Dead For Now.

Probably no massive surprise to anyone out there as I formally announce the death [for the foreseeable future] of the tide. Pick your reason - that it was originally a venting strategy during revision; that I'm a lazy ass; that Other People [see this, this, this, this, this and this] do it much better; that its too time-consuming; that nobody reads it; that peace is upon the middle east at last, Bush was right, that Eretz Israel will soon be established and Armaggedon triggered....at which point I will be consigned to hell....all of which suggest a certain futility to going on in the Blogosphere; or that, godamnit, my heart just isn't in it anymore.

In any case, thank you for your custom.

The M Word.

It's hardly surprising that it's happening but I can't help that it continues to rile my frequently ruffled feathers.

On Wednesday Andrew Neil [who you'll never be able to take seriously again once you see this...don't bother if you've ever read even one copy of Private Eye...you know what I'm talking about] chose to contrast someone's point about disaffection in the Muslim community with a comment along the lines of "I could take you to lots of white and black communities were the disaffected youth don't blow themselves to smithareans and take nice normal non-foreign types with them".

And just now on Channel 4 my usual news favourite John Snow chose to contrast the idea of a Muslim community by suggesting that we don't really talk about a white community.

And I'm sure there have been a thousand and one other examples.

I don't mean to suggest that there should be an enforced silence around the issue of religion. Quite the contrary. I see no need for particular sensitivity in the face of theocracy. The point, rather, is two-fold.

First, Muslim is here being used as a code-word for brown, hence the (sub-conscious) contrast with 'white' and 'black' instead of with 'Christian', 'Jewish' or 'Hindu'. This is probably partly due to genuine ignorance and confusion about the complexities of communities still seen as internal others. As has been pointed out before, there was never such a particular harping about the religion of IRA bombers or Israeli military actions - they were not 'Catholic' bombers or 'Jewish' armies. 'Muslim' seems to be a catch-all which is vaguely seen to encompass Arabs, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and assorted dark-skinned, bearded types. That many in these communities appear to be more than a little lapsed, faith-wise, the designation obscures more than it reveals.

Second, and more importantly, it is - either explicitly or implicity, and despite the rhetoric to the contrary - part of an underlying assumption that the special horror of being able to carry out such attacks is inherent to, or caused by, Islam. The continual talk about the fact that the fuckers in question might have visited this or that Mosque, the questioning of other young Muslims as to what they should be doing to prevent this kind of thing, all of it suggests that the relevant factor is the practice of a certain religion, rather than other associated factors and that a religious rather than materialist analyisis is called for [for a good comment on the later pop over here].

But as Fred Halliday once pointed out "there is little that can be explained, praised or denounced by reference to a unitary 'Islam'." Rather we require, in the proper sense:

explanation as an antidote to myth, in this case explanation of political events...as an antidote to the invocation of religious and other cultural factors as being in themselves explanatory.

Shot For Being Desperate.

My eye caught a release by Human Rights Watch yesterday. It seems the South African police have decided to play it old-school style and open fire on peaceful protestors, this time fighting against the economic apartheid of not being able to afford essential AIDs drugs which the ANC government has been vomit-inducingly bad at providing. 40 injured and 10 treated for gunshot wounds.

Settlement Hypocrisy Update!

I'm just going to keep on documenting this shit since its not being mentioned very much anywhere although, as usual, The Oc has some quality bile. It's tedious but necessary.

The new issue of the Journal for Palestine Studies is out and although mine, mysteriously, hasn't yet arrived through the post I managed to use my not quite yet revoked ATHENS priveleges to get at the latest Settlment Monitor. It reports that 2 outposts were dismantled during 2004, one outpost dimantled and rebuilt, 3 new outpost created, 12 outposts expanded and that 15 outposts had permanent construction taking place.

It further notes that:

[The dismantlement of the Ginot Arye outpost] did not signal the beginning of a new trend regarding the government's attitude toward the outposts, but rather was the continuation of its old policy, which could be described as "sleight of hand". The dismantlement of Ginot Arye, which, from the very beginning, was established on land which even the State of Israel recognised as being private Palestinian land, was intended to alleviate immediate legal pressures, without attempting to deal with the depth and breadth of the all-inclusive problem of the outposts...as this outpost was being dismantledm the caravans were transferred to two sites located east of Ofra, thereby establishing two new outposts, one of which (Ofra Northeast) was quickly populated. That very week, permanent construction of 10 buildings in the veteran outpost of Amona, also located east of Ofra, began. There is no doubt that these events....are part of an unwritten agreement between the settlers and the Ministry of Defense.

Colin Powell inadvertently demonstrates the depth of the hypocrisy and double-standard that pervades the entire political process, and popular discourse, on Israel-Palestine during an October 2004 interview included in the report:

We are concerned about all kinds of settlement activity, to include different definitions of what growth is. And we're working with the Israelis to define what a settlement is and what the difference is between natural growth and expansion, and is natural growth something that is consistent with the Israeli's commitment to us.

And this was Powell on Egyptian television, trying to appeal to the 'Arab Street'. Further 'discussion' with Israel about how many of its unambiguosly illegal settlements should be labelled legit and how many 'unauthourised'. No 'discussion' with the Palestinians about these terms or how to compensate those whose lands have been stolen under the rubric of emergency laws still in force from the British Mandate, pre-existing the establishment of Israel. No cries from any sector of the left or right of 'appeasement!' for entering into debate with colonialists and persistent violators of international law and bilateral agreements.

It is an interesting thought experiment to imagine what a world would be like in which Palestinians were encouraged and subsidised by the United States to use ancient laws and coercive tactics to deprive Israeli Jews of their lands within the internationally accepted boundaries of Israel, set up settlements there populated in significant number by individuals and groups hostile to Jews to the point of ethnic cleansing and, after some 40 years of such a process, enter into 'debate' with Palestinian officials about how many of the outposts were 'natural' and how many 'unnatural'.

The hypocrisy stretches to a great many other areas. A common refrain of pro-Zionists is that there can only be discussion on the existence or shape of a Palestinian state once Palestinians cease violence. The logical counter to this, exchanging the peoples, is to argue that Israel only has a right to existence and security once it stops colonialism and violence against Palestinians. This ridiculous blackmail, often invoked by self-declared liberals and individualists but clearly involving an overwhelming argument for collective punishment, is argued from the 'other' side by some groups - namely Hamas and Hizbullah. The difference being that in the real world while we regard those attempts to posit the issue in such stark and collectivist, if not downright racialist, terms as barey worthy of attention or discussion, the Israeli version is not only mainstream but is frequently invoked by apologetic 'leftists' eager to prove that they do not support terror.

As this anti-Zionist has pointed out the much-publicised, and quite correct, condemnation of the latest stomach churning suicide-bombings in Israel has not been matched by condemnation of the equally, if not more, stomach-churning killing of killing of 5 Palestinians and wounding of 48 since July 5th. The fact that I agree with the condemnation of the attacks on Israelis should be a given, but it is not and much as it angers me to perpetually have to be on the back foot, proving that I am against the murder of civilians everywhere against those who are quite happy to accept the murder of innocents who have the wrong coloured skin or who are unlucky enough to be the inhabitants of an official enemy, I know that failure to do so will only lead to the same tired and predictable tirades about anti-semitism and my secret, unspoken, unexpressed, unimplied desire to throw all Jews into the sea.

The Grauniad, that supposed bastion of the 'liberal-left elite', sees it fit to suggest that it was the militants who broke the ceasefire, failing to even foot-note previous killings by the IDF. It manages to do so while announcing Sharon's ordering of reprisals but, while naming and aging the victims of Tuesday's attack, fails to accord the same courtesy to any of the "around 40 Palestinians" killed since February [the actual number being 45].

Which says a lot.

Treadmill Meat!

Are you an ethical vegetarian who misses the taste of breaded chicken?

Are you both morally opposed to the existence of industrial scale farming and hungry for a nice chunk of Portuguese blood sausage?

I know I am.

But the answer is here and its called 'tissue engineering'.

In a paper in the June 29 issue of Tissue Engineering, a team of scientists....propose two new techniques of tissue engineering that may one day lead to affordable production of in vitro - lab grown -- meat for human consumption. It is the first peer-reviewed discussion of the prospects for industrial production of cultured meat.

At last. I can satisfy both my palette and my desire to pat myself on the back for being so goddamned ethical in such a topsy-turvy world of hypocrites and murdering bastards.

Up with GM!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Credits: Heard about this miracle via a comment box at The Oc]

another brick in the wall.

A year on from the ICJ's ruling on the 'Separation Barrier' Israel's cabinet has decided to place some 55,000 Arab residents of East Jerusalem on the other side of the Jerusalem 'envelope'/apartheid barrier, meaning that children and workers needing to travel into central Jerusalem will have to navigate the barrier daily.

And, as anyone who has spent anytime at all looking at the mechanics of crossing-points, check-points, curfews and barriers should know, this will effectively mean that the residents on the wrong side of the wall will be cut off from their former existences.

At the same time B'Tselem have published a report on the Israeli government's attempts to expel the Palestinians of the South Hebron Hills, which are in the West Bank:

some 88% of the Palestinians in the closed military area were victims of settler violence or witnessed such violence against a member of their immediate family.....The police do little to enforce the law against the settlers, and the army does even less. In some cases, soldiers have even assisted settlers in carrying out their violent acts. On a few occasions, the army at its own initiative destroyed the residents' farmland by driving tanks and other armored vehicles onto the fields. In addition, the Civil Administration prohibits the residents from building in their villages, contending that the area is designated for agricultural use. The prohibition also covers construction to ensure proper water supply and to meet other basic needs.

Which is as depressing as usual and doesn't add a lot to the picture that we didn't already know. I'm just cataloging it for the sake of cumulative evidence.

Going Through The Motions.

There is little to add to what has already been said [also here and a few here]. I was in Edinburgh at the time, wouldn't have been on the streets anyway, don't know anyone who had a near-miss, agree with most of the above assessments and generally find that words are pretty useless in such situations.

I do, however, get a knot in my stomach at the prospect of the government using this - and they will, whatever united front Clarke is trying to erect at the moment - to justify ever increasing amounts of authoritarianism. Just as politicians they'd be stupid not to exploit it - the country will be more ready for it than ever before. Which scares me. Especially after having been stopped and searched by a copper up in Scotland who took it upon himself to say things like "we're searching you because you never know what a terrorist looks like".

For future reference, Amnesty International hoodies, despite being banned in Bluewater, aren't usually part of the MO.

IDF Justice?

Finally.

A sentence for the Israeli soldier who shot Tom Hurndall, unarmed solidarity volunteer, clearly designated, shepherding children away from gunfire on an open street in broad daylight..... in the head.

It says a lot that this is only the third IDF soldier to be sentenced for such an act, that it took two years to get to this stage, that the IDF initially backed the solider's claims that Hurndall had been carrying a gun, that a Palestinian family would never have been able to pay the financial price or achieve the media and government pressure that Hurndall's parents have.

Silence largely continues over the always shocking statistics [in graph form here] showing that 656 of the 3,617 Palestinians killed since the start of the second intifada have been children under 18. The Remember These Children website is worth a look as a counterpart to Israel's greater ability to publicise the faces and narratives of its victims.

While far less horrific than the killing of children or the deliberate targetting of eyes and knee-caps as a kind of macho badge of weapons proficiency detailed by Tanya Reinhart in this book the eventual decision of Israel to deal with Hurndall's death has been marked by an ugly under-current of scape-goat racism seeking to absolve the IDF and 'proper' Israelis from any responsibility for the climate that allows, condones and orders such acts by pointing out that the soldier in question was....

...wait for it...

...a Bedouin Arab. Yes thats right. A towel-wearing, nomad-type, backward Arab. The sub-text being that we shouldn't really be surprised that one of them could do such a thing. If the IDF is guilty of anything it is of being so open and tolerant that it allows these types of people into its ranks, thinking that its 'purity of arms' tradition will somehow change their inherent nature. Guilty of naivety - a particularly endearing type really.

But the rotten apple has been cleared out of the barrell. So the killing of unarmed Palestinians is over and we can turn our attention to other issues, safe in the knowledge that the danger has passed.

"open to business on asylum claims that are not genuine" - Tony Blair, humanitarian.

You know you're in trouble when you're to the right of Melanie Philips. But Tony doesn't mind. He's used to doing the right thing even though it isn't popular - ever the self-sacrificing martyr for the good of others.

Although how his decision to resume the deportation of asylum seekers to Zimbabwe ties in with his desire to cure the conscience of the world by eradicating the 'scar of Africa' is not entirely clear.

One also wonders what the Campbell types are being payed for if they can't do better than:

The worry from our point of view as policymakers is that you will send a signal right across the system that Britain is again open to business on asylum claims that are not genuine.

As Kate Hoey pointed out what the government's line fails to address is the exact difference between the situation before November 2004 when a moratorium on deportations was in place and the period since. Especially considering that claims from Zimbabwe apparently did not rise at all during that period.

A bunch of commentators also seem puzzled as to why the government could possible have taken the decision to end the moratorium just as things got worse. None seem to have connected the dots between a reactionary refugee policy and a May general election where everyone was falling over themselves to prove just how tough they were on those damned darkies [we should never forget that "Are You Thinking What We're Thinking?" is a reformatted version of the election slogan of the French National Front - "responsible debate" my fucking ass].

As the Refugee Council helpfully points out to all those still entertaining notions that Britain is a "soft touch":

More than 15,000 Zimbabweans fled to Britain in the four years up to 2004, though only a few hundred have been granted asylum. In the first three months of this year, 95 Zimbabweans were forcibly removed.

It also warns against early celebrations over the government's alleged climb-down:

Human rights groups suspect that the Government is trying to defuse the situation while the G8 summit takes place. By offering to examine each individual case, it gives the Government a way of halting deportations without having to change its policy to allow all Zimbabwean asylum-seekers to stay.

None of these issues are particulary new. Human Rights Watch released a report back in August of 2004 detailing evidence of Mugabe's messing with the supply of international food aid:

Several NGOs involved in distributing international food aid noted that ZANU PF supporters continue to interfere with food distributions in different areas of the country and to intimidate persons who are suspected or actual MDC supporters. These persons are then too afraid to collect food at distribution points. Further, some local authorities reportedly did not inform suspected or real MDC supporters about food registration exercises and/or food distributions.....In some instances, involved communities or community leadership also reportedly excluded households marginalized by the community—often the most vulnerable members of the community, including widows, orphaned children of MDC supporters and other child-headed households—from food aid.

It is then hardly surprising that the man would undertake an operation of political cleansing which, according to The Independent has already cost 400,000 people their homes and livelihoods.

Now maybe I missed the news story but I don't recall a humanitarian crisis of anything approaching this scale occuring in Iraq in the year before we went ahead and invaded [although we did our best to help create one with our continuing sanctions - you know... the ones Tony said were 'working' in the same year that UNICEF estimated that they had led to 500,000 excess under-5 deaths].

Iraq provides us helpfully with another parallel. During the sanctions it was often argued that the Ba'athists were being weakened, whatever the unfortunate 'collaterol' costs, and that the people would soon overthrow him. Now confusion is expressed at the inconsiderate failure of ordinary Zimbabweans to rise up against the regime.

The notion that mass starvation and suffering might actually strengthen the hand of a repressive government doesn't seem worth considering. But coercion is used because its fairly damned effective at destruction. And over in Iraq our benevolent leaders don't seem to have realised the qualification that its not very good at creation.

As we approach the G8 the situation in Zimbabwe, like that in Darfur or Congo, should remind us of the need for a reinvigorated internationalism and reject the increasingly-heard opinion that these places should be left to sort out their own problems. Even if for only as long as our Prime Minister is sending people back to torture and death we should consider them very much our problems too.

Purity Of Arms But Blood On The Hands....

Since the US has recently sanctioned Israel ["sanctioned" here meaning suspension of co-operation on a few development projects and freezing delivery of night-vision equipment.... presumably not the most significant aspects of US military support] I thought I'd pop over to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and check out what Britain's record was like on Israel itself.

But first I thought I'd share the Grauniad's analysis of why the US doesn't want arms being sold to China. Apparently:

The US fears that China is becoming increasingly well-armed and may seek to settle longstanding territorial and political disputes by the threat and use of force.

Holy Shee-At Sherlock! Settling political disputes by the threat and use of force! One can see why Washington would object to such a thing.

Anyhoo-hoo. According to the CAAT:

In 2003 alone, the UK government issued licences for sales of military goods to Israel worth in excess of £11.5 million, in addition to open licences whose value is not available. Since the Oslo Accords in 1993, the UK has consistently sold military equipment to Israel including components for tanks, combat aircraft, mines, bombs, rockets, torpedos and machine guns. Indeed, there was an increase in sales associated with the repression that accompanied the second Palestinian intifada (uprising) in 2001.

It also appears that Israel's "purity of arms" ethos extends beyond selling drones to the Chinese:

Israel is notorious for selling arms to some of the world's most abhorrent regimes when other countries will not. It was the main arms supplier to apartheid South Africa, and supplied many Guatemala between 1977 and 1981 when tens of thousands were 'disappeared'. More recently it has supplied the military junta in Burma.

Nice.

On Hamas, Elections and Sharon.

Apparently Condi and Arik are discussing a move to pressure the Palestinian Authority into banning Hamas from upcoming elections. Their 'concerns' were also apparently a motivating factor behind Abbas' previous decision to postpone voting.

This is a worrying development. For everyone. Removal from the political process is most likely to increase the level of Islamist violence in the region. If the PA is to be the agent of that removal it will continue to lose legitimacy among Palestinians and reinforce an already popular image of it as Israel's enforcer in the Occupied Territories. Whether they are allowed to participate in elections or not this is likely to boost Hamas's support base, allowing them as it will to portray themselves as the 'genuine opposition' to occupation.

An alienated Hamas is also much more likely to cause Israel and the PA trouble over the Gaza pull-out. Yezid Sayigh [author of this massive but excellent narrative of the Palestinian national movement] commented on the PA-Hamas relationship - aspects of which we've discussed briefly here - last week:

Hamas agreed to halt attacks on Israel in return for the promise that the elections would be held in July, coinciding with the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and allowing Hamas to present itself as the resistance force that drove the Israelis out. Angered by the prospect of a lengthy delay, Hamas demonstrated its ability to undermine Abbas's diplomacy in response on Tuesday, rocketing an Israeli town across the border and an Israeli settlement in Gaza.

Further PA-Hamas tensions will lead to more of this. None of which should come as much of a surprise to Israel, familiar as it is by now with the basic dynamics. As Sayigh stressed:

There are two urgent imperatives. First, Hamas must be assured that it will not be denied the opportunity to translate its increased popularity among the Palestinian public into parliamentary seats and cabinet posts. This is a critical ingredient in its transformation into a legal political party with a stake in stabilising relations with Israel. Bringing Hamas into mainstream Palestinian politics is a prerequisite for resuming a credible peace process and persuading it to disarm.

To this end, America and the EU should encourage Abbas to set a new election date for early August. In parallel, they should hold the Israeli government to its schedule for the Gaza withdrawal and discourage it from suspending the pullout in response to the prospect of a Hamas electoral victory. Above all, the west should not allow the Fatah-dominated PA (or Israel) to subvert the democratic process in order to keep Hamas out of office. This would repeat the politically and morally dubious position it took when the Algerian military cancelled parliamentary elections in 1992 to forestall an Islamist victory, leading to a long and vicious civil conflict. It would also make a mockery of western exhortations to Middle East audiences to embrace democracy.

Rather, the west should emphasise its willingness to accept the outcome of the Palestinian elections, even if this means victory for Hamas. Western willingness to recognise democratically won political realities, no matter how awkward, will temper Hamas's inclination to use coercive tactics as a means of ensuring elections. Jack Straw's defence of British contacts with newly elected Hamas mayors is a step in the right direction, confirming respect for the electorate's democratic choice.

Second, Abbas must overcome opposition within Fatah to an early election. Fatah's poor showing in recent municipal elections awoke it to the prospect that Palestinians might hand Hamas a large number of seats in the parliamentary elections as well. It therefore insists on delaying these elections, to gain time to improve its image with a public that regards Fatah as deeply implicated in PA corruption.

It seems only reasonable to conclude, then, that Sharon is seeking another outcome. He seems to be putting too much political capital into the Gaza pull-out for it be a total bluff strategy in which he finally calls it off, blaming either Palestinian violence or pro-settler opinion. It makes more sense to conclude that 'The Bulldozer' is playing a dangerous game of a different sort, hoping that divisions among Palestinian political groups will allow him to pose the situation as a renunciation of PA responsibilities to 'dismantle terror' and as an excuse to impose further control over precious West Bank territories, "strengthening Zionist areas that are much more important" than those of Gaza. Such a strategy aimed at PA-Hamas confrontation may well be related to Shimon Peres's suggestion that Israel provide the PA with light arms, no doubt out of an altruistic sense of mutual friendship.

It may well also involve further deployment of the IDF into the West Bank to 'do the job themselves' in a similar move to deployments currently being considered to coincide with Gaza strip withdrawal.

All of which portrays a particular disdain for at least the Jewish lives that will be endangered by the resulting violence. Which is to be expected from a man who has made clear his willingness to do what the "dirty work" required for his particular brand of expansionist Zionism.

Good For A Laugh.

The Economist had a little box today on the issue of Live8 tickets and Geldof's blasting of touts. Having patronisinlgy established that:

Sir Bob, at least, cannot be accused of intellectual inconsistency. The closest he has ever come to propounding an economic theory is the slogan of his Live Aid concert 20 years ago: “Give us your fucking money.”

we discover that calls not to use the tickets for private gain are really quite lovely. Indeed:

it would be odd if the government decided in favour of legislating against people who are increasing economic efficiency by reallocating resources from those who value them little to those who value them a lot.

So, The Economist's own "economic theory" is that if you have more disposable income to spend on a ticket you must value it, and the experience, more than somebody not similarly gifted in the resource department.

Profound.