Main menu:
Journal Items - Classified:
A chance for Blair to begin his rehabilitation?
2 June 2008 .
Much written in the papers over the past few days about a number of students in Gaza, who've been prevented from taking up scholarships to study abroad by the Israeli authorities - as part of the 'War on Terror'.
The students concerned have been described as outstanding, which probably isn't an exaggeration since eight of them won grants from the Fulbright programme to study in the US. Having spent a bit of time with ordinary youngsters in ordinary schools in Ramallah (West Bank), who seemed to have a thirst for knowledge and a work ethic that any university would plot and scheme for, I'd say that the Americans should be doing anything and everything in their power to change Israeli minds.
Sad then, if wholly predictable, that the US State Department has cancelled the scholarships.
-/-
Another student won a place at Nottingham. He's written to Mr. Blair, putting his case, in the hope that Blair might be able to work some magic on the Israelis, allowing him to take up his place
There's been no news (that I've seen) about what Blair's response has or hasn't been (it may well be that he'll work best if he works with discretion); and it may be that, with the best will in the world, nobody could bring about a change of heart in the Israelis. However; whether we ever know about it or not, whether he has any success or not; to use terms he might understand, what he chooses to do about this will appear in the ledger of his soul...
Despite his inexplicable failure to visit Gaza (Still Blairless in Gaza, below), I suggest that Blair will be doing all he can for this student. I will hope for his success.
Blair Gaza Fulbright 'State department' Nottingham
Still Blairless in Gaza.
1 June 2008 .
In June 2007 Blair was appointed as the EU's Peace Plenipotentiary in Israel/Palestine.
Neither he nor any members of his permanent staff has set foot in Gaza in the past year. Not once.
(Re Blairless in Gaza - below, 6 March)
Blair Gaza 'EU representative'
Europol dares to criticise the Dear and Great Leaders.
18 May 2008 .
The EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, from Europol (the European Police Office), identifies Britain as the focal point for terrorism in Europe.
Either the report is substantially correct in that assertion or it isn't. Our government, with its increasingly illiberal legislation (ostensibly) against that terrorism, would presumably go along with it (else how to justify all the legislation?)
The report goes on to say that it is British foreign policy which presents critical dangers for the whole of Europe. That's quite an assertion, with which our government is on record (endlessly) that it does not agree.
[It probably does agree with Professor David Capitanchik (of Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen), who writes, "We certainly face a greater threat, partly because we have such a large immigrant population which is more vulnerable to radical Islamic thinking... We are paying the price of giving political asylum for so long to individuals who were wanted for terrorism-related offences in their own countries." (Independent.) So long as he says 'partly', he may be partly correct... (hasn't the pendulum swung right over in the last few years? Time was, even a word whispered along these lines could land you in serious job-losing trouble for racism; now, almost anything goes...) On the whole, however, I think Capitanchik - and the government - are wriggling; after all, there is a large immigrant Muslim population in France (and Germany has Muslims, too), but it's the UK which Europol identifies.]
The Dear Leader always assured us that his actions in the Middle East had no bearing on the threat of terrorism at home (and God knows that he's a good man)... so Europol are obviously wrong about our foreign policy and don't know what they're talking about.
Europol 'EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report' 'David Capitanchik' 'foreign policy'
Protest against the Iraq invasion is moral, as well as legal.
01 April 2008 .
There seems to be an argument that protest over the 2003 invasion of Iraq became redundant on 22 May of that year with the passing of resolution 1483, on the grounds that that resolution marked the UN's acceptance of the new status quo in Iraq and (in effect) retrospectively legitimised the invasion. (I hope I have the details correctly noted.)
Rubbish. This argument doesn't touch the moral grounds for protest.
As for the legal grounds: When Blair took us into Iraq, against the most widely expressed wishes of the UK population, legal opinion was overwhelming that the invasion would be illegal ahead of 'a second resolution'. Retrospective legislations have never been considered honourable in this country (except in remediation of clear injustice, which doesn't apply here); if barrister blair and his supporters try to wriggle out on that defence, I trust that it'll receive the contempt it deserves.
So it's not just football stadia and airlines they do well, then...
28 March 2008 .
There's been a report on the BBC news about quiet but effective work of UAE troops in Afghanistan. It makes a pleasant change to hear good news from that unhappy country.
The information has presumably been around all the time, if I'd thought to look; but what a pity that the (real) good news (as opposed to the delusions of Bush and Miliband) isn't given more space in the everyday media, to balance the endless gloom. [I can't help a lingering (but hopefully unfounded) suspicion that it might be because the Emirate soldiers are Muslim.]
'UAE troops in Afghanistan'
It's not new information that we're after...
23 March 2008 .
More argument today (specifically in the Independent on Sunday) that no useful purpose would be served by another inquiry into the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that we've had four inquiries already, that we know pretty much all there is to know and that a new inquiry won't reveal very much that is either new or of any significance.
I'm sure it's true that most of the facts are pretty well known by now, but I don't think the point is to find new information. Somehow this country has got to come to the point of admitting that what we did (or rather, perhaps, the way we did it) in March, 2003, was a terrible wrong. Until we do, there can't be any reconciliation with a significant part of the Muslim world - or with a large number of our own citizens, not all of them Muslims. The reason why I believe that we should have an impeachment rather than another (devalued) inquiry is that it might be the one way in which a finding that Blair was not in fact culpable might be accepted. Not that I believe that that would be the outcome...
Iraq war inquiry
Anti-War Bores.
21 March 2008 .
There are sincere people on both sides of the argument about whether invading Iraq in 2003 was the right thing to do. Since I've always believed that it was both wrong in morality and misjudged in practice, it's probably easier for me to see the blind spots in the opinions of those in favour than in my own.
Keith Gilmour wrote to the Independent today: 'For how many more "anniversaries" are Messrs Bush and Blair to be lambasted - via all the media - for audaciously attempting to replace a genocidal despot with the seeds of democracy. Perhaps instead of gloating so excitedly about what a "disaster" it's all been, anti-war bores could, for once, try reflecting on just how many more innocent Iraqis might have died had Saddam been left in power to this day.'
The letter bears repeating because it expresses the most usual sentiments from its quarter of the ring. I think it bears answering, too, so, in a Tunbridge-Wellsian spirit, I've composed this to send to the Indy:
Michael Peter holds that to demonstrate the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (21st. March) to be illegal would be an uphill task. I'd suggest that he writes this in the face of overwhelming legal opinion both in 2003 (pace Lord Goldsmith) and now, but it is at least a position which can be argued.
However, Keith Gilmour's letter, immediately following, is far from qualifying as any kind of argument. On the contrary, it is quite extraordinarily insulting to refer to those of us opposed to the invasion (and seeking an impeachment) as 'gloating excitedly' about anything to do with that tragedy. I can assure Mr. Gilmore that despite my profoundest doubts, once the invasion was underway I prayed that I was wrong and that there would be a happy ending.
I believe that our domestic politics and our international relations have been poisoned by the events of the past five years and will remain so until there is an impeachment or, at least, a genuine inquiry. That I am still arguing for that closure is because it has been blocked, not by rebuttal or the popular will, but by arrogant power. Mr Gilmour calling me a war-bore is simply an ad hominem variation on the 'draw a line and move on' dismissal offered by the same arrogant power.
I have to add that I believe that anyone who argues that the invasion was somehow acceptable on the basis of the number of lives saved thereby is on shaky ground at best, and irredeemably blind at worst. Not only did the invasion itself cause death on a massive scale; it put a stop to exploration by the international community - which was beginning to happen - of other ways to rid the world of Saddam.
'Keith Gilmour' 'Michael Peter' 'anti-war bores'
Was the war legitimate?
13 March 2008 .
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, then UK ambassador to the UN, was on BBC Newsnight this evening talking about the attempts in March, 2003, to swing the undecided nations behind a second resolution to go to war in Iraq. Jeremy Paxman asked if this was necessary in order to 'legitimise' the invasion; Greenstock said it wasn't, because the previous Resolution 1441 had already done that. Later, the nations opposed to the invasion, including France, Germany and Russia, got a brief mention on the programme in connection with Greenstock's efforts to ensure that there wouldn't be a counter-resolution. Those countries, said Greenstock, were desperate to 'prevent anything that would legitimise the position (to go to war) of the UK and the US'.
Hmmmm.
'Sir Jeremy Greenstock' 'Resolution 1441'
Blairless in Gaza.
06 March 2008 .
The economic and social situation in Gaza is worse than it's been since 1967, the BBC reports. It's clear to anyone with half an eye that life there's a nightmare; and the rocket-to-bomb vendetta never ends.
So where in the news have I seen the name of The People's erstwhile Dear Leader, Peacemaking Plenipotentiary Extraordinaire to the Middle East The Reverend Idi Blair Dada QC, in action? Not being 'discussed' in the UK media but in action, doing his plenipotentating?
Er...
Hmmm.
The Williams Draft.
22 February 2008 .
First the government denied that it existed. Then they tried to withhold it on the grounds of confidentiality. Then they claimed it was the idle jottings of a press officer with too much time on his hands. Finally, after nearly five years of pushing by one Chris Ames helped by the Freedom of Information Act, and so far as I can see after every possible delaying tactic, it's in the public domain.
The Williams draft of 9th September, 2002, is the document which finally proves (inter alia) how much of what we were told as a justification for the invasion of Iraq was
Blair's mob told us again and again that the serious work on drafting the case for war started on 10 Sept, and that what were presented to us were 'judgements of the Joint Intelligence Committee'. The date of the Williams draft and, amongst other things, the forms of words within it show that both these assertions are simply outright lies.
This is the smoking gun. Blair lied repeatedly to Parliament and to the public, both in taking us to war and in concealing and reinforcing the original lie ever since.
With reference to constitutional law, international law and precedent, there are two clear grounds for impeachment. But it won't happen: in Parliament there are too many who share his guilt, and outside I fear there may be too many who don't care.
There's plenty more material in the draft, and far more cogent argument in the public domain than I can repeat here. If you care enough, you probably already know it better than I do, or you'll be going to find out. If you think it doesn't matter that the Prime Minister lied, and has been proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' to have done so, in order to embroil us in a murderous and illegal war which many people believe has been partly responsible for bringing bombs to our own streets then, frankly, God help you.
'The Williams Draft' 'Chris Ames'
Dubai.
22 February 2008 .
The Dubai government is holding Keith Brown in prison, on a four-month sentence of drug-smuggling. Mr. Brown, from the West Midlands, was found to have a speck of cannabis stuck to (the underside of) the sole of his shoe. A Mr. Le-Huy, a resident of north London, has been remanded on bail in the same country after a extraodinarily detailed search found 0.03 grams of cannabis in dirt at the bottom of his bag - an amount about the size of a full stop.
Over half of all bank-notes in Europe are said to hold identifiable traces of cocaine...
'Keith Brown' Le-Huy cannabis Dubai
Sohail Qareshi.
08 January 2008 .
Mr. Qareshi was sentenced today to be banged up for four years at Her Majesty's; he had pleaded guilty to three charges of terrorism. The details of his offences have not been published, but it seems that he was arrested at Heathrow Airport, heading for Afghanistan to fight against the Allies.
As the matter has been reported (and I'm sure we're only getting part of the picture), I have to say that he may be guilty of treason, or be an enemy combatant or even a spy but, whatever the government may choose to define as terrorism, going to fight against armed soldiers in the field does not sound like any realistic definition of terrorism to me.
'Sohail Qareshi'
For Once, They Should Be Lying.
28 December 2007 .
It seems that, while publicly declaring that there can be no negotiating with terrorists, the UK government has members or agents who are - or at least have been - talking with Al Qaida.
It seems, also, that there has been a deal of objection to the talking, with the government being accused of lying to us.
Personally, I wonder if the public declaration is what we really want (I would rather that the government reassured us that it both talked gently and wielded a big stick, according to necessity); but, assuming that it is a political necessity to pretend to obstinacy... I should damned well hope that the government is nevertheless keeping all its lines of communication open. Ultimately, there is no other way that any resolution will be found to our problems with terrorism. Or do people seriously believe that we are going to be able to bomb every single person in the world with Al Qaida sympathies into the ground?
'negotiating with terrorists' 'Al Qaida'
Paranoia.
07 December 2007 .
In 1985/6, shortly before the start of the Intifada, I went to Jerusalem and the West Bank for a short time. Despite all that had happened, all that was going to happen, and an increasing degree of tension in the air, it was a very different place from what seems to obtain now. I could write here about the sophistication, the tolerance, the culture which on the West Bank seemed more Sufi than anything... but of course, I was a visitor, and tended to meet certain types of people, and tended to see what I wanted to see... but what I didn't mistake was the willingness of everyone, it seemed, to talk. Discussion, argument, extraordinary breadth of opinion, searching: sometimes the anger was clear, and the desperation, but everyone always willing to talk - and endless cups of thick, black coffee while we did.
Oh, and the hospitality: most people, in most of the world, will welcome a stranger; but the Palestinians, I think I have to say, are the most giving of all. I pray that the time will come when they are able to be so once again.
While I was there, I visited Ramallah High and Junior Schools and took some classes. The best was the whole day I spent with a sixth form class which they gave me. We talked. Teachers and other students came and went, but it was mostly the 20-odd sixth-formers and myself. It was moving, exciting, utterly absorbing - in my history, the best. (Incidentally, they were Christians and Muslims, and if there were any tensions, I didn't see them - and I was an experienced teacher.)
When I left, about eight of the students swapped addresses with me and asked that we keep in touch.
Then the problems started.
1. At the airport at Tel Aviv, as I was about to board my flight back to the UK, I was detained by soldiers and a couple of civilians because I had visited Palestinian homes and schools (how did they know?). They told me that my booking had been cancelled. I had had problems in other countries, including the Idi's Uganda, but at least I knew that the Israelis would go with the rules (at least with an insignificant Englishman), so I kept my cool and, after some reflection, they let me leave. The Paranoia meter hardly twitched.
After my return home, I received about five letters from students in Ramallah. I replied to all of them.
2. Why five students would write to me, get careful and (insofar as I was able) interesting replies, and then not one of them write to me again, I don't know. I certainly found it odd, but things were moving toward the Intifada, so once again no paranoia as such.
I contacted the PLO (then the closest to an embassy for Palestine, and totally legal) and the Israeli embassy to ask if anyone could visit my school in London to talk with some of my students. The Israelis unfortunately couldn't help, but three people came from the PLO and were, I thought, very open and successful.
3. Teaching among a largely left-wing staff in Islington, I thought - perhaps rather naively - that my initiative would be seen as between neutral and positive. I was surprised at the extent of the disapproval that was expressed to me. (I was also accused of making vast number of (expensive) phone calls to the Middle East: an odd and petty sideswipe). No paranoia at all.
4. But then I was called down to the Head's office where two guys grilled me. I was led at the time to believe that they were from the local authority. They made it clear that my PLO visitors had been inappropriate, that I had put my job on the line, and that no further contacts were to be had with Palestinian organisations under any circumstances. My angry-stick started twitching: in fact I was furious. After they had gone, I thought about what had happened, and did what I should have done earlier: I called the authority to complain. The authority was adamant that nobody had visited the school to speak to me. So:
My paranoia meter hit max...
Of course I (almost) certainly had no reason to be paranoid... although months later I got a rather sad letter from a Ramallah student saying that I hadn't been replying... I wrote to him immediately... and heard no more....
I've entered this item because:
1. It's a concern that a tolerably sane man, which I was, living in London - in England, which I did, should even have thought of being worried. I assumed that I shouldn't, but I just didn't know. That's the problem.
2. The episode stills exercises me.
Sufi 'Ramallah High, Junior Schools' PLO intifada
Politics Destroy People.
30 November 2007 .
The refusal of the wealthier parts of the Arab world to provide meaningful economic help to the Palestinians is sometimes maddening. I think I understand that, were they to do so, they would risk legimatising - or being seen to accept as legitimate - a political situation which they find intolerable.
What I so hate, naively I know, is that political considerations seem forever to gang up to destroy the lives of ordinary people.
A Silly Person.
30 November 2007 .
A mature British adult goes to teach in a country with a strong tradition of fundamentalist Islam and no great love for Britain. Some might see this as an obviously bad idea unless the prospective teacher knows exactly what she is doing.
But whether she knows what she is doing or not, surely - as a Christian - it must be vividly clear to that she should treat the name of Mohammed not only with total respect but with infinite caution in those circumstances.
Letting her pupils give their teddy-bear the name of the Prophet may look like daffy English do-gooding in a charmingly new-age daze to some people, but to this observer it's simple lunacy.
Why in perdition are the media surprised at reactions in that country? The teacher was sentenced to 15 days less time already served which seems to me to be a restrained and eminently reasonable compromise by the authorities: I suggest that she - and we - be grateful, get through the next 10 days, and shut up. Oh, and incidentally, on this particular issue show that we have at least some sensitivity to Sudanese feelings and the willingness to compromise which, actually, they have shown.
I'm getting more and more like 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells'. Ho hum. But I do reckon that some of you folks drive me to it.
'teacher in Sudan' 'name of the prophet'
Project Kalima: Brilliant!
22 November 2007 .
Sometimes the papers report something which is simply excellent news (without, so far as I can see, any reservation of any sort at all).
Project Kalima is exactly that. A project to translate major works of literature, science, philosophy into Arabic. Kalima is the Arabic for 'word'. The problem being addressed is that very little has been translated into Arabic since the middle ages, so that Arabic-only speakers simply have no intellectual access to the non-Arabic world. And it's planned to be a two-way street; literature has not been much translated out of Arabic for a very long time, either; particularly not into English, apparently: Project Kalima will address that, too.
Having said which, the problem itself is scary: it seems that more works are translated into, say, Spanish in a year (about 10 000 books) than have been translated into Arabic in a thousand years.
What happened to the High Islamic culture that saved Europe from barbarism and started our renaissance?
'Project Kalima'
a31.