy days they were and I was taking a CELTA course at IH in Munich, I was sitting in a classroom and I was somehow hoping that this might be the beginning of some "postiives" coming over from the GDR.

Twenty years down the road, we have the "litte green man" that gets you around the corner at the traffic lights quickly, we now have a "left" that could offer an alternative to the unacceptable face of capitalism but which is, in fact, more likely to undergo the par for the course "capitalist roader" metamorphosis as it increasingly merges with a "new" SPD, however, on that point, the last word has not been spoken and "die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt".

However, what about the "positives" for those on the other side of the wall. Well, one senses that all over Eastern Europe they have sold their soul if not for the company gold, then at least for a dependency on a virtual world, reality television shows and a gobbledegook mainstream media that manufactures consent and undermines dissent in a way that the Stasi never quite could and while they, at least, thought they were missing something in the "Tal der ahnungslosen", now they actually think they are free to think, speak and even change things.

Yet, that has to be the point; they are, indeed, free in a way that they never were before the heady days of November 1989. However, it is unlikely that they will realise those freedoms as they will somehow have to say "adieu" to the brave new world of 24 hour "news", to the game shows, the talent shows. Media created individual illusions have become mass delusions and seeing through the crap is not going to be easy, as the new opium of the people takes root. Nevertheless, on looking back twenty years ago to the fall of the wall, there is hope. As Abraham Lincoln said; "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." For my part I can only tell my friends on the other side of the wall that before 1989, some people in the West actually read books and questioned things, that we got our news out of newspapers that, at least to some extent, had not been "gleichgeschaltet". Yes, there is hope but, in order, for us to create our "Jerusalem" we will have to get our fingers out and put our thinking caps on.

British withdrawing from Helmland

In retrospect Steve Coll seemed to sense what was in the offing when he wrote, "The territorial achievements of the Najibullah government -- no forcible takeover of the Afghan state by Islamist guerrillas, continuous control of all the country's cities and major towns -- might look attractive today to the United States as a minimum measure of success."

The latest edition of the 'Times' reports; "According to a senior Nato source, Western military commanders in Afghanistan are considering a radical shift in policy that would see British and US forces conduct a tactical pull-out from most of northern Helmand, including the town of Musa Qala." The troops would then be used to stabilise the highly populated central areas of Helmland. Not to worry that this would mean that Mullah Abdul Salaam, a former Taleban commander, who switched sides to become district governor of Musa Qala, would be thrown to the wolves and there is already concrete evidence to suggest that the "international community" will, indeed, be contenting itself with the territorial achievements of the Najibllah government.

Of course, the writing is on the wall and despite the first part of Steve's "jigsaw" already falling into place it it very difficult to follow Mr Coll's reasoning for the second part of his solution, namely a stable Pakistan, is far from being achieved and I do not see how Pakistan will stabilise a 1,500 mile border, which Pashtus on both sides of the 'Durand Line' consider to be their land. Moreover, what is the military sacrifice really for? geopolitically it just doesn't make sense for the allies to content themselves with Najibullah's "achievements". No, the evidence would seem to suggest that this is the beginning of the retreat and at the end of the day "Uncle Sam" will be happy to content himself with the Soviet's achievement and a orderly withdrawal. However, with today's news in the 'Times' indicating that that might happen some time before the number of Soviet dead (15,000) is reached, perhaps, the allies will indeed be contenting themselves with a little bit more at the end of another fruitless, useless, destructive war on the Hindikush. For that to happen they will need to get out sooner than later. Yesterday's, news was, hopefully, just the beginning.