Diary
Blair's recipe for peace
27 June, 2010
In this week's Jewish News, former PM Tony Blair answered questions from various correspondents about issues in the Middle East. My question was as follows:
'Apart from words, what are the Palestinians offering Israel in return for control of the West Bank?'
And his answer:
'I work very closely with Salam Fayyad, and I firmly believe that he is a passionate advocate of the Palestinian cause with a clear vision of the unequivocal non violent path to statehood and peace with Israel. And he's proving this with his two year state building plan and in his daily push to prepare his people for a Palestinian state. The work he is doing to strengthen the capacity of Palestinian institutions and security services to bring about law and order is removing the need for an Israeli presence in many parts of the West Bank. The difference between the West Bank now compared to just a few years ago is huge. Just look at how security has improved in Jenin or Nablus, for example. Now, it is Palestinians under the President and the Prime Minister's plan that are enforcing the rule of law and, in the process, reducing the threat of militants to Israelis. This in turn is allowing the Palestinian economy to grow. My core belief, at the heart of the work I do, is that peace can only be achieved if you build from the bottom up. There has to be alignment between the political negotiations and the bottom-up changes. It is the improved conditions and the renewed hope for people in their daily lives that will guarantee the long term stability of a political peace agreement. I know that Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is also committed to that principle, in his words but also in his actions.'
Much of the work being done by Blair is commendable. It is indeed laudable that security has improved in the West Bank and that Palestinians have been trained to enforce the rule of law. One can only hope that this economic and security improvement continues over the next few years. What Blair conspicuously failed to deal with was the continuing willingness of Prime Minister Abbas to glorify terrorism and advocate solutions, such as the right of return, which run counter to peace. And he has done this because the mindset of the Palestinian leadership remains wedded to a one state solution. One wonders what Blair is doing to change that.
topWas this a revolutionary budget?
23 June, 2010
In the end the 'bloodbath budget' was just as expected: a hefty tax rise for the aspiring middle classes with some minor pain for those in the public sector. This was not, as Harriet Harman claimed, primarily a weapon against the most vulnerable in society.
For starters, those on the lowest incomes will see tax thresholds raised by £1000, meaning that nearly a million people will be taken out of taxation altogether. That is surely something to celebrate. The charge that this is counterbalanced by the VAT increase is only partly true. Many of the items deemed necessities by the poorer classes are either VAT exempt (i.e. food) or have a low rate of VAT (domestic fuel). By contrast, the freezing of child benefit and reductions in child tax credits will hit middle class households the most. Harman's charge reflects a poorly informed understanding of economics.
As a way of reducing the deficit, Osborne's medicine may just do the trick. The key will be the rejuvenation of the private sector and perhaps here, the Chancellor was less successful. The reduction of corporation tax is welcome but the 50% tax rate for the highest earners is not. The revenue brought in will be a drop in the ocean (compared to GDP) yet it could also disincentivise overseas entrepreneuers whose enterprise is so vital for out economy. Similarly, the rise in CGT for higher earners will bring little financial reward and will hurt middle income families with investments.
Still the biggest news about this budget is not VAT or corporation tax or benefit reduction but the promise to slash every government department by 25%, a massive reduction in the size, power and scope of the state. If carried out to its logical conclusion, and that must eventually include the unwieldy behemoth of the NHS, it will amount to a revolutionary development.
For decades, it has been a guiding assumption that more and more of our GDP must be consumed by public spending. For the last 13 years, NHS and education budgets have doubled while social security has increased by nearly 20%. This has been utterly unsustainable in the medium and long term. If the size of the state is reduced without a detrimental impact on people's lives, then this will prove to be the single greatest legacy of the coalition government. Not that the people of Britain will be able to appreciate this right now. They are going to have to suffer for a long time yet.
topA nuclear Iran cannot be contained
22 June, 2010
In the latest edition of Commentary Magazine, Bret Stephens explains in detail why a nuclear Iran could not be contained by Western power. By doing so, he issues a devastating riposte to opinion makers and policy formers on both sides of the Atlantic, particularly those guiding the current administration in Washington.
Advocates of containment always point to Cold War parallels. America faced up to a nuclear USSR for over 40 years without once engaging its adversary in ‘direct’ military confrontation. Why therefore cannot a nuclear Iran be dealt with in the same way? But the differences between then and now are stark.
In the case of the old Soviet Union, a US led military attack would have brought mutual annihilation as there was an approximate symmetry of power. Iran by contrast could be challenged with far less damage to the West. As Stephens explains:
“Regime change” against Stalin was never a serious option, nor did the U.S. have the means to stop Russia from developing nuclear weapons. Neither is necessarily the case with Iran today, where both military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and a broader regime-change policy are feasible options—at least as long as Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
Many argue that Iran can be contained because its leaders mix ideology with pragmatism. Though the goals of its founders are revolutionary and involve unremitting hostility to the West, America and Israel, it has never gone to war with a major Western power. But Stephens offers a rather different perspective, in my view correctly:
Iran has been waging war against Israel for decades via Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran also had a direct operational role in the bombings of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 and of the Jewish community center there in 1994. The man chiefly responsible for the last of those attacks, Ahmad Vahidi, is today Iran’s defense minister. Iran has also carried out high--profile assassinations of its enemies on European soil; taken British sailors hostage; put U.S., Canadian, and French nationals on trial (and in jail) on patently bogus charges; and, famously, imposed a death sentence on British novelist Salman Rushdie. Moreover, Iran’s seizure of the U.S. Embassy in 1979 was a direct attack on sovereign U.S. territory and an act of war by any legal standard.
He concludes:
Iran is thus very far from being the pragmatic and mostly circumspect power depicted by advocates of containment. On the contrary, the regime has stood out since its earliest days for its willingness to pick fights with powerful enemies, to undertake terrorist strikes at great range, to court international opprobrium and moral outrage, to test international diplomatic patience, and to raise the stakes every time the world seemed ready to come to terms. In short, it has pursued policies that have seemed almost calculated to enshrine its status as a global pariah.
This is a brilliantly informed analysis, written by someone who refuses to indulge in the wishful thinking and Panglossian optimism of much of the intelligentsia. Iran is truly a paranoid, revolutionary and martyrdom obsessed state in a state of de facto permanent war with the West. Such a state, particularly one with the world’s worst weapons, cannot be contained through the usual tools of deterrence and diplomacy.
topAznar: A heroic defender of Israel and the West
18 June, 2010
There is a brilliant article today by the former Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, about the implications of international Israel bashing. His ability to state plain truths in the face of the global hysteria and irrationality is impressive, and truly courageous:
First, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.
Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbours using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathisers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy. Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival.
These statements are obvious but need restating. For Europe's intelligentsia is in the grip of a concerted campaign to demonise Israel, particularly when it tries to defend itself against its enemies' terror, violence and incitement. He goes on to argue that the real threat to regional stability comes from 'the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfilment of its religious destiny' as well as Iran's quest for regional hegemony.
He goes on to make the crucial point:
Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down.
Indeed. The point is that Israel should be seen as a strategic ally of the West, and a vital strategic asset to the West, because it is on the front line in the war against radical Islam. Iran and its proxies threaten Britain, America and Israel, though not quite in equal measure. And far from the failure of the peace process providing the spur to Islamist outrages, it is the very existence of a Jewish state that is the 'outrage.' Israel, as a Western, secular, Jewish, liberal, democratic and capitalist state serves as a symbol for everything the Islamists hate. Aznar sees this clearly.
Partly for this reason he has set up a new Friends of Israel initiative together with other prominent figures that include David Trimble, Andrew Roberts and John Bolton. What binds them is an 'unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself.' Let us hope that this movement attracts more supporters with the same intellectual and moral clarity of its founders.
topReflections on Saville
16 June, 2010
After 38 years, it appears that Lord Saville's inquiry has finally established the truth about what really happened on Bloody Sunday in 1972. His conclusions are fairly unequivocal: one regiment within the British army shot dead 13 Irish civilians, almost all of whom were disarmed at the time, in a reckless, ill disciplined and unjustifiable manner.
Yes, the march was illegal and yes, the atmosphere was undeniably tense because three RUC officers had been murdered days before. But Saville, who heard witness testimony from 2,000 people, made a damning judgment on the soldiers who opened fire that Sunday morning. The events on that day cannot be justified at all, and the Prime Minister was right to say this.
The British army subscribes to the rule of law and to a vastly higher standard than any terrorist organisation. Soldiers should never be above the law in any conflict and must be held to account for their misdeeds, quite simply because the commitment to justice is part of this island's enduring greatness.
That said, this inquiry only tells us what we have largely known for the last 4 decades, that is if we had bothered to read the innumerable books and articles written on this event. £200 million and 12 years has been spent minutely dissecting witness testimonies (some of them very fragile after 4 decades) in order to reiterate a largely 'consensus' narrative.
What is more galling is that this inquiry came about only because of the shameful appeasement that was part and parcel of the Good Friday Agreement. The Blair government agreed to set up the Saville inquiry in order to please the blood stained Republican leaders, Adams and McGuinness. This process of appeasement was then accompanied by the controversial release of IRA murderers and criminals from British jails. There will be more than a few people fuming today at this lingering sense of injustice.
topAnti British rhetoric from an anti British President
11 June, 2010
Like many others, I have been listening to the growing tirade of anti British rhetoric coming from the White House over BP. Obama has talked about 'kicking ass' over this issue (one of the most striking examples of undiplomatic language in recent memory) and spoken approvingly of sacking its CEO, Tony Hayward.
He has provocatively called the company 'British Petroleum' which rather sidesteps the uncomfortable truth that this is an Anglo-American company, many of whose directors and employees hail from the US. Partly as a result of threats and provocative language from the White House, the BP share price has been in freefall in recent weeks, affecting British pension funds and investors as a result. This is disgraceful.
But it is not a 'surprising' disgrace. Obama is an anti British President whose actions in the last 18 months indicate a visceral hostility to this country. Remember the speed with which he returned the Churchill bust that was loaned to his predecessor. Then there was his calculated snub to Gordon Brown in Washington when the British PM desperately chased the American President for an audience.
Worse Obama's administration sided with Argentina over the recent imbroglio over Falklands oil. The President's hysterical overreaction to BP surely reflects this Anglophobic mood, as well as a desperate attempt to fend off unwanted domestic criticism. Equally disgraceful is our government's virtual silence in the face of the President's fiery and petulant tone. (So much for not being 'slavish' to Washington!)
Of course it would be wrong to exonerate BP over the terrible accident in the Gulf of Mexico, or its handling of the issue. BP surely has a lot to answer for. But offshore drilling, particularly in a country with an insatiable appetite for oil, is bound to bring the occasional environmental disaster. This was an accident, not a malicious form of criminal behaviour. Listening to Obama, you would never have guessed that.
topThe world turned upside down
10 June, 2010
G K Chesterton once wrote that when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything. This adage applies to our own age where cults, conspiracy theories and irrational ideas attract millions of devotees across the globe. Quite why this is happening in a supposedly enlightened age is the subject of Melanie Phillips’ new book, The world turned upside down.
In her powerfully argued polemic, she dissects some contemporary beliefs that appear to fly in the face of truth and rationality. Her targets include anthropogenic global warming, scientific triumphalism and anti Zionism.
She presents compelling evidence that the received wisdom in these fields contradicts the available evidence and that reason, truth and justice have been replaced by ideology and prejudice.
The doctrines of environmentalism, scientism and anti Zionism, far from being disparate phenomena, are linked by a common thread. For Phillips, they are all utopian ideologies suffused by a millenarian belief in the perfectibility of mankind. Their adherents believe that utopia lies just around the corner as long as the ‘right ideas’ prevail and others, such as Zionism or capitalism, are eradicated.
As a result, these ideologies are impervious to contrary evidence and take on a quasi religious, even fanatical character. Critics of global warming and supporters of Israel are demonised as heretics and pariahs in a manner reminiscent of a witch hunt.
But why is the intelligentsia so unhinged? The author’s compelling thesis is that the tide of irrationality has emerged because of modernity’s assault on religion, in particular Judaism.
Many Enlightenment thinkers argued that the world could be re-made through the application of reason and the abolition of religion. Yet Judaeo-Christian monotheism provided a stable framework within which science, reason and progress were possible.
In the absence of this framework, a “cult of reason” emerged that opened the floodgates to tyranny and bloodshed. First came the ‘liberation’ of the French Revolution, followed by the repellent utopian fantasies of Lenin and Hitler.
Their murderous ambitions fuelled a loss of confidence in reason and created an impetus for other ideologies, such as relativism and multiculturalism. These have unhinged Western thinkers, allowing an ideological free for all where truth matters less than ideology.
This book is powerfully written and wide ranging in scope. Even though her conclusions are controversial, including her retrospective defence of the Iraq war and her fiery denunciation of atheism, it is impossible not to be fired up by her trenchant commentary. After reading this book, you may not see the world the same way again.
topJew hatred? that's only 'out of line.'
8 June, 2010
The Obama administration's delayed response to Helen Thomas' disgraceful remarks at the weekend is highly telling. Thomas, a veteran correspondent and dean of the White House Correspondents Association, had said that to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Jews had to get 'the hell out of Palestine,' adding for good measure that they should go home to 'Poland, Germany or the United States.'
There was a disgraceful, repugnant quality to these remarks with their suggestion that Israel should not be considered the home of its Jewish inhabitants and that two countries from which a campaign of mass extermination was launched should be their preferred destination. It was like calling for black Americans to return to their homes in Africa or American Muslims to return to Saudi Arabia or Iran. Her remarks were not only racist but ill informed. At least half of Israel's population are descended from the nearly 1 million Jews who were forced out of Arab countries in the Middle East from 1948 to 1967.
But it is telling that someone as well respected as Thomas has made these remarks. As the redoubtable Caroline Glick points out today: 'In other times, had the dean of the White House Correspondents Association expressed such hatred for the Jews, the White House would have immediately removed her accreditation rather than wait three days to criticize her. In other times, the White House Correspondents Association would have expelled her. In other times, her employer - Hearst Newspapers - would have fired her. But in our times, it took days for anyone other than Jews and conservatives to condemn Thomas's vile statements...'
Obama described her comments as 'out of line' and welcomed her 'retirement.' But she should not have been allowed to retire; she should have been sacked. This would have sent a signal that malignant racism, in whatever context, was completely beyond the pale. Unfortunately the Arab-Israeli conflict breeds such outright malice and bigotry, such irrational twists of thinking, that anti semitism becomes that much harder to condemn, unlike other forms of prejudice. And it is that double standard which is surely 'out of line.'
topIsrael's battle for hearts and minds
06 June, 2010
What is striking about last week's flotilla affair is just how easily the global media, the NGOs and Western governments were willing to swallow the lies of militant Turkish jihadists. Lakma TV's hilarious and inspired satire on these events seems so appropriate now for much of the world was indeed conned into 'abandoning reason.'
The victim nation that fends off a frenzied lynch mob is branded a bully; a terror ship containing mercenaries from the IHH is labelled a 'peace mission'; the attempt to inspect this ship is instantly condemned as 'illegal' while the blockade of Gaza (that of Israel, never Egypt) is seen as a barrier to peace. This hysterical demonisation of Israel spreads like a virus through the arteries of the global media, subverting truth and reason in the process.
It is now blindingly obvious that Gaza is the focal point of the Islamists' attempt to subvert and manipulate world opinion against Israel. It is part of a relentless propaganda war, one that the Arab and Muslim world feels it can win because of the spineless of Western governments and international organisations. But it is also a question of numbers. The deaths of 9 'shaheeds' matters little in the terrorist calculus when the number of recruits numbers in the millions. When you compare the relatively small (for them) loss of life involved in such an incident to the sustained global attention it brings, you can see the beguiling asymmetry involved.
And if one incident can cause Israel immense harm in the court of international opinion, why not another and one more after that? After the Mavi Marmama, came the Rachel Corrie and there are now reports that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards may accompany another vessel. You can understand their logic.
So how can Israel respond to this hysterical wave of diplomatic protest? First, they must not capitulate to demands to end the blockade. Allowing even one ship through will send a signal that Israel is not prepared to defend itself any further, something that will undoubtedly harm its deterrent posture towards Iran.
Second, their PR (which varies from adequate from woeful - and here it was woeful) must become strident and aggressive in the court of public opinion. Israeli leaders and spokesmen (and yes, satirists) have to tell the world what their fight is all about. They must show how they are on the front line of Islamic terror and demonstrate the linkage between Iran and its murderous proxies. Above all, they have to be swift with their message, repeating it endlessly until it becomes an unforgettable mantra. The failure to release crucial video footage in the first few hours after last week's incident was surely unforgivable. Yes, they face enormous obstacles, bigotry and preconceived agendas. But try they must.
As for the Anglo-American twins in the Special Relationship, Israelis should stop deluding themselves. Obama's desire to appease the Muslim world has led him to imbibe their twisted victim narrative. He seems to believe that Palestinian grievances lie at the heart of the region's ills and that Israeli intransigence must be punished at all costs. For this reason, he recently fixated on Jerusalem's settlements while ignoring incitement in the West Bank.
In Britain, the Conservative led coalition has proved itself a similar sucker for Arab lies, calling for an end to the blockade of Gaza. In effect, Cameron and Hague have retreated into fantasy land, pretending that a dose of Israeli goodwill will bring reciprocal Palestinian goodwill. It will not. Hamas, Hezbollah, the IHH, al Qaeda and the worldwide Islamist movement will interpret Israeli concessions as a sign of decline and weakness. And the perceived weakness of others is far more a tonic than their perceived strength. Ending the blockade strengthens the Iranian front against Israel.
The Israelis must improve their message and pursue it with vigour and without apology. For unlike previous conflicts, the battalions of this propaganda war are now virtual.
topMike
London
08/06/2010
nice article Jeremy - succinct and to the point - read this also - http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=177764
A voice of sanity amid the madness
3 June, 2010
With the British political class seemingly spellbound by Arab propaganda, and with fervent denunciations of Israeli behaviour growing daily, it is fortunate that there are some courageous British figures willing to speak truth to power. Colonel Richard Kemp, a man I have previously lauded for his timely comments on Operation Cast Lead, clearly understands the issues over the flotilla affair. Here are some of his recent comments:
"We should not forget that none of these deaths would have occurred if the people on the ships had not attacked the Israelis...The flotilla must shoulder the blame for this.” The IDF “went in bending over backwards to show they did not want to offer violence on the ship. There was a hardcore of people [on the flotilla] intent on causing violence."
True, these are not startling revelations but do you hear similar comments from Messrs Cameron and Hague? No, you hear the shrill cry from the Prime Minister that the Israeli action on Monday was 'unacceptable' while he says little about the 'unacceptable' IHH terrorist organisation that provoked this violent confrontation.
Mr. Hague is no better. He demands a 'fair and impartial enquiry' into the events that happened. But a UN led enquiry (who else would conduct it?) will produce another kangaroo court whose raison d'etre will be to blacken the Jewish state. It will be a form of extra judicial assassination of Israel's reputation in the eyes of international opinion.
You can pull the wool over the eyes of our political leaders but not over some of our military figures. Thank heavens for Colonel Kemp and others like him. They are voices of sanity amid the madness.
toprichard
london, uk
03/06/2010
you forgot that our idiotic deputy Prime Minister has also joined in the Israeli bashing. what a shower they all are! you used to endorse hague if i recall!
The West is handing the Islamists a PR triumph
2 June, 2010
With the global outrage against Israel reaching epidemic proportions, one can only conclude that the Islamists have now scored a terrific PR coup. Instead of recognising that Israel had a right to blockade Gaza for its own security, that the Turkish IHH was a proscribed terror organisation with murderous aims and that Israeli commandos were left with no choice but to defend themselves on the Mavi Marmara, Western governments and their respective commentators have resorted to their usual craven pro Palestinian agenda.
Today we had Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former British ambassador to the UN, calling on Israel to engage Hamas and lift the blockade. We then heard masters Clegg and Cameron calling for 'unfettered' access to aid in Gaza, as if the Israelis had no reason other than spitefulness for intercepting cargos of material bound for Gaza. William Hague for good measure has continued his somewhat vacuous criticisms of Israel's actions as disproportionate. One awaits tomorrow's pronouncements with trepidation.
The upshot of all this is that the Turkish Islamists now feel emboldened, as one would expect. Given that their aim all along was to create a violent international incident at sea, with Israel cast as chief villain and themselves as victim, they must feel that all their Christmases have come at once. Indeed it is hardly surprising then that there are reports of yet more Turkish convoys heading towards Gaza. One ship, the Rachel Corrie, is expected in the area imminently while the flotilla's organiser, Greta Berlin, has vowed to continue these operations until Israel sees 'sense.' This is attritional warfare by other means.
Israel remains in a lose-lose situation, given the dire nature of the diplomatic forces ranged against her. In political terms, she can hardly afford a second round of the international opprobrium unfairly levelled against her. On the other hand, she has to maintain a blockade of Gaza to ensure that prohibited weapons of war do not pass into the hands of her enemies. If one ship is allowed through, it will be followed by many more, some of which will be carrying an array of lethal weaponry.
Israel is therefore caught between a rock and a hard place. If her government stands up to murderous aggression, it receives censure and if it is passive in the face of jihadism, it suffers even more. Certainly, its own intelligence blunder in not anticipating the level of violence on board the Marmara was a serious blunder. But in the court of international opinion, Israel is being forced to confront her enemies with her hands tied behind her back and just at the point when the onslaught from Iran and her allies is reaching a critical level. Very worrying.
topWilliam Hague blunders again
01 June, 2010
The Foreign Secretary has got the flotilla affair badly, badly wrong. He told BBC News today that he deplored the loss of life in the incident, adding that there was a 'clear need for Israel to act with restraint and in line with international obligations.' An initial look at the incident, he declared, shows that there may have been an 'over-reaction.'
The clear implication of his comments was that the Jewish state had been gung ho and unrestrained in boarding the Marmara and killing some of the axe wielding thugs (sorry, peace activists) on board. Little thought was given to the mindless violence used against Israeli soldiers which created the very conditions in which lives would be lost later on.
In line with 'our European partners' Hague demanded a 'full and impartial investigation into these events.' He might perhaps call the UN (predictably in emergency session) as we all know that their witch-hunts against Israel (sorry, Middle East investigations) are scrupulously impartial and even handed.
For good measure, Hague then added that Israel had to allow 'unfettered' aid into Gaza, a position which completely ignores a) That Israel already allows thousands of tons of aid into Gaza every week and that b) There is a reason for the Israeli blockade, namely that the enclave is run by a terrorist entity intent on Israel's destruction which has for years been seeking the import of deadly weapons. It was for these reasons that the Israelis demanded that the flotilla sail to Ashdod where the humanitarian goods could be sent to Gaza. Yet the Foreign Secretary, judging by his comments, is oblivious to these facts.
By failing to slam the Islamist armada of terror, and by failing to stand with Israel in its defence against that terror, Hague is giving the jihadis the very oxygen they seek. More to the point, he is encouraging more mindless Palestinian violence in the future. All in all, a good day for Hamas.
top