Tuesday, February 17, 2009
We are all extremists now
Looks like the suppresion of Geert Wilders' freedom to talk crap last week was only a stay of execution for our purportedly untouchable community togetherness. According to The Guardian and the BBC's Panorama, the government is looking to incorporate new measures against what they deem radicalism into is counter-terrorism strategy.
This strategy is known as 'Contest 2'. An obscure name, yet we know that Britain's top men do 'mysterious' much better than their counterparts across the pond, where it would be baptised something glitzy and melodramatic like the 'Annihilating Muslim Extremist Radicals and Isolating Covert Attackers' [AMERICA!!] strategy. The aim of this video-game-titled plan will involve leaving Muslims cleaving to retrograde beliefs against homosexuality and democracy "isolated and publicly rejected". How exactly this will be achieved is not detailed.
The aim is to put an end to the perceptions many Muslims have of being Muslim first and British second. It is very much in the mould of of Gordon Brown, who in one of his premature Dear Leader moments floated the idea of a 'British Day' and other gimmicks to reinforce the British identity in our hearts. But many Muslims risk being bracketed as extremists and pushed to the fringes of society for holding views that are despicable yet capable of being challenged in an open society. Admittedly this ruling implies I will never have to sit through another tedious dredge of a debate that Sunday mornings seem to specialise in showing. You know, the sort where an indignant atheist tries repeatedly to force some stubborn Muslim to admit that his religious texts do not allow a warm welcome for women, homosexuals and apostates. But civil liberties being further eroded is too big a price to pay, especially since this plan makes me and many other non-Muslims extremists too.
Firstly, because those who "fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan" are included. Well, yesterday the 145th soldier from my forces died in Afghanistan, as part of Operation Herrick (again, compare with the US name for the main offensive, Operation Enduring Freedom; not only bombastic but emphatically inaccurate...) in Helmand province. I didn't think to condemn that death, but then again, when I heard about it there was nobody about to condemn it to. Days earlier the 149th died in Operation Telic (Iraqi Freedom. Need I say more..?) I didn't condemn this either, but then again, I didn't want British soldiers to be packed off to Iraq in the first place, one of the reasons being that the war would serve to generate more bloody extremists. And given that most of the early British casualties were caused by helicopter crashes and friendly fire, and that they have on occasions been left without appropriate equipment for a hostile environment, I'm not sure who these stiffs want me to condemn when British soldiers are killed.
Secondly, because the plan also makes extremists of those who "believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military." (This is the wording in the Guardian article at least). I gave up on defining 'jihad' a long time ago, but I won't have what the government thinks it is equated with "armed resistance". In the unlikely event that Britain were attacked by a conventional military, it would need to employ "armed resistance" to keep the invaders at bay. As far as I'm concerned, Palestinians firing at peoples' homes are not resisting - they are terrorising civilians. But if the IDF rolls into Gaza or a West Bank refugee camp and starts bulldozing homes then they are dead meat for not disobeying these obscene orders. This is certainly no radical position in a land where those who shoot and kill unarmed burglars in the back are celebrated by a good proportion of the people as heroes. Armed resistance is the only weapon the weak and helpless have when the powerful decide to close ranks.
Regrettably in Britain we have to contend with a powerful elite magnetically drawn to bad choices, producing masterful combinations such as banning anti-Muslim MPs who might disturb community relations while toying with plans to force pariah status on this same society. With these fools in charge I genuinely fear the potential these new measures have to become reality and give us the worst of both worlds.
Looks like the suppresion of Geert Wilders' freedom to talk crap last week was only a stay of execution for our purportedly untouchable community togetherness. According to The Guardian and the BBC's Panorama, the government is looking to incorporate new measures against what they deem radicalism into is counter-terrorism strategy.
This strategy is known as 'Contest 2'. An obscure name, yet we know that Britain's top men do 'mysterious' much better than their counterparts across the pond, where it would be baptised something glitzy and melodramatic like the 'Annihilating Muslim Extremist Radicals and Isolating Covert Attackers' [AMERICA!!] strategy. The aim of this video-game-titled plan will involve leaving Muslims cleaving to retrograde beliefs against homosexuality and democracy "isolated and publicly rejected". How exactly this will be achieved is not detailed.
The aim is to put an end to the perceptions many Muslims have of being Muslim first and British second. It is very much in the mould of of Gordon Brown, who in one of his premature Dear Leader moments floated the idea of a 'British Day' and other gimmicks to reinforce the British identity in our hearts. But many Muslims risk being bracketed as extremists and pushed to the fringes of society for holding views that are despicable yet capable of being challenged in an open society. Admittedly this ruling implies I will never have to sit through another tedious dredge of a debate that Sunday mornings seem to specialise in showing. You know, the sort where an indignant atheist tries repeatedly to force some stubborn Muslim to admit that his religious texts do not allow a warm welcome for women, homosexuals and apostates. But civil liberties being further eroded is too big a price to pay, especially since this plan makes me and many other non-Muslims extremists too.
Firstly, because those who "fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan" are included. Well, yesterday the 145th soldier from my forces died in Afghanistan, as part of Operation Herrick (again, compare with the US name for the main offensive, Operation Enduring Freedom; not only bombastic but emphatically inaccurate...) in Helmand province. I didn't think to condemn that death, but then again, when I heard about it there was nobody about to condemn it to. Days earlier the 149th died in Operation Telic (Iraqi Freedom. Need I say more..?) I didn't condemn this either, but then again, I didn't want British soldiers to be packed off to Iraq in the first place, one of the reasons being that the war would serve to generate more bloody extremists. And given that most of the early British casualties were caused by helicopter crashes and friendly fire, and that they have on occasions been left without appropriate equipment for a hostile environment, I'm not sure who these stiffs want me to condemn when British soldiers are killed.
Secondly, because the plan also makes extremists of those who "believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military." (This is the wording in the Guardian article at least). I gave up on defining 'jihad' a long time ago, but I won't have what the government thinks it is equated with "armed resistance". In the unlikely event that Britain were attacked by a conventional military, it would need to employ "armed resistance" to keep the invaders at bay. As far as I'm concerned, Palestinians firing at peoples' homes are not resisting - they are terrorising civilians. But if the IDF rolls into Gaza or a West Bank refugee camp and starts bulldozing homes then they are dead meat for not disobeying these obscene orders. This is certainly no radical position in a land where those who shoot and kill unarmed burglars in the back are celebrated by a good proportion of the people as heroes. Armed resistance is the only weapon the weak and helpless have when the powerful decide to close ranks.
Regrettably in Britain we have to contend with a powerful elite magnetically drawn to bad choices, producing masterful combinations such as banning anti-Muslim MPs who might disturb community relations while toying with plans to force pariah status on this same society. With these fools in charge I genuinely fear the potential these new measures have to become reality and give us the worst of both worlds.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Arguing against intolerance is hard. Can't we just ban it?
Oh great. The powers that be in my country, ever committed to freedom of speech, have detained far-right Dutch MP and general asshole Geert Wilders at Heathrow and deported him after he decided to try and face down a ban from the Home Office. The prohibition on his entry was due to his comprehensive opposition to Islam and a short film in which he brands the Koran a "fascist book". He had been invited by a UKIP peer in the House of Lords, but the Home Office, instead of permitting him to present the film to those that invited him and perhaps face some of his opponents, felt that his opinions were a threat to public security. (psst, don't worry guys, it's on YouTube!)
There might be a (small) case in favour of the public security angle, and those struggling for a more tolerant world would justifiably be up in arms with peers in the British parliament meeting this creep. But we can't go about pre-empting every obnoxious individual for fear of how others will react to their words and thoughts by banning them outright. And blacklisting someone who has an axe to grind with the Islamic faith while allowing Muslim preachers with extremist views like Yusuf al Qaradawi in is rather uneven (putting aside the fact that Ariel Sharon, Vladimir Putin and Chinese Premiers Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, all mass killers of Muslims, have had state visits).
Speaking of muzzling unpalatable opinions, I'm trying to follow the logic displayed by our unwanted guest. I'm briefed fairly well on Mr Wilders, so I'm familiar with his toxic opinions on how he wants Muslim immigrants out of Holland. But crying freedom of speech while trying to get the Koran banned seems odd for reasons so obvious that I must be missing something:
1. Dutch people can convert to Islam if the mood takes them. You can't deport them "back where they came from" and they can download the Koran from the internet. Why ban it?
2. He claims he doesn't hate Muslims, only Islam. I sympathise - I hate music but love singers, I love the taste of chicken but hate having to eat it. What exactly should these Muslims be reading if they want to keep their religious identity without troubling the thought police? The Ladybird Book of World Faiths? 101 Fun Things for Muslims to do on a rainy day?
3. The Bible is also stuffed with hateful, cancerous, genocidal statements of religious, racial and gender-based discrimination. It hasn't been rewritten, we simply take for granted that your average Christian will extract a reasonable set of core values from the stories inside and skirt around the bits where undesirable tribes are wiped out simply for never having heard of God. The enlightened European atmosphere I believe I live in doesn't exist because the Bible has given us greater moral values, but because when fans of that particular book have come into conflict with enlightened, humanitarian values they have either yielded to them or been left behind. Is this not possible with the Koran, bearing in mind that young people living in Iran of all places are frequently found to be progressive and accommodating to so-called Western values?
4. Does he want all references to Mein Kampf (again, available on the internet) banned too, what with it being a fascist book? Does reading it make one a fascist, or could it be that mere books are the wrong target here?
Life is dull when you have nothing to read: Geert Wilders, who apparently lives in the Black Lodge
from Twin Peaks. I would hate to see him get angry
By trying to ban intolerance my government has waded into Geert Wilders' soiled waters and shown an unsettling degree of inconsistency. Now, wouldn't it suck if this uneven treatment stirred some rusty Conservative battleaxe to write some piece-of-shit article laden with ugly innuendo? You know, the type that get on their high horse every time Muslims or Arabs seem to be getting preferential treatment. The sort that would take one troublesome news story and gaffer tape it to some other pet peeves in order to fashion an almighty rant. The kind that think that The West is in moral decline, sleepwalking towards cultural suicide, all the while urging it to rain bombs on far away lands. It certainly would suck.
It certainly would
"MUSLIMS? 7 FOOT HIGH MUSLIMS?? ON MY LAWN?? Let me use my freedom of speech to cry: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGGHHH!!!"
Oh great. The powers that be in my country, ever committed to freedom of speech, have detained far-right Dutch MP and general asshole Geert Wilders at Heathrow and deported him after he decided to try and face down a ban from the Home Office. The prohibition on his entry was due to his comprehensive opposition to Islam and a short film in which he brands the Koran a "fascist book". He had been invited by a UKIP peer in the House of Lords, but the Home Office, instead of permitting him to present the film to those that invited him and perhaps face some of his opponents, felt that his opinions were a threat to public security. (psst, don't worry guys, it's on YouTube!)
There might be a (small) case in favour of the public security angle, and those struggling for a more tolerant world would justifiably be up in arms with peers in the British parliament meeting this creep. But we can't go about pre-empting every obnoxious individual for fear of how others will react to their words and thoughts by banning them outright. And blacklisting someone who has an axe to grind with the Islamic faith while allowing Muslim preachers with extremist views like Yusuf al Qaradawi in is rather uneven (putting aside the fact that Ariel Sharon, Vladimir Putin and Chinese Premiers Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, all mass killers of Muslims, have had state visits).
Speaking of muzzling unpalatable opinions, I'm trying to follow the logic displayed by our unwanted guest. I'm briefed fairly well on Mr Wilders, so I'm familiar with his toxic opinions on how he wants Muslim immigrants out of Holland. But crying freedom of speech while trying to get the Koran banned seems odd for reasons so obvious that I must be missing something:
1. Dutch people can convert to Islam if the mood takes them. You can't deport them "back where they came from" and they can download the Koran from the internet. Why ban it?
2. He claims he doesn't hate Muslims, only Islam. I sympathise - I hate music but love singers, I love the taste of chicken but hate having to eat it. What exactly should these Muslims be reading if they want to keep their religious identity without troubling the thought police? The Ladybird Book of World Faiths? 101 Fun Things for Muslims to do on a rainy day?
3. The Bible is also stuffed with hateful, cancerous, genocidal statements of religious, racial and gender-based discrimination. It hasn't been rewritten, we simply take for granted that your average Christian will extract a reasonable set of core values from the stories inside and skirt around the bits where undesirable tribes are wiped out simply for never having heard of God. The enlightened European atmosphere I believe I live in doesn't exist because the Bible has given us greater moral values, but because when fans of that particular book have come into conflict with enlightened, humanitarian values they have either yielded to them or been left behind. Is this not possible with the Koran, bearing in mind that young people living in Iran of all places are frequently found to be progressive and accommodating to so-called Western values?
4. Does he want all references to Mein Kampf (again, available on the internet) banned too, what with it being a fascist book? Does reading it make one a fascist, or could it be that mere books are the wrong target here?
Life is dull when you have nothing to read: Geert Wilders, who apparently lives in the Black Lodge
from Twin Peaks. I would hate to see him get angry
By trying to ban intolerance my government has waded into Geert Wilders' soiled waters and shown an unsettling degree of inconsistency. Now, wouldn't it suck if this uneven treatment stirred some rusty Conservative battleaxe to write some piece-of-shit article laden with ugly innuendo? You know, the type that get on their high horse every time Muslims or Arabs seem to be getting preferential treatment. The sort that would take one troublesome news story and gaffer tape it to some other pet peeves in order to fashion an almighty rant. The kind that think that The West is in moral decline, sleepwalking towards cultural suicide, all the while urging it to rain bombs on far away lands. It certainly would suck.
It certainly would
"MUSLIMS? 7 FOOT HIGH MUSLIMS?? ON MY LAWN?? Let me use my freedom of speech to cry: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGGHHH!!!"
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Bracing ourselves for Netanyahu, Palestine won't be compromised by terror
Make no mistake, Tzipi Livni and Kadima won yesterday's election, but Binyamin Netanyahu and his Likud party are favourites to form the next government and take power. A month after Obama took charge it is time to feel gloomy again. Many think this will be the end of the two-state solution and the final strangulation of Palestine. So will Obama have the will and resources to keep this maniac in check? And how can the international community win Israel's voters back?
Just like one of those slide puzzle games, the picture of international politics undoes itself as quickly as it takes better shape. In 2007, after years of putting up with the belligerent John Howard, Australia got a respectable government, so New Zealand, after years of having acted like its sensible cousin, got rid of its authentic Labour government less than a year later. Now that the White House is no longer staffed by the sort of clowns so hellish that even Stephen King would be too scared to write about them, Israel lurches even further to the right. Whatever Netanyahu (or Livni, skating to work across a Hell that has frozen over) does while in power, this is a sad fact to deal with: A significant number of Israelis now support parties seeing the Arab population as potential traitors and who would gladly rob more territory than make a lasting peace. Years of projectiles flying over borders into people's homes has given both Israel and the Palestinians worse administrations than they deserve and populations who both seem genuinely afraid of each other.
Back in March 2006, when Lebanon was still pretty much in one piece, it looked like we could breathe a small sigh of relief, with Likud suffering a crushing defeat in the legislative elections and even political experts like The Zutons believing Netanyahu was gone forever. Anyone who thought Bill Clinton or Tony Blair were decent, moral men could well have enjoyed the victory for Kadima, basically an all-star team of fanatical moderates and moderate fanatics, the sort that would at least put on a grave face after incinerating a residential area. It seems many that fear Likud are going to miss these days. It could be because they have become accustomed to complacency in the face of a horrific status quo. Or it could be because Likud are really, really dreadful.
Kadima: "Like we told you the other 1,000 times this happened: it was an ACCIDENT"
Likud: Mmm, could be flatter...
Likud has been the deadliest force the Palestinians (and for that matter the people of Lebanon) have known, for while the so-called Labour party would let settlements expand and kill Arabs with ease, Likud could always be counted on to go further, with war criminals like Yitzhak Shamir, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon established in their hall of fame. Furthermore, they seem much less cautious about pissing the peace camp off. Many of their number, for example, criticised the recent Operation Cast Lead, which killed some 1,300, mostly civilian Palestinians...because it didn't go far enough. There are even worse, more racist and intolerant parties that one can vote for in Israel to be sure, but what made Likud so dangerous was that they were still considered respectable enough by Washington elites that they could go across the Atlantic and lecture Americans on why Israel needed more arms to kick these pitiful Arabs around inside their cage. These men were the optimum level of bad; generally murderous without being too embarrassing for their regular arms supplier and guardian at the UN Security Council to give them more than some slaps on the wrist or the occasional suspension of aid.
Left: Netanyahu and his supporters would compare heavy rain to the Nazis, so it was no surprise when pictures like this, of political rival Yitzhak Rabin dressed in SS uniform, appeared at Netanyahu's rallies in 1995. He wasn't invited to the funeral.
More than the other Likudniks, Binyamin Netanyahu possesses a quality often underestimated when one considers why the USA seems so beholden to Israel. He reminds Americans that many Israelis are culturally just like them in a way people from its Muslim enemies will never be. And linguistically alike too - he can address a US audience even better than most Americans, with perfect English littered liberally with stateside idioms. Hell, I sometimes think the guy is an American. On behalf of Israel's settlers and militant rejectionists he speaks the language of the War on Terror and can keep a straight face tying Palestinian guerrillas to al Qaeda in the same way he tied them to the USSR during the Cold War. Whatever is in the master's interests. His propaganda, all the more effective when CNN and Fox News are the gatekeepers of information, legitimises the seemingly lunatic amounts of money lavished on the Israeli Defence Forces and the carnage its weapons cause, often by exploiting anti-semitism and making Israel out to be defenceless. I cannot imagine American audiences would see Israel as defenceless and fluffy if third-placed Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman was addressing them; he would come across more like a Soviet apparatchik than an American diplomat, despite having much the same opinions as Netanyahu.
The positive side of the international political slide-puzzle was that in his feeble two-year stint as Prime Minister his keeper was Bill Clinton, not George W Bush or any of the so-called Neo-Conservatives, with whom he has spent many a twisted geo-political love-in fantasising about bombing Iran and Syria, and grabbing more Palestinian land. Clinton's presence meant that several of Netanyahu's madder acts made Washington panic and forcefully urge restraint, thinking of its relationship with other regional allies. The story of the poisoning of Khaled Meshaal comes to mind. Relatively moderate men in the White House have made pragmatists out of several Likud fanatics. Jimmy Carter got Begin to sign seized Egyptian territory back to its owners and George H W Bush's men reined in Yitzhak Shamir and led him, of all people, to the Madrid Peace Conference where Palestinians actually represented themselves in talks over their own land.
You can't always get what you want: These two reportedly didn't get on that well, particularly when the fellow on the left was in
one of his poisoning moods
Now the slide puzzle has gifted us another relative moderate in Obama, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, he is realistically going to be a Bill Clinton figure, a performance the people of Afghanistan will probably not thank him for. But we must be grateful now that we didn't wind up with John McCain, for we have almost certainly avoided some kind of American-Israeli attempt to topple the government of Iran by military force. Netanyahu has been gunning for such a strike, but under Obama will almost certainly not get it. And Netanyahu's recent positive reception of suggested discriminatory policies against Israeli Arabs will not go down to well with former civil rights activist Obama either. I can see considerable pressure from Obama and hopefuly puniative measures like cuts in military supplies.
Here's what you could have won: The pairing that would have left a big hole where the Middle East used to be
Where there will no doubt be a problem is over getting this Palestinian state formed any time soon. People wanting a state sooner rather than later would have wanted Labour or Kadima to win (After all, it had been going so well under the 'moderates' of Kadima, hadn't it?) or possibly Lieberman, simply because he is so offensively nuts and unlikeable that Washington might have been forced to reassess its relationship with Israel. Any vision Obama has of creating two states side by side will be doubly hard under Netanyahu, not just because of his clear opposition, but also because the campaigning and pressure that had been put on Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni to move the process along will have to start again. It doesn't seem realistic that the situation will improve for the Palestinians under Netanyahu, so the focus will have to be on keeping him on a tight leash so he does no further harm. If Obama is serious then through all his diplomatic efforts he will have one pivotal task: to make sure that settlements in the West Bank do not expand and make it harder for future Israeli leaders who are serious about a just peace.
We are moving into difficult territory here. If Likud do get a governing coalition together we can make some reasonable predictions: yet more Palestinians will die, there will be little or no progress towards an independent Palestine, settlements will expand and solidify, Gaza will remain locked, Israelis will not feel safe and mutal intolerance will continue to grow. Hardly different than the Kadima era we have probably just passed through and which I have little but disgust for. With Israel, just as with other global or regional powers, it can be easy to slip into an acceptance of a tolerable level of badness (the reason why so many apologists seem capable of praising the effect of the surge in Iraq, despite continuing high casualties and violence). Analysts fear what Netanyahu wants but will he realistically get much of it? As someone who believes that it is America, rather than Israel, that calls most of the shots in this relationship I'm not so sure, especially if broader geo-strategic concerns are at stake for Washington. With a sober Democrat in the White House I doubt he will reach the have the apocalyptic effect his detractors claim. But he will be at least as terrible as his predecessors. The onus will be on Obama to be as good as his supporters claim.
Just like one of those slide puzzle games, the picture of international politics undoes itself as quickly as it takes better shape. In 2007, after years of putting up with the belligerent John Howard, Australia got a respectable government, so New Zealand, after years of having acted like its sensible cousin, got rid of its authentic Labour government less than a year later. Now that the White House is no longer staffed by the sort of clowns so hellish that even Stephen King would be too scared to write about them, Israel lurches even further to the right. Whatever Netanyahu (or Livni, skating to work across a Hell that has frozen over) does while in power, this is a sad fact to deal with: A significant number of Israelis now support parties seeing the Arab population as potential traitors and who would gladly rob more territory than make a lasting peace. Years of projectiles flying over borders into people's homes has given both Israel and the Palestinians worse administrations than they deserve and populations who both seem genuinely afraid of each other.
Back in March 2006, when Lebanon was still pretty much in one piece, it looked like we could breathe a small sigh of relief, with Likud suffering a crushing defeat in the legislative elections and even political experts like The Zutons believing Netanyahu was gone forever. Anyone who thought Bill Clinton or Tony Blair were decent, moral men could well have enjoyed the victory for Kadima, basically an all-star team of fanatical moderates and moderate fanatics, the sort that would at least put on a grave face after incinerating a residential area. It seems many that fear Likud are going to miss these days. It could be because they have become accustomed to complacency in the face of a horrific status quo. Or it could be because Likud are really, really dreadful.
Kadima: "Like we told you the other 1,000 times this happened: it was an ACCIDENT"
Likud: Mmm, could be flatter...
Likud has been the deadliest force the Palestinians (and for that matter the people of Lebanon) have known, for while the so-called Labour party would let settlements expand and kill Arabs with ease, Likud could always be counted on to go further, with war criminals like Yitzhak Shamir, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon established in their hall of fame. Furthermore, they seem much less cautious about pissing the peace camp off. Many of their number, for example, criticised the recent Operation Cast Lead, which killed some 1,300, mostly civilian Palestinians...because it didn't go far enough. There are even worse, more racist and intolerant parties that one can vote for in Israel to be sure, but what made Likud so dangerous was that they were still considered respectable enough by Washington elites that they could go across the Atlantic and lecture Americans on why Israel needed more arms to kick these pitiful Arabs around inside their cage. These men were the optimum level of bad; generally murderous without being too embarrassing for their regular arms supplier and guardian at the UN Security Council to give them more than some slaps on the wrist or the occasional suspension of aid.
Left: Netanyahu and his supporters would compare heavy rain to the Nazis, so it was no surprise when pictures like this, of political rival Yitzhak Rabin dressed in SS uniform, appeared at Netanyahu's rallies in 1995. He wasn't invited to the funeral.
More than the other Likudniks, Binyamin Netanyahu possesses a quality often underestimated when one considers why the USA seems so beholden to Israel. He reminds Americans that many Israelis are culturally just like them in a way people from its Muslim enemies will never be. And linguistically alike too - he can address a US audience even better than most Americans, with perfect English littered liberally with stateside idioms. Hell, I sometimes think the guy is an American. On behalf of Israel's settlers and militant rejectionists he speaks the language of the War on Terror and can keep a straight face tying Palestinian guerrillas to al Qaeda in the same way he tied them to the USSR during the Cold War. Whatever is in the master's interests. His propaganda, all the more effective when CNN and Fox News are the gatekeepers of information, legitimises the seemingly lunatic amounts of money lavished on the Israeli Defence Forces and the carnage its weapons cause, often by exploiting anti-semitism and making Israel out to be defenceless. I cannot imagine American audiences would see Israel as defenceless and fluffy if third-placed Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman was addressing them; he would come across more like a Soviet apparatchik than an American diplomat, despite having much the same opinions as Netanyahu.
The positive side of the international political slide-puzzle was that in his feeble two-year stint as Prime Minister his keeper was Bill Clinton, not George W Bush or any of the so-called Neo-Conservatives, with whom he has spent many a twisted geo-political love-in fantasising about bombing Iran and Syria, and grabbing more Palestinian land. Clinton's presence meant that several of Netanyahu's madder acts made Washington panic and forcefully urge restraint, thinking of its relationship with other regional allies. The story of the poisoning of Khaled Meshaal comes to mind. Relatively moderate men in the White House have made pragmatists out of several Likud fanatics. Jimmy Carter got Begin to sign seized Egyptian territory back to its owners and George H W Bush's men reined in Yitzhak Shamir and led him, of all people, to the Madrid Peace Conference where Palestinians actually represented themselves in talks over their own land.
You can't always get what you want: These two reportedly didn't get on that well, particularly when the fellow on the left was in
one of his poisoning moods
Now the slide puzzle has gifted us another relative moderate in Obama, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, he is realistically going to be a Bill Clinton figure, a performance the people of Afghanistan will probably not thank him for. But we must be grateful now that we didn't wind up with John McCain, for we have almost certainly avoided some kind of American-Israeli attempt to topple the government of Iran by military force. Netanyahu has been gunning for such a strike, but under Obama will almost certainly not get it. And Netanyahu's recent positive reception of suggested discriminatory policies against Israeli Arabs will not go down to well with former civil rights activist Obama either. I can see considerable pressure from Obama and hopefuly puniative measures like cuts in military supplies.
Here's what you could have won: The pairing that would have left a big hole where the Middle East used to be
Where there will no doubt be a problem is over getting this Palestinian state formed any time soon. People wanting a state sooner rather than later would have wanted Labour or Kadima to win (After all, it had been going so well under the 'moderates' of Kadima, hadn't it?) or possibly Lieberman, simply because he is so offensively nuts and unlikeable that Washington might have been forced to reassess its relationship with Israel. Any vision Obama has of creating two states side by side will be doubly hard under Netanyahu, not just because of his clear opposition, but also because the campaigning and pressure that had been put on Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni to move the process along will have to start again. It doesn't seem realistic that the situation will improve for the Palestinians under Netanyahu, so the focus will have to be on keeping him on a tight leash so he does no further harm. If Obama is serious then through all his diplomatic efforts he will have one pivotal task: to make sure that settlements in the West Bank do not expand and make it harder for future Israeli leaders who are serious about a just peace.
We are moving into difficult territory here. If Likud do get a governing coalition together we can make some reasonable predictions: yet more Palestinians will die, there will be little or no progress towards an independent Palestine, settlements will expand and solidify, Gaza will remain locked, Israelis will not feel safe and mutal intolerance will continue to grow. Hardly different than the Kadima era we have probably just passed through and which I have little but disgust for. With Israel, just as with other global or regional powers, it can be easy to slip into an acceptance of a tolerable level of badness (the reason why so many apologists seem capable of praising the effect of the surge in Iraq, despite continuing high casualties and violence). Analysts fear what Netanyahu wants but will he realistically get much of it? As someone who believes that it is America, rather than Israel, that calls most of the shots in this relationship I'm not so sure, especially if broader geo-strategic concerns are at stake for Washington. With a sober Democrat in the White House I doubt he will reach the have the apocalyptic effect his detractors claim. But he will be at least as terrible as his predecessors. The onus will be on Obama to be as good as his supporters claim.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Is that my co-blogger in Falluja?
Leech is crazy. He'd go to the communist North Korea instead of a "normal" South Korea. He'd prefer the language barrier of South America than the endless shopping malls of North America. He'd go to Palestine and have cute little Palestinian kids make cute death threats at him than settle for the sunny beaches of Dubai.
So it does warrant a degree of curiousity when I read about Iraq's first tourist since 2003.
From the International Herald Tribune:
"The police found him in a mini-bus next to the woman who sells fresh milk, yogurt and cream door-to-door. They were very worried about him."
So it does warrant a degree of curiousity when I read about Iraq's first tourist since 2003.
From the International Herald Tribune:
"The police found him in a mini-bus next to the woman who sells fresh milk, yogurt and cream door-to-door. They were very worried about him."
For the eager Marchio, that was the end of his bello viaggio in Iraq.
The police summoned local journalists to tell them of the wandering Italian, U.S. marines were pulled in and the Italian Embassy was notified.
The police quickly concluded that he was not an Italian jihadi and was a risk to no one but himself.
Yes, curious indeed. Had Leech somehow made this unannounced infiltration into the maddest of war zones under the guise of an "Italian" humanitarian aide worker? Perhaps the friend I know is only one of many faces that Amnesty International have designated this agent of human rights.
Anyway, sinister thoughts come to mind for yet another great reality show... Well, I did think of bringing Paris Hilton's British Best Friend to Bagdhad, but eventually concluded that just wouldn't get ratings because America hung the last attention whore that existed there. No, it has to be something more violent. Bloody. With plenty of suspense.
Yes! We take all the surviving winners from Park of Jurassic Dinosaurs, put them in Iraq with $20 in their pockets, make them travel from point A to point B, and call it Astonishing Race!
'There's probably no bus. Now stop worrying and enjoy the snow.' And other, more offensive, responses to the design-an-advert-on-a-bus competition
By Boris (de Pfeffel) Johnson
Guest contributor and Mayor of London (cripes)
Blimey! This decorate-a-bus website is a real lark. I felt contractually obliged to have a stab at this, and by jingo, I think I've done a pretty smashing job. My chosen entry meets the criteria of merging anti-religious sentiment with some good hard-headed London-ness. For the purpose of fence-mending and maintaining smooth ethnic relations I strongly urge this to be implemented by the mayor, the office of the mayor and the mayor immediately.
Cripes...
That will probably enrage Ali Baba and his dusky friends. Still, can't imagine them venting their anger on a London bus. On the other hand, running a jolly big metropolis gives me less time to trot around apologising, to anyone who decides to throw a wobbly. Placating those uppity chaps would streamline my general itinerary of apology somewhat. Besides, I had such a splendid time working up an aesthetical sweat that I produced a far less offensive back-up entry.
Crikey, bendy buses! Whatever your opinion of God, half an hour riding one of these oscillating contraptions through congested Central London traffic will have you believing there's a Hell.
By Boris (de Pfeffel) Johnson
Guest contributor and Mayor of London (cripes)
Colouring in London buses? Smashing! Need
to remember not to rub anyone the wrong way...
Blimey! This decorate-a-bus website is a real lark. I felt contractually obliged to have a stab at this, and by jingo, I think I've done a pretty smashing job. My chosen entry meets the criteria of merging anti-religious sentiment with some good hard-headed London-ness. For the purpose of fence-mending and maintaining smooth ethnic relations I strongly urge this to be implemented by the mayor, the office of the mayor and the mayor immediately.
Cripes...That will probably enrage Ali Baba and his dusky friends. Still, can't imagine them venting their anger on a London bus. On the other hand, running a jolly big metropolis gives me less time to trot around apologising, to anyone who decides to throw a wobbly. Placating those uppity chaps would streamline my general itinerary of apology somewhat. Besides, I had such a splendid time working up an aesthetical sweat that I produced a far less offensive back-up entry.
Crikey, bendy buses! Whatever your opinion of God, half an hour riding one of these oscillating contraptions through congested Central London traffic will have you believing there's a Hell.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Do-It-Yourself Atheist Bus!
Ever thought to yourself as that red London bus rumbles slowly past you in the slow daytime rush-hour traffic, that maybe, just maybe, you could do a better job of convincing religious people out of their "deviant" ways... Or maybe even just familiarise the town with your displeasure with one-eyed Scottish idiots.
Well, now you can with Bus Slogan Generator! Amuse yourself away, in the fantasy of your own bus ad and hypnotise the masses with your very own propaganda! I'm sure Leech does a way better job at word play than I.
Well, now you can with Bus Slogan Generator! Amuse yourself away, in the fantasy of your own bus ad and hypnotise the masses with your very own propaganda! I'm sure Leech does a way better job at word play than I.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
The SECOND best Sarah Palin impression
Still a figure of fun, this one. Despite launching what will no doubt be a slapstick attempt to reach the White House in a future campaign, I don't think we need worry about this woman too much anymore (*cough* ignore the banner above) but this tickled me. It's the second best Sarah Palin impression I've heard since she reared her head to a global audience, and it doesn't come from Ronnie Ancona, Anne Coulter or even a woman. It starts at 1:29.
Sarah Palin still seems funny, but wait 'til you try stealing cheese from her backyard
Sarah Palin still seems funny, but wait 'til you try stealing cheese from her backyard
Monday, February 02, 2009
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sent you a friend request on Facebook
Kim Jung Il has tagged you in those crazy new year photos and Putin has invited you to play Texas Holdem poker with him. Notice how I did not mention any English "friends" like Cameron or Gordon Brown. Cause' that's just like adding your uncle and your weird cousin.. It is an exclusive list afterall. As Obama says, "Everyone look at the person sitting on your left. Now look at the person sitting on your right. None of you have my e-mail address."
I'm talking about Obama's "Blackberry" of course, which includes applications such as Authorize Nuclear Strike. And Solitaire. His wonderfully advanced piece of gizmo that's so safe no one even knows his email. CNN also reports that "It's also likely Obama's e-mail address will change frequently to ensure it remains secure." My my, I think Mr President will find himself quite naive for a guy who makes himself out to be quite so cool. Do you really think barack.obama@hotmail.com, president44@yahoo.com or even ismokedweedbeforeiwaspresident@aol.com are addresses that haven't already been taken? Join the rest of us and stick with a boring and eternal address like obama61@gmail.com.
I'm talking about Obama's "Blackberry" of course, which includes applications such as Authorize Nuclear Strike. And Solitaire. His wonderfully advanced piece of gizmo that's so safe no one even knows his email. CNN also reports that "It's also likely Obama's e-mail address will change frequently to ensure it remains secure." My my, I think Mr President will find himself quite naive for a guy who makes himself out to be quite so cool. Do you really think barack.obama@hotmail.com, president44@yahoo.com or even ismokedweedbeforeiwaspresident@aol.com are addresses that haven't already been taken? Join the rest of us and stick with a boring and eternal address like obama61@gmail.com.
.jpg)
