What I meant to say yesterday...

I'm not usually a big fan of Robert Fisk's work, but this article in yesterday's Telegraph really picks up on the hypocrisy of the Israel attack on Gaza - that, were Hamas the perpetrators, the term "war crime" would be bandied about like it was going out of fashion, yet Israel's actions are in their "defence."

As someone put to me yesterday, subjectivity plays its part. Whatever "side" you support in a conflict, you inevitably view it through a particular tint of glasses. Which is why terms like "terrorist", "war crime", "conflict" and even "war" have lost their meaning in today's society. When people start ascribing value judgements to concepts they lose their neutrality.

It might sound like I'm criticising Fisk here, but that is not my intention. He makes a good point about the value judgements ascribed to the actions of Israel and Palestine. There are a couple of points I'd like to make.

Firstly, if you are currently supporting Israel's "defence" of their people, think about where you stood on apartheid South Africa. I know it is not a great comparison, but there are similarities. Did you support the brutal suppression of a majority in a land by incomers (I know, in the case of Israel, that is a controversial point - again proving the subjectivity of the situation)?

Secondly, what makes the actions of a state (Israel) more legitimate than those of a (arguably) a terrorist group (Hamas)? Academically and historically, a government in a state has the powers of control - exercised through the legitimate use of force. But, arguably, in this case, both Israel and Hamas are legitimate actors - Hamas as the democratically elected government of the Palestinian Authority. I'm not arguing that neither side can then be disqualified from being branded as terrorist simply because they are acting on behalf of a state (or, in Hamas' case, a quasi-state). It it the actions which are perpetrated - on both sides of the divide - which that judgement should be made upon.

I don't think "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is right, at least, not if the terms are used correctly. Yes the views are subjective and yes they are deeply ingrained. But if we look solely at the actions involved we shall see no value judgement, no sides taken. Rather, the acts are judged independently of the actors.

This is the point I was trying to make yesterday. Obviously, both are at fault. But neither side can claim the moral high ground, as some commentators would have us believe.

Read more...

A mess of our own making

Israel and Palestine.

What a mess.

I don't really know where to start, and I think that is part of the problem. Other bloggers have rallied to the defence of Palestinians in the latest conflict/Israeli offensive (depending on your point of view) while others have suggested that, whatever Israel does, it must be supported. I'm not of that view - and I will explain why.

Israel was formed in 1948, unilaterally declaring independence from the British mandate of Palestine, as a home for the Jewish population there and from across the world. Immediately afterwards, Israel was invaded by surrounding Arab states. A year later, a ceasefire was called and the Green Line - the de facto border of Israel - established. UN estimates of 80% of the Arab (Palestinian) population (710,000) fled Israel at the time, while mass immigration of Jews from across the world saw Israel's population grow from 800,000 through 2 million in ten years, to around 3 million today.

The whole story of the conflict (attacks, counter-attacks, politics) is way to long to relate here, but I do suggest, for an easy-to-read, abridged, version, Teach Yourself: The Middle East Since 1945 which has the basics of it.

So Israel, with 3 million inhabitants, surrounded by nations hostile to its existence, has found a way to survive for over 60 years. But it has not found a way to secure its borders, nor has it found a way to safeguard its people. Since the foundation of the UN, Israel has been the largest transgressor of UN resolutions. In the name of defence, Israel has attacked - as it is doing so not in Gaza and as it did so in Lebanon in 2006 - civilian targets. And yet the UN is powerless to stop it, because the UN is financed by the US and the US has to bend to the wants of its powerful Jewish lobby.

I am not an apologist for Hamas. I recognise that their actions are not those of democrats and they are not the acceptable face of Palestinians. But Israel's actions can no longer be condoned - whatever the US says. US support for Israel simply makes the situation worse. It gives Israel a clean slate at the UN, more financial backing for attacks against civilians and, perhaps more dangerously, provides further ammunition for Islamic fundamentalists who are already pretty angry at the West.

Maybe Samuel Huntington's conclusions (if not his method) are correct in A Clash of Civilisations. All I'm sure about in this situation is that when, eventually, Israel decides it has destroyed enough of Gaza, this won't be over. There will never be a lasting peace in the Middle East. We've meddled too much in affairs which are not ours.

That's a bit deeper than usual, no?

Read more...

You've got a friend...

I had thought I'd give the cynicism a miss for a bit this year, then I remembered that I really am cynical about most things... and a pessimistic bum to boot.

So when I saw that Tony Blair is to be awarded the Medal of Freedom from outgoing US President George W Bush (along with Australian John Howard and Colombian Alvaro Uribe) for being a "staunch ally" of the US, I nearly choked on my cereal.

Getting a medal for being a good pal? I thought the US had spurned the honours system? Next thing you know, if you donate some money to a political party, you might end up being a Sir or Dame. Oh... wait.

Read more...

2009 at a glance...

Hullo again, and Happy New Year. I hope everyone has had a grand old festive season, didn't eat too much and is ready for all that 2009 is going to throw at you. I've been away from the 'Burgh since Christmas Eve, and with NO (yep, zero, zip, none) internet at my parents' house, I've had to give blogging a wee break. And no, they don't live in a cave... just the North East of Scotland.

Let me start the New Year with a big thank you. Over 23,500 hits on this page since I started it in February 2008. That's either a fair few of you looking at these meanderings or my mum reading it a lot. Given the lack of internet at home, I'd like to thank all of you for coming back to read what I have to say. I hope to keep up the blogging for a good while yet, despite the blogging "retirement" that seems to be going round.

So, lets have some predictions for 2009:

1) First up, the biggie. Gordon Brown will put all his eggs in a June General Election after Labour don't do as badly as he thinks in the May Euros/ English Council elections. Brown's handling of the economy shrinks Tory poll leads but not enough to stop huge gains at their expense and resulting in a hung parliament and months of wrangling over power (see Canada 2008).

2) In Scotland, the SNP will double their seat tally at Westminster, but fall short of Alex Salmond's prediction of 20 seats (more to come on seat predictions in the coming weeks). And their government of Scotland will continue to be slow and unspectacular but effective... a "softly, softly approach", doing less but doing it better.

3) Staying with the Scottish Government, and after a struggle, the SNP will pass their next budget - though Labour will do significantly better than last year and extract some key concessions. And after this "success", the First Minister decides to shake things up a little, and reshuffle his Cabinet - but only three faces will change.

4) The Lib Dems' poor poll showing in 2008 will not improve any in 2009. They will lose their deposit in yet another by-election and see their vote slide away in council by-elections in Scotland. By the election they will win only 12% of the vote and less than half their current seats.

5) The Tories will replace the lacklustre George Osbourne as Shadow Chancellor at a "quiet" but opportune moment... a month before the next budget. Replacement? I'd like to say Ken Clarke... but would Cameron be that brave?

6) SNP Tactical Voting's Jeff will return home from his travels to a job at the Scottish Parliament... though perhaps not working for whom you'd expect!

7) Despite the mood-lifting election of Barack Obama in the US, I think there will be another assasination attempt on him. My gran told me she wanted John McCain to win because "people would hate him less and wouldn't want to kill him." There's a lesson here - listen to your Gran. I hope I'm wrong about this one.

8) Obama will base his policy on "restoring" peace between Israel & Palestine on Jed Bartlet's approach in season six of The West Wing. And if you don't know what I'm talking about - watch it!

9) Kris Boyd will swallow a whole tattie & bean pie and apologise to George Burley who immediately sticks him in the starting line-up for Scotland's next game. Though, by the end of the year, the national team can no longer qualify for the World Cup.

10) Finally, footie. Celtic will win the SPL for the fourth time in a row and Gordon Strachan will decide he's had enough crap from the fans and resign. Walter Smith will be sacked/resign (not sure the Chairman has it in him to sack his best bud) and Ally McCoist will take over. Aberdeen will finish 3rd, Inverness bottom and St. Johnstone will be promoted. In England, Arsenal miss out on Champions League football to Aston Villa while... you know what, I'm going with it: Liverpool will win their first Premier League title. Blackburn, West Brom and Stoke City will be relegated. And Barcelona will get their hands on the Champions League trophy.

And that is 2009 in a nutshell. Wake me up in time for Christmas. I'm off for a lemsip... smorran wi' the cal!

Read more...