Diary
When is a peace plan not a peace plan?
30 April, 2007
A lot has been made recently of the Saudi sponsored peace plan for the Middle East which was recently aired at a meeting of the Arab League. The plan, originally mooted in 2002, calls on Israel to withdraw entirely from the occupied territories, returning in effect to the 1949 ceasefire lines and allowing for the 'right of return' of Palestinian refugees. Israel would have to accept an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital for which, in return, she would be granted a normalization of relations with the Arab world. Unfortunately, there is a slight hitch - it offers peace for everyone except Israel!
In the first instance, the request for an Israeli pullback to the 1949 lines is wildly unrealistic. The 1949 borders (dubbed ‘Auschwitz borders’ by one Israeli diplomat) would provide an open invitation to attack from Israel’s rejectionist enemies; Hamas, Iran and Al Qaeda included. Not even the much quoted UN Resolution 242 speaks of such a wide ranging territorial concession, its text merely calling for the return of ‘territories’ captured in 1967. This leaves open the possibility that Israel could adjust its borders in a peace settlement consistent with maintaining its security and territorial integrity.
As for the Palestinian refugees, the Arab peace plan offers no more than an apparently respectable formula for the end of Zionism. Now there are many people, both Jews and non Jews, for whom the end of Israel would be an exceedingly attractive prospect. But as there are well intentioned Zionists who call for a Palestinian right of return, it is only fair that they understand its implications. As of 2003 the number of Palestinian refugees on UNRWA rolls was in excess of 4 million and if Israel, in an act of national suicide, were to allow these Palestinians back, she would soon rapidly become another of the Middle East’s Arab states. As it is, this refugee figure is obviously bogus for it assumes that all the descendants of the original refugees are themselves refugees deserving of the same compensation and ‘right to return’. According to most historical estimates, the total number of Palestinian refugees from 1948 numbers no more than 700,000 and, as we know, most (though not all) were not physically expelled by the IDF in 1948-9. The Arab plan says nothing about the more than 750,000 Jews who were forced to flee Arab countries after 1948 and who were hastily resettled in Israel at considerable cost.
In any case the Hamas Government headed by Ismail Haniyeh has not signed up to the plan. So at a stroke, Israel is being asked to accept a Palestinian state on its borders, cutting deep into its territory, and which is headed by a government which not only seeks its destruction but which officially encourages the demonization of Jewry worldwide. Not such a great deal after all.
topIraq is no place for our Prince
30 April, 2007
No one should doubt Prince Harry’s bravery in wanting to serve in Iraq. Having chosen a military career with all its perils, it is only natural that he should wish to serve his country during a time of war. In normal circumstances, his drive and sense of duty would be laudable. The Royal Family is, after all, the nation’s model family, and nothing can be more heartwarming than to see one of its sons sharing the dangers of so many other soldiers in Iraq. There is just one problem; if he were to go to Iraq, he would scarcely be facing the same level of danger as his fellow soldiers. Already both Sunni and Shia insurgents have made him a priority target, with both groups aware that his death would provide a spectacular propaganda coup. But a worse case scenario could unfold if he was captured and then paraded on television, perhaps forced to call on Britain to withdraw from the country altogether. Britain was humiliated when 15 service personnel were captured without a fight and then forced to read phony confessions on Iranian television. How much worse would it be if the same thing happened to the third in line to the throne? If Harry is a special target of the insurgents, he would face far greater dangers than other soldiers and that would automatically mean greater dangers for those serving with him. Prince Harry’s courage and patriotism is to be applauded but his wish to serve in Iraq cannot override the greater needs of the army.
topPeter Clarke tells it like it is
25 April, 2007
In a speech this Tuesday, Peter Clarke, the head of Scotland Yard's counterterrorism command, offered a wide ranging analysis of the current terrorist threat to Britain. He declared that the war on Al Qaeda was far from over and that after 6 years of intensive counter terrorism, its central leadership was still capable of launching attacks on mainland Britain. The terrorists who are waiting to strike, he said, were on an "inexorable trend to more ambitious and more destructive attack planning". Al Qaeda, he said, was ‘global in origin, reach and ambition’ with networks that were ‘large, fluid, mobile and incredibly resilient’. He went on: ‘In case after case, the hand of core al-Qaeda can be clearly seen. Arrested leaders or key players are quickly replaced, and disrupted networks will re-form quickly…There is no evidence of looking to restrict casualties. There are no warnings given and the evidence suggests that on the contrary, the intention is frequently to kill as many people as possible." The same Mr. Clarke claimed in an interview last year (with Peter Taylor) that the number of Muslims in the UK being looked at in the belief that they may be involved directly or indirectly in supporting terrorism runs into 'thousands.’
Now in one sense, this is all a statement of the obvious, given the scores of Al Qaeda (and Al Qaeda related) atrocities that have claimed tens of thousands of lives. Yet still there are people who downplay the extent of the modern terror threat. A recent documentary by Adam Curtis called ‘The Power of Nightmares’ suggested that international terrorism was largely a phantom menace concocted by politicians to strengthen their authority and power. These politicians, Curtis told us, were promising to protect us from a wholly non existent nightmare. In 2004, the Law Lords decided that it was grossly unfair and discriminatory to hold in detention (in Belmarsh) a group of suspected foreign terrorists, when British Muslim citizens could not be subject to the same conditions. Lord Hoffman at the time made the quite outrageous remark that ‘The real threat to the life of the nation…comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.’ This fatuous statement was compounded by a basic failure to distinguish between the rights of British citizens and those of foreign nationals. Only last week Hilary Benn talked of ditching the phrase ‘War on Terror’ while the usual assortment of loony lefties and pseudo liberals would have us believe that the real terrorists are Blair and Bush anyway. Against critics who argue that Muslim radicalism is a chimera, Mr. Clarke reminded his audience that over 100 people were awaiting trial for terrorist offences.
But some of Mr. Clarke’s other remarks also deserve merit. He stressed that young British Muslim men were being indoctrinated by ‘preachers of hate’ and that if this new type of mass terrorism was to be properly dealt with, its root causes would have to be addressed. A recent Channel 4 documentary chillingly exposed just what Mr. Clarke was talking about. The documentary team travelled to a number of prominent British mosques where they found extensive evidence of Saudi hate literature as well as a number of fanatical Saudi preachers.
Most worryingly of all was his claim that ‘almost all…prosecutions (of terrorists) have their origins in intelligence that came from overseas’ and very little from the home grown Muslim community. This news must be very disconcerting for the Blair anti terror task force which, since 7th July 2005, has made numerous overtures to extreme groups like the Muslim Council of Britain. These overtures were carried out in a futile attempt at appeasement and presumably to win favours in the struggle against jihadist groups, but it looks as if there was little quid pro quo. All in all, Mr. Clarke spoke frankly about the terrorist threat, a threat which is far from being an 'invented' nightmare.
topHappy St George's Day and happy birthday to the Bard!
23 April, 2007
It is about time that St George's Day was recognised as a national holiday in England. Instead of politicians making embarassed apologies for beer swilling, beef eating, flag waving Englishmen, we deserve something better to mark this symbolic date in our national Calendar. Our greatest writer was born on this day, a man whose plays are understood in every country and by every people and whose ideas have helped shape our view of man. St George has been an important symbol of chivalry and of the English crusade against evil and tyranny. 23rd April should be a chance to celebrate our national culture and heritage without apology and with joy and pride. Cry God for Harry, England and St. George!
This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
topAnother threat to British liberty
23 April, 2007
The EU has once again shown its ferocious appetite for unnecessary and draconian legislation. Europe’s justice ministers have agreed a new set of laws (you can view the directive by going to http://www.consilium.europa.eu) which aim to combat expressions of xenophobia and racism. The new proposals specifically aim to criminalize ‘all intentional behaviour aimed at inciting violence or hatred and at denying or trivializing the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes as defined by the Tribunal of Nuremberg.’ Such crimes would be ones committed on the grounds of ‘race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.’ The maximum penalty appears to be 3 years imprisonment and member states have 2 years to comply with the framework decision.
Once again, the argument that the EU is a harmless trade organization, with no pretensions to super statehood, has been blown out of the water. This is just another example of how the EU steamroller creeps perniciously into every area of public life without regard for national custom, tradition and law. What is worrying here is not just the redundancy of the ruling but its threat to free speech. How exactly is one supposed to define inciting hatred on the grounds of religion? Could bloggers (or comedians or journalists) fall foul of this law if they are scathing about Islamic extremism, pointing out the hateful verses in the Koran to make their point? Could atheists find themselves hauled up by the EU Justice Ministry for denouncing the gospel of Christ or for ridiculing Hinduistic polytheism? There is ample scope for debate and interpretation about what constitutes ‘hatred’ in these cases.
If we turn to the subject of ‘genocide denial,’ the issues are not straightforward either. Genocide denial principally involves Holocaust denial but there is scope to include the Turkish massacre of Armenians in 1915, the Rwandan genocide and and other examples. Clearly Holocaust denial (like these other cases) is an odious manifestation of race hatred which is based on a ‘wilful’ disregard for reality. As the judge at David Irving’s libel trial put it, Irving contrived to ‘manipulate the historical record in order to make it conform with his political beliefs.’ That does not mean that incarceration is the best way to deal with it. A better antidote to Holocaust denial is to ensure that the subject is taught properly and sensitively in schools using, where possible, the testimony of those who experienced it. This will ensure that the next generation is armed with sound historical knowledge if they are ever confronted by the racist poison of Holocaust denial.
Put simply, it is better to fight lies with truth, not seek to suppress lies through censorship. Worse, the incarceration of these deniers turns them into martyrs for free speech, which is unfortunate in the case of Irving for it was he who sought to silence Deborah Lipstadt, not the other way round. As such, this EU directive not only strikes at British traditions of liberty but will prove to be an utterly self defeating measure.
topThe NUJ boycotts common sense
23 April, 2007
Last week the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), Britain’s biggest journalists’ union, caused a furore by voting to boycott Israeli goods. The organizers of this boycott, who likened this vote to ‘those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa’ called for an end to ‘Israeli aggression in Gaza and the occupied territories’. For good measure, a larger motion had condemned Israel’s ‘savage, pre planned’ attack on Lebanon in 2006. A statement released on 17th April by Jeremy Dear, NUJ General Secretary, mentioned that the call for the boycott was ‘related in part to the kidnap of Alan Johnston’ and the ‘huge support to the campaign for his release’ by the Palestinian Journalists union.
It is very hard to comprehend what this boycott will achieve. It seems like another pitiful example of gestural, pseudo-liberal, feel good politics, albeit one with a particularly pernicious twist. Of course, if Israel was truly like apartheid South Africa, there might be a moral case for such a boycott. But all Israel’s citizens, whether Jews, Arabs, Christians or Druze, have equal civil rights, including the right to vote. Blacks in apartheid South Africa could not vote. The Arab community has a representative in the Israeli Cabinet, members in the Israel Parliament and an Israeli Arab is a member in the country’s Supreme Court. All Israelis have equal rights, which includes the right to criticize the government, marry freely and move around the country without impediment. In apartheid South Africa, laws decreed where blacks could live, marriages between blacks and non blacks were banned and opponents of the regime were imprisoned. Hardly a striking parallel!
In any case, the boycotters’ analysis is woefully one sided. They fail to mention the ‘savage, pre planned’ attacks by Hezbollah on Israel which saw thousands of rockets fired indiscriminately over Northern Israel. They also fail to mention the ‘savage, pre planned’ rocket attacks which precipitated Israel’s incursions into Gaza and, above all, make no mention of Israel’s prior withdrawal from Gaza. They need to bear in mind that, for all the Palestinians’ genuine suffering and grievances, a war against the Jewish state (in which the Palestinians have played a leading role) has been ongoing for 59 years and is unlikely to abate.
The NUJ may claim that this boycott is designed to uphold basic human rights. One wonders then why they do not call for a boycott of China, with its continuing occupation of Tibet, or the murderous regime in Sudan, with its genocide in Darfur, or a host of other repressive regimes from Burma to North Korea. The organizers of this boycott are incapable or unwilling to apply their sanctimonious talk of human rights to more than one country, Israel. Her human rights violations are alone significant and provide the alleged moral criterion for pariah status. Singling out Israel for opprobrium in this way has made an absolute mockery of the NUJ.
topThe real war is against an ideology of hate
18 April, 2007
Britain no longer believes in using the phrase ‘the war on terror.’ That was one of the pearls of wisdom in a speech given by Hilary Benn in New York 2 days ago. In a clear swipe at the Bush administration, the International Development Secretary called for a multilateral approach to the world’s crises instead of having a world in which ‘isolationism, protectionism and narrow nationalism’ were dominant. To make his point clear, he called for Guantanamo Bay to shut down and for civilised nations to embrace the International Criminal Court, the supranational organization repeatedly shunned by President Bush. You hardly need to be a genius to work out that Benn was setting forth his credentials for the Labour Deputy Leadership, and that his calculated attack on the Republicans would go down well with the party. In a wide ranging discussion, he went on to discuss the problem of international terrorism and the current conflict that has been dubbed ’the war on terror.’ I quote from a section of his speech:
This is not a clash between the West and Islam, although these terrorists claim that it is. Nor is this a global war, although they would like to portray it as such. It is about identity, it is about values. In the UK, we do not use the phrase “war on terror” because we can’t win by military means alone, and because this isn’t us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. It is the vast majority of the people in the world - of all nationalities and all faiths - against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger.
To be fair to Hilary Benn, I think he is right to question the phrase ‘war on terror’ but for the wrong reasons. Terror is a method, a specific tactic used by extremist groups to forcibly change the views and behaviour of innocent people. Terror is not the enemy itself but the way that enemy operates, and it is by no means the only way that enemy seeks to paralyse its foe. During the Second World War Churchill did not call for a war on Blitzkrieg or gas chambers, nor did Reagan declare a war on ICBM’s. What both leaders did was identify the national states from which these threats emerged, thus making the enemy more territorially confined. But since 9/11 we have realised something profoundly significant. Terrorism has become ‘globalised’, with an enemy that shifts rapidly from one country (and continent) to another. For this reason Benn talks of ‘loose, shifting and disparate groups’ whether they be in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and elsewhere and adds that this war ‘isn’t us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.’
Without doubt, the Islamist terror groups are diffused and operate in wildly different conditions but Benn has missed a profoundly important point here. What unites the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the multitude of militants across the Arab world is the ideological cement of radical Islam. This particular version of Islam seeks to conquer the West in the name of Islamic purity, restore the Islamic Caliphate, subjugate the Judaeo-Christian ‘infidels’ who live in these countries, oppress women and homosexuals and banish any trace of Western liberalism that might upset the religious applecart. In short, it is an ideology which is totalitarian and tyrannical to the core. It is this religious fanaticism that inspires otherwise separate groups around the globe, from Bali to Beslan and from Iran to London, to carry out their heinous crimes. And sadly this religious extremism is confined not to ‘a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups’ but to a wider audience with whom the terrorists’ message resonates. Thus in Saudi Arabia, a vast percentage of the population subscribes to the official Wahhabi (now called Salafi) sect of Islam, an austere, intolerant and puritanical version of the faith that provides some ideological underpinning for extremism.
Contrary to Hilary Benn, we are facing a protracted global conflict, no matter how much the Labour party may disagree. Benn is right that this is not a conflict between Islam and the West. No matter how much Bin Laden and his supporters want to see a clash of civilisations between Islam and the rest, the fact remains that moderate Muslims across the globe have been the primary victims of attack over the last 25 years. Benn may also be right when he implies that declaring ‘wars’ (whether on terror or ideology) can sometimes give succour to our enemies. But if we do not identify our enemies correctly, we will remain blind to those who seek our destruction.
topThe courage of Melanie Phillips
14 April, 2007
In the last 2 weeks a fierce debate has been raging in The Jewish Chronicle (JC) on the views of JC (and Daily Mail) columnist Melanie Phillips. The debate was started by Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedman, who questioned some of the language she had used in recent articles and in her online diary. Freedman mentioned that in one entry in her online diary, Phillips had described those who signed up to the Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) as ‘Jews for genocide’, thus casting a blur over genuine genocide around the world. He also alleged that Phillips had helped to foster an entirely false climate of fear in America regarding the status of Anglo-Jewry, such that many were likening conditions for Jews in Britain to those of Germany in the early 1930s.
The subsequent response from readers has reflected the divisiveness of Ms. Phillips herself, a figure who clearly excites admiration and animosity in equal measure. For her acolytes, she is a modern day Cassandra, crying out to a deaf establishment about the looming multiple threats to civilization. But her detractors insist she is a hysterical figure who uses hyperbole for fun to exaggerate these same threats. Like George Bush, Churchill and some smelly brands of cheese, you just can’t be neutral on Melanie Phillips.
For sure, there are times when Phillips overstates her case and presents an overly black and white view of the world. I prefer shades of grey most of the time. As a leading British advocate for the Iraq war and as an unrepentant neo-conservative, she has staked out a position on foreign affairs that is controversial and divisive. Rarely does she like to give quarter to any critics on these issues, even if they are fellow travellers elsewhere. But there are at least 2 issues on which I judge her stand to be correct, indeed courageous given the spirit of our times. The first is the Arab-Israeli ‘peace process’, specifically the West’s appeasement of Palestinian demands, while the second is the threat from radical Islam. She has vigorously denounced the ‘appeasement process’ with regard to Israel/Palestine and challenged the prevailing attempt among the liberal intelligentsia to blacken Israel’s image as the country struggles to defend itself from genocidal onslaught. The Palestinian intifada of 2000-2003 and last year’s Lebanon war generated a great deal of uncompromising anti Israeli (and anti semitic) rhetoric from sections of the media, much of it designed to delegitimize Israel’s right to self defence and, at times, its right to exist. In various articles, Phillips has brilliantly captured the essence of Israel’s existential angst while exposing the hypocrisy and venom of the country’s critics.
Meanwhile, in her many articles (and one book) on radical Islam, she has systematically demolished the many liberal apologies for terrorism. While other journalists remain wedded to political correctness and the multicultural model, she has argued the case against multiculturalism (and mass immigration) as a means of saving the West from its own ‘cultural suicide’. Indeed her attack on Western passivity and ‘denial’ is as passionate as her denunciation of the Islamist fanatics. Yes, there is the occasional bit of hyperbole but there is also little doubting the truth of these arguments. That is why, for all her faults and occasional lapses of judgment, she remains one of Britain’s foremost journalists as well as a leading voice for British Jewry.
topMore spin, less substance
10 April, 2007
The MOD’s damage limitation exercise, preventing further service personnel from going to the press, may help to abate a growing mood of public anger. But questions need to be asked urgently about the stupendous incompetence at the Ministry of Defence. It seems incredible that they allowed the personnel to go the press in the first place and even worse, that they failed to predict the obvious backlash that would result. Could they not sense that it was obviously wrong to bend the navy’s rules on speaking to the press in this case? How did they think the families of those serving in Iraq would feel, knowing that their sons and daughters would be denied the lucrative opportunity given to these 15 service personnel? For a government obsessed with spin and news management, the last 4 days has been a cock up of the highest order.
The fact that the MOD allowed the personnel to sell their story tells us all we need to know about the priorities of Mr. Blair’s government. They could have concentrated on why these 15 were put in a position of danger and vulnerability in the first place. They could have demanded an immediate and urgent review of the rules of engagement under which the marines were operating. They could have sent a strong message to the Iranians that in future Britain would react robustly to any more kidnappings of her troops. But of instead of confronting the reality of British impotence throughout this crisis, the government reverted to the spin machine, hoping that it would be a good day to bury bad news. Instead of embarrassing headlines about the navy, the idea was to have stories about cruel Mr. Ahmadinejad on the front pages, deflecting attention from the mistakes and incompetence of the last 2 weeks. It hasn’t quite worked out that way. And the really bad news that no spinner can hide is that Britannia plc has been tarnished and humiliated by this dreadful, sordid affair from start to finish. Sadly, the Iranian leadership knows this better than anyone.
topDouble Standards exposed by a Muslim journalist
9 April, 2007
A recent article written by Saudi columnist, Thuraya Al-Shiri, for the Arabic daily Al Sharq Al-Awsat should be read by every apologist for militant Islam. The title of her piece gets straight to the point: ‘Why Isn't There a Single Muslim Who Hasn't heard About the Muhammad Cartoons - while a Belgian paper's publication of the Koran is taken for granted?’ Over a year ago, a series of satirical cartoons depicting Muhammad were publicized across the Arab and Muslim world, leading to a global outpouring of rage and violence. Think back to the frenzied demonstrations, the murder of nuns, the embassies being scorched by fanatics as well as the ignominious and supine apologies offered by some Western politicians. Al-Shiri contrasts this sordid affair with the following little item: 'A Belgian paper distributed to its readers free copies of the Holy Koran in French, along with a coupon for [a copy of] the Koran in Flemish, which is the language spoken in the part of Belgium close to the Dutch border.’ Not only this but the paper ran a supplement in which it published a book called Islam Now, which presented a history of Islam up to the present era.
Al-Shiri asks the following question: "Our insistence [on reacting] by chopping off heads is a paradigm no less dangerous to humanity than paradigms like Nazism and Fascism. Why isn't there a single Muslim who has not heard about the [offensive] cartoons [of the Prophet Mohammad] - but when [a Belgian paper] plans to print and distribute translations of our Holy book [the Koran], this is taken for granted?..."
It is, of course, a highly pertinent question. The Islamists pretend that the entire Western establishment is intent on the destruction of Islam and that non Muslims must be resisted at every opportunity. Every Western interaction with the Muslim world is seen negatively, as part of a sinister plot to undermine the faith, while any remotely positive action is airbrushed from the record. Al-Shiri’s astute piece continues with a devastating rebuttal of the tactics used by Islamists:
‘…it is well known that these groups yearn for a revolution in the Arab and Muslim states, so they can take control and impose what they call Islam on these countries and their citizens. "But [what they call Islam] is in fact a political ideology that has [nothing to do with] Islam or shari'a. These groups insist on [achieving] this [aim], and are willing to use every means including takiyya [concealing one's faith]. They convey double messages and use doublespeak... Their words do not reflect their actions. They have made hypocrisy a way of life, and for them, the end justifies the means.’
I would question the view that politicized Islam (or Islamism) has ‘nothing’ to do with the faith - this is controversial and will be dealt with at length in my forthcoming article on radical Islam. But she makes the essential point that the Islamists exploit Western (and non Western) weakness and naivety by pretending that their ‘program’ is benign, even pious, when it is in fact a political formula for the destruction of the rule of law and the enslavement of women and minorities. They pretend that they are peace loving and merely respond to the aggression of the West, their enemies. If only we could be nicer, they too would abandon their hostility to us. Yet supporters of militant Islam are the aggressors who twist their actions to make them appear as virtuous victims. And in the prevailing climate of post colonial guilt and nation bashing, in which America and its allies are deemed responsible for all the world's ills, this seems a seductive argument. How sad that it takes a Saudi journalist to see something that is lost on our liberal intelligentsia.
topIranian tactics
6 April, 2007
Make no mistake, Iran played a very cynical hand of diplomatic poker on Wednesday. While the release of the 15 service personnel was obviously welcome, this apparent largesse masked something decidedly more underhand. I am not just talking about the near simultaneous deadly bomb which killed 4 people in Iraq, an act no doubt engineered by the Iranians. Nor am I commenting on the phony speech with its phony generosity. It was more than that. By Tuesday, Iran faced increasingly international isolation, condemned by the EU and the UN and even receiving calls for leniency from the Holy See. Facing pressure from more moderate elements of the regime, Ahmadinejad saw a face saving formula to end the crisis he started with his announcement to release the 15. By doing so, and in the midst of a flurry of British diplomatic activity, he appeared to have the moral high ground, while being able to claim that his apparently reasonable volte face came about because Britain used dialogue rather than force, or the threat of force. Make no mistake, though, this whole episode has been no victory for Blair, the government or Britain. This country (and its navy) has been humbled and made to look impotent, exactly what Ahmadinejad wanted.
Ahmadinejad will surely try to exploit his apparent goodwill towards the hostages for all it is worth. He will likely tell the world that a solution to his country’s fraught relations with the West must come through an end to its diplomatic isolation, in other words, negotiations, face to face talks and ‘respect’. And the most pressing issue for the West (vis Iran) is, of course, the country’s search for a nuclear capability. Ipso facto, Ahmadinejad may argue that Iran only needs goodwill from the international community to become more accommodating and less belligerent. The realists in the international community will recognize this as a clever attempt to buy time before Iran’s nuclear programme reaches a point of no return. They will also point out that Iran has helped kill British troops in Iraq, and that it no doubt had a hand in Wednesday’s 4 tragic deaths in Iraq. Nonetheless, there will likely be some sympathetic voices in the EU and possibly among the Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi who are sick of George Bush. Thus Iran may be playing the time honoured game of divide and rule, trying to drive a wedge between the Allies at a moment of crucial importance. One crisis may be over but a new and bigger crisis could be in the offing.
topSchooled in fear and ignorance
4 April, 2007
A report published on Monday by the Historical Association (available to download from their website) has painted a disturbing picture of history teaching in some British schools. The study revealed how teachers in certain schools avoided teaching emotive and controversial subjects in history in order not to upset certain pupils or cause them offence. One school avoided teaching the Holocaust because of concerns that Muslim students would express anti semitic views in class, including denial of the Holocaust. The report said specifically that teachers in at least one school were scared of confronting ‘anti semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils.’ In another case, the Crusades had become a no go area because a balanced viewpoint in class would contradict the more partisan teachings given in local mosques. The report continued: “In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship." Of course, there were many reasons cited, including lack of resources and training, but one factor was a desire to steer clear of controversial issues.
However you try and look at it, this is a pretty shocking indictment. Instead of confronting the toxic versions of history being taught in some British mosques, ones in which Jews make up tales of their own genocide and Muslims are perennial victims of Christendom, some teachers would prefer their students to wallow in ignorance and prejudice. By taking the line of least resistance, they are doing nothing to stop the flames of racial hatred spreading while encouraging the view that Muslim sensibilities must not be offended at any cost. It seems to be lost on these (small number of) teachers that this contravenes the whole point of schooling, which is supposed to be about imparting knowledge in place of ignorance and tolerance in place of prejudice. These educators have surely lost sight of why they are in their profession in the first place. Sure, the majority of schools are not to be indicted here but this is damning material nonetheless. If bigotry and racism are not stamped out when minds are young, what hope is there for society?
UPDATE: It must be stressed that it is only those schools that are ducking controversial subjects that are being criticised. The majority of schools (hopefully the vast majority) teach issues, such as the Holocaust, the Crusades and transatlantic slavery. The Holocaust is also part of the National Curriculum and therefore should be taught by 'every' secondary school at Key Stage 3.topIranian piracy and British apathy
2 April, 2007
Where is the outrage at the kidnapping of our marines? This is the central question posed by James Forsyth in a thought provoking article in this week’s Spectator (page 16). I quote from the article:
‘One doesn’t need to be Lord Palmerston thundering about ‘civis Romanus sum’ and ‘the strong arm of England’ during the Don Pacifico affair to feel enraged by Iran’s capture and detention of 15 British sailors and marines. Yet the general reaction has been one of indifference. One looks in vain for mass demonstrations outside the Iranian embassy or any other signs of solidarity with our men and women in uniform.’
He continues: ‘The incident has revealed a country disconnected from its armed forces and deeply ambivalent about its global role.’
He goes on to contrast the apathy of the British public with Israel’s robust response to the kidnapping of 2 of its own soldiers last summer, the hostile act that triggered last year’s summer campaign against Hezbollah.
There are different ways to interpret all of this. There are some in Britain who adopt the usual, simplistic views of the Middle East that you pick up in the letter pages of the Guardian and Independent. In a nutshell, that the region’s aggression (whether Iran, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda or Hamas) stems from a unique set of grievances: principally an unjust Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and lives, America’s support for Israel, and a form of American imperialism based on a desire for cheap oil. But there is more to it than this.
Our involvement in Iraq ‘has’ clearly sapped the will of both the public and the government for further military adventures. Quite simply, who would believe Tony Blair if he called for yet another war in the Middle East? In a nutshell, most of the British population (if you go by opinion polls) are so disheartened with the Iraqi imbroglio that they regard Iran’s current belligerence as the price to be paid. Forsyth adopt this depressing conclusion and admits that for many, a popular attitude is: ‘we had this coming.’ Furthermore, a clear majority are against any military intervention against Iran, either over this issue or that of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. This is all the more tragic when we consider that, right now, Iran is a bullying menace which is, literally, getting away with murder. According to a senior British officer in Southern Iraq, the majority of the attacks on British troops are being funded by Iran.
But we must also remember that Iran targeted our soldiers because of how they expected Britain to react. In an earlier post, I argued that Iran had been conciliated over its nuclear programme for years by the EU3, particularly the Foreign Office which tried to downplay any suggestion that Iran was not playing ball. The Iranians interpreted this largesse for what is was - a rather supine form of appeasement which was exploited to the full. Hosein Musavian, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator told state television as much in 2005:
‘Thanks to our dealings with Europe, even when we get a fifty day ultimatum, we managed to continue the work for two years. Today we are in a position of power.’
More recently, Britain announced a partial withdrawal of troops for Basra, something that was likely to be interpreted in Tehran as yet more evidence of a British Achilles heel. Nothing is more provocative to a bully than the weakness of his foe. Sadly we have been advertising our weakness (at least to the Iranians) for far too long and 15 servicemen are now paying the price. The longer they languish in Iran, the more Britain will appear impotent and unwilling to defend its values. As Forsyth writes: ‘A power that can be bullied without fear of retribution by a second rate power is not much of a power at all.’
UPDATE: (4th April) It is of course a great relief that our service personnel have now been released by the Iranians. The misfortune of these 15 unfortunate people has thankfully been cut short. One wonders what game the regime is playing here. By acting in a spirit of such apparent generosity, by appearing to react well to negotiation, they are attempting to drive a wedge between Britain and the USA. If they can negotiate on the hostages (smaller issue), they might, so the thinking goes, negotiate over their nuclear programme (the bigger issue). Thus the pressure seems to be piling up for a direct negotiation between the USA and Iran over the nuclear programme in an attempt to buy time. In view of Nancy Pelosi's absurdly ill conceived visit to Syria today, the pressure may now grow. Naturally those with more than a short term memory will realise that if the EU3 were unable to stop Iran's drive for nuclear status, there isn't much the USA can do. But will common sense prevail?
top