Tag Archives: Israel

Is Israel exempt from international law?

Thursday - 17 December 2009

This week has seen a startling series of events redefine the way the UK acts on international law, and the way British governments understand the power of the courts. Under the principal of Universal Jurisdiction, an arrest warrant was issued by Westminster magistrates court for former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni, accused of war crimes during the most recent invasion of Gaza. As soon as this information reached the Israel, its government reacted furiously (which was to be expected). Israel's ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, said in a statement:

"The current situation is absurd and unacceptable in equal measure. Israelis cannot continually be held hostage by fringe groups of anti-Israel extremists, preventing politicians, businessmen and officers from visiting the UK."

While Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu described the situation as an "absurdity".

What happened next was that the British government leaped into action, apologising to Israel and promising to better control the way international law is applied to Israeli officials in Britain. Gordon Brown and David Miliband both rushed to condemn the warrant, assuring Israel that it'll never happen again.

So why is it that a senior Israeli politician can't be arrested in the UK for alleged war crimes? The answer, as usual, is that British government ministers have acted entirely out of personal self interest. The precedent that would be set by arresting Livni would make it far more likely that British officials could be arrested for their own war crimes. And that just wouldn't do.

The way international law is applied currently suggests that the only people who can ever face it are either (a) a few of the operators in the Yugoslavian war of the 90s and (b) Africans. Israeli and British and other 'western' government officers are effectively exempt not because of any weakness in the law, but because every single time an arrest warrant is issued, or an arrest is attempted, the move will be swiftly quashed by politicians. Who aren't supposed to have that much sway when it comes to the courts.

One of Livni's statements was particularly telling:

"I have no problem with the world wanting to judge Israel. A problem arises the moment [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are compared to terrorists."

By 'terrorists', she's obviously referring to Hamas (the political organisation of which, the UK does not designate to be a terrorist group). Well I don't have such a problem with that comparison, Ms. Livni. But it seems that as ever, uniformed soldiers are seen by Britain as being naturally better than rag-tag freedom fighters. Unless they're our rag-tag freedom fighters, of course.

Israel invades Gaza… again

Sunday - 4 January 2009

Sadly, it seems that the Guardian's predictions were accurate: the invasion was obviously going to happen. As usual, the leading liberal democracies are backing an illegal invasion (quietly in public, slavishly, no doubt, in private).

I wish I could attend one of the demonstrations going on around the world but it doesn't look likely. If anyone has any reports from the demos, I'd love to hear them.

[Written on highly expensive Internet access from monsoonal Darwin]

Israel 'considering' Gaza invasion?

Monday - 29 December 2008

I've been pretty much completely without Internet access for about 12 days and checked the Guardian today to see that Harold Pinter had died and Israel has killed hundreds more civilians in Gaza. The Guardian reports that they may be about to invade the Palestinian territory.

I can't write much now but I will note that Israel seems to have learned from the US invasion of Iraq:  starve your enemy to death for months or years, all the while attacking them with air strikes and then you get the ground troops in. So much easier that way.

Let's hope that the hundreds of Palestinians killed in the last 48 hours will go some way to repaying the FIFTEEN dead EVER from the Qassam rocket attacks they are supposed to be preventing.

Oh and don't forget that the political wing of Hamas is not a proscribed terrorist group in the UK… just a political party.

My nation is strong, your nation is shit

Friday - 25 July 2008

It has been a while since I touched on anything connected to the political/cultural temperature around here. I do have one pet theory that I've been chewing over for a few months now. It's not a particularly original idea so any of you who know the proper cultural studies term for it should let me know. I decided to write this after seeing the hilariously tragic TeleMadrid video over at South of Watford.

I'll start off by reiterating that I'm not a Catalan nationalist. I oppose nationalism in general as it doesn't really fit with any of my other beliefs and often seems to be a divisive concept. In this way, I also oppose Spanish, French and British nationalism. At the same time, I do not like the idea of a mono-cultured, mono-linguistic world where people's cultural differences are erased in the name of 'peace'. It wouldn't work and we'd lose a lot of what makes humanity so interesting.

Anyway, my theory is pretty simple. People who come from dominant, mono-cultured, mono-linguistic nation states are generally less sympathetic to the culture and 'nationality' of smaller, less dominant regions and countries.

At the same time, the most strident opponents of nationalism are nearly always from countries with very strong and safe nationalisms*. Example: John at Iberian Notes. He's an intelligent guy who sees absolutely no contradiction in slamming any and all movements which seek to promote Catalan culture, identity or autonomy… while at the same time being an extremely noisy cheerleader for American imperialism. His opposition to nationalism seems to go as far as La Franja (and takes in the Basque Country too). When looking at his own country, he seems completely oblivious of the fact that he strongly supports American nationalism. In the past, he has also expressed strong support for Israel (a highly nationalist society) but condemns Palestinian nationalism as dangerous (or 'terrorist'). And he's not alone: these are standard and accepted positions.**

Similarly, domestic opposition to Catalan nationalism is nearly always couched in the language of Spanish nationalism. There can be few arguments less logical than 'down with Catalan nationalism: one language for all Spaniards', a political movement which is being actively promoted by some Spanish politicians, El Mundo and various Spanish and ex-pat (i.e. British and American) bloggers.

Actually, it is often the ex-pats who are the most strident opponents of Catalan autonomy and culture. In my experience, people born in other areas of Spain who live and work here (often married to a Catalan), speak the language and generally support at least the status quo, and sometimes even the push for further autonomy. It has always been my German, French and British colleagues who find Catalans to be 'stupid', 'silly', 'pathetic' or 'dangerous' for insisting on speaking the language they feel most comfortable with. It is no coincidence that the British, French and German states are the world's most important historical nation-states.

In the end, what it comes down to is the perceived relative strength of one nation against another. If Catalonia were still the great nation it was for about 40 years, they might be the dominant nation-state, mocking the English for not speaking French, or those regionalist losers in Andalucia. They'd probably be just as bad as the British, the French and the Germans are now. And the British, the French and the Germans would no doubt feel the same indignation at being told they should speak another language in the shops on their own street, just to 'make things easier'.

===

*This is not to say that just because someone's English, she cannot oppose nationalism.

**So, one man's nation is another man's region.

Melanie Phillips is a terrorist

Friday - 1 September 2006

One of the current stars of the right-wing (or rather, neo-con) blog circuit is the English columnist and author, Melanie Phillips. Her vociferous hatred of Islam, her certainty that, left to the pansy-liberals, Britain is doomed to become a caliphate (her book's called Londonistan) and her… vociferous hatred of the left have all earned her a certain cachet among the broadly American neo-conservatives whose praise she courts. Personally, I think they like her even more because she's English and serious-looking: far easier to like than the dangerously blonde and completely mad scourge of common sense, Ann Coulter. Oh, and because she's very good at telling certain people that their ill-fouded beliefs about Britain are correct.

Well I guess that's enough praise for Melanie. The reason I'm writing is to have a look at some of her writing. Specifically, her recent article 'Suicide Of The West' in the National Review Online.

The main gist of this article is that the British 'establishment and chattering classes' are making a huge mistake in their understanding of Islamist terrorism when they consider that it might be influenced by foreign policy. She states that this attitude ignores the fact that this terrorism has a religious aspect and that,

There was an al Qaeda plot in Birmingham to blow up Britain back in 2000 — before 9/11, let alone the war in Iraq. Similarly, jihadi attacks on the U.S. began 22 years before 9/11 with the Iran embassy hostage crisis in 1979, followed by two decades of further attacks.

It is undeniably true that Islamist terrorists existed before 2001 (they would have had to form their cells long before then in order to carry out their earlier attacks on the WTC, the east-African embassies etc etc). What she omits to mention is that US/UK foreign policy also existed prior to 2001. For example, the 'war in Iraq' didn't begin in 2003. It could reasonably be stated that the war began as early as 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Our military took up positions in Saudi Arabia (at the behest of the regime there) and continued assaults on Iraq throughout most of the subsequent thirteen years.

Prior to the Iraq war, the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran, supported jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviets, supported the Shah in Iran (this was before it was all about 'freedom and democracy') – all policies which had their as their base a fairly sound (if unpleasant) strategic intention but which undoubtedly fomented anger and hatred against the west long before 2000. When remembered, these facts make it clear that while it's perfectly obvious that al Qaeda started before 2000, so did the foreign policies which allegedly enraged them. I'll go further and say that Melanie Phillips knew all of this perfectly well but chose to ignore historical fact in order to pursue her central theme: that we are facing a religious war rather than the hangover from decades of meddling, bombing and assassinating.

Why does Phillips think that she can get away with this? She is a journalist of many years' experience with an excellent academic reputation. It's puzzling that she can be rigorous while constructing arguments based utter mendacity. Well, it's not really. Her rhetoric has been carefully honed to fit its intended audience: the American right-wing. Who else would believe the myth of the religious war when no war has ever really been about religion?

Phillips goes on to say that the radicalisation of British Muslims is the fault of (wait for it…) the BBC. By bombarding the British people with anti-USA, anti-Israel propaganda, the BBC is 'culpable' for al Qaeda terrorist attacks.

[The BBC] powerfully incites hatred by persistently misrepresenting Israel’s self-defence as unwarranted aggression, and giving air-time to an endless procession of Islamic jihadists, propagandists, anti-Western activists and bigots with rarely even a hint of a challenge.

While I am unable to review every minute of the BBC's news coverage over the last ten years, I can remember plenty of interviews and airtime given to Israeli officials, US Army generals and modern neo-conservatives which I have seen with my own eyes. If you watched the BBC at the time of the invasion of Iraq, you too will remember the ghoulish blood lust that seems to overtake every news outlet at times of war. The Guardian had rather too many graphics of how laser-glide bombs work for my liking. My point is that it's unreasonable to accuse the BBC of prejudice unless you're willing to accept that 'when it counts', the BBC always backs up 'our boys'.

Add to that the campaign led by the BBC against the Taliban regime in Kabul (extensive reporting of human rights abuses, the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, a Despatches documentary about the religious/moral police force), joyous reports of democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq… I've looked hard for this alleged bias in the BBC but I've never found it.

For Israel’s fight is the world’s fight. Lose Israel, and the world is lost

…yes, that's true. But how do we best secure the safe future of Israel? By deciding that we're locked in some sort of esoteric 'religious war'? Melanie Phillips is committed to selling the concept of a clash of cultures, a war of ideals. This war exists but it's not between Christians and Muslims. The war of ideas in the west is between truth and lies, between power and democracy, between terror and debate, between reason and hate. Those of us dedicated to truth, democracy, debate and reason – from accross the political spectrum – need to stand up soon to prevent these people from controlling the dialogue.

Why does everyone hate the BBC?

Tuesday - 22 August 2006

There is a widespread trend in the so-called ‘blogosphere’ which consists of bashing the BBC for an alleged bias behind their coverage of home and international news. Sites like ‘Biased BBC’, ‘Busting BBC Bias’, and several others are dedicated to highlighting a perceived anti-conservative or more often anti-Israeli agenda.

Analysis of state-run news agencies is important. I have witnessed plenty of occasions when the BBC has taken up its ‘public service – unite the people’ mantle with a bit too much enthusiasm. Golden Jubilees and other uninteresting royal events leap to mind.

However, I have never detected anything in their coverage of the Israel-Palestine or Israel-Lebanon which amounted to anti-Israeli bias. Every news report I’ve watched over the last few weeks has matched Fox News for the amount of content broadcast from the Israeli side of the frontier, spending plenty of time talking to Israeli civilians in shelters, inspecting damage to houses and shops, asking for the opinions of shoppers and holidaymakers in Tel Aviv. All of this was done in a sensitive, humane way with absolutely no hint of malice or put-downs on the part of the BBC.

Of course, the BBC also showed images of devastation in southern Lebanon. Blocks of flats which had collapsed, two-storey-deep holes in Beirut, dead women and children. Several times, it was noted that the BBC weren’t allowed to enter Hezbollah-controlled zones. It was made clear at these times that this might have been because Hezbollah had ‘command and control bunkers’ or ‘armed fighters’ on the streets. Continue reading

The Middle East crisis

Tuesday - 25 July 2006

Firstly, I feel I should acknowledge that this is really none of my business. One of the biggest problems with blogs discussing the Israel/Palestine/Lebanon/etc… issue is that bloggers inevitably seem to end up pretty firmly defending one side or another. Therefore, blogs like Iberian Notes find it easy to criticise the critics of Israel, seemingly without considering whether Israel's actions have been excessive.

I'm a firm believer in the right of Israel to exist and in its right to defend itself, just as I would expect the UK to stand up to foreign agression. Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah are all culpable of crimes against the Israeli people. It can only be expected that Israel will respond to provocation.

However, Israel's response has not been proportionate or decent. Anyone who claims that it has been is making exactly the same mistake as those fools who blindly defend Hezbollah or the stooges of the Ayatollahs. Bombing Beirut's new airport was not a strike against Hezbollah, in the same way that bombing Gaza's only major power plant was not an act of war against Hamas. Both these incidents (and many more besides) were essentially acts of collective punishment against people who were never to blame for kidnappings of Israeli troops. Hezbollah rocket/missile attacks on Israeli towns and villages are just as reprehensible.

As I said, this is none of my business. I just wish that bloggers in general would at least attempt to interpret these events with a modicum of detachment from either side. Sure, that might make posts less interesting but it would make authors appear wiser and fairer.

Uranium and the social reaction

Thursday - 9 March 2006

For those who, like me, aren't au fait with the reasons for our future attack on Iran (let's not kid ourselves about this: there will be a military attack), I found some interesting information about uranium enrichment. Much as the British Ambassador to the UN just said that there was 'no fuel value' in enrichment, it seems that in fact many reactors do use uranium enriched to the degree that Iran wants to enrich their fuel. The problem is that to enrich to this level takes Iran a step or two closer to the highly enriched uranium used in weapons.

I don't think I'm falling into Condoleezza Rice's trap when I say that it does look like Iran wants to build an atomic bomb. I don't much like the regime in Iran (the anti-Semitism in particular is thoroughly vile), but I would question the right of the US, Israel, France UK et al to prevent Iran from having the bomb. As far as I'm concerned, atomic weapons are inherently terrible… it looks to me as if Iran not being allowed to have the bomb is just an example of how the West views itself in comparison to other regions. Our governments treat Muslim powers as if they are intrinsically wicked, unstable and risky whereas we are all responsible, non-threatening and can be trusted with a bomb.

This regionally specific attitude has been at the heart of British, French and American foreign policy for hundreds of years. It doesn't seem to have worked that well, and it reminds me of Howard Becker's social reaction theory (aka 'labelling'). If I remember correctly, the theory says that when you label an individual or group as criminal, irresponsible or – to use sociological terminology – deviant, it is likely that they will respond to this label by behaving in a more deviant way. Is it any wonder then that the more we condemn and attack and mistrust those we disagree with, the more they seem to scare us?

Are you thinking what we're thinking?

Thursday - 27 October 2005

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparked international shock and controversy this week by calling for Israel to be 'wiped out'.

His words – while not unusual among neo-Nazis or Islamic fundamentalists – have done much to confirm Ahmadinejad's position as a premiere league nutcase, but they've also opened up a couple of interesting points.

At work I was surprised by how some colleagues took the president's speech. Perhaps they're right, and this is far less significant than I consider. But perhaps there's also the sneaking anti-semitism one comes across every week seemingly. On Sunday I heard a little bit from one of Gemma's friends too.

It's often reported that anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe and I think that's probably true. So is 'Islamophobia' (problem here: Palestinians are also a semitic people, but the issue becomes far too complicated when that's recognised). Perhaps it's because people just aren't educated enough. I was surprised to learn that my sister who is studying a GCSE in Religious Education will learn about Judaism at school, but only as one of the two religions they'll cover. The other is Christianity. So she does learn about Israel, but in turn learns nothing about Islam. In other schools, it's the other way around.

It's not for me to explain the intricacies of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the special status of the Jews or the fact that Israel is a completely different idea to 'the Taleban'. Some people won't listen to sense even if it bites them on the ass, and I can't be bothered to waste my breath. But I will say this: when racism of any sort is on the rise, it's nothing that's worth trying to be clever about. Racism whether against Jews, Palestinians, Americans or whoever is always wrong, never funny, and never minor. It's the culmination of the most detestable thoughts in mens' minds, and it should be fought at all times.

Bush: God made me do it

Friday - 7 October 2005

Say a prayer for George Bush George Bush has finally come clean about why he took the decision to invade Iraq. According to a Palestinian politician, Mr Bush said that he was commanded by God to invade Afghanistan and Iraq – and that God had also charged him with finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. In many ways, Mr Bush's claims are something of a relief. I find it a relief because it means that either Mr Bush has startlingly poor judgement, which really just vindicates everything I thought about him; or it illustrates that he is a callous liar who holds nothing sacred when it comes to achieving his personal goals – something I also believed about him.

Politically, Mr Bush has made a mistake. he seems to have strayed onto territory that his advisors have done well to keep him away from. The evangelical claptrap may well work on middle-America (and I'm not even sure of that…) – but it will cut less ice abroad. It also puts further pressure on his allies. I.E Tony Blair.

Will Tony Blair claim that he too was visited by God? I don't believe that Mr Blair has much faith in anything except himself, but now it seems that he too was simply doing God's bidding. The thing is that Mr Bush may be able to stand up and say hogwash like 'God made me do it', but Tony Blair can't. This isn't because we don't respect religious belief in England. It's because a man should always be personally responsible for his own actions, and that he should control his urges, rather than his urges controlling him. Also, we don't traditionally like evangelical pomposity very much. Which is probably why we're better at doing business and winning wars than the Americans… but I digress.

This guy puts it better than me:

"History is littered with examples of people doing the most bizarre and sometimes wicked things on this basis," said Andrew Blackstock, director of the British-based Christian Socialist Movement. "If Bush really wants to obey God during his time as president he should start with what is blindingly obvious from the Bible rather than perceived supernatural messages.

"That would lead him to the rather less glamorous business of prioritising the needs of the poor, the downtrodden and the marginalised in his own country and abroad.

"When we see more policies reflecting that, it might be easier to believe he has God on his side. And more likely that God might speak to him."

Amen to that.