The Syrian

I read this because she lives/has lived in Lebanon for many years and has written on the Middle East, so I thought a political thriller by someone like that might be interesting. How wrong I was. Clunky cliched writing, no sense of atmosphere or place, a love story that was embarrassingly unreconstructed (Boring Good Girl v. Sultry Man-Eater Bad Girl), and no disguise at all for the anti-Israel tract it actually is. Apparently Israel killed the Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, she says, despite there being no evidence of or motive for this. Oh and Hezbollah, despite their Nazi salutes and gay-killing, are Not So Bad Really. Disgraceful.

the haters on the left up their game

the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party, and thus of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, has had at least one apparently unintended consequence. Not of course the emergence of links to theocratic haters and approving references to the oppression of women and gays in various places - we all knew that parts of the left were happy with that - but personal hate speech directed against those who did and do not support Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. Unfairly, often, because most UK Labour Party members are decent people who are prepared to work with and support a party leader they did not themselves vote for. I know I have heard from many who take that view. I do suspect that the haters may not even be long-standing Labour Party members themselves, but may be "three-pounders" (like me) who signed up just to vote in the leadership. But haters there are. Now we know there is plenty of hate on the left. As there is elsewhere. But it interesting how and where it tends to manifest itself.

Back before the 2008 US Presidential election I supported Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, not that I had a vote or the remotest scintilla of influence in that process. I received a flood of messages, over several weeks, containing fairly extreme hate speech, much of it to the effect that I would like to have sex with Barack Obama but that he wouldn't be interested in me (they didn't put it quite so politely as that) which explained my support for the somewhat older and female Hillary Clinton. It was all entirely personal, and as far as I know it was all from people I did not know personally. Most of it didn't appear in the comments on this blog, because I don't want to include hate speech in my publications if I can help it. It didn't bother me (I have had the great freedom for many years now of not giving a stuff what anyone thinks of me), but I found it interesting that a public, perhaps in US terms not dissimilar from those who chanted "Jez we can!" in the UK more recently, would engage in extreme ad hominem language rather than pointing out why and how their preferred candidate was better than mine. Well, we know what happened in that contest, and though I am still hopeful of Hillary for President, we shall see.

In the Labour Party leadership contest, things were a little quieter. But as election day approached, the volume went up. Shouts of "Tory, Tory, Tory!" at anyone who was not supporting Corbyn and who dared to say so publicly. No one seemed to be saying why Jeremy Corbyn was better than the others. Well, I voted, for Liz Kendall as it happens, and I put Yvette Cooper second. No other votes in the leadership contest. I was quite public about that. Then quite suddenly I found myself attacked. Because of Israel. When I hadn't been mentioning Israel. Now why would anyone feel the need to discuss Israel in the context of the Labour leadership election? Your guess is as good as mine, and I imagine our conclusions would be the same. Unfriended, left, right and centre. Though more friends were also gained by me as a result, if you treat Facebook as an index of friendship (which might be unwise).

So, why, when people discover that I did not support Jeremy Corbyn, do they start attacking about Israel? Even some who (self-declared) didn't vote Corbyn either have been doing this. And some I considered intelligent people are quite capable of calling me a "Zionist bitch" - thanks guys! and one said that the "considered view" (he didn't say by whom) was that the Israel-Palestine situation had not been resolved because of Israel's fault - but did not of course say why. The same person, in rather queeny petulant fashion (entirely in character) said "This is goodbye!" and gave as the reason that he had "dared to criticise Israel". Perhaps unwisely he used an email address that included his workplace letterhead, so that an unwary person might think he was writing on their behalf. Not me, don't worry. I won't grass you up.

On the whole, calling me a "Zionist Tory bitch" and sending me a picture of a gun and saying they know where I live is preferable to the above. Because it's honest.

Israel-Palestine untruths

I do read the Daily Telegraph quite often on line, for its international affairs coverage. However, its Middle East correspondent, Robert Tait, who ought to know what he is talking about, wrote this:

the fate of almost five million Arab refugees expelled to neighbouring countries during Israel’s 1948 war of independence,

which is a complete untruth. About 711,000 Arab people became refugees following 1948, which is less than the number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries between 1948 and 1970 (about 850,000). Not all of those who became refugees were "expelled" from anywhere. 

Lies and the lying liars, hein? But let's be kind and say that Mr Tait just didn't know, and got it wrong, and now that it has been pointed out he, and the Telegraph, will - oh, never mind.

the mask slips

though it wasn't much of a mask really, was it. What i wonder though is - would Georgie have debated with an Israeli Arab? An Israeli Christian Arab? Or ...

Personally, I don't recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, but it's an area of land in which people live. I have even been there and eaten lunch in a restaurant there. Why would I not debate the issue of Cyprus, or anything else, with someone from that place? With a passport that says they belong to that place? Just asking...

who wants a two-state solution?

in Israel/Palestine? Not Hamas, we knew that. Fatah? Israel? The Muslim Brotherhood? The USA? Well, you tell me. It's what I would like to see. I was struck by this eminently sensible comment by Petra Marquardt-Bigman, reporoduced below, on another post over at Harry's Place. btw it is usually when I post about the Middle East that the queeny behaviour, flouncing and foot-stamping ensues. Bovvered?

I am sadly convinced, now, that the goal of creating a Palestinian State is not that of either Fatah or Hamas. It never has been. That is why there was explicitly a rejection of sovereignty over Gaza and the West Bank until 1967 in the PLO Charter. That is also why the PLO has made it very clear indeed, repeatedly, that Palestinians will not have a right of citizenship in any future Palestinian state, unless they happen to live - as "non-refugees" - within that state already.
The definition of Palestine is "Wherever Israel Is" at any particular moment.
Fatah - fearful of defeat by the Islamist tide sweeping the Middle East - is beginning to talk about union with Jordan. Gaza is run by the same party as Egypt: the Muslim Brotherhood. That party does not believe in national boundaries, and expects to re-establish a trans-national Caliphate. Irrespective of Israel's existence, the goal of an independent Palestine is not that of Hamas and functionally is not that of Fatah.
I suspect that at some point, we'll return to the situation, as it was after 1948, with a belligerent (but weak) Egypt and Jordan (who knows how it will develop) on Israel's borders in Egyptian Gaza and the Jordanian-Palestinian federation of the West Bank.

blood libel

Gerald Scarfe

the Sunday Times published this cartoon on Holocaust Memorial Day. I think they have crossed a line. This is blood libel. What do you think?

Six degrees of separation - i have never met Gerald Scarfe, but there is a kind of connection. I once had an American intern, a delightful young woman, whose boyfriend was the son of Gerald Scarfe and Jane Asher. She lived in their house in Chelsea while she was working for me. She and Scarfe junior came to my 50th birthday party in Reading.

I am however utterly dismayed by this cartoon. The fact that it has been published (and Scarfe is not known for pulling punches cartoon-wise, a good thing too) shows that this view is quite mainstream these days. And I don't like that. Apart from anything else it does not help any peace process in Israel/Palestine.

Tell me in the comments what you think.

grossly offensive

Steve Bell, Guardian today

this cartoon, because of the references it makes, is grossly offensive to me.  But I publish it anyway.  Those who complain to the management when I publish something on my blog that they don't like may complain about this Jew-hating shite and have me hauled in.  Anyone?  Anyone? *sound of tumbleweed*

the stupid left - again

the excellent Michael J. Totten,, whose collection of dispatches from Iraq "In the Wake of the Surge" I recommend, alerts us to the award, by the city of Frankfurt, of a prize worth 50,000 euros to an academic, American I believe, named Judith Butler.  He doesn't say why she is getting this award.  I had never heard of her before today, but it seems she is quite well known, and is a strong supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah.  But she can't be being rewarded for that, can she?  Search me. She describes those two organisations as "left".  Well, I dispute that.  Murder of homosexuals and Jews, destruction of the state of Israel (and there's no nice way to do that) - what's left-wing about that stuff?

Oh.

the Filth gets it wrong on Israel - again

what follows has been published in the Guardian's Corrections and Clarifications column, dated 7th August:

A correction to a picture caption said we should not have described Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. It went on to relay the advice in our style guide that the capital was Tel Aviv. In 1980 the Israeli Knesset enacted a law designating the city of Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, as the country's capital. In response, the UN security council issued resolution 478, censuring the "change in character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem" and calling on all member states with diplomatic missions in the city to withdraw. The UN has reaffirmed this position on several occasions, and almost every country now has its embassy in Tel Aviv. While it was therefore right to issue a correction to make clear Israel's designation of Jerusalem as its capital is not recognised by the international community, we accept that it is wrong to state that Tel Aviv – the country's financial and diplomatic centre – is the capital. The style guide has been amended accordingly

Well, quite. But look here - the UN certainly did issue that resolution, but the UN is not "the international community", which is a nebulous and ill-defined concept.  The UN is the UN.  And - sigh, again - any sovereign nation, and Israel is that, damn it to hell for its pesky equal rights for men and women, gay pride, and, er, democracy - decides for itself what its capital city is.  No other nation has the right to "recognise" that decision, or not.  I could decide that I don't recognise Paris as the capital of France, but that decision is not mine to make.  Paris is the capital as long as the government of France says it is.

Oh, and while we're in the region, you did know that the blockade of Gaza (remember, "giant prison camp", all that), in connection with which some soldiers have just been killed, is carried out by, er, Egypt?  You did know that, didn't you?  Anyone? *sound of tumbleweed*

the capital of Israel?

apparently (I can't bear to look) the Guardian thinks Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel.  The BBC has decided that it will not say what the capital of Israel is.  And there is fury and hatred on various comments pages.  But the facts are these: the State of Israel was created by the UN.  Tel Aviv was the capital of it for approximately the first twelve months of its existence.  Israel then declared Jerusalem to be its capital.  Which it is.  Because every sovereign state has the right to decide what its capital city is.  Whatever anyone else might think about the merits or actions of that state.  It's not even true that all the embassies are in Tel Aviv.  Costa Rica's, for example, is in Jerusalem.  El Salvador's was until quite recently.  It is stated US policy that the US embassy should be in Jerusalem - although State Department officials have done precisely nothing about moving the embassy there.  But hey, haters, let's keep on pretending, hein?

the Gaza you won't see in the Guardian

inside the prison camp

thanks to CiFWatch for this and other pictures taken inside Gaza.  Which the Guardian will never show because they persist in the lie that Gaza is a "concentration camp".  Here are some families doing their shopping, in a supermarket, with, you know, stuff on the shelves.  Oh and Gaza is ruled by Hamas, who are a bunch of Jew-hating terrorists.  Just saying.

ten years since something that never happened

namely the Jenin "massacre" as it was called at the time, on the West Bank.  Which, as anyone who follows events in that region knows, did not happen.  But which would be thought to have happened by anyone who gets their information about the world from the Guardian.  Which said it happened.  A guest post on Harry's Place makes a timely reminder that that organ is not the best place through which to understand the world.  It is worth a read.  Oh and when I mention something like this I don't usually tweet the post.  You've only got to look at the comments on the Guardian's Comment is Free to understand why.