A Few Minor Corrections

Blair has given another landmark speech in the "war" on terror. There's so much in there which is worth fisking, you could be at it for weeks. I'm slightly busy today so here are just a couple of particularly idiotic moments.

Number One - Logic is an ass

Still now, I am amazed at how many people will say, in effect, there is increased terrorism today because we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget entirely that September 11 predated either. The West didn't attack this movement. We were attacked. Until then we had largely ignored it.

I hear any number of seemingly intelligent people making this point and, to be entirely honest, it baffles me every single time. That I'd even have to highlight the absurdity of the argument is itself absurd. There is no logic to the statement. It don't make no sense.

The logic of Blair's claim is that the attacks of September 11th predated our response and that our response cannot therefore have made the situation worse. Have a think about it. He's effectively claiming that because September 11th happened, nothing we now do could possibly cause an increase in terrorism . It's just ludicrous. Every time he says it, the correct response is to point, laugh, and then worry that the leader of our country actually appears to believe his own logic defying nonsense.

Number Two - Two plus two equals frog (on the crisis in Lebanon)

Their [Hezbollah's] terrorism would provoke massive retaliation by Israel. Within days, the world would forget the original provocation and be shocked by the retaliation. They want to trap the moderates between support for America and an Arab street furious at what they see nightly on their television. This is what has happened.

He seems to have got his facts slightly muddled. It seems highly unlikely that Hezbollah expected Israel to react the way they did to their limited assault on a military target. Blair, later in his speech, suggests that the Hezbollah provocation which led to the Israeli response included "fir[ing] rockets indiscriminately at the civilian population in northern Israel". That isn't actually what happened and Blair, I'm sure, must know that it isn't. It was Israel who made the decision to escalate the current conflict, not Hezbollah.

Just to recap, Hezbollah launched a limited attack on a military target. At the same time, they fired a small number of diversionary mortar attacks. They expected to use the soldiers they captured as hostages to negotiate the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel as they had done in the not to distant past. Just to be clear, this wasn't an acceptable way to behave and it's illegal under international law but it was primarily an limited attack on a military target.

Israel then responsed by hitting a wide number of targets inside Lebanon, the Beruit airport for example. In response to these attacks, Hezbollah started firing rockets indescriminately at the civilian population in northern Israel. (In fact, it appears that Hezbollah claim to be attempting to hit military targets but their rockets are inaccurate, and they know it, so they are effectively firing rockets indescriminately, whatever they may claim.)

That Blair feels the need to regurgitate Israeli propaganda he know's not to be true shows just how serious he is about being "even-handed".

But on the wider stragetic point, he's nearly on to something. He seems to understand that extremists often look to provoke "massive retaliation" because that will be useful to their cause. Why then, if he sees that it plays into the hands of extremists, does he effectively support Israel's "massive retaliation" now? You surely don't need to have read Sun Tzu to understand that in war, it's best not to do what the enemy wants you to do.

Oh OK, one more.

Number Three - Killing for the fun of it

The purpose of the terrorism in Iraq is absolutely simple: carnage, causing sectarian hatred, leading to civil war.

Er, no. What he's described there is a tactic, not a purpose. A minor quibble perhaps but the underlying suggestion, that "this terrorism" enjoys killing for the sake of it, is carefully crafted propaganda.

In conclusion then, the man's a logic defying, propaganda spewing menace. The day he resigns will be a good day for the whole world. It can't come soon enough.

Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair

With Friends Like These

Hopes of an imminent ceasefire, such as they were, have again been dashed today. In an all too familiar refrain, the Israeli government is again claiming that they need just ten to fourteen more days to complete their mission in Lebanon. This time, they say they intend to step up their ground offensive in order to chase Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon.

I'm going to leave aside the humanitarian concerns for a moment, hard though that is given the suffering currently being imposed on the Lebanese, and discuss what's happening from an Israeli strategic point of view. I should make clear that I do not wish to see Israel cease to exist. I would like to see them stop settling new land in the occupied territories, withdraw to the 1967 borders, and allow the Palestinians to have their capital in East Jerusalem. Leaving aside how we got to this point, that seems to me that the two state approach is the most pragmatic and workable solution to the situation from here on in.

So what could Israel actually do about Hezbollah?

Israel last invaded Lebanon in the early Eighties and withdrew in 2000. There seems to be some suggestion these days that Israel's withdrawal was an altruistic gesture of peace. It wasn't; it was a retreat from incessant Hezbollah guerrilla attacks on occupation forces. Despite occupying southern Lebanon for years on end, Israel was unable to defeat Hezbollah militarily. Clearly, they are not going to do so in a few weeks this time round. To suggest otherwise is palpably absurd.

That Israeli retreat in 2000 was widely seen as a victory for Hezbollah and did much to strengthen its credibility and popularity, particularly among Shiite Muslims in the Middle East. It is looking increasingly likely that the current campaign will ultimately have a similar effect.

After Israel's withdrawal, Hezbollah continued to claim that the disputed Shabaa Farms area, still under Israeli occupation, is Lebanese rather than Syrian and that Israel therefore still occupies part of Lebanon. The UN, on the other hand, has determined that the Shabaa area is Syrian and that Israel has fully withdrawn from Lebanon. The Syrian government are somewhat ambiguous on this, party because they don't want Lebanon to conclude a separate peace treaty with Israel while the Golan Height remain occupied.

There has never been a settled border between Lebanon and Syria so this issue isn't clear cut. Nevertheless, Hezbollah's refusal to accept the decision of the UN on this matter is almost certainly about justifying its own continued existence as much as it is about liberating this tiny strip of land (it's about 15 square miles).

What is sometimes forgotten is that an organisation like Hezbollah will not voluntarily disband its fighting forces in the short to medium term even if Israel were to withdraw from the Shabaa area and hand it to the Lebanese government. In fact, Hezbollah will exist for years to come whatever the Israeli government does. This is about basic human nature, group dynamics, and power politics. Consider how difficult it has been to persuade the IRA to disband and you get some idea of the problem. The IRA still exists in 2006. But, crucially, widespread support for the violent tactics they used in the past does not.

The reality is that the best that Israel can hope to achieve in the short to medium term is a weakening support for Hezbollah. You might not like this, I'm not a big fan of it myself, but it's a fact.

Unfortunately for all concerned, Israel's current assault will certainly have the opposite effect. It may weaken Hezbollah militarily in the short term but as long as support for their organisation remains strong, weapons stockpiles can be restocked and fighters can be replaced. The only way to weaken an organisation like Hezbollah (although I'm normally critical of the "no alternative" gambit, here, having studied this stuff, I stress that I mean the only way) is to isolate them from the support of the community they purport to represent. History shows time and again that oppressive or violent measures against that same community will be hugely counter-productive.

And that's exactly what is happening. Support for Hezbollah in Lebanon today is stronger than ever, and not just among Shiites. It is increasingly seen as a national resistance movement defending the country against the Israeli onslaught. Attempts to disarm Hezbollah after the fighting eventually stops are going to be met with fierce opposition from within Lebanon, far more so than before the current crisis began.

What Israel should have done was to continue to engage with moderates from Lebanon and not allow provocation from the more extreme elements to dominate the agenda. Israel needs to demonstrate to the Lebanese that they are willing to live in peace with their northern neighbours if they are ever to convince them that an armed Hezbollah guerrilla movement is no longer necessary. At the moment they are doing the opposite.

Before going off into a frothing rage, please note that I am not suggesting that Israel needs to engage with the extremists. It seems clear that many Hezbollah fighters do not want Israel to exist. These people are irreconcilable; they won't be won over by engagement and moderation. All that can be done is to isolate them.

Let's go back to the not quite analogous IRA to demonstrate the point. Hardcore IRA republicans wanted the British out of Northern Ireland. They didn't get what they wanted but they still had to give up the "armed struggle". Those men of violence who wanted to continue the armed struggle still exist, many freely walk the streets, and many would undoubtedly still prefer to be perpetrating violence today in furtherance of their cause today. But they have been isolated from their support base.

The wider Republican movement no longer supports violence as they can see that there are other better ways to live. They see the British prepared to compromise and to offer new solutions to address the injustices they believe have been perpetrated against their community. As a result, the IRA no longer has a stream of new recruits volunteering to participate in the armed struggle. They no longer operate in a community which will shelter and support them as they perpetrate violence and that makes their position untenable.

Israel could attempt a similar approach in order to deal with Hezbollah. It wouldn't be easy, far from it, and it wouldn't be quick either but with patience, courage and commitment it would offer the possibility for a lasting peace.

Instead, they've chosen to react to Hezbollah provocation by essentially attacking the whole of Lebanon. This can only fuel the circle of violence. Resentments are growing, moderates are becoming marginalised or radicalised, and the prospect of a peaceful solution is ever more remote. Israelis, sadly, will have to endure the violent consequences of this for years to come.

The irony here is that those who claim to be friends of Israel have egged them on in this new military campaign. I've always thought that a real friend is someone who'll tell you when you're about to shoot yourself in the foot and attempt to stop you doing it.

There is, of course, a question as to whether the Israeli government actually wants peace. I'm starting to believe that the syndrome they suffer from is something akin to that of a serial criminal who longs to be incarcerated (not that I'm implying that the Israeli government are directly comparable to criminals, you understand. I do believe war crimes have been committed in the current attacks, the bombing of ambulances for example, but whether the Israeli government itself is responsible is open to question.).

Just as a criminal may subconsciously commit crimes and get caught in order to return to the comfort of the familiar prison enviroinment, the Israeli ruling parties may subconsciously act in ways which are likely to ensure the continuation of the familiar environment of conflict. It's hard to see any other explanation for their continually self-defeating behaviour.

Tags: News, Politics, Israel, Lebanon

Not so long ago, as he was rejecting an invitation to spend five or ten minutes meeting with the families of soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq, our great leader said "I yield to nobody in my support and admiration for the work that the soldiers do in Iraq".

For anyone who thinks his refusal to meet the bereaved families (who, it should be noted, were in Westminster that afternoon) might be a tint bit inconsistent with his claim, here's the proof:

A British soldier died in Iraq because he was not wearing the enhanced body armour he had had to give up because of shortages, an official report found.
[...]
The report... found that generals had identified a need for more body armour in September 2001, but ordering was held up for 15 months by "political constraints"...

Remember, Blair yields to nobody in his support for our troops in Iraq.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq

The Guardian report from Qana makes for grim reading.

The Israeli government has apparently announced a 48 hour suspension of air strikes while they carry out an investigation. On the face of it, this is a small positive development. Looked at optimistically, this could be a window of opportunity in which a ceasefire could be agreed.

But it's hard not to be cynical. Hezbollah have vowed to retaliate as the Israeli government undoubtedly knew they would. Declaring a suspension at the very moment when Hezbollah is least likely to stop their rocket attacks may simply be a means to provide the justification for the IDF onslaught to continue. "We stopped, they didn't. Destroying them is the only way..."

Too cynical? Sadly, I'm not sure it is.

Tags: News, Israel, Lebanon

The Lobby

I was going to write this post earlier today but after making a start on it, I decided to take a break and try again later. There's been a development since then so this is a slightly updated version.

The starting point is this article.

Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers

WHILE Israel fights Hezbollah with tanks and aircraft, its supporters are campaigning on the internet.

Israel’s Government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda. The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages.

It's an interesting read.

After reading it, I also found a website called GIYUS. It seems to be exactly the sort of thing that article was referring too; it's a coordinated attempt to direct and encourage supporters of Israel to contribute to relevant forums, chatrooms and the like. It also highlights articles which might be useful to the cause. They've got a flashy tool you can download which runs on your desktop and automatically alerts subscribers to relevant material. It's called "Megaphone", an apt name for a tool designed to amplify a particular point of view.

Now there's nothing wrong with a group of like minded people getting together in a coordinated campaign to influence public opinion. (I have a feeling that many of the subscribers to GIYUS wouldn't see it that way if a Muslim group was doing something similar but never mind that now.)

But this seems to me to be a bit more than that. I was going to link to their blog to prove the point but, curiously, the post in question has now been deleted. As I started writing this earlier, I do have the URL for the post so you can see what the title was if you click on the link. "Ceasefire survey"? So what was that all about then?

Well, being the cynical soul that I am, I also happened to take a screenshot of the post just in case it disappeared. Here we go:

Click and click again for a bigger more readable version.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this wasn't so much an attempt to influence public opinion as it was an attempt to distort the results of an online opinion poll hosted by Yahoo (UK and Ireland). The initial result, which seems to tie in roughly with other polls on the subject, showed that 69% of respondents believed the UK government should support an immediate ceasefire with 28% against. Twelve hours after GIYUS issued their call to their keyboard warriors, the poll showed that 48% supported the immediate ceasefire and 50% were against. And they were so happy about this that they couldn't help having a little boast about it (although they have now apparently had a change of heart about the wisdom of the boasting).

So next time you read someone suggesting that the Israeli government encourages coordinated efforts to amplify pro-Israel voices on the interwebs, perhaps you shouldn't dismiss the idea as the ranting of an unhinged conspiraloon. The tin-foil hatter just might have a point.

By the way, the Yahoo poll is in the right sidebar of this page (at the moment anyway) if you want to vote. It's up to you how you vote, of course.

(Both GIYUS and the Times article originally via the comments to this post from Sadiq Khan on CiF. Call for him to resign please Mr Khan. If you don't, you'll just end up looking like an insincere windbag.)

Tags: News, Politics, Israel, Lebanon

Thanks to Justin for the button. Click click.

Tags: Activism

Delusions of Grandeur

Did you see that the government has produced a leaflet on the constitution designed to educate schoolchildren? I'm no expert on the constitution but I'm willing to take the word of David Starkey when he says it's "full of howling errors".

According to the leaflet, the British Armed Forces are part of the Executive.

He probably thinks that's about right. The arse.

Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair

What do you get if you cross philosophy, wingnuttery and comic strips?

Someone called Chris Muir apparently.

Kantian nihilism?

Pretty much everything I know about philosophy comes from one impeccable source so I know that Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable. And I know that Kantian nihilism is just silly. Stop that, stop that. It's silly....

Tags: Wingnuts

Universal Values

Salon: The "hiding among civilians" myth (via)

Israel claims it's justified in bombing civilians because Hezbollah mingles with them. In fact, the militant group doesn't trust its civilians and stays as far away from them as possible.

Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.

But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

Read the rest

I can't say for sure how accurate that report is but I can reiterate what Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of Israel's Northern Command, said at the start of the conflict.

Israel called Wednesday's abductions an act of war, and Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of Israel's Northern Command, said he has "comprehensive plans" to battle Hezbollah throughout Lebanon, not just in its southern stronghold.

"This affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon," Adam said. "Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts."

International law makes clear that warring parties must make a clear distinction between combatants and non-combatants. It is not acceptable to target a civilian population even if they are sympathetic to one side in the conflict.

So, just as it is unacceptable to target Israeli civilians who support their government's conduct in this conflict or members of Olmert's Kadima party, it is equally unacceptable to target non-combatant supporters of Hezbollah.

Major General Adam has explicitly stated that Israel will not abide by that convention in this assault on Lebanon. "Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate".

And if that doesn't convince you that Israel is operating outside of international law, with the support of Bush and Blair, remember that Israel's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told Israel's Channel 10, "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."

How very civilised. Just as well our standards are so much higher than those of the Muslim barbarians...

Tags: News, Politics, Israel, Lebanon

A while back, I made a promise to myself that I'd stop writing about Harry's Place. I did try to raise this in the comments about four hours ago but got ignored. Oh well.

Compare and contrast

Harry's Place:

Have you planned your hols yet? If not then maybe you could consider Iraqi-Kurdistan.

The Foreign Office:

We strongly advise against all travel to Baghdad and the surrounding area, the provinces of Basra Maysan, Al Anbar, Salah Ad Din, Diyala, Wasit, Babil and Ninawa. We advise against all but essential travel to the rest of Iraq.
[...]
There have been fewer attacks in urban areas of the Kurdish Regional Government administered areas in northern Iraq than across the rest of the country... However, the threat in the north remains real.

Of course, it's up to you who's advice you decide to take when booking your holidays.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq

Why Do We Care?

As anyone who follows the various comment threads on the subject will know, those who support Israel's current assault on Lebanon often suggest that criticisms of Israel are completely disproportionate. "People are dying in far greater numbers in Iraq or in DR Congo," they argue. "Why don't you write about that instead of picking on the tiny beseiged state of Israel?"

It's easy to dismiss these comments as a cynical attempt to change the subject but I don't think that's what it is in most cases. Having read an unhealthy number of threads on this over the last two weeks, it seems clear to me that many Israelis and their supporters genuinely don't understand why people in the UK are so exercised by what's happening.

So I thought I'd try to explain something of my own position on the subject. What's happened today is a perfect illustration of it but we'll get to that shortly.

Before that, I should say that I do not deny that there are some moronic anti-semites out there and they're making more noise than usual at the moment. This is reprehensible. From what I can gather, they are a small minority, certainly in this country. That's not to excuse their racist views, of course, but I do not believe that the majority of criticims of Israel's current activities are motivated by anti-semitism as is sometimes claimed.

So why all the fuss? For me, this report says it all.

'World backs Lebanon offensive'

Israel says diplomats' decision not to call for a halt to its Lebanon offensive at a Middle East summit has given it the green light to continue.

"We received yesterday at the Rome conference permission from the world... to continue the operation," Justice Minister Haim Ramon said.

His comments came ahead of an Israeli cabinet meeting to decide whether to intensify the military offensive.

Despite the fact that the participants in the Rome conference vowed to work towards a sustainable truce with the "utmost urgency", the Justice Minister is essentially correct. By refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire, the international community has implicitly given Israel the green light to continue to impose collective punishment on the people of Lebanon.

But really, it wasn't the international community as such which gave this green light. As the front page of the Independent showed so very clearly last week, it's actually the governments' of the United Kingdom and the United States who are enabling Israel to continue its assault on Lebanon. And our special friends, the US government, are also busy sending shipments of armaments to Israel to aid them in their devastating attack.

But I believe that Israel's actions are both morally wrong and dangerously counter-productive. When my government supports such actions, implicitly or explicitly, I'm going to say something about it. In my own tiny way, I hope to add to the pressure which might make them change their approach. That's what democracy is all about.

The tragedy is that the British government actually could exert some inflence here through the special relationship chain which runs from the UK to the US to Israel. But they are not doing so. This is, I believe, a disgrace and a large part of the reason why I write about the current conflict.

Of course, this doesn't explain why I should make more noise about this than about Iraq, which my own government is in up to its neck. But as regular readers will know, I'm hardly silent on that subject.

Tags: News, Politics, Israel, Lebanon

A good post by Billmon on the state of hostilities and what might happen next. Good as in informative. Clearly there's nothing good about what's actually happening at the moment.

Tags: News, Politics, Israel, Lebanon

Blairwatch: Is Lord Levy lying through his back teeth?

Dear oh dear. Lord Levy, despite protesting that was willing to co-operate fully with the police investigation and that his arrest had been unnecessary, actually resorted to no comment" when questioned. Altogether everyone - "If you've got nothing to hide..."

Whiter than white.

Tags: News, Politics, Sleaze

With Us or Against Us?

President Bush likes to portray the invasion in Iraq as part of the "war" on terror. In December last year he said this:

"We believe that Iraq will be a democracy and know that Iraq as a democracy will be a strong ally in the war on terror."

This claim, that the new government of Iraq will be "a strong ally in the war on terror", a claim so feted by the cheerleaders for the fiasco that the invasion of Iraq has become, epitimises for me the basic inability of those who supported the war to come to terms with the reality of the situation.

As I've said before, the very best case scenario for the future of Iraq is that the security situation improves to the point that the power of the current government is stabilised. If that happens, and that's clearly an "if" of enormous magnitude at the moment, what will actually have been achieved? We'll have enabled an Iran friendly, religious Shiite government to rule Iraq. Whatever you're views on the "war" on terror, it's hard to see how this could be proclaimed a victory.

This report illustrates the reality.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democrats in the US Congress called on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to condemn Hezbollah's attacks against Israel and to recognize Israel's right to defend itself.

The lawmakers expressed dismay during a press conference over Maliki's recent criticism of "Israel aggression" in Lebanon, and called for a "clarification" from the Iraqi leader before he appears Wednesday before a joint session of Congress.

House Democrats wrote a letter Tuesday urging Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert to revoke his invitation to Maliki, whose steadfastness as a partner in the US-led war on terror, they said, is seriously in doubt.

"With evidence mounting that the Iraqi leadership's goals are not in the best interests of the United States -- nor the Middle East -- Prime Minister Maliki's address is inappropriate," the House Democrats told Hastert.

"We are unaware of any prior instance where a world leader who worked against the interests of the United States was afforded such an honor. We would like to know how Prime Minister Maliki was chosen to receive the honor, and absent an apology by the prime minister, urge you to cancel the address," they wrote.

The leader of opposition Democrats in the House, Nancy Pelosi, in a statement, called Maliki's remarks "unacceptable."

"At the White House this morning, Mr Maliki did not retreat from his comments on Israel and once again failed to criticize Hamas and Hezbollah's terrorist activities.

Juan Cole (hat-tip for the above link) has more on Mr Mailiki's Dawa Party.

I wonder if Harry's Place will attack Maliki for his refusal to condemn Hezbollah. It seems to be something of a sport over there to condemn those who refuse to show solidarity with Israel's collective punishment of the Lebanese people. Let's hear it boys. Isn't your man Mr Maliki guilty of "Jew-hating fascism" too?

(Btw, unlike Maliki, I strongly condemn Hezbollah firing rockets at Israeli civilian areas. These actions are no more justified than Israel's collective punishment of the Lebanese. Neither makes the other morally acceptable. I'm going to write a post on showing solidarity with the oppressed at some point soon. Solidarity with those who indiscriminately target civilians in the country of the oppressor isn't the way.)

It is a bizarre perversity of logic to see US Neo-Conservative Republicans and their supporters staunchly defending their decision to sacrifice so many lives in pursuit of the installation of a new ally for the Iranian government. It's an inconsistency of truly epic proportions. You're left wondering whether these people are genuinely ignorant of the situation or master practitioners in the art of double think. I'm inclined to believe it's a bit of both; wilful ignorance motivated by a refusal to address the nagging doubts which fester in their furthest reaches of their minds.

Presumably they repeat their mantra, "strong ally in the war on terror, strong ally in the war on terror, strong ally in the war on terror...", over and over until it drowns out the festering doubts just enough to allow them to continue to hold forth on the issue with the misplaced confidence which has become their hallmark.

Maliki is, of course, the democratically elected leader of sovereign Iraq and the Democrats are wrong to try to dictate to him what he can and cannot say. Any attempt to do so by the Bush regime would simple bolster the notion that Maliki is a US puppet thus damaging further his already tarnished reputation in Iraq. That's a whole different farce though.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon

A Joke

A man walks into a bar with an M16 assault rifle. He fires four shots into the drinkers, killing three and severely injuring another. Panic ensues as those left alive flee the bar in fear for their lives. He helps himself to a drink.

The police are called. They take statements from those who witnesed the shootings. The bar owner confirms that the incident will have been recorded on his CCTV system. Then they enter the bar to confront the man with the M16 assault rifle.

He makes no effort to evade them. "We've been given several statements that you indescriminately opened fire on the patrons of this bar, killing three and severaly injuring another" they say. "Furthermore, the bar owner assures us that this has been recorded on CCTV. Do you have anything to say to these allegations?".

"Indescriminately opened fire? I don't think so."

"Look here, I've still got 26 rounds left in my clip. Not only that, I didn't detonate the thermonuclear device which I've got in my rucksack. If I'd wanted too, I could have killed everyone within a hundred miles of this bar. So you see, your allegation that I indescriminately killed three people and injured another is a nonsense."

The police cannot fault this impecable logic. "Mind how you go sir" they offer as they leave.


No, you're right. It's not funny.

Tags: News, Politics, Israel, Lebanon

Consistency

The BBC's Jim Muir is reporting on the appalling carnage in Southern Lebanon. His latest report can currently be viewed via the link in the right hand column of this page. It's called "Red Cross medics attacked in Lebanon". You can also hear an audio report on this six minutes into today's World at One (available until tomorrow).

So, the high-tech, high-precision Israeli airforce fired two seperate rockets into two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances, two ambulances which were "lit up like a Christmas tree" with blue lights and illuminated Red Cross signs. One man lost a leg and an eight year old boy suffered brain damage inside one of the ambulances as a result of the attacks. All six Red Cross workers present were also injured.

That's not self defence. That's a war crime. Anyone who wants to put a "but" anywhere near that has lost their basic sense of humanity.

Our government rightly condemns Hezbollah's indescriminate attacks on Israeli civilians. Whatever the circumstances, the indescriminate killing of non-combatants must be condemned unreservedly. But will our government apply that same standard to the actions of the Israeli government? Or will they offer mealy mouthed platitudes about "understanding" the situation which Israel finds itself in?

After seeing Kim Howells today furiously backpedalling from his previous statement, almost certainly after being reprimanded by Downing Street, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out which path the British government is going to go down. Sickening.

Update

Phil over at Actually Existing explores the way the current actions of the IDF are defended. Indeed.

Tags: News, Politics, Israel, Lebanon

As some people may know, I've long maintained that the failures following the invasion of Iraq are at least partly due to the fact that the US military is very poorly equipped to deal with counter-insurgency warfare. As I've written before, this isn't exacly news to those who study this sort of thing. For years, the only people in the field who were not aware of this were the US military themselves.

For anyone who thinks I've no idea what I'm on about, here's an article from a proper journalist on the same subject. The money quote (one of several actually):

Cumulatively, the American ignorance of long-held precepts of counterinsurgency warfare impeded the U.S. military during 2003 and part of 2004. Combined with a personnel policy that pulled out all the seasoned forces early in 2004 and replaced them with green troops, it isn't surprising that the U.S. effort often resembled that of Sisyphus, the king in Greek legend who was condemned to perpetually roll a boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down as he neared the top.

Worth reading in full.

Tags: News, Iraq

Commercial Terms

At the moment, most people seem to be of the view that the law (note, that's "law") on declaring loans to the Electoral Commission is concerned solely on the rate of interest which is charged on said loans. In other words, were the loans offered at an interest rate which is within the bounds of commercial rates? The secret loans which the Labour Party accepted were offered at 6.5 - 6.75 percent and these undoubtedly are rates which can be found commercially.

In fact though, there's more to this than just the basic interest rate charged. In March this year, after the secret loans became public, the Electoral Commission wrote to the main parties (PDF) reminding them of the actual rules on declaring loans. The key here is this:

[T]he interest rate is not the only term of a loan. In deciding whether or not a loan is on commercial terms, you would also need to consider, for example, any requirement for security, the repayment terms and flexibility - including a clear understanding that a loan may be converted into a donation at a later stage. The overall test must be the extent to which similar terms would have been available at the time of the loan from a commercial lender.

This, clearly, is not the same as a simple judgement over the interest rate being charged on a loan. What I'd like to know is, would any commercial lender have offered the same terms to the Labour Party as those which they actually received from their Lords in waiting secret lenders?

It's becoming clear that the terms of these unsecured loans were rather generous. Oh that my bank manager would be so flexible.

The repayment period specified on the loans is certainly unusual in my experience.

Labour's accounts disclosed it is being charged interest at 6.5 to 6.75 per cent, two points above the Bank of England rate [on the secret loans].

All the loans were taken out during 2005, with repayment terms ranging from 180 to 365 days.

But a note in the accounts said: "The terms of the loan agreements are such that, if the loan is not repaid on the expiry of its initial term, then the loan is generally repayable 180 days after the party receives a written repayment notice."

In other words, there was a nominal repayment period on the loans but it wasn't actually a fixed period. In fact, the loans are actually only repayable six months after the lender specifically asks for them to be repaid. If the lender does not do so, the loan might conceivably never be repaid. It's almost as if the terms of the loans have been specifically written so that they could be turned into donations at a later date. I'm no expert on matters financial, as my bank manager will be quick to attest, but that seems rather unusual for a commercial unsecured loan.

And then there's the interest payments themselves. As the Independent reports today, a year on from the issue of the loans, the Labour Party has not yet paid back a single penny of interest on them. Again, my bank manager is not quite so generous when it comes to interest payments.

Given the precarious state of the Labour Party's finances generally, and given that they don't seem to a great deal in the way of guaranteed income, am I wide of the mark when I say that they'd have been laughed out of the plush executive offices of every commercial lender in the country if they'd attempted to secure loans on these terms on the open market?

The answer to this question, you'll be glad to hear, isn't just of interest to me. From the Independent report:

Detectives are already looking into whether the loans were made on terms the party would not have been able to gain from a bank. They are examining whether the loans were made on the understanding that they would be converted to donations later and never repaid. Opposition politicians believe that the loans were not made at a commercial rate and that Mr Blair broke the law by failing to declare them.

Good old Knacker. Unless I'm totally off base here, this is going to get very interesting indeed.

Tags: News, Politics, Sleaze, Tony Blair

More from Reuters on the situation in Iraq.

BAGHDAD, July 21 (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders have all but given up on holding the country together and, just two months after forming a national unity government, talk in private of "black days" of civil war ahead.

Signalling a dramatic abandonment of the U.S.-backed project for Iraq, there is even talk among them of pre-empting the worst bloodshed by agreeing to an east-west division of Baghdad into Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim zones, senior officials told Reuters.

Tens of thousands have already fled homes on either side.

"Iraq as a political project is finished," one senior government official said -- anonymously because the coalition under Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki remains committed in public to the U.S.-sponsored constitution that preserves Iraq's unity.

One highly placed source even spoke of busying himself on government projects, despite a sense of their futility, only as a way to fight his growing depression over his nation's future.

"The parties have moved to Plan B," the senior official said, saying Sunni, ethnic Kurdish and majority Shi'ite blocs were looking at ways to divide power and resources and to solve the conundrum of Baghdad's mixed population of seven million.

"There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into east and west," he said. "We are extremely worried."

Tragically, Iraq is fragmenting into seperate sectarian mini-states as tens of thousands of people flee for their lives. Historically, this sort of division has been a key precursor to all out civil war. Once it starts, it's almost impossible to stop.

And most of the mainstream media, with a few notable exceptions, don't even seem to have noticed.

Tags: News, Iraq

Another Worthless UN Resolution

There's been a lot of talk this week about UN Resolution 1559 (which was passed in 2004). This resolution notably "calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias". I've seen any number of people, including spokesmen for the Israeli government, quite rightly highlighting the fact that this resolution has not been implemented.

As one particularly strident commenter put it:

Israel should finish what they started. After that, we should call on the world to "put up or shut up" and enforce Res. 1559. First, we need a multinational force with the authority to clean out Hezbollah. In other words, they are not peacekeepers. They are soldiers. Second, the US should advise Syria that we will annihilate them if they stick their fingers in Lebanon.

Strong words.

I too would desperately like to see Resolution 1559 implemented, although obviously not by annihilating an entire people as the armchair warrior above suggests (wiping Syria off the map anyone?). And yet, every time I see someone from the Israeli government insisting that the Lebanon is getting what's coming to them because they've failed to disarm Hezbollah and are therefore in breach of the will of the international community, it turns my stomach.

Partly, this is because it is clear to anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the area that the Lebanese government simply doesn't have the power or stability to disarm Hezbollah. A similar situation exists in Pakistan in areas bordering Afghanistan. There,Taleban fighters operate with virtual impunity, not because Musharraf supports them, he's our kind of military dictator after all, but because he can't actually do anything to change the situation. If he pushes the issue, he risks destabilising the whole country. So even though Taleban fighters undeniably operate out of Pakistan, we're not going to be launching an attack on the country anytime soon. Apart from anything else, it'd obviously be hugely counter-productive to destabilise the country in such a way. Likewise in Lebanon, and yet that is exactly what's happening there.

But the problem with the Israeli government suggesting that they're merely implementing the will of the UN really lies elsewhere. Here's just one example.

On 14th December 1981, the Israeli government unilaterally declared the annexation of the Golan Heights. Three days later, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 497.

The Security Council... reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions,

1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;

3. Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution within two weeks and decides that in the event of non-compliance by Israel, the Security Council would meet urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The Israeli government paid no heed.

Appropriate measures were then put forward in a draft resolution as required under 497. The draft proposed "that all Member States should consider applying concrete and effective measures in order to nullify the Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights and to refrain from providing any assistance or aid to and co-operation with Israel in all fields, in order to deter Israel in its policies and practices of annexation".

Despite the Israeli government's refusal to abide by Resolution 497, the United States government vetoed this draft.

Israel continues to exercise sovereignty over the Golan Height in breach of Resolution 497 to this day. They have shown not the slightest inclination to remove what the international community considers to be illegal settlements in the area. Last year, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding that "Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967 in implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions". (For clarity, it should be noted that GA resolutions are not binding on UN members. Security Council Resolution 497 is, however.) Again, the Israeli government paid no heed.

No-one likes a hypocrite. A succession of Israeli governments, the current one included, have flouted and continue to flout any number of UN Security Council resolutions over the last sixty years. Today, they cherry pick the UN resolutions which they deem to be important, are prepared to use overwhelming force against a whole population using these resolutions as justification, whilst simultaneously ignoring completely those resolutions which they feel are not in their own interests. And then they complain bitterly when others refuse to conform to the resolutions which they do like.

The world doesn't work that way. At least it shouldn't. I think a lot of the hostility which many people feel towards Israel ultimately stems from this issue. It is considered to be an affront to the concept of impartial justice by many people all over the world. As I said, no-one likes a hypocrite.

I wonder if the staunch defender of the will of the United Nations quoted above would agree with the following statement?

We should call on the world to "put up or shut up" and enforce Res. 497. First, we need a multinational force with the authority to clean out Israel. In other words, they are not peacekeepers. They are soldiers. Second, the US should advise Israel that we will annihilate them if they stick their fingers in the Golan Heights again.

Somehow, I think it's unlikely.

Tags: News, Politics, Israel, Lebanon, Golan Heights