Yet again I have to ask

January 5th, 2009 admin

What is the matter with our journalists? Con Coughlin is one of the most experienced and most knowledgeable foreign correspondents and analysts we have in the media. Yet he has come up with the most jejune piece on his blog (well, clog, as this is hardly a blog in the real sense of the word).

He expresses the wish that Obama move into the White House as soon as possible because the Bush administration is even more of a lame-duck than usual, having, according to Mr Coughlin, done nothing about the crisis in Gaza beyond supporting Israel.

Well, first things first. Someone should tell Mr Coughlin that the United States has a constitution (and a very fine document it is, too). Amendment 20, ratified in January 1933, states:
1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
In other words, unless President-Elect Obama wants to go against what the Constitution says - something he has not done so far, despite his eccentric behaviour in various ways - he cannot move into the White House until he has gone through the inauguration process on January 20. Got that, Mr Coughlin? It's not difficult.

Secondly, it is somewhat contradictory to say
Throughout the past week, while Israel has intensified its bombardment of Gaza, the Bush administration has hardly uttered a word, save to give its approval to the Israeli action. In other words, if that's what the Israelis want to do, that's fine by us.
Either President Bush is a lame duck and is doing nothing or he is supporting Israel not, as Mr Coughlin says, because he does not care and let Israel do what it wants but because he believes, as many of us, including the commenters on the clog, do that the hostilities were started by Hamas's rockets.

Mr Coughlin, and, it would appear, most of the Telegraph newspapers believe otherwise or they prefer to ignore Hamas aggression against Israel, against Fatah, against all its opponents, against many Palestinians in general. But that is hardly President Bush's fault. Nor is it an indication of drift.

Thirdly, there is little evidence that President-Elect Obama will do or say otherwise. On the whole, he has been very quiet on Gaza (unlike various other issues) and may well be preoccupied with problems in his own camp. But, as several commenters point out, the change may or may not happen on January 21 and, if it does, there is no guarantee that Mr Coughlin and his colleagues will like it.

The sooner Con Coughlin understands some or, preferably, all of this, the better for the Daily Telegraph and its readers (among whom I no longer count myself).

Posted in euro conservative | Comments Off

Cameron Turns Back the ‘Do Nothing’ Charge Onto Brown

January 5th, 2009 admin

David Cameron has just announced a plan to abolish income tax on savings for basic rate taxpayers. Good. It was a totally unjust tax anyway and a real discouragement to save. It will help pensioners in particular, many of whom rely on interest on their savings as part of their main income. It will be interesting to see how Labour attacks this plan. They can hardly say it is "doing nothing", which seems to be their latest Goebbels-like mantra. Indeed, the "do nothing" charge will be a very difficult one to make stick if, as seems likely, the government finally bows to the inevitable and adopts David Cameron's National Loan Guarantee plan, which would get credit flowing again to businesses. This will do far more for liquidity than the wasteful 2.5% VAT cut.

In his speech this lunchtime Cameron made four key announcements...

• Abolishing income tax on savings for everyone on the basic rate of tax
• Raising the tax allowance for pensioners by £2,000
• Publishing reports, for consultation, on green tech incubators and the green environmental market
• Undertaking a full-scale review of the creative industries
He also said...
Instead of Labour doing nothing effective they should take up our idea of a self-financing National Loan Guarantee Scheme to help businesses get through these tough times and help keep people in work. It’s now been over five weeks since we proposed this. Five weeks in which more businesses have gone to the wall – and more jobs have been lost. Five weeks in which Labour have done nothing. The Government could and should take that action now, today.
Just as a reminder, these are some of the other Conservative initiatives to ameliorate the effects of the recession...

* freeze council tax for two years
* abolish Stamp Duty for nine out of ten first-time buyers
* provide tax cuts for new jobs with a £2.6bn package of tax breaks to get people into work, funded by money that would otherwise go on unemployment benefit
* cut the main rate of corporation tax to 25p and the small companies' rate to 20p, paid for by scrapping complex reliefs and allowances
* introduce a £50bn National Loan Guarantee Scheme to underwrite bank lending to businesses and get credit flowing again
* give small and medium-sized businesses a six-month VAT holiday, funded by a 7.5% interest rate on delayed payments
* cut National Insurance by 1% for six months for firms with fewer than five employees, paid for from the above changes to the company tax regime
Just thought you'd like to know.

Posted in euro conservative | Comments Off

Interviewing Tony Benn

January 5th, 2009 admin

This afternoon I will be interviewing Tony Benn for the next issue of Total Politics. It's another one of my "in conversation" style interviews, where the answers are printed verbatim. If you were me, and asking the question, what would you ask him?

Posted in euro conservative | Comments Off

Death in Gaza – there is no alternative

January 5th, 2009 admin

It used to be axiomatic that history was written by the victors. But then came the mainstream media, and the triumphant annals of the victors were joined by wailing obituaries of the vanquished. And then came blogs - and the argument, plot, and sub-plots of history are now written by anyone and everyone, no matter how much or how little they know or do not know.

Postmodern history is neither science nor art, but a random sequence of feelings drawn from a melting pot of misinformation concocted from a myriad of disparate anecdotes and distorted concepts embroidered by the half-light of relativity.

And so it is with the eternal Arab-Israeli conflict.

The piteous images of the dead and wounded in what has become known as the ‘Gaza Strip’ are convenient for the Jew-hater or for those who are pathologically disposed to the elimination of Israel. The babies who had barely breathed, the children who had scarcely played, the young men and women who were on the cusp of falling in love, and the elderly and infirm whose life it was to dote on their children and grandchildren, all cruelly cut off by the barbarism that is war.

Why is this happening? What is the cause? Who is to blame? How can peace be found?

No-one will deny that life on this godforsaken, besieged strip of land is hard. Jobs are scarce, the economy is in ruins, health is poor, education is poorer, and the future (should any bother to consider it) has always been bleak. It was bleak when Israel governed the land, but it has become bleaker since withdrawal and the systematic eradication of the Israeli settlements.

From the moment Hamas were elected to govern in 2006, the welfare and interests of the Palestinian people have been subjugated to the religio-political objectives of its divinely-ordained charter. Instead of spending the billions of dollars and euros it has been given in aid on social infrastructure and the realisation of progressive policies, it has squandered it on military hardware and political propaganda. The militant ruling party has had little concern for the long-suffering of the Gazans, determined, as they have been, to ensure increased social trauma and worsening strife, in order that Muslims across the world might be provoked to rise in anger against Israel – the author of all that evil in the world.

Hamas has only one objective – the destruction of Israel. It is championed by Iran, which would also like to see Israel ‘wiped off the map’. Hamas have therefore rained down missiles into Israeli towns and villages for the past three years – 6000 of them, to be precise. And not one has been aimed at an Israeli military target, but purposely fired randomly at residential areas to maximise the civilian death toll.

Israel has tolerated this for years. It has turned cheeks, blind eyes, deaf ears, and mute mouths (if one turns a mouth). And while it was doing so, no-one was marching on the streets of London, Paris, Berlin, Rome or Washington demanding that Palestine halt its indiscriminate bombardment of Israel. No-one co-ordinated mass demonstrations, no-one besieged any Arab-Muslim embassies, and the mainstream media was silent on the slaughter of Jewish men, women and children.

You see, not enough were dying.

If only Israel had thought to orchestrate a few devastating missile hits, to conceal explosives in the basements of its synagogues or beneath apartment blocks, to preserve a few bodies of babies and children in morgues so they could be produced for the world’s cameras when required.

But even then, few would have cared. And fewer would have equated such a tale with Israel’s fight for survival. For Israel, you see, has not only been framed by Hamas, it has been systematically and chronically demonised by the Islamists, by the Left, by the pathologically anti-Semitic media, and so by all the mindless, undiscerning idiots who obtain their ‘truth’ from the fount of all untruth.

So the British Foreign Secretary demands a ceasefire, and so does his Shadow. And they along with their leaders advocate dialogue. They demand a cessation of hostilities and a peace agreement. They will doubtless organise another summit (equally doubtless presided over by the President of the United States), at which they will attempt to address the ‘underlying causes’ of the latest conflagration, only to discover that they are the same underlying causes which were discussed last year, and the year before, and the year before that; and last decade, and the decade before that, and the decade before that; and last century, and the century before that...

You see, the ‘underlying cause’ is not simply (or complexly) political, and neither is it social, psychological or straightforwardly territorial.

The ‘underlying cause’ is theological, or, to be more precise, religio-theological-historical-political.

It all comes down to which son Abraham almost sacrificed.

For Jews it is revealed in the Torah (Gen 22:1f) that it was Isaac – from whom the Jews are descended. The Christians corroborate this (Heb 11:17; Js 2:21). But to Muslims it is revealed in the Qur’an (Surah 11:69-73, 37:112-113, 51:24-30) that it was Ishmael – from whom Arab Muslims are descended. They believe that the ‘promised son’ was Ishmael and scribes later corrupted the original reading in Genesis to 'Isaac'.

This is possibly the most important bit of redaction in the history of the world. Genesis according to the Torah reveals that Isaac was the ‘promised son’ and so the Jews are the chosen of YHWH. But Genesis according to the Qur’an reveals Ishmael as the ‘promised son’, and so Muslim Arabs are the chosen of Allah.

So who is the chosen ‘promised’ son? Who inherits the land? The second-born of the first wife, or the first-born of the second wife?

There is no consensus to be found here, no agreement to be had, no concordat to be drawn up by the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, for not even the Middle East messiah peace envoy will be able to resolve this intractable antithesis and irreconcilable mutual exclusion. There is no convenient fudge, no compromise, and no third way.

For most Arabs, Israel is an Islamic land ‘occupied’ by the Jews. And this is the fault of the UK (who double-crossed and deceived them in 1948), and the US (who support Israel militarily). Peace can only be restored when the Jews of Isaac surrender that which they illegally occupy to the Muslim-Arabs of Ishmael.

It is not clear to where Hamas (et al) propose that Israel’s Jews should move, but presumably they simply want an exodus of millions of the sons and daughters of Isaac which will then become someone else’s problem – presumably that of the United Nations.

Alternatively, the sons of Ishmael could accept that the Jews of Isaac are related to them through their father Abraham, and extend true Middle-Eastern hospitality to their distant cousins by acknowledging firstly their right to exist, and secondly their right to a homeland, and thirdly by sharing copious quantities of kosher wine and halal beer. It is not much of a life without a home, and one cannot build a home without land, and one cannot obtain land without rights, and one cannot be granted rights if one does not at least have the right to exist.

But sadly, formal recognition of Israel (and peace agreements signed) by all Arab countries is a pipe dream, whatever they may be smoking or drinking. Iran’s leadership has recently condemned Israel in the strongest terms over their airstrikes against Hamas, and are beginning to register volunteers to fight against Israel in the Gaza strip. Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei earlier issued a religious decree declaring it the duty of Muslims around the world to fight back against Israel in any way.

There will always be radical factions within the Islamic ummah which hate Israel, and past signatories to peace treaties have paid with their lives.

So Plan C is to leave it to Tony Blair to sort out.

But this is a futile pursuit, for he is busy building his Fantasy Faith Foundation and preparing to be President of Europe.

Plan D is to leave it to President Obama to sort out.

But even the half-black, half-Muslim Christian will not end the suffering or bloodshed, even with his magnificent oratory of postmodern platitudes. Wars do not wait for inaugurations, and he is already losing a war he does not even know he is in. He will learn that he cannot bring ‘change’ to Israel any more than he can turn water into wine.

So we are left with an intractable dilemma, a problem without resolution, a devastatingly inevitable and utterly unavoidable scenario in which nothing but the return of the concept of a victor and a vanquished will lead to anything approaching peace - with all the attendant suffering, pain, death and trauma.

Innocent people will be killed by the hundreds and terrorised by the thousands because ultimately this is a battle between good and evil. And there are good and evil people on both sides. But the leadership of Hamas has no moral equivalence with the leadership of Israel.

Whatever the Islamists may spout, whatever the Left may splutter, and whatever the mainstream media may self-righteously declaim, Israel is on the side of morality and justice. There is one civilised force in this war, and one barbaric horde of genocidal maniacs.

If liberty is to result, if stability is to ensue, if peace is ever to be known, one had better pray for Israel as much as one weeps for innocent victims of Hamas.

Shalu Shlom Yerushalayim.

Posted in euro conservative | Comments Off

Two-faced Brits

January 4th, 2009 admin

Yesterday did not go quite as planned, with several posts on the stocks but none written. Not least, the book is taking its toll, now with 62,000 words written, and the shape of the "plot" crafted by Booker in his column.

Predictably, the comments on the online version were relatively few in number, but better quality than expected. Usually, when anything on Iraq is written, it drags in all the nutters, afflicted with Bush derangement syndrome and those accusing Blair (and Bush) of conducting an illegal war. There would have been more comments, but for the moderators' censorship – hotly denied but true nonetheless – and habit of closing down comment early.

One interesting comment from an American accused us Brits of being "two-faced." We complain "when YOUR troops are just sitting there when they are getting hit with rockets & mortars; but then you protest in the streets when Israel takes the VERY SAME action YOU demand that YOUR troops should have taken to halt the rockets and mortars."

Actually, "we" don't, but I was not allowed to make that point by the censorious Telegraph. But, as we pointed out in an earlier post, there are parallels between the situation in al Amarah in the first half of 2006 and the present situation in Gaza. In the former, the British turned tail and ran, in the latter, of course, we see a robust response, reflecting a determination and commitment than no longer seems to exist in this country.

The parallel continues in a sense, where we see the whimpish response of our government manifest itself again, with first Miliband and now Gordon Brown calling for a cease fire.

The only good thing to come out of this horrible episode, therefore, is to see the Israelis – in contrast to their disarray in Lebanon in 2006 – reject the bleatings of the appeasers who seem to think that it is possible to negotiate with Hamas on the same basis that you would expect with a normal government.

That rejection also extends to the increasingly pathetic EU which is so embarrassing that it seems to be admitting its own failures even to itself. The ghastly Javier Solana has conceded that there had been a "failure of diplomacy" in response to the Gaza crisis so far.

Much the same has applied to the other tranzie deadweight, the UN, with even Hamas dismissing its attempts at mediation as a "farce", after the security council failed to agree a statement in response to the crisis.

By contrast, the US is taking the only credible line, calling for a ceasefire "as soon as possible" but linking that to an absolute guarantee that Hamas ends its rocket fire. And there, Hamas could bring this trauma to an end right now. All it has to do is to stop firing rockets, surrender its arsenal and give that guarantee.

However, there is one final parallel with al Amarah. Although the British response to what is known as "indirect fire" was ineffective, that did not mean that it did nothing. It launched many raids into al Amarah, killing and wounding several hundred (or even more), Mahdi fighters, damaging and destroying hundreds of houses and killing many civilians. It also called in air strikes, many times.

These things it did in the exercise of its right to self defence, as an occupying power, under the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949, and the much older rules in the Hague Regulations of 1907. None of the precious "international community" so much as batted an eye when the UK exercised this right – much less called for a "cease fire" while the Mahdi Army was still rocketing the British base. Yet it seems that the UK, with its fellow travellers, would deny Israel exactly the same right.

Perhaps our commentator was right: us Brits are two-faced.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted in euro conservative | Comments Off